Free-Market Field Trip No. 4: Food Trucks – Video Posted!

I recently hit the streets of the Central West End in Saint Louis to find out what folks think about food trucks and about local efforts to restrict them. As regular readers of will know, this is a topic that I’ve followed closely here on Show-Me Daily.

As promised, we got the video edited and uploaded — check it out!

Big thanks to our communications director, Rick Edlund, and videographer extraordinaire Josh Smith for helping me produce this video. Thanks also to Sarah’s Cake Stop and Cha Cha Chow for letting me interview them about their experiences in facing these local restrictions.

We’ll have another installment soon. Stay tuned to the Show-Me Institute!

A Five-Year Plan for the Earnings Tax

Voters in Kansas City and Saint Louis have clearly stated their desire to maintain those cities’ earnings taxes. Macroeconomic municipal tax policy is not something generally discussed around workplace water coolers and family dinners, but during the past few months it has been a major topic of debate in Missouri’s two largest cities. That debate has been healthy and beneficial — no matter the outcome of the vote.

There is general agreement and understanding that the earnings tax hurts jobs and business in the city, although no consensus on the extent of that pain. Organizations that claim the tax does not matter often act differently than their statements might suggest. Peabody Energy donated to the campaign to retain the earnings tax, and the company’s CEO told the Post-Dispatch that the earnings tax was “not a factor” in its commendable decision to remain downtown. However, its decision to stay put involved tax abatements on future earnings and payroll taxes. If the expense of the earnings tax is not a factor, why does the city have to give some of it back to Peabody?

Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay has said that retaining the tax now is an important step toward changing the way the city funds its services, and the way the region is governed. Other city officials have said similar things, and the Post-Dispatch reported that city officials are planning ways to replace the tax eventually. If city officials in Saint Louis truly want to seek out ways to eliminate the earnings tax — and I believe that many of them, including Mayor Slay, do — the biggest danger lies in continuing to pass millions of dollars of tax increment financing (TIF) and other tax abatements each year. The primary reason that it would require such a large property tax increase to replace the earnings tax is because such an enormous amount of city property is not on the tax rolls. City voters recognized this, and voted accordingly.

According to a 2009 study by the PFM Group, the city of Saint Louis depends on property taxes for less of its general revenue than any other comparable city. The city’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) holds 9,000 pieces of property — all off the tax rolls, under city ownership. Another $683 million dollars is off the tax rolls because of TIF and other abatement programs. Finally, 22 percent of the city’s assessed value in real property is held by nonprofit organizations and is, as such, tax exempt.

The city of Saint Louis cannot be blamed for all of the above — particularly the tax exemption of nonprofits. The use of tax credits to lure businesses to relocate from one city or municipality to another within the greater Saint Louis area constitutes a devastating circular firing squad. This is a regional problem, not just a city problem.

Moreover, if the city greatly reduced its use of tax incentives, combined with a more aggressive approach to selling LRA property and an appeal to nonprofits to pick up a share of the burden for the city services they receive, property taxes could be a much more viable alternative to the earnings tax. An expanded tax base would then allow for smaller, and more evenly distributed, tax increases to make up for the loss of earnings tax revenues. If the city truly wants to move away from the earnings tax, it is imperative to grow the potential property tax base by ending policies that restrict its growth.

Many of the other suggestions made by opponents of the earnings tax, such as increasing privatization and shared government services, would work just as well in an environment with the earnings tax as without. Kansas City has had success with its privatized animal shelter — costs are down and adoptions are up. Saint Louis can do the same thing. The “Yellow Pages Test,” the idea that government should not provide the types of services that private companies offer in the Yellow Pages, is ripe for enactment in Saint Louis. We don’t need to get rid of the earnings tax to encourage private incentives in the provision of public goods.

City officials are already fighting the hard, yet necessary, battles to control public pension growth, and they are moving toward a user fee system in trash collection. Choosing to eliminate the earnings tax eventually, even without the legal mandate, may be the best of all possible worlds. It would give Saint Louis the proper time for necessary diligence in making a change that would benefit the city substantially in the long run.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Film Tax Credits Featured on “30 Rock”!

Did any of our readers see last week’s “30 Rock” episode? They talked about state film tax credits! As regular readers would expect, I was thrilled, because film tax credits are my favorite topic to discuss on this blog.

You can watch the full episode here:

In the episode, Jenna stars in a horror film that’s shot in Connecticut. It turns out that Connecticut will only give tax credits to films that promote tourism. So, instead of shutting down the film, the producers change it to be very pro-Connecticut. They decorate the killer’s dungeon with Yale pennants and  posters that say, “Visit Connecticut.” They also write www.IheartConnecticut.com in blood on the wall, and they dress up one of the victims in a UConn Huskies shirt.

They even change the dialogue:

SLAUGHTERFACE: “No one is going to save you. Because we’re deep inside one of Connecticut’s 30 beautiful state forests. Thirty!”

JENNA: “Oh, please don’t kill me! I still haven’t tried the famous seafood pizza at Sally’s in New Haven.”

It’s hilarious. This shows how filmmakers will change the message of their films in order to get film tax credits from a state. This is something that I have discussed before on the blog.

It’s no secret that government officials sometimes deny tax credits to films that don’t send a positive message about the state. It may be possible that this happens in Missouri, too. Consider Up In the Air, which received $4.1 million in tax credits to shoot in Missouri in 2009. One scene sounds like a commercial for Lambert Airport. At one point, George Clooney’s character says:

Are you kidding — Lambert Field? The Wright brothers flew through there. That domed main terminal is the first of its kind; it’s a precursor of everything from JFK to de Gaulle.

This wasn’t the first time that “30 Rock” highlighted the ludicrousness of film tax credit programs — It was also a plot point in an episode last season, in which Jenna starred in a movie about werewolfs that shot in Iceland. They shot the film there because the Icelandic government gave them tax credits, but they could only shoot during the one minute of darkness each day.

In economist-speak, we would say that Iceland does not have a comparative advantage in werewolf films, relative to other locations. (Similarly, Missouri doesn’t have a comparative advantage in filmmaking. We’re better at making other things!)

Where’s the Evidence That the China Hub Makes Financial Sense?

In August 2010, Mike Jones, chairman of the Midwest China Hub Commission, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that a key study that would make the “business case” for the China Hub idea was halfway done.

I spent some time looking for that study, or any discussion of its results. Finally, about to give up, I emailed the Midwest China Hub Commission to ask whether the study Jones had promised was available.

Here is the response I received:

The study you refer to is still underway but very close to completion. The St. Louis RCGA is spearheading the impact analysis with possible completion and release of findings to come at the end of next month or June. The findings of the analysis will be made public at that time.

So, despite statements from legislators and special interests that subsidizing freight traffic is a good idea for Missouri, no study has been published that backs up those statements.

Right now, state legislators, local politicians, and special interest groups are in a rush to award $480 million in state subsidies that they say would further the China Hub dream. But the legislative session ends in mid-May, so the promised study won’t be done in time for legislators to consider the results before awarding almost half a billion dollars in subsidies.

There’s a lot that I don’t understand about this tangle of subsidies, but this is perhaps the most mystifying. Legislators who say that they want to keep Missouri fiscally responsible are now pushing to award almost half a billion dollars without any formal attempt to weigh the costs and benefits of the proposal.

From Sen. Eric Schmitt:

This is new. This is new investment. This is new economic activity that we just don’t have. When you have zero flights a week and we want to move forward and actually create this kind of international trade hub, which is what it is, that’s activity that we don’t have now.

What evidence is there to substantiate Schmitt’s statements? Has any analysis been done demonstrating that the award of tax credits would result in increased freight traffic to Saint Louis?

From Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge, director of airports at Lambert-Saint Louis International Airport and Ed Monser, president of Emerson:

[The Aertropolis subsidy bill] has the support of organized labor because of the job impact it would bring to Missouri and support from rural legislators because of the opportunity to export Missouri beef and pork, as well as other agriculture products, to countries not currently buying these commodities.

But what evidence is there to prove that this project and related incentives would result in new jobs? What study has been done that demonstrates that China would import Missouri agricultural products if the state spent $420 million to subsidize the construction and operation of cargo warehouses?

If there were an award for unsubstantiated, overblown commentary, it would go to Rep. Caleb Jones, who told CBS:

It’s going to create demand for all of Missouri and our products and goods. Folks from my district are going to be able to load up cattle and drive it to St. louis and have it in China the next day.

What evidence is there showing that this project and package of incentives will “create demand for all of Missouri”? How do Jones’ constituents know that there’s a market for their cattle in China? Instead, isn’t there a chance the constituents of the 117th district will have to pay roughly $80 each, which is what this bill will cost every Missourian — and then receive no benefit?

The aerotropolis tax credit bill does not have to be passed this year. After all, there’s no firm commitment from China, the legislation contains hidden costs, and no study has been produced demonstrating that this proposal makes financial sense.

What’s the rush?

He Gets the Games Washington Plays

Yesterday’s Washington Post had a fascinating article about the only-in-Washington logic behind a recent agreement to keep the federal government spending operating. The article, “Budget deal: CBO analysis shows initial spending cuts less than expected,” explains that the “advertised” $38 billion cut in federal spending agreed to by Congress only translates to a $352 million reduction in spending for this fiscal year.

To explain the disparity between advertised and actual savings, the reporter turned to none other than Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst for the Heritage Foundation and upcoming Show-Me Institute speaker. Riedl explained:

“It’s kind of like a parent saying, ‘If you go buy something, I’ll pay the credit card for you.’ And then the kid never goes out and buys it.”

As much as $18 billion of the $38 billion budget cut comes from rescinding previously approved funding allocations for completed projects that came in under budget. In other words, it’s money that was and will never be spent.

For more insight into Washington’s fiscal mess and the games that Congress is playing with the American people, consider attending the seventh installment of the economic policy speaker series cosponsored by the Show-Me Institute, Saint Louis University’s John Cook School of Business, and the Sinquefield Charitable Foundation. On Tuesday, May 3, at 6:30 p.m., Brian Riedl will present a talk, “What Washington Won’t Tell You About the Next Economic Crisis.” The event is free and open to the public, and you can register online.

Podcast: Educational Options for At-Risk Students

ACE Learning Centers is a private company that contracts with districts in the Kansas City and Saint Louis area to serve at-risk students. The program operates with low costs, but produces results that often exceed those of the districts within which they operate. This podcast features a March 2 interview with Chris LeGrand, who works at the ACE center in Riverview Gardens, a district just north of Saint Louis City. Although we did not have exact figures on hand during the interview about how ACE compares to its surrounding public school district in terms of graduation rates, you can view the statistics for both Riverview Gardens and the ACE center, and see that ACE compares favorably.

Full Podcast (MP3)

There’s No Such Thing As a Free Lunch China Hub

Supporters of tax credit programs argue that they won’t cost taxpayers a dime, but this is far from the truth. Tax credits are real money, and they do not appear of thin air — they come from the pockets of taxpayers. Even though the recipients of tax credits will pay less in taxes, everybody else will have to pay higher taxes.

Think of it this way: When the state gives a company tax credits, that company won’t be paying those taxes. This means that less revenues will flow to the state Treasury. The government therefore has fewer dollars to pay for schools, fix roads, and build bridges. Unless every tax credit is offset by real spending cuts of the same amount, every dollar that the government spends on tax credits has to be raised through higher taxes or debt. It means that everybody other than the tax credit recipient is getting less and paying more.

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: There is no such thing as a free lunch. It’s a basic economic principle that’s too often overlooked. Nothing is ever free. Somebody has to pay it. And, in tax credit programs, that somebody is taxpayers.

One way in which Missouri would pay for this program is through lost activity in the private sector. This is a concept that economists refer to as crowding out. If the China Hub proposal passes, then the average Missourian would pay $80 more in taxes, which means that he has $80 less to spend on himself. On average, a family of four in Missouri would pay $320 (that’s a car payment!). If Missourians were able to keep more of their earnings, they would eat at more restaurants, spend more nights in hotels, buy a newer car, make upgrades to their home, etc. When their taxes increase, they inevitably scale back their spending and this economic activity is lost.

If tax credits generate economic activity, they do so only at the expense of other forms of economic activity.

[Earlier this morning, Audrey Spalding and I talked about the proposed China Hub with McGraw Milhaven on The Big 550, KTRS. I encourage our blog readers to check out the audio archive of the interview.]

Funny Violation (Possibly) of the Sunshine Law in Greenwood

Greenwood, Mo is a suburb of Kansas City with an amusing example of a legal disclaimer run amok on its website. Please carefully read the top of the “Taxes and Fees” page of their website: http://greenwoodmo.com/taxesfees.aspx 

“Below is the latest rates for the taxes listed. These rates are subject to change without notice.

  • Greenwood Sales Tax Rate is 7.350%
  • Mill Levy is $1.0173 per $100.00 of assessed valuation”

I like how this standard legal disclaimer for a million different claims (“These rates are subject to change without notice”) is so totally wrong here. In fact, in order to change “these rates,” you need a fair amount of notice. You need a properly scheduled and publicized meeting, a legislative bill that is introduced and given time for public comment or debate, and a duly elected board to cast a recorded vote following the rules of state law and the city charter. This does not even take into account Hancock Amendment requirements, which, in many cases, would require a vote of the public at an election in order for the rates to be increased.

So, in fact, I’d say that “these rates” are absolutely NOT subject to change without notice, and changing them WITHOUT notice is quite illegal.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging