The post Board Bill 95: The Lighthouse St. Louis Community Improvement District appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Senate Bill 874, Tax-increment Financing, and School Districts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Senate Bills 153 & 97 and Taxation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post House Bill 374: Sales Tax Cap appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: House Bill 2307, Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Program appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: House Bill 1589, Foster Child Education Fund appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: Tax Credit for Donations to Foster Child Education Fund appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

People on both sides booed, cheered, and tried to shout each other down. The following is a list of impressions that I took away from the meeting:

1.       Stadium supporters are still delusional about the benefits of a riverfront stadium.

We’ve talked about this before, but it was very clear that many aldermen and stadium supporters in the public believe, despite decades of studies from economists (and the experience with the Edward Jones Dome), that a stadium will make the city money. The people who already believe that a stadium is a great idea quickly latched on to dubious revenue projections from the mayor’s office and the Saint Louis Regional Chamber. They continue to ignore what is the consensus among economists: NFL stadiums do not create growth, spur development, or greatly increase tax revenue.

2.       Many city residents are against the plan, and especially want a vote.

The vast majority of city residents who spoke were skeptical of the stadium plan. But what city residents heavily criticized, again and again, was the idea that Board of Aldermen might approve the stadium funding plan without a public vote.

3.       The city-county divide was on display.

The first speaker in favor of the stadium plan was from Saint Louis County, and some in the audience tried to shout him down because he didn't live in the city. The committee chair appropriately defended the right of those not from Saint Louis City to speak, but over the course of the session a pattern established itself. Most of those speaking in favor of the stadium plan lived in the county (or Illinois), and most of those opposing the plan were city residents.

4.       The session became more rally than public hearing.

At any normal public hearing, the Board of Aldermen meets in a hearing room or auditorium. Aldermen ask questions of speakers, and anyone who disrupts the meeting is escorted out of the room. For whatever reason, the Board of Aldermen decided to hold the public meeting outdoors, where the proposed stadium would be built. As a result, speakers constantly faced harassment from the audience for their views. One speaker pointed out that, in order to speak, she had to publicly declare herself as pro or con, something she would not have to do if she had the privacy of the voting booth. I would add that she wouldn’t have had to brave the jeers of Rams’ superfans either.

To see our take on the city’s plan, read our testimony here.

The post What I Saw at the Stadium Hearing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It seems that there are those in the city who want to get some type of minimum wage increase passed before the Legislature has a chance to override Governor Nixon’s veto of HB 722, which would forbid municipalities from raising their minimum wages after August 28. What’s interesting to note is that even if the Board of Aldermen passes a bill before the August 28 deadline or the Legislature fails to override the Governor’s veto, Saint Louis probably lacks the legal authority to raise its minimum wage above the state minimum wage. Regardless, a $13 per hour minimum wage would be disastrous for the city and its workers.

The Congressional Budget Office studied the effects of increasing the federal minimum wage to “just” $10.10 an hour and found that it would cost 500,000 jobs. Now this 500,000 figure is a national number, but the effect on jobs would be especially pronounced if the wage went up at the local level, because companies forced to pay the higher wage can just hop across the city border to escape the mandate. Even the liberal Vox.com thinks that $13 per hour (never mind $15) would be too high a minimum wage for Saint Louis.

What about the other cities that have raised their minimum wages? If the recent evidence from Seattle is any indicator, things aren’t looking good.There are also some signs out of Los Angeles that might give policymakers in Saint Louis pause.

                Momentum is building in some parts of Saint Louis City government to increase the city’s minimum wage, as evidenced by the convening of a special session to debate the issue. However, that doesn’t mean that such a move would be good policy. A large increase (and going from $7.65 to $13 or $15 per hour would certainly qualify as large), will end up costing jobs  and failing to help the working poor. 

The post The Idea That Would Not Die appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It appears from the testimony that Mr. Fefer supports raising the minimum wage. The first thing to notice when listening to his testimony is that a lot of it simply relates to the number of workers making below a certain wage level. For example, Mr. Fefer says that 44 percent of the workers in Saint Louis City make less than $15 an hour and 14 percent of workers make the minimum wage or less. Even if Mr. Fefer’s numbers are correct, and for the sake of argument, let’s say that they are, these statistics don’t tell us a whole lot. A key point people need to understand in discussing the minimum wage is that people who earn low wages aren’t necessarily in poor households. A man working as a greeter for $9 an hour at Wal-mart might be an upper-middle class retiree who just wants to stay active. Of course, he might not be, but Mr. Fefer’s statistics don’t tell us one way or another. This information is useful in that it captures the raw number of workers who could see pay increases, but nothing much beyond that.

A bigger problem with Mr. Fefer’s testimony is that he overstates the evidence in support of his position. Mr. Fefer states, “The theory that raising the minimum wage results in job loss has been proved wrong in just about every case.” That’s simply inaccurate. One can point  to several studies that show that raising the minimum wage does harm employment.

The minimum wage is certainly a contentious issue. Voices on both sides should be heard and given due consideration. However, it is important that any information which is presented to the public is put in the proper context and any errors are corrected. 

The post Some Comments on a Minimum Wage Testimony appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Still, Alderman Joe Vaccaro, the acting Ways & Means chairman, has announced he is cancelling all future meetings on the minimum wage, potentially killing the proposal. A recently passed bill from the Missouri Legislature, if signed by the governor, would prevent any local minimum wage increases from going into effect after August 28. Given that the Board of Aldermen go on summer break starting July 10, this puts the minimum wage bill in a precarious position and will make it difficult for any minimum wage increase to be enacted.

I applaud this decision, and I hope no increase is enacted. Increasing the minimum wage will destroy jobs and do little to help those in poverty. I want people across the city and state to earn more in wages. However, increasing the minimum wage is not the way to achieve such a goal. Thankfully, some in the Board of Aldermen feel similarly.

The post Minimum Wage Hike on Ice? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

State Rep. Tom Sands, R-Wapello, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said his preference would be to examine corporate and individual income taxes while exploring ways to simplify the tax system. Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said any tax cuts should be focused on helping middle-class Iowans.

“We will most definitely be looking at income tax reform, making the tax code flatter and simpler,” Sands said.

Sands added he hopes lawmakers will offer “substantial and meaningful tax cuts,” although he explained it’s too early to provide a specific dollar estimate because of uncertainties over state revenue.

Iowa is not the only border state looking to make income tax changes. In neighboring Nebraska, legislators (with the help of the Platte Institute) are exploring a round of tax cuts of their own that would also chop the state’s tax on incomes. On Missouri’s southern border, Arkansas is looking to cut its income taxes too, in part by getting the state’s tax exemption culture under control.

“They’re important to you; therefore, they’re important to me,” [Governor-elect Asa] Hutchinson told the [farming] group. “But we are now reaching a point in Arkansas that we need to look beyond more and more exemptions to our tax structure, and we need to look at an across-the-board reduction of our state income tax.”

Missouri lawmakers deserved applause for finally getting a tax cut across the finish line in 2014, but as we said at the time, that small cut alone is not enough to get the state on a firm, competitive footing for the years ahead—precisely because other states in the region weren’t going to stand still on tax relief. News out of Iowa, Nebraska, and Arkansas confirm this.

And make no mistake: The support for tax cuts has never been greater in the Missouri Legislature than it will be in 2015. Legislative leaders should not sit on their hands and let the opportunity pass them by. Our neighbors certainly aren’t.

The post Iowa, Nebraska, and Arkansas Legislators Gear Up for Income Tax Cuts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

National Treasury Employees Union officials are urging members to write their congressional representatives in opposition to receiving coverage through President Obama’s health care law.

The union leaders are providing members with a form letter to send to the congressmen that says “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.” …

Like most other federal workers, IRS employees currently get their health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which also covers members of Congress. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp offered the bill in response to reports of congressional negotiations that would exempt lawmakers and their staff from Obamacare.

The NTEU joins the roofers and food unions, the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other unions that don’t want to be subject to important provisions (for a variety of reasons) in a law they helped pass. If millions of supporters of the law’s passage don’t support even-handed enforcement and implementation of the law, why is it the law of the land at all? And why should it continue to be?

The post Obamacare-Enforcing IRS Employees Don’t Want Obamacare Enforced Against Them appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My colleague Patrick Ishmael and I have written about the benefits for Missouri if corporate income taxes are cut. Considering that Senate Bill 26 (SB26) proposes reducing the corporate income tax, it seems the Senate Ways and Means Committee agrees with our assessment. Allowing businesses to keep more of their money will enable them to reinvest their earnings into expanding their facilities, hiring employees, or lowering their prices to consumers.

Patrick and I have also talked about the need for Missouri to respond to the Kansas tax cut. Lowering our tax rates will minimize the  advantage that Kansas has over us and potentially keep Missouri businesses from moving across the border. With other states moving toward serious tax reform, it is encouraging to see Missouri move in that direction as well.

SB26 is not a perfect piece of legislation. Like the Kansas law, it does not include any alternatives to offset the lost revenue from the tax cut. A previous version of the bill included a hike to the state sales tax. Capping or eliminating economic development tax credits would also serve to offset some of the lost revenue. However, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.  The fact that the Senate has come this far in getting tax reform passed is encouraging and I hope some kind of tax cuts are enacted. Missouri cannot afford to wait.

The post One Step Closer appeared first on Show-Me Institute.