Page 647 – Show-Me Institute

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Mathematics

Posted on July 22, 2010May 5, 2026 by Christine Harbin

Earlier this week, the Kansas City Star published a fantastic editorial that illustrates the math behind low-income housing tax credits (emphasis mine):

Here’s how it works. Assume that you are a developer. You plan to build a low-income housing project with a total cost of $11 million. Of that, assume $10 million is eligible for the credits (land costs are excluded). The credits are limited to 90 percent of that figure, so assume that you get $9 million in credits.

The credits then are sold to investors. Assume that the investors, after discounting the net present value of the credits over 10 years, buy them for 60 percent of their face value — or about $5.4 million. Assume also that you get a regular mortgage loan equal to 70 percent of the $11 million total cost of the project — about $7.7 million. These are conservative estimates.

So the developer now has funding of approximately $13 million ($5.4 million plus $7.7 million) for a project that costs $11 million. The developer will receive a $2 million check at the closing, less any escrows.

Later in the editorial, the author demonstrates how these programs can be further manipulated to benefit the developer above all others. Then, he concludes:

At a time when government at every level is becoming insolvent, all of these programs should be subjected to a top-to-bottom review.

If tax credits programs in Missouri were continuously scrutinized, Missourians would be better off. This is particularly important because the Missouri state government doles out a tremendous amount of money through this program, which is a tab that taxpayers have to pick up. Using the “Show-Me: Tax Credits” application at Show-Me Living, I isolated the trend of tax credits issued under the Low-Income Housing program. Since 2000, there have been 437 credits issued in Missouri for a total amount of $1,360,900,251. The average amount awarded to a single recipient is $3,114,188. The smallest amount awarded to a single recipient is $14,230, and the largest awarded is $13,320,000.

The only positive thing that I can say about the following graph is that it illustrates a downward trend after 2006. However, I wonder if the decrease in the amount of credits issued and redeemed is simply indicative of a general decrease in construction projects because of the recession. It may be that fewer people build or renovate during periods of recession, regardless of state tax incentives.

Trend of Total Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Issued in Missouri

Pitting States Against Each Other: Ford’s Expensive Game

Posted on July 22, 2010May 5, 2026 by Christine Harbin

While it lobbied for $150 million in tax incentives from Missouri, Ford also courted Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois for financial assistance, communicating the message that it would locate within the borders of the highest bidder.

Pitting states against each other is one of the more significant negative consequences of offering generous incentive packages to single companies. It encourages states to offer incentive packages in ever-increasing amounts, in a desperate attempt to entice these companies to locate within the state. Then, the company tells each state government that other states are offering huge incentives for it to invest there, and that they must meet or exceed these offers in order for the company to stay.

In the case of Ford, it’s a confusing mess. After Ohio gave Ford $83 million in incentives during 2002 to expand in the state, Ford moved its production to Missouri. Because Illinois gave Ford an undisclosed amount of incentives in January 2010 to open an assembly plant in Chicago, the company moved its production of Explorers from Kentucky to Illinois. Just last month, the state government in Michigan awarded $10 million in Brownfield tax credits to Ford to redevelop a section of the Michigan Assembly Plant complex in Wayne. Meanwhile, Ford told the Missouri state government that it needs $150 million over 10 years to keep its Claycomo plant open, or else it would move production of its Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner to Louisville. At the same time, Ford seeks tax incentives from the Kentucky state government. They say that, in order to remain in Kentucky, they need financial assistance. Ford secured up to $180 million in incentives from Kentucky in 2008, and $66 million in 2007.

Now that Ford has secured $150 million from the Missouri state government, will the company ask for still more, or will it pack up and leave the state? How do we know that Ford won’t demonstrate the same behavior in Missouri?

When a large company like Ford pits states against each other, other groups are negatively affected. For example, it causes taxpayers to face a higher tax burden because the state has to pay for these incentive packages. It also forces small businesses that lack lobbying power to compete at a competitive disadvantage.

It’s a very expensive game, and taxpayers everywhere would be better off if their state governments stopped playing.

Central Planners Get It Wrong, Again

Posted on July 22, 2010May 5, 2026 by Joseph Steelman

The Kansas City Star recently wrote that the Power and Light redevelopment project in downtown Kansas City will cost more than originally planned. The city originally lent the project $295 million, but now estimates that it will cost taxpayers another $230 million by 2033.

The project, cast as a “self-sustaining venture,” has had trouble occupying its 511,000 square feet of retail space. City planners blame the vacancy on the downturn of the economy. Without a fully occupied site, the project is having trouble recapturing the tax dollars originally allocated to finance the project.

This is not to say that the project was a failure, but rather to point out the difficulty in predicting its success. Of the original $295 million, $212 million was used to rebuild infrastructure around the project area (which could more readily be considered a legitimate expense). Many of my friends love the Power and Light District as a weekend hangout, but rosy projections and rationalization won’t save taxpayers any money.

A perfect example of the inherent fallacy of utilizing a centralized plan is found in Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book The Black Swan. He writes:

The inability to predict outliers implies the inability to predict the course of history, given the share of these events in the dynamics of events.

Governments who believe they have a better chance than individuals of predicting future events have the tendency to be vastly irresponsible, and the bill almost always lands at the feet of the taxpaying public.

As plans like Kansas City’s Power and Light District come together, they are sold to the public in the most favorable light with the most favorable projections. Unfortunately, those projections almost never translate in the real world. Public projects usually cost more than expected and produce less.

The fact remains that the project has been undertaken, and I believe City Manager Troy Schulte put it best:

“20-20 hindsight is always good, but I’d tell taxpayers to come down and enjoy downtown, because you’re paying for it,” he said.

Should the State of Missouri Take Children Away From the Blind?

Posted on July 21, 2010May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

Quick answer: of course not. But let’s try to move beyond the anger many of us likely feel when reading this story in the Kansas City Star, and instead discuss the question. To sum up quickly, the Missouri Department of Social Services removed a newborn from her parents — both of whom are blind — two days after her birth. Yesterday, after 57 days in state care, the state placed the baby back with her parents.

Did the state make the right decision to return the baby in the end? (I certainly think so. I’d be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees.) Should the state have taken the baby away in the first place? (I don’t think so, although some might think the question of the baby’s safety required some type of action.) Should the state have the power even to consider doing what it did in the first place? In other words, should the state have the power to take a child away because of the fear of potential harm (let’s assume it is a legitimate fear), but absent any actual harm?

I think the third question gets tougher. That is not to say I agree with anything the state did here; I am merely posing the question. Should the state have any power whatsoever to remove a child from its parents because of the potential of harm, but before any real harm occurs? The problem here is that we can all come up with hypothetical situations that would probably lead to an answer of “yes” (i.e., the parents are meth addicts), but as soon as you say “yes” you are granting the state the right to make judgment calls. Inevitably, they will at some point use that judgment improperly, just like they did in this example. Let’s discuss this in the comments.

I have a few points I want to make — and I write all of this as a fairly new parent, myself. I think this statement by the mother is one of the most honest statements I’ve read in a while:

“I needed help as a new parent, but not as a blind parent,” Johnson said.

Being a new parent is tough. It was certainly tough for me, and I am about as perfect a physical specimen as you will ever lay eyes on. I can’t fathom being a parent in the situation these parents are in, but I feel certain that the sense a parent has for the well-being of their children will trump the issues those children may face. Practically speaking, I would bet that a home designed for the blind would be just as well baby-proofed as anywhere. If other parts of their lives are a little trickier than they are for the sighted, those are the challenges of life. For example, letting a two-year old Mikaela run around at the park will be hard for parents who can’t see the child. Do they use one of those child leashes? Only go to parks with fully enclosed fencing, like DeMun park in Clayton? Take family or friends along with them?

I don’t know the answers to those questions. I do believe that the family’s love will overcome all these obstacles, and I think the involvement of the state here has been an outrage.

We’re Only in It for the Money

Posted on July 21, 2010May 5, 2026 by John Payne

Last night, I was privileged to attend an advance screening of Waiting for Superman with my colleagues Dave Roland and Bill Kay. The documentary takes on the problems of America’s educational system, and — given that it is directed by Davis Guggenheim of An Inconvenient Truth fame (and also a native son of Saint Louis) — you could be forgiven for thinking that the film would offer nothing but liberal platitudes about the need to support public schools with ever more money. You would, however, be wrong. Guggenheim strongly suggests that education has been hijacked by teacher unions, and the best ways to change the system would be to inject some degree of competition through charter schools, institute merit pay to attract and retain the best teachers, and eliminate — or, at least, strongly limit — tenure so that bad teachers can be fired, if necessary.

During the question and answer session afterward, a questioner who identified herself as a longtime teacher took issue with the merit pay suggestion. She argued that teachers do their jobs because they love their work and are passionate about it, and are not motivated by “greed” like people on Wall Street. There is some truth to this. Certainly, no one goes into teaching expecting to become fabulously wealthy. Still, I was reminded of what my cooperating teacher used to say when I was going through student teaching: “I’m doing it for the money … if they stopped paying me, I’d stop showing up.” Unless someone is independently wealthy, the money matters, and if school districts could pay more to the best teachers, they would likely attract and retain more highly skilled individuals to the profession.

In Superfreakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner argued that one of the major factors for America’s falling educational achievement over the last half century is the movement of educated women into fields outside of teaching, such as law and medicine. That is not a reason to lament women entering the wider workforce, but if there were more upward mobility possible in teaching, far more qualified people — both men and women — would have opted for teaching. Teaching can be an inherently satisfying profession, but it would be foolish to pin the hopes of our educational system on pure altruism.

The Ban on Listening to the Radio While Driving Moves Forward

Posted on July 20, 2010May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

A few months back, I merely joked that after we had banned texting, phone calls, shaving, and more while driving, the next logical step — to protect the children — would be to ban listening to the radio while driving. Somebody didn’t get the memo that it was a joke, because a study just came out claiming that listening to your favorite sports team can be distracting and dangerous while driving. This is not a joke. The Kansas City Star has an article on the deadly radio epidemic here.

As absurd as this may be, I think we all know that some nanny-state politician somewhere will read this study, want to make the world a safer place, and attempt to implement some type of radio ban. And, sure enough, it will be met with ridicule at first, and go nowhere. But a few years after that, somebody will cause a major accident because they overreacted to a Tigers touchdown, or, worse yet, because they tried to change the radio station, and suddenly it will become a serious issue — one that must be dealt with because “public safety” demands it. And then, the next thing you know, radio controls will be mandated for the steering wheel, and internal car radio volumes will be legally controlled (we already have noise ordinances for the external volume), and sometime around 2025 I predict an outright ban on car radios. This study is just the start of an entire process.

Celebrate Freedom

Posted on July 20, 2010May 5, 2026 by Joseph Steelman

Please join the Show-Me Institute and the John Cook School of Business at Saint Louis University in the fourth annual Friedman Legacy of Freedom event. The event will take place on Friday, July 30, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and will feature a panel of economists from the region who will discuss Friedman and his lasting impact on economics. Economists Dr. Michael Podgursky from the University of Missouri–Columbia, Dr. Susan Feigenbaum from the University of Missouri–Saint Louis, and Dr. Daniel Thornton from the Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis will convene to discuss Dr. Friedman’s contributions and their continued relevance to our economy and our lives.

Click here to register online.

Happy Birthday, Missouri Constitution!

Posted on July 19, 2010May 5, 2026 by Dave Roland

One hundred ninety years ago, on July 19, 1820, Missouri’s founders signed the state’s first constitution. It was far from a perfect document — it permitted the abhorrent practice of slavery and prohibited free blacks from moving into the state, among other deficiencies — but the Missouri Constitution of 1820 represents the beginning of self-government and constitutional protections for liberty in this geographical region. As such, it is a critical milestone on the path toward liberty for all Missourians. And, at roughly 9,400 words, it makes for far easier reading than our current 70,000-word monstrosity. I hope you’ll consider looking it over, or — at a bare minimum — that you’ll take a few moments to consider the words of Article XIII, section 16, which provides in part: “That the free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and that every person may freely speak, write, and print, on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”

“If You Can’t Be a Good Example, Then You’ll Just Have to Serve as a Horrible Warning”

Posted on July 19, 2010May 5, 2026 by Christine Harbin

The Post-Dispatch recently published a letter to the editor that applauded the passage of the $150 million Ford Claycomo tax incentive package (link via John Combest):

The GOP should take positive action to keep jobs in Missouri. Look at Michigan. It offers numerous incentives to corporations to move to Michigan. And it works.

[…] With unemployment in Missouri at more than 9 percent, what exactly does the GOP have to offer?

From this letter, it is apparent that the writer measures success in terms of job growth. However, the writer ignores the fact that Michigan boasts the second-highest unemployment rate in the union — certainly higher than the rate in Missouri. According to the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in May 2010 is 13.6 percent in Michigan and 9.3 percent in Missouri.

Moreover, the unemployment rate in Missouri is historically much lower than Michigan’s. Using the Show-Me Institute’s IDEAS application, I produced the following graph:

Trend of Unemployment Rate In Michigan and Missouri

Why are there calls to emulate the public policies in Michigan? Its economy is in terrible shape! To paraphrase Catherine Aird, Michigan would be better viewed as a horrible warning than as a good example.

Furthermore, targeted tax credit programs do not work in Michigan. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan has produced many studies that demonstrate this. As Audrey Spalding recently wrote on this blog, tax credits fail to deliver on their promises — particularly in terms of job creation, and particularly in Michigan.

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.