Scholarship Cuts for Private University Students Favor Institutions, not Students

 

 

Meanwhile, the General Assembly, through House Bill 1812 and Senate Bill 784, is focused on reform of the Access Missouri grant. Currently, Access Missouri is structured to award a maximum of $1,000 in aid to students enrolled in two-year Missouri public schools, $2,150 to students at four-year public schools, and $4,600 for students attending Missouri's private colleges and universities. The bills in consideration would equalize these aid amounts to a maximum of $2,850 for all students, across all participating schools.

Choking the channels of aid to private school students while continuing to lavish aid on public school students only exacerbates the inequality and inefficiency that is characteristic of how the state currently supports its students. The current level of funds that the state awards to public school students already dwarfs the pool of funds directed toward private school students. In 2009, the General Assembly appropriated roughly $808 billion for four-year public higher education institutions. This amounts to an average per-student subsidy of approximately $7,280.

On top of this, qualifying public school students enjoyed an additional $56 million of publicly funded scholarships. Meanwhile, private school students received no per-student subsidies and shared a slightly smaller total of $52 million in public scholarship funds. Those who argue in favor of equalizing Access Missouri funds are misguided when they consider only Access Missouri and ignore the state's larger funding apparatus. Put simply, moving toward greater equality in Access Missouri is also a move toward greater inequality in total state support. There is, and always has been, a large disparity of public aid distributed between public and private students. Both reform proposals increase the size of this wedge. It is imperative, then, to consider whether this wedge is justified.

In 2008, Missouri's Coordinating Board for Higher Education adopted a set of basic values to guide higher education policy in the state. First among the list of values, the board recognized that the system is focused on students, learning, and each individual's realization of his or her full educational potential. The proposed reforms to higher education funding fail to do this vision justice.

First, the reforms do not support the full realization of student potential because they fail to honor the individual interests, skills, and needs of Missouri's diverse student population. For example, no public institutions in Missouri offer a complete architectural studies program, so students with an interest in architecture must turn to private institutions. On the margin, students unable to finance a private school education without assistance will necessarily settle for public-institution programs to which they are comparatively less suited.

Second, the proposed reforms pervert the vision of a higher education funding apparatus as centered on students. Instead, the reforms elevate the importance of institutions and suggest that students who attend public institutions are somehow more deserving of the taxpayer dime than students attending private colleges and universities. This is especially disturbing when considering that students attending private institutions contribute along with their parents funds to the pool of tax dollars that finance Missouri's support for higher education. The reform bills in the legislature would only serve to more unevenly distribute the resources of this pool. Meanwhile, Nixon's proposal would restrict private students access to the pool entirely.

The governor has said, In times like these, we simply can't continue to subsidize the choice to attend a private school.” This seems to suggest that the institutional choices that students make should be more relevant to the amount of aid they receive than their income, ability, or interest. This view fails to recognize that it is precisely in times like these that Missouri cannot afford to abandon its principles, or its investments in higher education students regardless of the institutions they choose.

Abhi Sivasailam is an intern with the Show-Me Institute and an economics student at the University of Missouri Columbia.

Check Out the Show-Me Institute’s Newest Web Tool in Action!

In an article published today at Kansas Liberty, Holly Smith used Show-Me Institute’s newest web tool, IDEAS: Interactive Database for Economic Analysis and Synthesis, to analyze Kansas’ tax burden over time. Smith compares many fiscal figures for Kansas and other states in the Midwest. For example, she found that Kansas generated $104.3 from alcoholic beverages in 2007, which is more than its neighboring states. Missouri, in comparison, generated $32.26 million in 2007.

Using the IDEAS web tool, I restricted the selective tax rates on alcoholic beverages for Missouri and Kansas over time, and then exported this information to Excel to produce the following graphs:

Alco Tax Trend Alco Tax vs. Net Migration
Click graphs to enlarge.

Generally, residents of Missouri are taxed less on alcoholic beverages than residents of Kansas are taxed. Specifically, Missouri assesses lower tax rates on beer and spirits, but as of 2005, the state has higher tax rate on wine.

In an effort to encourage or to protest their economic and social situation, people tend to vote with their feet. This is why I included domestic net migration data for Kansas and Missouri in the second graph. The data show that Kansas has experienced negative net migration every year in the last decade (i.e., people are moving out of the state). Missouri experienced positive net migration during this period, except for 2008 (i.e., people are moving into the state).

Although these trends can be attributed to a combination of factors, it may be possible that the higher taxes on alcohol in Kansas influenced some marginal number of people to move out of the state, and the low taxes on alcohol in Missouri influenced people to move into the state.

I encourage our blog readers to play with the IDEAS web tool and determine to which states they would consider domestically migrating.

Should Nonprofits Pay Property Taxes?

The Post-Dispatch had an excellent article Monday about the city’s issues with such a sizable proportion of land in St. Louis being owned by nonprofit entities, and thereby exempt from property taxation. The article discusses in detail the phenomenon of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs), which you frequently find in St. Louis County but not very often in the city. (I believe the Cardinals are making PILOTs to the city school district in exchange for their Ballpark Village TIF.) 

When I worked at the St. Louis County Council for Councilman (now judge) Kurt Odenwald, he chaired the council’s Revenue and Personnel Committee, which had as its primary role the study of tax exemption issues. You might be surprised to know that there is no hard-and-fast state law governing what gets to be exempt and what doesn’t. While it is obvious that a church or school is exempt, what about a nursing home that sets aside 5 percent of its rooms for charity cases? In cases like that, it is often up to the county in which the facility resides as to whether it is tax exempt. Sometimes, a promise by the applicant to make PILOTs that partially make up for the lost taxes can be an important factor in the county’s decision. I really remember this one example cited in the Post article:

Closer to home, Lutheran Senior Services, a nonprofit, gives Webster Groves $28,000 a year[.]

I remember it so well because when Lutheran Senior Services decided to make the first PILOTs to the city, school district, library district, and county, they didn’t know how to go about doing it, so they just mailed all the checks to Councilman Odenwald’s office. The next day, I had to hand-deliver all these substantial checks to various government officials — who were, not surprisingly, very happy to see me. (The process of making the payments was clarified the next year.)

A very important point in the story is found near the end:

He said cities that have an earnings tax typically don’t have PILOTs. Detroit and Pittsburgh are two exceptions.

I’ll point out that Pittsburgh depends primarily on its property — especially land — taxes, so tax exemption is particularly noticeable there. And I think that generally you always want to do the opposite of what Detroit does. Of course, St. Louis County has no earnings tax, so the PILOTs are more understandable there. (Do you ever notice that nobody ever expresses concerns about city residents who work in the county being free riders in the county? Why does it only come up as a defense of the earnings tax?)

My basic belief is that nonprofits generally receive the same services everyone else does, so I see nothing automatically wrong with them being required to pay some type of property tax. Although the Post article focuses on large nonprofits, I think it is the small nonprofits (the ones without their own security forces) that genuinely use government services like everyone else. But I would only really support these efforts if they entail broadening the property tax base so that the overall rate can be lowered — not as an excuse to raise additional taxes or fix a budget hole. Beyond that, I would only support something like it in St. Louis or Kansas City if the earnings tax is eliminated. But if that were to happen, I think requiring nonprofits to pay some type of property or land tax would be reasonable.

Just How Much State Money Will It Take?

In an unexpected turn of events, Paul McKee, the developer behind a projected $8.1 billion development project in the city of Saint Louis, is facing the possibility of eminent domain. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has made offers for several NorthSide properties, and, unable to come to an agreement with the developer, has filed suit. A map of the properties in question is included below.

Map by Audrey Spalding
Map by Audrey Spalding.

When I spoke with Drew Gates, a spokesperson for MoDOT, he emphasized that McKee and MoDOT could likely reach an agreement, and that negations for the properties were ongoing. The suit, he said, is simply the first step of the paperwork process that MoDOT has to follow.

I have to wonder why McKee is digging in his heels in these price negotiations. After all, the state has already paid in part for these properties — and not an insignificant amount.

In late December 2009, the state of Missouri awarded NorthSide Regeneration LLC $19.6 million in tax credits under the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act. The act, the purported purpose of which is to encourage development, grants developers who purchase a large of area of land up to 50 percent of the land acquisition costs and 100 percent of the interest costs. The state’s definition of acquisition cost includes the purchase price of the land, closing and brokerage costs, and costs for environmental assessment, demolition, and maintenance.

In its DALA tax credit application, NorthSide submitted a list of properties eligible for the tax credit, along with the associated reimbursable costs (the linked document includes purchase price and interest costs, but not demolition, maintenance, brokerage, etc.). So, I checked the properties named in the MoDOT suit against the properties NorthSide claimed as eligible for partial reimbursement.

As far as I can tell, every property that MoDOT is trying to purchase was claimed for the DALA tax credit.*

Because the state awarded NorthSide the $19.6 million as a sum, instead of calculating the credit per individual property, it’s impossible to ascertain exactly how much the state has already paid for each of these properties. But the state did pay, and a good estimate for the amount paid for each individual property would be at least 50 percent of the price NorthSide claimed on its DALA tax credit application.**

When I spoke to Philip Morgan Jr., the attorney for MoDOT in this suit, he seemed to have no idea that the state had awarded tax credits for these properties. Gates, when asked whether these tax credits were a factor in the price negotiation process, paused, and said the negotiations were “based on the value of the property.”

Gates would not disclose how much MoDOT has offered for the properties. But if MoDOT and NorthSide do come to an agreement, it will be interesting to compare the price MoDOT paid to what NorthSide listed as the property purchase prices in its tax credit application. The costs NorthSide reported are as follows:

  1. 1101 O’Fallon St. — $537,000
  2. 1401 N. 11th St. — $537,000
  3. 1443 N. 10th St. — $537,000
  4. 1401 Hadley St. — $212,500
  5. 1201 Cass Ave. — $145,000
  6. 1525 N. 10th St. — $230,000
  7. 1600 and 1616 N. 11th St., 1601 and 1617 N. 10th St., and 1000 Howard St. — $135,000 (total)
  8. 1400 N. 13th St. — $537,000 (not pictured)

I am not aware whether this is a violation of the tax credit statute. However, it seems as though the state will be paying for these properties more than once.


* You can download a spreadsheet of the NorthSide properties in question here. I was unable to locate a property with parcel number 05760000308 on either Geo St. Louis or within the city assessor’s property database. Given the parcel number, which is only slightly different from that of 1401 Hadley (05760000300), I suspect the parcels are located at the same address.

** The state awarded just slightly more than 80 percent of the total amount that NorthSide requested. Given that acquisition costs other than the purchase price of a property, not to mention interest fees, can add up to a significant amount, estimating the state’s payout per property at 50 percent of the reported price seems reasonable.

Missouri and the Show-Me Institute Featured in Rich States Poor States

Dr. Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Jonathan Williams recently published the third edition of Rich States Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. In this edition, they devoted an entire chapter to a case study on Missouri, “The Missouri Compromise” (PDF), in which they applaud the effort to eliminate state income taxes. From the publication:

As unlikely as it may seem, this middle-aged, middle-income, Midwestern state is pushing the envelope on its way toward fundamental tax reform. […]

[A]lthough Missouri’s revenue replacement could prove difficult politically, the benefits from reform could be enormous if the process is administered well and the constitutional amendment is carefully crafted.

In their discussion, the authors cite Prof. Joseph Haslag and Abhi Sivasailam’s recent Show-Me Institute policy study, “Previous Estimates Overstate ‘Fair Tax’ Rates, Harms,” in the appendix.

Laffer, et al., also include a comparison of Missouri and Tennessee, and they provide evidence that Missouri would experience additional growth if it eliminated its personal income tax. From chapter 2:

During the past 10 years, if Missouri had just caught up with the average of the states with no income tax, the average Missouri resident’s income would be more than $12,000 higher. That is amazing. Taxes really do matter. […]

The evidence is clear: States without an income tax outperform in every conceivable fashion than their higher-taxed brethren and have more tax revenues.

Given the data at hand, it is hard to imagine any more conclusive results from a cross-section time series of states that could be obtained in favor of Missouri’s tax proposal. Like many states in our current economic climate, Missouri needs help, and from the looks of it, a switch from onerous income taxes to broad-based sales taxes is exactly what the doctor ordered.

This echoes what Jenifer Roland and Dave Roland concluded in their 2009 policy study for the Show-Me Institute, “All Caught Up: How Tax Policy May Have Allowed Tennessee to Outgrow Missouri.”

The state snapshot for Missouri contains some good news and bad news. In 2008, Missouri’s personal income per capita cumulative growth is higher than the national average, but the state experienced negative net migration for the first time in a decade. This indicates that, when voting with their feet, people are choosing to locate outside of Missouri. On the 2010 ALEC-Laffer State Competitiveness Index, where 1 is the best and 50 is the worst, Missouri has an economic performance rank of 35 and an economic outlook rank of 15.

Saint Louis: Home of the World’s Largest Laffer Curve

Dr. Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Jonathan Williams recently published the third edition of Rich States Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. In chapter 2, they write:

Finally, one attribute for which Missouri is probably most famous is its Gateway Arch in St. Louis. Admittedly, we have a special fondness for this architectural wonder: It’s the world’s largest Laffer Curve!

I hadn’t noticed it before, but it’s true!

Laffer Arch
Illustration by Christine Harbin. Photo source: Wikipedia.

A Time to Sue

It is no secret that I believe Congress has no constitutional authority to mandate that citizens purchase a product they do not want. But people who are eager to see this portion of the federal health care reform law struck down would be very wise to put the brakes on the current wave of litigation.

You see, it is a bedrock principle of American law that federal courts cannot offer “advisory opinions.” In order for a federal court to resolve a legal issue, the person or organization presenting that issue to the court must demonstrate that they have suffered, are suffering, or are in immediate danger of suffering some injury. If the complainant can’t show how they are being harmed, the court rules that there is no current “case or controversy” existing between the parties and the case gets thrown out.

In the weeks since Congress adopted the new health care reform law, state officials all over the country have been trumpeting their intent to challenge the law’s constitutionality. Attorneys general, governors, and lieutenant governors in 15 (or more) states have already joined or have pledged to join federal lawsuits intended to strike down the individual health insurance mandate. But there are two big, big problems.

First, the individual mandate is not scheduled to go into effect until 2014. In other words, no one will be required to comply with the mandate for another four years. And, until someone is bound by this requirement, it will be virtually impossible to persuade a court that anyone has been sufficiently harmed by this law to create the “case or controversy” necessary for the court to address the merits of the claim. The second problem is that federal courts do not generally allow one person to assert a claim based on injury suffered by someone else (although there are a few limited exceptions to this rule). Although these state officials could file lawsuits on their own behalves, if they did not have compliant health insurance policies, it is much tougher for them to suggest persuasively that these officials have any basis for asserting the rights of individual citizens, independent of any private citizen asserting a claim against the federal law. The state officials’ claims might have a bit more substance in states that have passed a statute or constitutional amendment limiting governmental authority to interfere with citizens’ decisions regarding health insurance, but it is still a tenuous legal position unless the state is intervening on behalf of a private citizen’s lawsuit.

So, in all likelihood, these impassioned crusades to knock down the health insurance mandate will prove to be utterly worthless until the targeted provision actually takes effect. And, in the meantime, those in support of the mandate will point to the failure of these lawsuits as proof of both the mandate’s constitutionality and the general wrongheadedness of those who oppose the mandate. My advice to these well-intentioned officials is to withdraw their lawsuits for the time being, and for the next four years focus instead on addressing the mandate through the legislative process. If the mandate remains in place after the elections of 2010 and 2012 pass by, then will be the appropriate time to take this issue to the courts.

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