Missouri Would Be Better Off Without an Income Tax

This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon.

The Missouri House recently took an ambitious step toward improving the state’s economic competitiveness. House Joint Resolution 36 calls for a popular vote in 2010 to repeal the state’s income, corporate, and estate taxes. This amendment of the state constitution would, as a number of studies show, improve Missourians’ economic well-being.

H.J.R. 36 would replace the revenue lost from eliminating these taxes primarily through raising existing sales taxes. The resolution would ask voters to raise the state’s sales tax to 5.11 percent from its current rate of 4.225 percent. The new sales tax would cover more services and goods than the existing sales tax.

Vocal opponents of the resolution are quick to point out that sales taxes are more regressive than income taxes. That is true.

But this undesirable outcome can be circumvented as the tax plans are developed in switching from income tax to sales tax revenue. One method is to means-test the sales tax. Individuals below a certain income level would pay no sales taxes on purchases up to some established amount. Of course, means testing is straightforward for someone filing an income tax form. For those who do not, it is more difficult, but not insurmountable.

Another approach is to exclude certain items or services — such as food, medicine, or medical services — from the sales tax.

Arguing that repealing the income tax would put the tax burden on the backs of the poor is simply a scare tactic that diverts reasoned debate.

Opponents also argue that if the proposed change is revenue neutral — meaning the state would receive the same amount of tax revenues after the switch as it does before — why bother?

Isn’t a dollar in taxes the same regardless of its origin? The answer is no.

According to standard economics, imposing a tax on income, whether a tax on individuals’ labor or on corporations’ earnings, diminishes those activities generating taxable income.

Think of it this way: In a world with no taxation, employers and workers settle on some market clearing wage that is beneficial to each. With an income tax, a worker’s take-home income must go down for the same hours worked. Unless firms raise wages to make up the difference, rational workers supply less after the tax is imposed. The tax reduces the amount of work, which reduces the goods and services available to consume.

Proponents argue that eliminating the existing income tax will be economically beneficial. Economic theory says the change should lead to more work, more goods and services being produced. And that equals an overall increase in economic well-being. Is there hard evidence to support this notion?

An oft-cited study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that — after holding constant the effects of many different factors explaining state economic growth — a state’s marginal tax rate has a significant and negative affect on its relative growth rate. The higher a state’s marginal income tax rate, the lower is its rate of economic growth compared with low marginal income tax states.

This important finding has been replicated many times across states (and countries). The weight of the evidence is that low-tax states economically outperform high-tax states. On average, low-tax states have higher comparative growth rates in personal income and in employment.

Why should voters in Missouri seriously consider this proposed change?

Missouri ranks in the lower third of states when it comes to economic improvement. Using data from 2006, on a per-capita basis, Missouri ranked 37th in real output growth, 31st in personal income growth, and 36th in the growth of wage and salary income.

Missouri did rank high in one category: It was 6th in firm termination. Not an enviable economic track record.

I am not Pollyannaish enough to think that eliminating the state’s individual and corporate income tax would vault Missouri to the upper echelon of high-growth states. But doesn’t that possibility beg for open and informative dialogue on the issue?

Rik Hafer is distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Economics and Finance at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and a scholar at the Show-Me Institute.

 

Flying Under the Radar

“Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.”
— Barack Obama, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, January 21, 2009

This sort of appreciation for the idea of open and transparent government has been one of the higher points of the new presidency. It’s a principle that we take seriously at the Show-Me Institute, as well. The actions taken by our government officials should be open to public scrutiny. Apparently, however, 81 legislators in Missouri’s House feel that the Sunshine Law should not apply to the state’s General Assembly, while only 79 do. That vote defeated an amendment that would have clarified the existing Sunshine Law.

I have a hard time understanding why it wouldn’t, given that the Sunshine Law applies to all other government officials in Missouri. Some speculate that the measure might have failed because legislators are concerned about the privacy of their constituents, but as this Maneater editorial notes (link via Combest), “Many agencies abide by the Sunshine Law and they still get plenty of calls from constituents.”

The laws surrounding this issue are murky themselves; legislators have different ways of interpreting the Sunshine Law with respect to lawmakers being individually exempted. The movement of House Bill 316 is a step in the right direction, but as this News-Leader editorial remarks, “What’s good for the goose may not be so good for the gander after all.”

And Along Those Lines …

On the heels of my post about the excellent lecture series going on in Kansas City, I would be remiss not to mention the upcoming fourth installment of the Show-Me Institute’s Lecture Series on Economic Policy, which is co-hosted by Saint Louis University’s John Cook School of Business.  On Tuesday, May 5, Dr. Caroline Hoxby will deliver a lecture titled “The Promise and Performance of Charter Schools: Drivers of Educational Improvement in the U.S.?”

Dr. Hoxby is the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor of Economics at Stanford University, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, the director of the Economics of Education Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and senior fellow of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. It is extremely exciting that a scholar of her prestige will be presenting here in St. Louis, so I encourage all of you to RSVP today!

Inspiration From Teach for America

This post is belated, but I feel that people should know about the fantastic message offered last week at an event hosted by the Kansas City Public Library and cosponsored by the Show-Me Institute. Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teach for America, was the latest speaker to take part in the library’s series on urban education, and her message was inspiring. Put simply, she said that for all the gloom and doom coming from those who preach that racial and socioeconomic background dictates academic potential, Teach for America is demonstrating that bright, motivated, and creative teachers can help children succeed in any setting.

For nearly two decades now, Teach for America has been persuading graduates of the nation’s best universities to commit to spending two years teaching in some of the most challenging classrooms that can be found. These range from urban schools populated almost entirely by the low-income, minority students that some proclaim to be “unteachable” to small rural schools in the Mississippi Delta or on Native American reservations, where students consistently rank among the lowest achievers in academic performance. Regardless of the circumstances, Teach for America’s recruits have demonstrated that a good teacher can make all the difference in the world when it comes to inspiring students to academic success. And, thanks to the experiences they have with the Teach for America program, more than two thirds of the program’s alumni continue to work in the field of education when their two-year commitments expire.

Kansas City has just recently started welcoming Teach for America recruits into its school district, and the preliminary results are very promising. So promising, in fact, that the district is clamoring to get as many of them as possible for the upcoming school year! This is an excellent development, and it gives me hope that the prospects are improving for Kansas City public schools.

Jefferson City Roundup

This is the part of the session where things happen fast and furious. You might think our job here at the Show-Me Institute is closely related to what happens in Jefferson City, and you would be correct, but only to a point. You can easily run the danger here of focusing too much on the horse race instead of the finish, and the horse race is only interesting to a very small number of people. Plus, there are plenty of people who know the game much better than we do. I’ll put my knowledge of the issues surrounding occupational licensing up against anyone’s, but it you ask me the odds of House Bill X getting out of committee and being successfully meshed in conference committee with Senate Bill Y, well … you get my point.

So, with that in mind, here is a quick summary of things important to me, and to the Show-Me Institute, and how they are going in our beautiful state capital. (Note: That was not sarcasm; I really think Jefferson City is great and the capitol building is wonderful.) Thanks to Combest for most of the following links.

Efforts at reforming the judicial selection process have apparently stalled. This is too bad. I didn’t like the more wholesale changes proposed in the past, but the alterations proposed by Sen. Jim Lembke in the latest bill seemed very reasonable, and would likely have made the system better.

The legislature passed a small but important victory for individual liberty when it approved legislation eliminating the mandate for motorcycle helmet laws. Missourians will be better off if the governor signs this return to liberty.

Distribution of the stimulus funds is still up in the air. The proposed tax refund for Missourians deserves to be seriously debated by the legislature. How is this line, from Missourinet, for a little frying pan / fire commentary?

In another move during floor debate, $12 million dollars was taken from a fund to pay ethanol plant incentives and given to aid the financially strapped Metro transit system in St. Louis.

It is also still in dispute how much we will subject the rest of the Midwest to those “Wake Up to Missouri” ads that air during sitcoms. I say cutting those funds is a smart idea. I don’t imagine that even one person in the history of the world has said, “Hey, I just saw an ad for South Dakota while watching Friends. Let’s go there next month!”

In Defense of St. Louis

When I checked out the Post-Dispatch‘s website today, I fully expected the top stories to include President Barack Obama’s visit yesterday. Nope. Instead, I find a story about Brewster McCracken. an Austin, Texas, mayoral candidate, whose ad (available on YouTube) positively slams the city of St. Louis for losing its turn-of-the-century stature.

The statistic quoted by McCracken, that St. Louis was once the fourth-largest city in the United States, but is no longer among the top 50 cities, likely comes from the same statistical source used in this wikipedia list. There, it is plain as day: Austin: #16 (pop: 743,000); St. Louis: #52 (pop: 356,000). Never .mind the footnote in the list indicating that, like Baltimore, St. Louis is an independent city that is not a part of any county. More relevant is the fact that a city’s true population rarely comprises only the people who reside in its boundaries, but also the people who live and work within the vicinity.

There’s a standard measure of such population groupings, called “metropolitan statistical areas” (MSAs). Here’s a list of the top 25 MSAs and their populations. St. Louis is listed 18th now, with a population of 2.8 million. That’s more like it. Notice that Austin is not in the list? I found it here, listed 48th (2002 population: 1.3 million).

It’s true that the Austin MSA is growing fast, much faster than St. Louis’, but it’s unlikely that it will overtake us soon. What can residents of St. Louis and the state of Missouri do to ensure that we remain significant and grow strong? The Show-Me Institute has definitely covered some of this ground before. Here are some reminders.

Lessons from Kenyan Education

Critics of parental choice in education sometimes claim that poor people will be taken advantage of in a market system. In particular, I have heard this in St. Louis regarding proposed charter schools. Choice opponents fear that poor parents won’t be able to tell a good school from a bad one, and that they could be taken in by unscrupulous charters looking for state money.

This article by James Tooley shows how baseless those worries are. Very poor parents in Kenya are able to evaluate the quality of various schools, and to act on their observations. Tooley quotes several parents, who explain their reasons for preferring private schools to government-run schools:

We asked parents to elaborate on what particular features made the private schools preferable. One mother told us: “People thought education is free; it may be free but children do not learn. This makes the quality of education poor and that is why many parents have brought their children back here.”
[…]
Parents, it turned out, actively compared children in the government schools with children in the private schools in their neighborhoods.
[…]
Finally, parents were learning from the experience of those who had moved between the two systems.

As you can see, parents are able to exercise choice in Kenya; I think St. Louisians are capable of doing the same.

U.S. Education: the Last Rent-Seeking Frontier

Maybe that title is a bit of an exaggeration, given that there are plenty of opportunities for rent seeking in other sectors. But the amount of wealth that goes into the public schools, to pay increasing numbers of people to produce a product that doesn’t improve, is staggering. You’d be hard-pressed to find examples of comparably widespread waste in other industries.

Over at Cato@Liberty, Andrew Coulson estimates the extent of the lost wealth. Here’s his conclusion:

So if we’d managed to ensure that education productivity just stagnated, we’d be saving over $300 billion EVERY YEAR.

This inefficiency is a problem by itself; it also stands in the way of potential reform, which compounds the damage. For example, Susan Graham argues convincingly that extending the school year won’t help students in traditional public schools:

What concerns me most is this—if we are going to keep kids in school for longer days, weeks, and years, exactly what will they be getting more of during that time? More of what they’ve been getting? Because that hasn’t been working all that well, has it?

Long school years are a component of some successful schools, like KIPP charter schools, and various Asian school systems. Unfortunately, this potentially beneficial reform doesn’t stand a chance to work in the U.S., where more school would be more of the same. This line from Tertium Quids about the prospect of real reform sums it up best:

Regrettably, the political class is utterly cowed by that prospect, preferring instead to do whatever is necessary to prop-up the tottering government school monopoly or timidly fiddle at the utmost edge of reform.

Weak Effort to Rah-Rah the Stimulus in the Kansas City Star

This column is a few days old, but it is still poor enough to warrant criticism. The Star‘s Steve Penn writes up all the wondrous things that the stimulus package will provide for job seekers in Kansas City. It really is startling how someone can so brazenly promote a political initiative in the newspaper without even remotely considering the other side of the argument.

As he goes through a laundry list of jobs, training, and scholarships that the funding will provide, he does not even consider that the taxes that would need to be raised in order to pay for these programs will make it harder for people to find good jobs in the future. It is like the issues of taxes and debt don’t even matter. The article reads as though money grows on trees, to put it mildly. This really is not surprising, however. Far too few people have any comprehension or concern about the debt being created by this administration and the last.

One part of the article would be hysterical if it weren’t so terrifying (emphasis added): 

 As a result of the new infusion of dollars, the council is prepared to provide 1,500 youths this summer with what are called next-generation jobs. That program will provide participants 16 to 24 with internships with the government and nonprofit sectors.

So, the next generation of jobs to grow our economy will be with the government. That ought to cure all of our financial ills. …

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