Strikes and Gutters in Kansas City Election Results

It was probably a little premature and St. Louis-centric for me to call the Franklin County Charter victory the highlight of yesterday’s elections in Missouri with so much being voted on in Kansas City. Great as it was, they had some big issues on the table in KC, so let’s dive right into the Star’s coverage:

Votes approved the extension of the 3/8-cent sales tax to support the bus system — and, more importantly, codified that the tax go to the bus system rather than being diverted to light rail, as has been attempted. The Show-Me Institute has written extensively on this issue. Kansas City has a good bus system, and KCATA is moving toward expanded use of bus?rapid transit, which has worked well where it has been tried. Expanding the use of BRT was one of the central points of Randal O’Toole’s study for us. The passage of the tax extension, and its limitation to buses, will go a long way to making sure KCATA provides transit for the people who need it in a cost-effective manner.

Voters also approved a $1,000 per license fee on payday loan establishments to "reimburse" the city for the cost of regulating the businesses. This is just absurd, and will only increase the costs and interest rates of small loans for people who depend on these establishments for credit. Justin has covered this issue for the Show-Me Institute with great skill, so I will refer you to his comments.

Finally, in a move that will get libertarian blood boiling, voters approved a ban on smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants, in Kansas City. I shall leave it to my colleagues (who I am pretty sure spend far less time in bars than I do) to tell you why this is so horrible. I, myself, have several work trips to Kansas City planned in the coming months and I look forward to spending even more money in bars during those trips now that I won’t have to be bothered by the disgusting smoke. But, heh, I never said I was a libertarian. …

Lest We Think 1 Percent Is Small

Everyone knows that April’s showers bring May’s flowers. Unfortunately, it also brings Missourians’ tax bills. This year, individuals, businesses, and nonprofits will spend an estimated six billion hours complying with state and federal income taxes, according to research by The Tax Foundation. On April 15, Missourians will cough up more than $6 billion in state income taxes alone. If you happen to live in one of the thousands of households subject to the earnings tax this year, though, your bill will be even higher.

The earnings tax is a 1-percent tax levied on wages, salaries, and other earnings from all work performed in Saint Louis or Kansas City. Businesses and self-employed individuals pay an equivalent tax on net profits that averages near $1,500 per year. And in Kansas City, employers contribute an additional 0.5-percent match on their employees’ earnings. Missouri’s statutes authorize any city with more than 70,000 inhabitants to impose such a tax, yet to date only Saint Louis and Kansas City have actually elected to do so. In both cities, the individual earnings tax accounts for approximately 30 percent of general revenues.

Earnings taxes are not unique — about 25 percent of the nation’s largest cities collect them — but they have become increasingly rare in recent decades. One reason for their decline is that earnings taxes are particularly damaging to cities with significant suburban populations and small urban cores, such as Saint Louis and Kansas City, because they encourage businesses and residents to relocate out of town. Because suburban districts offer a similar range of cultural and employment opportunities as the city itself, households and businesses have little incentive to pay higher taxes solely for the benefit of a city street address.

This is true even in Missouri, where the earnings tax is relatively low in comparison to cities in other states. For example, defenders of the earnings tax often point to the fact that the 1-percent tax is lower than the 2-percent national average. In fact, among cities that levy earnings taxes, only Indianapolis has a lower rate, at 0.7 percent. And both Saint Louis and Kansas City have much lower rates than Philadelphia, which imposes a whopping 4.54-percent tax on city earnings. While these figures are comparatively promising, they mask the impact that earnings taxes have on total household wealth.

For example, consider a Missouri household with an adjusted gross income of $35,000, which is near the 2007 state median. The members of such a household would pay an additional $350 in income taxes each year simply by living or working in Saint Louis or Kansas City. While $350 may not seem like much at first glance, it has a dramatic impact when aggregated over 30 to 40 years of earnings.

Imagine that those in the above household chose to live and work in a suburb, rather than directly in Saint Louis or Kansas City. Presumably, the cost of living and employment opportunities would be similar to those that exist within the city itself. Sales and property tax rates in Missouri’s suburban districts are also similar to those that are levied in Kansas City and Saint Louis, on average. But by living in the suburbs, members of the household would no longer be subject to an annual earnings tax.

If members of this household chose to save the extra $350 they would keep each year in lower taxes, rather than spending it on increased annual consumption, their total household wealth during the following 40 years would be more than $80,000 higher than if they had paid the earnings tax each year. In other words, simply by choosing to live and work a couple miles down the road, the household’s earners would garner more than an additional $80,000 during the course of their careers.

If $80,000 still doesn’t seem like a big enough number to deter urban growth, consider a few facts. If 80,000 $1 bills were lined up end to end, they would cover the entire length of downtown Saint Louis and Kansas City, combined. That same number of $1 bills could cover the perimeter of Forest Park — nearly six miles — one and a half times. It would take most joggers nearly an hour and a half to run the length of their foregone earnings tax wealth. So much for the insignificance of one percent!

Taxes are a necessary part of urban living, but it’s important that cities adopt tax policies that encourage growth rather than driving it out of town. Earnings taxes can significantly impact a household’s lifetime earnings. In many cases, residents have chosen to “vote with their feet,” relocating to suburbs and lower tax rates. In fact, to help illustrate the incentives that varying tax rates provide, the Show-Me Institute recently released an estimator that helps Missourians compare their relative tax burdens across the state.

While Saint Louis’ and Kansas City’s metropolitan areas have continued to grow over the years, their urban cores have stagnated. Is the earnings tax really so insignificant?

Justin P. Hauke is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute and a graduate student at Washington University’s Olin Business School.

 

Be Careful Where You Live – It Might Cost You More Than You Think

Everyone knows that April’s showers bring May’s flowers. Unfortunately, it also brings Missourians’ tax bills. This year, individuals, businesses, and nonprofits will spend an estimated six billion hours complying with local, state and federal income taxes, according to research by The Tax Foundation. On April 15, Missourians will cough up more than $4 billion in net state income taxes alone. But the size of your slice of the Missouri tax pie will depend significantly on where you happen to live.

Many people assume that state and local taxes don’t vary much throughout Missouri. For statewide taxes, this is certainly true. But local taxes — particularly property and sales taxes — vary considerably from one city to the next. Missouri sales tax rates range from 4.7 percent to nearly 9 percent across the state. The disparity in local property taxes is even more dramatic, with rates differing by more than $2 per $100 of assessed property value in some parts of Saint Louis County. For a home worth $150,000, this difference would translate into an annual tax difference of about $1,000.

This suggests that sometimes moving just a few miles down the road may have a significant effect on how much of your own money you get to keep. Unfortunately, though, most people don’t have the resources to compare tax rates for cities and counties throughout the state. That’s why the Show-Me Institute created “Show-Me: The Taxes,” an easy-to-use tax estimator that provides Missourians with the ability to compare taxes as they make decisions about their finances, lifestyle, and places to live and work.

How do the differences actually impact household wallets? More than you might think.

Consider, for example, four hypothetical Missouri households: a single 25-year-old college graduate, a married couple with two young children, a single working mother with one child, and a recently retired couple living on a fixed income. By plugging these households into our estimator, we were able to compare the taxes they might expect to pay in cities across the state — assuming their financial situations would not otherwise change.

The results were surprising. For example, a 25-year-old with an annual salary of $30,000, modest student loan debt, and a shared two-bedroom apartment would pay approximately $275 less in taxes each year by moving from Saint Louis city to a nearby suburb (in this example, Maplewood). If we consider the impact of this annual tax savings over the course of a career, however, the numbers are even more remarkable. For example, investing that $275 each year and earning the historical market return could generate more than $70,000 in additional income by retirement at age 65.

The same was true for the other households we considered. A young family could save more than $700 in taxes each year by moving from Kansas City to Grain Valley — also in Jackson County. A single mother could finance more than half of her child’s tuition at the University of Missouri simply by moving a few miles down the road and saving the amount she would no longer pay in taxes each year.

Retirement provides the most dramatic illustration of the differences in local taxes. We found that a relatively low-income retired couple could save more than $1,100 in taxes each year by living in Cape Girardeau instead of Kansas City. Investing this annual tax savings in low-risk securities such as rolling certificates of deposit or annuities would increase the household’s monthly cash flow by nearly $100. This extra money could be used to help defray the cost of prescription drugs and other medical expenses, or to help finance a grandchild’s education.

Of course, the amount one saves in taxes is not the only way to measure quality of life. Clearly, there are benefits to retiring in a city where there are people you know and love, and high tax cities may offer intangible benefits that are difficult to quantify. But it’s important that Missourians be able to weigh these options when deciding where to live.

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but no matter where you live or work, some level of taxation is a certainty. Not all locations are the same, though. Small differences in tax rates can have dramatic effects on household wealth. In many cases, such differences may be enough to encourage citizens to “vote with their feet,” relocating to cities with lower tax burdens. The Show-Me Institute’s tax estimator can help Missourians quantify these benefits, so they can make informed living decisions. Are small tax differences really so insignificant?

Justin P. Hauke is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute and a graduate student at Washington University’s Olin Business School.

 

Final Reply to Justin About Reassessments

I shall keep this very brief.  I want to provide two clarifications to Justin’s latest response.

I never stated that property taxes should never go up on homes, which is sort of how it works in California. What is going to be passed by the Legislature is a change removing the increases brought about by reassessment — an idea I fully support. Local government bodies would still be fully empowered to pass increases of the property tax rates within their jurisdictions. The extremely important difference is that a tax increase passed by either the voters or an elected body is the proper and democratic way to increase taxes and raise government revenues (the two are not always linked) in the (rare) circumstances where tax increases are prudent. Increasing tax revenue through reassessment, on the other hand, is not how Missouri’s property tax system was set up to work, and is an underhanded and improper manner of increasing government revenues.

Finally, Justin wrote:

"So homeowners like David are grandfathered into a nice little tax haven with this legislation."

I am not a homeowner.  It was my wife’s house before we got married and we have never gotten around to changing the title, so it’s still all hers.  If you ever see me on an episode of "Cops" wearing the traditional garb being confronted by the local constabulary, I won’t have a very good argument for being the one spouse allowed to remain on the property, no matter how drunkenly I argue that she started it.   

Links to Radio Interview This Morning in Springfield

If you have time, you can listen to the full radio interview I did with Vincent David Jericho by scrolling down here to the link about tax increment financing (or using the direct MP3 link). You can also listen to the end-of-day summary Vince does about all his guests, which is the top link on that page. I enjoyed being in Springfield on the show, and I thank Vince for the opportunity to appear.

Letting Big Brother Watch Less

Periodically here at the Show-Me Institute, we like to look through the rolls of pending bills in the Missouri General Assembly and offer insightful, balanced commentary about select pieces of legislation. Granted, sometimes these insights turn into week-long rants about milk, ice cream cones, or beer, but more often than not they can lead to thoughts about issues such as this: Senate Bill 786.

SB 786, properly known as the RFID Right to Know Act of 2008, is a bill introduced by Sen. Maida Coleman that seeks to require that every item sold in Missouri containing a Radio Frequency Identification chip be conspicuously labeled as such. This bill has been introduced in various forms twice before, but its failure to pass is in no way indicative of its value as an article of legislation. If nothing else, the time that has passed since the bill’s first introduction in 2006 has made it more relevant.

RFID chips, for the technologically disinclined, are tiny devices that consist of a combination of electronic circuitry and a tiny antenna. RFID chips have long been used as security devices in bookstores and libraries, but the continual march of technology (as well as Moore’s Law) have made the chips smaller and the circuitry better to the point where RFID chips are now being used in tag form in supply chain management, as a replacement for UPC barcodes, and in implantable form in veterinary medicine, as a method to identify stray pets. Use of these implantable chips, in particular, seems to be growing the fastest, as a number of companies have begun to use them for security identification, and some high-end nightclubs are using them to allow VIPs to pay for drinks with a wave of the arm.

While such convenience may seem appealing, the privacy issues that come along with RFID chips are considerable. Most of today’s chips are passive, meaning that they will sit idle, hidden in a pair of jeans or a sweater, until a radio signal activates them and triggers a response. The problem is that their size makes them nearly impossible to find, and their passive nature (which is not destroyed by a bout with the washing machine or dryer) makes them susceptible to being activated again — possibly while you’re walking down the street.

This isn’t to say that RFID chips should be banned. Quite the contrary — they offer an enormous potential for consumers and advertisers alike. However, if they are to be used effectively, bills like SB 786 would provide a valuable service to consumers, letting them know that the devices are embedded in their purchases. Such identification allows customers to choose whether they would like to purchase the item, and gives them the knowledge they need to destroy the chips if they wish (as a corollary, passage of this bill may drastically increase the number of people who regularly microwave their clothing — as such an action is an effective method of disabling RFID tags).

Technology can open up some frightening doors (and, apparently, can be seen by some as the "mark of the beast"), but if we act now to account for it, we can assure that privacy and the other individual liberties of citizens can be assured.

Fun With Numbers

Dave Stokes pointed me to an interesting source of information on payday lending in Missouri. Because I’ve written before about this topic, I thought that I would share some key facts about the Missouri payday loan industry.

  • During 2006, Missouri payday lenders issued approximately 2.87 million loans (including renewals).
  • The average loan size was $274.72 and the average annual interest rate on loans was 422.26 percent.
  • Borrowers paid $39.05 on average in interest and fees on their loans.
  • The number of payday loan licenses (establishments) in Missouri versus neighboring states is as follows (ranked by my per-capita calculation):

State Licenses Population Per capita (in basis points)
Tennessee 1,459 5,689,283 2.56
Missouri 1,286 5,595,211 2.30
Kentucky 757 4,041,769 1.87
Kansas 396 2,688,418 1.47
Nebraska 200 1,711,263 1.17
Oklahoma 399 3,450,654 1.16
Arkansas 280 2,673,400 1.05
Illinois 1,140 12,419,293 0.92
Iowa 259 2,926,324 0.89

Before readers are outraged at the interest rates being charged on such loans, it’s worth considering the annual interest charged on other consumer products. The perfect example is late fees on video rentals. For example, despite the fact that Blockbuster advertises a “no late fee” policy, the company in fact charges a $1.50 restocking fee for rentals more than eight days past due. If you consider an average rental cost of $5, this restocking fee would translate into a simple interest rate of 1,369 percent if expressed as an annual rate (assuming no compounding). But nobody accuses Blockbuster of being usurious.

Just some food for thought.

I’m Sorry I Ruined Dave’s Vacation :)

I will quickly respond to David’s post.

Like David, I’ve stated my support for protecting homeowners from spurious appraisal increases. I definitely believe that this is a problem. But I cannot defend Dave’s protectionist sentiment. Property tax rates should be set at a flat rate, dependent upon the fair value of the home, and not a flat nominal amount that is independent of home value. David is basically advocating that new homeowners should subsidize existing homeowners, whose property taxes are fixed at the rate at which they originally purchased their home. So homeowners like David are grandfathered into a nice little tax haven with this legislation.

Here are some hypothetical tax issues David might also support, based on his logic.

A 20-year-old pays $1,000 in income taxes on his $20,000 salary in 2008. Therefore, he should pay $1,000 in income taxes in 2030, even though he is then making more than $500,000 per year.

A woman bought a personal computer in 1985 for $5,000, paying $500 in sales taxes. So she should pay $500 in sales taxes on the computer that she bought this year for $800.

You can see how this makes little sense for other forms of taxation. I have no problem with indexing property values to inflation or another metric so that only real appraisal gains are taxed. But in my opinion, David’s idea is not a fair solution in general. Regardless of whether property assessments were intended to lead to tax increases, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t.

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