The post Frequently Asked Questions About Amendment 5 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal reports, high-tax states continue to bleed residents and income. Between 2022 and 2023, California lost a net $11.9 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI), New York $9.9 billion, and Illinois $6 billion. Higher earners with income over $200,000 drove much of this exodus. In Massachusetts, they accounted for 70% of outflows, doubling the 2019 share.

Meanwhile, no-income-tax states saw the largest gains. Florida added $20.6 billion in AGI, Texas $5.5 billion, and Tennessee $2.8 billion. Even non-income tax states with more frigid climes saw significant inflows, including Wyoming and South Dakota. In short, states without income taxes dominated the top destinations for both people and wealth.

Missouri, with its current 4.7% top individual income tax rate, sits in the middle of the pack. While we are not a major loser like California or New York, we are far from the magnet status of Florida or Tennessee. Drawing upon IRS migration data, past Show-Me Institute reports have shown that Missouri has consistently lost more people and more income than it gained. This has been particularly the case among working-age and higher-earning households seeking better economic climates.

These national migration patterns emerge at a pivotal moment for Missouri. State lawmakers recently approved HJRs 173 and 174, a proposed constitutional amendment backed by Governor Mike Kehoe that would ask voters to authorize the gradual phaseout of the state’s individual income tax. If approved, the general assembly would begin reducing the tax as revenues grow and would have the authority to speed up the process while modernizing Missouri’s outdated sales tax code.

Eliminating the income tax would align Missouri with proven winners in the migration data, making our state far more attractive to high earners, businesses, and young professionals—key drivers of growth. Moreover, we sit right next door to Illinois, which, while losing top earners at a breakneck pace, is also ranked the least friendly state for middle-class earners according to one report.

The pattern is clear. People and capital continue to flow to states with lower tax burdens and pro-growth policies. Missouri has the chance to join those states. By modernizing our tax code now, we can shut off the outflow of the past and build a more prosperous future.

The post Missouri’s Opportunity to Attract Talent: Latest IRS Data on “Voting with Their Feet” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is not a new concept for Missourians familiar with our similar state-level program, MOScholars.

How the Program Works

Each taxpayer can direct up to $1,700 of their federal tax liability to an SGO in any state rather than sending it to the IRS. While donor contributions are capped, there is no federal limit on the amount an eligible student may receive, or how many students are funded. SGOs determine funding allocation based on pre-set rules (evenly, tiered by income, etc.).

Participating SGOs must be federally recognized, legitimate nonprofits (not private foundations), and the governor or another state authority must approve the list of eligible SGOs. In Missouri, the State Treasurer’s Office approves organizations for MOScholars, so it may also have this role for the federal program as well.

State Participation

The federal program requires states to opt in to this new program. I expect Missouri will, but we have not declared our intent to participate at this point. The tax credit is slated to become available beginning in 2027.

If Missouri opts out, Missouri SGOs would not be eligible to receive or distribute federal funds. This means no Missouri students could benefit from the program. However, Missouri residents could still claim the federal credit by donating to an SGO in another participating state.

Participating in this program would complement MOScholars and bring even greater choice, flexibility, and opportunity to families around the state.

The post What the New Federal K-12 Tax Credit Program Could Mean for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Shaka Mitchell, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children, about how a new federal scholarship tax credit, created through the One Big Beautiful Bill, could transform K–12 education across the country. They discuss what this means for Missouri families, the legal threats facing the MOScholars program, how education policy is shifting nationally, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Evolution of School Choice in Missouri
02:59 Charter Schools and Teacher Innovation
05:40 The Impact of Lawsuits on Educational Freedom
08:35 Federal Tax Credit Programs and Their Implications
11:19 The Future of School Choice and Parental Empowerment

Episode Transcript

(Download)

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thank you so much for joining us on the Show-Me Institute podcast, Shaka Mitchell of AFC. But I think you wear a lot of hats. We’ll just do that hat for now. There have been a lot of changes in the last few years—certainly since the pandemic—regarding how kids end up at the school they attend, especially with parents now getting more opportunities to choose instead of just being assigned. I know you’ve been on the front lines of this, especially through your work with charter schools.

In Missouri, we’re sort of creeping into it. We have a scholarship program now that’s growing, and finally, like in so many other states, the legislature has decided to put some public funding toward it. And now it’s tied up with a lawsuit. Are you following what’s going on with Missouri’s scholarship program?

Shaka Mitchell (00:45):
Yeah, thanks Susan. Thanks for having me on. I sure am following it. I’ve been encouraged in recent years by the steps Missouri has taken to expand school choice. As you know, there had been a charter school law for years, but it was really limited—to Kansas City and St. Louis. That’s a lot of students, but still many others couldn’t access those schools.

Then you had the MOScholars program, which I bet we’ll talk about. On the one hand, there are some encouraging developments coming out of Missouri. And then, per usual, there are lawsuits. Because, in the words of the famous 20th-century philosopher Taylor Swift, haters gonna hate.

Susan Pendergrass (01:30):
That’s right.

Let’s go back to this charter school thing for a minute. Now, for the first time, a charter school can open anywhere in the state—but only if the school board is the sponsor. That happens all over the country, but in Missouri, no school board would even consider authorizing a charter school. Not running them, just authorizing them.

Now there’s one other county where they can open without the board as the sponsor. But there is such strong resistance to the idea of charter schools. Do you find that surprising in 2025?

Shaka Mitchell (02:06):
Yes and no. I’ve worked in charter schools and with several charter networks. I have lots of friends still working in that space. At the American Federation for Children, we’re school-type agnostic. We support parents’ ability to choose.

In some ways, it’s not surprising that school districts—which have in many places become jobs programs for adults—don’t want to disrupt the status quo. Budgets continue to increase, while enrollments decrease. So they’ve got fewer students per classroom, but more money per pupil.

They’ve got it pretty good in terms of job security. But I think what you’re getting at is important: there are great educators who want to do right by kids. And many of them are trapped within that system.

We’re seeing some start their own schools or move to other states or online programs. There’s a lot of innovation happening. But unfortunately, you mostly see the negative reaction from public school districts when it comes to innovation and choice.

Susan Pendergrass (03:42):
Yes, and what’s so tragic in Missouri is that we’ve shut the door on teachers as entrepreneurs. We have plenty of entrepreneurial teachers. Some of the strongest charter school networks were started by teachers who said, “I have a great idea, and I need to do this outside the regulations and bureaucracy.” Cutting off the teacher-as-entrepreneur option is tragic.

Shaka Mitchell (04:10):
Yeah, super tragic. One of my colleagues, Dr. Patrick Graff at AFC, has done work on teacher spending accounts—similar to ESAs.

It’s a great idea. Teachers often say their classrooms are under-resourced. Every parent knows it’s almost back-to-school season—we’re about to get a list of supplies.

Every time I get that list, I think, “Why haven’t we budgeted for enough glue or crayons?” Patrick’s idea is that teachers should have accounts to buy what they need. Surprise: teachers love it, and legislators do too.

But when you say, “Cool, it works for teachers—now let’s do it for parents,” suddenly it’s hair-on-fire. The education establishment just says no. It’s unfair.

Susan Pendergrass (05:19):
Yeah. Public funding for MOScholars in Missouri currently serves mostly low-income students and students with disabilities in Kansas City and St. Louis. That’s where the program started. It’s expanded a bit—but only through tax-credit fundraising, and the organizations have to ask for donations.

Now the lawsuit is basically saying those kids have to go back to their old schools. That we can’t publicly fund private schools for students. It’s saying, “You have to go back to the school that didn’t work for you.”

I know the teachers’ unions brought the lawsuit, and they often take on the PR risk of being on the wrong side of things—like trying to take scholarships away from kids. I don’t see how they can sit well with that.

Shaka Mitchell (06:20):
Yeah. I had the great fortune of meeting a parent in Missouri, Becky Ucello. Her daughter was able to attend a private school through the program. Becky is a public school teacher.

So the idea that private choice programs are anti–public school is a myth. Of course she wants the best for her students—and her own daughter, who has exceptional needs. The district school wasn’t working. Who among us wouldn’t want the best for our child?

The unions get this wrong every time. And they usually get defeated in court. I expect the same in Missouri. There’s strong federal and state case law supporting the idea that parents can choose and that funds given out in a non-discriminatory way can be used at religious schools—because the parent is making the choice, not the government.

Susan Pendergrass (07:47):
In addition to the lawsuit, there’s a potential initiative petition in Missouri to amend the constitution to say you can’t spend public funds at private institutions for students.

But we already have several higher ed programs that work like Pell Grants—you can take them to public or private colleges. We have Bright Flight. This petition might even cut off those programs, too.

And even when open enrollment comes up, it’s often the lowest-performing districts that say, “We can’t be part of it—we can’t let our kids leave.”

Shaka Mitchell (08:41):
It’s totally short-sighted. Nearly every district already outsources some of their special needs education to private providers. That petition could cut off even that.

It’s absurd. Districts don’t make their own computers, books, or desks. They purchase from private companies all the time. The idea that public education is this sacred, fully public institution is a fiction.

Susan Pendergrass (09:33):
Cisco trucks are in every school. Pearson brings the textbooks. Public education is filled with private corporations. And we’ve made so much progress nationally.

I’d love for you to explain the potential for federal scholarship expansion through tax credits. What is that new program, and how will it work?

Shaka Mitchell (10:09):
Sure. The federal scholarship tax credit passed as part of the One Big Bill earlier this year. It’s the first-ever federal K-12 tax credit program.

First, it’s a tax program—not from the Department of Education. So it’s not adding to federal bloat or undermining local control.

Any federal taxpayer can direct up to $1,700 of their tax liability to a scholarship granting organization—like the ones already in Missouri. So instead of sending it to the IRS, I could say, “Let’s send this to a scholarship org in Kansas City.”

Then, the organization can award scholarships to families, most of whom will qualify based on income. The families can use them for a range of educational expenses—just like ESAs. It’s really exciting.

Susan Pendergrass (12:09):
I’ve heard opponents call it a federal voucher—but it’s not a voucher, right?

Shaka Mitchell (12:18):
Correct. Think of it like when your tax return asks if you want to give a dollar to the presidential campaign. But now it’s $1,700 to a scholarship org.

In Missouri, we have Catholic, Hebrew, and non-sectarian scholarship organizations. You can choose which one to support.

Susan Pendergrass (12:59):
Do you know the total amount of available tax credits?

Shaka Mitchell (13:06):
It’s unlimited, within that $1,700 per-taxpayer cap. Initially, there were discussions of state-by-state limits, but now the limit is per individual—not by state.

Susan Pendergrass (13:34):
So governors have to opt in, right?

Shaka Mitchell (14:10):
Yes. Governors or other state officials need to opt in. That may look different state to state. Some legislatures, like North Carolina’s, have already voted to participate.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45):
Where does Missouri stand?

Shaka Mitchell (14:59):
Probably not much discussion yet. It doesn’t go into effect until 2027, so there’s time. But Missouri is in a good spot—you’ve already got scholarship organizations and experience with tax credit programs.

Susan Pendergrass (15:20):
What about blue states like Oregon or California?

Shaka Mitchell (15:27):
Great question. All eyes are on states like California, Pennsylvania, New York. There are a lot of taxpayers there.

Imagine millions of California taxpayers sending $1,700 each to scholarships in Missouri. It would be crazy for a governor to allow that much money to leave their state. But we’ll see.

Susan Pendergrass (16:13):
What do you think those states will do?

Shaka Mitchell (16:25):
Hard to say, but some Democratic governors have said they’re researching it. It’s not really a partisan issue—it’s just the tax code. And everyone pays taxes.

Susan Pendergrass (16:55):
It’s an interesting political move—making school choice national.

Shaka Mitchell (16:59):
Exactly. And because it’s tax-based, it reaches everyone—Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

Are states really going to let billions in scholarships go to other states? I doubt it.

Susan Pendergrass (17:45):
It’ll be interesting to see how private school supply responds. Like in Arizona, where more parents have access, vendors have stepped in with customized, creative options. This could fuel huge innovation. The fact that it’s unlimited in size is surprising.

Shaka Mitchell (18:43):
Yes. These federal scholarships could stack on top of state programs.

Say your state gives $6,000, but tuition is $9,000. The federal credit could close that gap. That’s a big deal.

Susan Pendergrass (19:38):
Will there be a lawsuit?

Shaka Mitchell (19:39):
There probably will be. Lawsuits are easy to file. But this program is part of the tax code—it’s hard to challenge. It’s not clear who would even have standing.

If unions want to burn money on a lawsuit, I say go ahead.

Susan Pendergrass (20:27):
I think what works against them is how happy families are with these scholarships. Satisfaction is high.

Shaka Mitchell (20:53):
Yes. Since 2019, we’ve seen an explosion of education freedom.

And there’s now long-term data—like from Ohio—showing EdChoice students, especially Black and brown students, have higher college attainment. That kind of data is compelling.

Susan Pendergrass (21:59):
And the ROI is incredible. You keep one kid out of prison or help one finish college—you’ve already saved more than the scholarship cost.

These families take $6,000 when the public system spends $18,000. They make it work. I’ve never seen anything in traditional public education with this much impact.

Shaka Mitchell (23:10):
It reminds me of the early 2000s with the excitement around No Child Left Behind.

But this is even more grassroots. Parents are organizing—helping each other on Facebook, answering questions, forming communities. That’s powerful. You can’t put that genie back in the bottle.

Susan Pendergrass (24:34):
Right. I don’t think we’ll go from more choice to less. And I know people who considered moving to Missouri until they realized they couldn’t pick their child’s school.

Kids from these programs are having their own kids now. It’s not going backward.

Shaka Mitchell (24:40):
Exactly.

There was a great article today in the New York Times saying, “The monopoly is dead.” I mean—from the New York Times!

Susan Pendergrass (25:21):
That’s what these lawsuits feel like: a desperate last gasp.

Never underestimate parents. They’ll show up. Thank you so much for joining us today. That was fascinating. I know you’ll be following the lawsuit.

Shaka Mitchell (25:59):
Happy to do it. Thanks for having me, Susan.

Susan Pendergrass (26:01):
Great, thanks.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The One Big Education Opportunity with Shaka Mitchell appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass is joined again by Elias Tsapelas, director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute, for Part II of their conversation on the sweeping federal legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” They unpack what the bill means for Missouri taxpayers, including changes to the standard deduction, tips and overtime, education savings accounts, and higher education policy. They also dig into the bill’s broader fiscal impact, from the growing federal deficit to the implementation challenges facing state governments.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Exploring the One Big Beautiful Bill
04:58 Tax Implications for Missourians
10:20 New Savings Accounts for Children
12:07 Changes in Higher Education
18:09 Federal Deficit and Debt Concerns

Listen to Part I Here

Episode Transcript: One Big Beautiful Bill Breakdown, Part II with Elias Tsapelas 

(Download Here)

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
So I guess it turns out that the One Big Beautiful Bill was too big for us to talk about in one podcast. Elias, thanks for coming back. I realized after we stopped recording that there’s so much in there we didn’t even discuss. We barely even really got into it. So let’s talk about more of the One Big Beautiful Bill because it’s huge—hundreds, at least hundreds of pages long. And I can’t believe the people who voted on it read it through carefully. Now, as you’re going through it and learning things, I’d love for you to explain some of it to me.

Starting with—how does the no tax on tips and overtime work? I’ve heard a lot about this. I know it was a campaign promise. So is it true that if you’re waiting tables now and you get a few hundred bucks a night in tips, you don’t have to pay tax on it now?

Elias Tsapelas (00:51)
In theory, yes. Now, it’s not clear if it’s going to be something that impacts Missouri tax liability. It sort of impacts the federal tax code a little differently than the increased standard deduction and some of the other changes. So it might change some federal tax liability, but unless Missouri’s legislature changes some stuff, it’s not going to immediately impact Missouri taxes.

Susan Pendergrass (01:16)
But why—do you have to itemize to do it?

Elias Tsapelas (01:19)
No. Basically, Missouri has rolling conformity with the federal government. Missouri takes its gross income from the federal government, and the tax on tips and overtime piece isn’t going to impact the gross income calculation. So it may or may not become an issue in Missouri.

There’s also a big open question here about how much income tip workers are actually claiming, and how much that will change if you say it’s not taxed—because if they weren’t declaring it before, we don’t really know what the change will be.

Susan Pendergrass (02:05)
Yeah, so if you walk home with a wad of cash, you’re not necessarily going to add it up and write it down and claim it.

Elias Tsapelas (02:09)
It still might not be worth declaring all of it. But if Missouri brings it into the state income tax code, it could cost quite a bit of money. There are quite a few tax provisions here—especially on corporate tax—where we really don’t know how much it’s going to cost, but it’s probably going to be significant. There’s full expensing, depreciation, all kinds of things that are going to change both federal and Missouri tax liability. And then there was the standard deduction change we mentioned last time.

Susan Pendergrass (02:47)
Okay. So one thing that does impact Missourians is our tax credit scholarship program, where you can donate to a scholarship-granting organization like the Archdiocese of St. Louis, and they give out scholarships. Right now, you can get a Missouri state income tax credit for that—up to half of how much you owe the state. And now there’s a new program where you can take a federal credit of up to $1,700 for donating to these organizations.

You can’t get credits for both on the same donation, but you could donate up to half your tax liability and get the Missouri credit, and then separately donate $1,700 and get the federal credit. I know there’s a lot of rulemaking still to come, and I also know this program doesn’t start until January 2027. So it won’t affect people’s returns until April 2028. But—how do you think that’s going to work? Do you have any idea based on what you’ve read?

Elias Tsapelas (03:54)
Well, Missouri has to opt in first, right? I think the first step is getting the rules out and seeing which states opt in. I would assume Missouri will. The hope is that this becomes something more people understand and take advantage of.

In Missouri, even though we have tons of tax credits that people do use, it takes a while to build it into tax preparation tools like TurboTax. So you kind of have to know what’s going on. Maybe once the federal piece is in place—and there are also changes to the child tax credit—that’ll help.

Susan Pendergrass (04:24)
Spread the word. How’s that changing?

Elias Tsapelas (04:51)
Some of the temporary provisions from the 2017 bill are now made permanent. One of the things the One Big Beautiful Bill does is take temporary changes and make them permanent. We’ll see in a few years how many of these stay.

Susan Pendergrass (05:10)
So the child tax credit is now permanent?

Elias Tsapelas (05:13)
Yes. The changes made in 2017 are now permanent. It’s higher now, and there’s more of it that’s refundable. There’s still an income threshold to get the maximum amount. I think there are going to be a lot of tax credit changes. The bill also got rid of a lot of renewable tax credits. So there are a lot of changes to tax policy for both businesses and individuals. I think people will need to start thinking about their Missouri taxes a little differently, at least for the next few years.

Susan Pendergrass (05:59)
Another piece is the savings accounts for children—kind of like IRAs for kids. I’ve read that anyone born after January 1, 2024, or maybe anyone currently under age 18, is eligible. The IRS has to open the accounts, and you need a Social Security number. For kids born between January 1, 2024, and 2026, the government deposits the first $1,000.

Elias Tsapelas (06:52)
Yeah. What I was trying to figure out is how these differ from 529 plans. I think these will be harder to withdraw from. They do come with tax benefits for employers and others contributing, but taxes will have to be paid when the money comes out.

Susan Pendergrass (07:25)
Yes—capital gains. With 529s, the money goes in pre-tax and comes out tax-free if used for education. These accounts are less flexible. You can take money out for education, a house, or a business, but otherwise there’s an early withdrawal penalty plus capital gains. It feels gimmicky, since the government only deposits $1,000 until 2028 when the program expires.

But for many low-income kids, this could be their only savings. It’s meant to help those who wouldn’t have a 529. They were originally going to be called “Invest in America Accounts,” but they’re now called “Trump Accounts.”

Elias Tsapelas (08:50)
I’m curious to see if the $1,000 is the only money ever deposited into these accounts for most people. It may not be worth putting in more, but even with tax obligations, it’s still free money.

Susan Pendergrass (09:27)
Right. You turn 18 and have $10,000—it’s not nothing. But some worry that a future Democratic president with control of Congress could expand the program—like depositing $500 annually for anyone under 18. It starts to look like a form of universal basic income. But I suspect it’ll go away—it feels gimmicky.

Elias Tsapelas (10:16)
I’m curious if the government will make it easier to use for college or similar expenses. There are a lot of higher education changes in the bill too. As someone with student loans, I’m getting emails every day about them.

Susan Pendergrass (10:33)
Yeah. So tell me—what are the changes to higher ed?

Elias Tsapelas (10:43)
Well…

Susan Pendergrass (10:46)
I’ve heard it might hurt community colleges, but I don’t know why. Do you?

Elias Tsapelas (10:49)
There are new caps on loan amounts and some income-based repayment plans are being eliminated. For example, the SAVE repayment plan created by the Biden administration has been tied up in court. Interest collection is resuming, but payments aren’t due yet. Borrowers need to switch plans, but the old ones are gone. The new plan tries to prevent negative amortization, but it’s still unclear how well that will work.

Grad students will be able to borrow less. The government wants loans repaid more quickly. After five years of paused payments, there’s a huge administrative burden now to unwind all of this.

Susan Pendergrass (12:11)
I know—since the pandemic.

Elias Tsapelas (12:17)
Exactly. There’s going to be a big process for certifying income and re-establishing payments. Colleges are nervous—lower borrowing limits could change students’ decisions. And I don’t know if the federal government is prepared to roll all of this out smoothly. I still need to re-set my auto-withdrawal.

Susan Pendergrass (12:56)
Yeah. It feels like we have to wait six months or a year to see what actually happens. Even the work requirements for SNAP and Medicaid were pushed out beyond the midterms. So while people are celebrating or panicking, a lot of this is still TBD.

Elias Tsapelas (13:26)
Yeah. And when people talk about “cuts,” especially to Medicaid, they’re mostly referring to ten-year projections. But a lot of the actual cuts are back-loaded. The benefits hit first—then the cuts. And some of those cuts may never happen. There’s also a big expansion of health savings accounts. People with bronze marketplace plans or direct primary care arrangements could use them, but rules still need to be written.

Susan Pendergrass (14:38)
I read there might be fewer subsidies, maybe higher premiums?

Elias Tsapelas (14:44)
Depends. There’s going to be a bill later this year to debate extending the enhanced COVID-era subsidies. But those subsidies created a kind of shadow market—shady dealers signing people up for plans they didn’t even know they had. About 2 million people were enrolled in multiple subsidized marketplace plans last year. So now there’s a push to reintroduce some “skin in the game.” But we’ll see what ends up mattering or going into effect.

Susan Pendergrass (16:04)
And our senator is already trying to undo parts of the bill he voted for.

Elias Tsapelas (16:08)
Yeah, especially the provider tax piece. That would help rein in spending, but the cuts don’t go into effect for several years—giving time for backtracking. If none of the pay-fors happen and only the expensive parts do, this bill just becomes even more costly.

Susan Pendergrass (17:08)
What does this bill, even optimistically, do to the federal deficit?

Elias Tsapelas (17:15)
I still need to see estimates, but we’re looking at adding at least $4 trillion to the deficit. Possibly more, depending on what’s made permanent.

Susan Pendergrass (17:53)
I thought Republicans cared about balanced budgets. This feels irresponsible. What do you think?

Elias Tsapelas (18:08)
It’s a lot easier to say you’re for fiscal responsibility than to actually do it. With Medicaid, people say cut waste—but cutting funding means cutting payments to hospitals, doctors, and nurses. And those tax cuts were always going to be extended. Every person taking the standard deduction is getting a bigger deduction. That costs money.

The real long-term budget problems are in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—none of which were addressed. So someone will have to get back to those eventually.

Susan Pendergrass (19:48)
Yeah. Social Security’s trust fund is going to run dry soon—maybe within 10 years. The numbers are so big, it starts to feel imaginary. People can’t wrap their heads around what it would take to have a balanced budget. Both parties just keep giving stuff away, so you’d be foolish to sit on the sidelines.

Elias Tsapelas (20:24)
Yeah—it’s just different groups they’re giving to. This bill was very expensive. And I think future efforts will make it even more so by eliminating what little cost savings exist.

Susan Pendergrass (21:03)
The SALT deduction, for example—capped at $10,000 in 2017, now up to $40,000. That’s a $30,000 swing. For Californians, that’s huge.

Elias Tsapelas (21:27)
Yeah, and the benefit mostly goes to higher-income people. Even in Missouri, some homeowners might benefit—but it mostly helps the coasts. And it gives high-tax states more room to raise taxes, since the federal deduction cushions the blow.

Susan Pendergrass (22:19)
Exactly. Crazy stuff. Well, I think we’ve covered a lot. I won’t make you come back again, but there’s so much detail—it’s not really what either side thinks it is.

Elias Tsapelas (22:45)
I agree. Especially with Medicaid and SNAP. And states will carry a big burden implementing this. Some will do it well, some will fight every piece. There’s going to be a lot of news as this all rolls out.

Susan Pendergrass (23:46)
Totally. Not directly related, but recently I’ve met people surprised by the real ID requirement. It’s been around for 10–15 years, and Missouri resisted it. Some states just don’t want to jump into federal programs.

Elias Tsapelas (24:04)
Yeah—I’ve seen signs about it at TSA forever. Always “effective in 3 months,” then postponed. But it finally happened.

Susan Pendergrass (24:11)
Right. And this summer, people are finally getting real IDs. Missouri was one of the last to implement it. So I don’t expect the state to jump on many of these changes either. But there’s still plenty of time to talk about it all again.

Elias Tsapelas (24:28)
Yes.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post One Big Beautiful Bill Breakdown, Part II with Elias Tsapelas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Earlier in the year, Rudi Keller wrote in the Missouri Independent:

Missouri will enter the new fiscal year Saturday in its best financial shape ever. But there are unmistakable signs that the massive surplus, now approaching $8 billion, has likely peaked.

Really? Is Missouri actually running a huge surplus? Are we taking in more than we owe?

No, no we are not.

In Truth in Accounting’s  (TIA) “Financial State of the States 2023,” Missouri ranked 25th. TIA gave Missouri a “C” grade and concluded: “Missouri would need $700 from each of its taxpayers to pay all of its outstanding bills.” Of particular concern to TIA was Missouri’s highest-ever unfunded debt to the Missouri State Employees’ Plan.

The reason for the disparity is due to how states account for debt. In cash-basis accounting, states merely account for the money they have on hand without considering their debts. If you and I were to budget like this, we’d count loans as income, ignore debt, and put off expenses until next year in order to claim a huge surplus now.

If you think that sounds criminal, you’re not alone. The IRS does not permit businesses with gross receipts exceeding $29 million for three years to use cash-basis accounting—but city and state governments may do so. As a result, according to the International Monetary Fund, “Governments have been tempted to exploit this weakness by deferring cash disbursements or bringing forward cash receipts as a means of artificially inflating their financial balance.” This is exactly what is happening in Missouri.

Governor Parson isn’t alone, sadly. Mayors and governors of both parties and all ideological stripes do the same thing. And journalists on deadline often repeat the claim without checking it. If such claims seem too good to be true, they probably are.

The post No, Missouri Is Not Running a Budget Surplus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The good news: progress has been made. According to data released last week, the May consumer price index (CPI) inflation rate came in at 4%, which is far less than the 9% peak from mid-2022. However, now is not the time to move the goalposts. For years, the Federal Reserve has said its inflation target is 2%, and the economy is running at twice that rate. By contrast, before passage of the American Rescue Plan Act stimulus bill in early 2021, the economy had consistently remained at or below 2% inflation for the better part of a decade and had not hit 9% in over four decades. It turns out that former Treasury Secretary and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers was spot on in spring 2021 when he warned that “I think this is the least responsible macroeconomic policy we’ve had in the last 40 years.”

What is the reason for falling inflation? One explanation can immediately be ruled out. No, the Inflation Reduction Act (a misnomer if there ever was one) did not defeat inflation. For one thing, inflation was already falling before the bill passed in August 2022. Secondly, many of the provisions of the law have yet to go into effect. In fact, the treasury department and IRS just released guidance on some of the significant provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act just last week—nearly a full year after the bill’s passage.

The idea that the Inflation Reduction Act was going to reduce inflation has always been implausible, seeing as its tax hike provisions constrain supply, and its supposed deficit reduction does not begin to take place until 2028. The law increases deficits in the years 2024–2027. More artificially stimulated demand and constrained supply is not a recipe for bringing down inflation. If anything, the Congressional Budget Office is likely taking an overly sanguine view by saying that the law will have a negligible effect on inflation.

Instead, the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes and the expiration of American Rescue Plan Act provisions are likely the key factors behind the decline in inflation. Broadly speaking, there are essentially two ways to bring down inflation: reduce spending demand or expand the supply of goods and services. The second approach is preferable in that it simultaneously allows for lower inflation and higher economic growth, but the types of regulatory and tax policy changes needed to expand supply would require consensus in Congress and the White House abandoning the anti-growth policy agenda pushed by many progressives.

The first approach (reducing demand) is what the Federal Reserve has pursued. As the Fed raises rates, borrowing becomes costlier, which makes it less attractive for consumers to purchase things like houses, vehicles, and appliances using credit. Higher interest rates also make saving more attractive. The result: consumers pull back demand. Similarly, the expiration of stimulus from the American Rescue Plan Act reduces overheated demand while the expiration of anti-work provisions removes part of the straitjacket imposed on supply.

Is the falling inflation a surprise? Prognosticators have been all over the map with their inflation forecasts during the past two years, but it ought not to be surprising that inflation would come down once the Federal Reserve finally began to take action and hike rates. At the beginning of the year, soon after the release of the December 2022 inflation data, I published a blog post with a forecast of where inflation might be headed in the first half of 2023. In the spirit of accountability, the figure above shows my inflation projection through May 2023 compared to how inflation has actually played out in reality.

The red (projection) and blue (actual) curves track each other remarkably well in 2023. In fact, my earlier blog post stated “topline year-over-year inflation readings are set to fall rapidly over the next several months—possibly even falling below 4% by early summer.” As a reminder: the May inflation rate came in at exactly 4%. Although my projections were mildly on the optimistic side, they have mostly held up.

Does that mean inflation is no longer a problem? Quite the contrary. The figure below shows that higher prices have essentially been locked in. The Federal Reserve is not even attempting to bring prices down. It is just trying to moderate the future pace of price increases to historic norms. Unfortunately, purchasing power is still more than 3% lower than it was at the beginning of 2021, as shown in the figure below. Until wages start to consistently outpace prices, workers will continue to suffer from the lingering effects of the inflation surge. Here, too, the economy faces serious headwinds, considering that labor productivity is on the decline. But addressing the low productivity crisis is a topic for another day.

Where do we go from here? There is no such thing as almost landing an airplane. You either land it, or you crash. In this case, the Federal Reserve has one task: to land inflation at 2% sooner rather than later. The longer it takes to achieve the 2% target, the less inflation-fighting credibility the Fed will have as people start to accept a persistently higher inflation rate as normal, which will make the Fed’s job even more difficult.

While the headline inflation number is moving rapidly in the right direction (and will likely continue to do so at least for one more month), some of the components of inflation are still concerning. In particular, core inflation (which excludes food and energy) is falling much more slowly. The latest core inflation rate from the CPI report is 5.3%, which is only modest progress from the 5.6% rate from the start of the year. One glimmer of hope is that housing costs have been a significant recent driver of inflation, but the data are lagging. Because most people who rent sign one-year leases, large rent increases from several months ago when conditions were different in the rental market still affect current inflation readings. As tenants begin to roll over into new leases, the data should adjust and likely show a slowdown in rent increases.

The bottom line is that the inflation picture has improved, but we are arguably entering a murkier phase over the next several months. The Federal Reserve made clear in its statement regarding pausing rates that it was likely not done raising rates. Rather, the pause is an opportunity for more data to come in to guide future actions. But one thing is clear: the mission is not yet accomplished.

The post Taking Stock of Inflation and the Recent Fed Pause appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What is the debt ceiling, and what would have happened had we not raised it?

The debt ceiling (or debt limit) is a legal limit on how much money the U.S. government is authorized to borrow. Once the country reaches this limit, the Treasury is not permitted to issue more debt.

Can we simply not raise the debt limit?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the federal government will run a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion in 2023 alone, with spending amounting to $6.4 trillion and revenue coming in at $4.8 trillion. Of the $6.4 trillion in spending, $4 trillion is for mandatory programs that operate without Congress needing to regularly reauthorize them (e.g., Social Security and Medicare), $1.7 trillion is discretionary spending, and $660 billion goes to interest payments. Balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit in one fell swoop would require essentially zeroing out discretionary spending or making instant, draconian cuts to mandatory programs. Given the deep fiscal hole that the federal government has put the country in, there was no real alternative to raising the debt ceiling.

If both sides agreed that the debt ceiling had to be raised, what were the negotiations about?

Historically, occasions when the government has reached the debt ceiling have produced negotiated agreements that both raise the ceiling and limit spending, as was the case with the Budget Control Act of 2011 during the Obama-Biden Administration. However, this time around, the White House insisted for months that it would not negotiate on any spending reforms as part of raising the debt ceiling.

Given the unsustainable fiscal path that the United States is on, the White House was essentially sending the message that the only way to avert a debt crisis now (by raising the debt ceiling) was to cement the current spending trajectory in place—and thereby increase the chance of a debt crisis down the road. The House of Representatives disagreed with this false choice between a debt crisis today and a debt crisis later and instead passed the Limit, Save, and Grow Act, which simultaneously raised the debt ceiling and slowed the trajectory of spending, among other reforms. Passage of this bill forced the White House to the table, abandoning its no-negotiations stance on spending reforms.

What is contained in the debt ceiling deal?

The debt ceiling deal contains a number of elements. First, it raises the debt ceiling through the end of 2024 and it establishes spending caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 that limit the growth of spending to 1% with tough enforcement provisions during the appropriations process, which is when Congress formally makes detailed, program-level spending decisions. In addition, the bill prescribes a 1% cap on spending growth through 2029. By way of comparison, the CBO projected an 8.1% jump in discretionary spending between 2024 and 2025, followed by average annual increases of 2.8% through 2033.

Besides affecting topline spending, the debt ceiling bill rescinds certain COVID-19 and IRS funds, expands work requirements for food stamps and welfare, and implements energy-permitting reforms to reduce delays from excessive and unresponsive bureaucracy.

What is the overall effect?

The CBO projects $1.5 trillion lower spending growth (or in Washington, DC parlance: cuts) because of the deal. Without the deal, discretionary spending would have risen from $1.7 trillion in 2023 to $2.4 trillion in 2033, whereas now the projection is for $2.2 trillion in discretionary spending in 2033.

To give further perspective, the figure below plots three different projections for the path of discretionary spending as a percentage of the country’s annual economic output. The blue dots are CBO projections made in fall 2019 under the previous administration and before COVID-19. The orange dots are CBO projections from this May, but before the debt ceiling deal. The red arrow showing the upward shift from the blue dots to the orange dots represents the persistent increase in discretionary spending under the current administration’s policy plans. The gray set of dots represent discretionary spending under the debt ceiling deal, with the green arrow showing the reduction relative to what was slated to occur before the deal.

As the figure makes clear, the debt ceiling deal essentially takes discretionary spending halfway back to the path it was set to follow before COVID-19 and the change in administration.

Figure 1: Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP. Source: Congressional Budget Office, Show-Me Institute calculations.

How should Missourians view this deal?

The United States faces a profound and troubling fiscal situation with its unsustainable spending levels, not to mention slow economic growth, declining productivity, and inflation that remains much too high. It is important to recognize that the country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Federal revenues are currently above historical average, but the reason deficits are so large is that spending as a share of GDP is higher than it has ever been over the past century except during peak COVID-19 and World War II. The debt ceiling bill does not fully reverse the spending increases of the past two years, but it represents a step in the right direction, especially compared to the White House’s previous no-negotiations spending stance.

Taking a step back, whereas the debt ceiling debate focused on discretionary spending, the vast majority of federal spending goes to mandatory programs, chiefly entitlements. The CBO projects that, absent reforms, federal spending will rise from 23.7% of GDP in 2023 to over 30% by 2053, annual deficits will more than double to over 11% of GDP, and the national debt will balloon to almost 200% of GDP. In this scenario, interest payments on the debt would triple as a share of the economy and would represent the single largest spending item for the U.S. government. Even this scenario is rosy in that it assumes an infinite willingness among investors to buy U.S. debt regardless of how dire the fiscal picture becomes—a rather implausible assumption that America would be wise not to test.

Going forward, much work remains to be done to right-size government and revitalize economic growth so that Americans can enjoy a more prosperous future free from the risk of steep tax hikes, crippling inflation, debt crises, and adversarial foreign governments buying up large quantities of government debt. The debt ceiling deal is by no means a cure to the country’s current fiscal ills, but it’s one step in the right direction, and the starting point for a much-needed national conversation.

The post Debt Ceiling Deal Q&A appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Republicans in the House of Representatives will vote on a bill that would abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), eliminate the national income tax and replace it with a national consumption tax.

Fox News Digital has learned that the House will be voting on Georgia Republican Rep. Buddy Carter’s reintroduced Fair Tax Act that aims to reel in the IRS and remove the national income tax, as well as other taxes, and replace them with a single consumption tax.

The vote on the bill was made as part of the deal between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and members of the House Freedom Caucus and was pushed forward in his quest for the gavel last week.

Am I saying there’s a chance?! No, not really. The Senate and the president will almost certainly reject abolishing the income tax, and it’s not entirely clear that even the House has the votes to pass it through the chamber. Then there’s the sticky issue of repealing the 16th Amendment, which enabled the national income tax; if this law were to pass, you’d need to repeal the amendment so that we won’t someday end up with both a sales tax and a renewed income tax! Details, details.

But is a national move away from the income tax the right idea? Undoubtedly. Income taxes are destructive to growth at all levels of government, and as Institute analysts press for the elimination of Missouri’s income taxes, our federal counterparts should consider similar tax reductions and reform. Whether this latest effort is the best approach or even has a snowball’s chance of success remains to be seen, but I’m glad the conversation is at least being had. It’s overdue.

The post Federal Lawmakers to Consider (Longshot) Income Tax Repeal Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Wind and solar power received the most subsidies in absolute terms, receiving $37 and $34 billion, respectively. When broken down by subsidies relative to the amount of electricity produced, the results are staggering.

The report concluded that wind and solar producers received nearly as much money from subsidies as they did from selling their electricity on wholesale markets.

The report does not provide state-level data, but Missouri is no stranger to these subsidies. While not having much solar power, Missouri has several wind plants. In addition to the Lost Creek wind farm that received $107 million in subsidies from the 2009 federal stimulus bill, numerous wind plants are recipients of the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), which is the biggest provider of wind energy subsidies in the nation.

The PTC reimburses wind power producers between $15 and $24 per megawatt hour of electricity generated over a period of ten years. The PTC has been extended several times since its inception in 1992. However, it is being phased out and is set to expire at the end of 2020, although IRS rules effectively stretch this to 2022.

The latest Missouri plans to claim more subsidies is a $1 billion taxpayer-funded wind power expansion by Ameren. Construction will begin in time to claim the last of the PTC, a consideration that Ameren noted helped speed up the construction schedule.

The Energy Information Administration, the data branch of the federal Department of Energy, has repeatedly predicted a near cessation of new wind plant construction once the PTC expires. As Warren Buffett, himself the owner of several wind farms, has said: “without the production tax credit” he wouldn’t build them. “They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

As the PTC expires, we shouldn’t replace it with a state-level program. Missouri borders tornado alley—the nation’s best region for wind power—and it’s time for the wind industry to compete without subsidies and mandates.

The post New Report Highlights Excessive Energy Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 1986, the federal government enacted the LIHTC program with the second round of President Reagan’s tax cuts. The idea was simple: provide a supply-side incentive to make housing more affordable. LIHTC represented a new approach to government-funded housing policy. Instead of directly subsidizing the rents of low-income individuals, the program forgoes future federal tax revenues to incentivize developers to build more housing. And in exchange for the tax credits, the developers must agree to reserve a portion of the subsidized units for low-income tenants and to cap rents for low-income tenants for thirty years.

Each year, the Internal Revenue Service allocates federal LIHTCs across all 50 states based on population. It is then the responsibility of each state’s housing agency to distribute those credits for approved projects. Last year, Missouri was allocated $2.75 per full-time resident from the federal government, which translated to $17 million in tax credits available for new projects. But not every project is eligible for the same amount of tax relief. Within the federal program, there are actually two types of tax credits: one for new construction projects and another for rehabilitations. The credits for new construction are the most popular, and can cover up to 90% of all construction costs over 10 years. The rehabilitation tax credits are less lucrative and cover closer to 40% of construction costs over the same period.

Awarding tax credits for the cost of construction lowers the investment required by the project developers, but not in the way you’d expect. Developers rarely use the credits to build housing directly; instead, developers typically sell the tax credits to independent investors at a discount to finance the originally approved project. The project’s investors then use the credits as dollar-for-dollar reductions in their business or individual income tax liability over the following 10 years.

And the way Missouri has implemented its state LIHTC program has made things worse. In response to claims from developers that the federal program alone cannot make projects profitable, Missouri’s LIHTC program fully matches each federal credit dollar for dollar with a state credit.

Over a series of upcoming blog posts, I’ll discuss how the LIHTC program as described fundamentally fails to effectively or efficiently improve Missouri’s affordable housing landscape.

The post LIHTC 101: Program Basics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Witness an incredible turn of events:

We now hear the proudly progressive governors of California and New York howling in outrage at the removal of a substantial tax break for those at the highest level of income – the top 10 percent, and, especially, the top one percent.

Under the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that went into effect on Jan. 1, taxpayers may no longer count all of their state and local income tax payments, plus property taxes, as deductible expenses on their federal returns. The new law caps the deductibility of these state and local taxes (the so-called SALT deduction) at $10,000 per taxpayer. What follows is a rough calculation of how the cap will impact people at several different levels of income (focusing only on California, where local income taxes are not as important a factor as they are in New York, and disregarding property taxes).

Based on California income tax tables, a couple earning $150,000 in 2018 will owe $8,797 to the state of California – with the consolation of knowing that every cent will be deductible. The couple will save about $2,000 on their federal return.

A tipping point occurs at $164,000 in adjusted gross income. Exceeding that, a California couple filing jointly runs out of cap room and gets no further benefit from the SALT deduction.

The top one percent in California starts at about $500,000, according to the latest available data from the Internal Revenue Service. With that income, an entry-level couple in the one percent club will owe $41,347 to the state. Since all but $10,000 of the state tax is nondeductible under the new law, it has the effect of bumping up the adjusted gross income on their federal return by $31,347. Applying the top federal rate of 37 percent to that sum, the couple will owe an additional $11,598 to Uncle Sam.

The average income for families in the top one percent in California is $1.6 million, or more than three times the starting income. So how does the “average” ultra-rich family fare under the new tax regime? In 2018 it will owe $165,072 to the state – with a whopping $155,072 no longer counting as a deductible expense. Consequently, the family will take a hit of a little more than $57,000 in what it owes to Uncle Sam.

In a nutshell, the top one percent of filers in California are about to lose a huge tax break. No longer will they be able to reap one dollar in federal tax savings for every three or four dollars going to the state government.

No wonder the governors of the two states are worried. At 13.3 percent, California has the highest marginal income tax rate of all the states. New York State’s top rate is 8.82 percent, and that jumps to 12.7 percent in New York City. Each state garners nearly 50 percent of its total income tax revenues from the top one percent of earners.

Who has compensated for the outsized deductions that the highly paid denizens of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street have been able to claim on their federal returns due to exceptionally high state and local taxes?

Taxpayers in low-tax states and less affluent regions have done so. In the process, they have helped to subsidize the growth in public spending that has occurred in Sacramento, Albany, and New York City.

The situation will soon change. In early 2019, when people file their local, state, and federal tax returns for the 2018 tax year, the cross-subsidies, of a reverse Robin Hood nature, will largely disappear.

At the same time, taxpayers outside the top ten percent of filers will appreciate the positive impact of a near doubling in the standard deduction – to $12,000 for individuals and to $24,000 for couples. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., a married couple with two children and a combined adjusted income of $85,000 will reap a $2,254 tax savings in 2018 as a result of provisions in the new law.

So, what about the vociferous complaints coming from progressives, who say that the new law only serves to make the rich richer and does nothing to help working people?

But the tax tables tell an entirely different story.

The post Tax Reform and Tax Hypocrisy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Between January 1 and December 31 of 2016, Atlas reports that 1,062 households left Missouri and 989 households moved in. A similar tale is told using the data from United Van Lines: Of the 4,362 total moves made in 2016, 2,256 were outbound and 2,106 were inbound. Although the numbers are close, it is still true that on net more Missouri households are deciding to leave the state.

The United study is valuable because it breaks down the total number of into reasons for moving, and they disaggregate the data by income and age. In terms of reasons for moving, not surprisingly the vast majority of households move because of jobs. Sixty-two percent of those moving out cited job-related reasons, and 60 percent of those moving into the state did so because of work. The second highest category was “family,” with about 20 percent inbound and outbound choosing that reason for the move.

The income and age characteristics of those moving are more revealing. The table below breaks down of inbound and outbound moves by income (left-hand side of table) and age (right-hand side of table). The data suggest that those in the highest income ranks—incomes exceeding $100,000—were, in 2016, net out-migrants: more left Missouri than moved in. This accords with earlier results: Michael Rathbone and I found that, based on IRS data, those who moved out of Missouri tended to be higher income individuals.

When age is the common denominator, it appears that in-migration in 2016 is concentrated in the younger age groups (those younger than 44). Of those between the ages of 45 and 64, prime wage-earning years according to a New York Federal Reserve study, there was a net migration out of Missouri, however. And for the 65-plus age group, it is essentially a wash: just about as many moving out as moving in.

This 2016 data builds on the prevailing story that Missouri’s residents continue to reveal their preferences and, on net, seek other, more attractive economic environments. 

The post Was It Something We Said? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2014, Missouri saw record dollars in exports of goods. In addition, the state has enjoyed high levels of exports since 2012. Growth like this shows a strengthening ability of Missouri businesses to provide goods to consumers outside of the state. In return, it brings new money and investment to Missouri that can foster more private sector growth. On the net, Missouri saw a trade deficit of goods to the tune of 4.2 billion dollars. However, this is also a positive, because if Missourians buy more goods and services than they sell, then Missourians are promoting more outside investment in Missouri.

OK, so have you had time to reflect? Missouri’s most valuable export is . . . people. According to the IRS, Missouri is also seeing near-record exports of people. In 2014, nearly 65,000 tax filers left Missouri to live somewhere else. In fact, Missouri has been exporting more than 60,000 persons a year since 2011. Moreover, unlike exporting goods, exporting people could restrict Missouri’s economic performance.

If exports of people were counted and ranked among Missouri’s total exports, it would be the largest-valued loss in the state. This is because when people leave, they take their income with them.

(Source: Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration).

In 2014, exports of people took a potential 3.4 billion dollars out of the economy. That amounts to about 24% of the benefit Missouri gets from exporting goods. In terms of net migration, the number and income of those fleeing residents is strong enough to eclipse what we get from incoming residents by around 4,700 returns, or 309 million dollars of income.

Missouri’s economic environment, whether it’s tied to taxes or regulations, is costing us the very thing that their growing goods exports are supposed to reel in: people and their income. While strong exports of goods is a positive sign, Missouri exporting too many people can become a drag on the economy if not addressed.

The post Missouri’s Most Valuable Export Continues to Grow. . . . and That’s Not a Good Thing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When I say the story is familiar, I’m not kidding. Have a look at the table at the end of this post, which reports household migration data for Missouri and its neighboring states since the end of the Great Recession. An outbound figure over 50 percent indicates that there are more moves out of than into the state.

Not only has Missouri experienced a net loss of households over the 5-year period, but it did not have a single positive year during that time. In this context, consistency is hardly a virtue.

The Atlas report provides the newest evidence of the difficulty Missouri has had in keeping residents here and attracting people from other states, but Atlas’s data makes up just one voice among a growing chorus. Others include data from the Census Bureau, the IRS’s Statistics of Income, and even data from another moving company (United Van Lines).

In an earlier analysis, Michael Rathbone and I found that all of these studies sing a song we should be tired of hearing: Missouri households are voting with their feet and seeking other, more attractive economic environments.

Source: Atlas Van Lines Migration Patterns, 2016.

The post So Long, Farewell . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Statistics of Income Division (SOI) of the Internal Revenue Service publishes data that allow researchers to track migration patterns between states and Washington, D.C. The data just released by the IRS indicate that for the tax year 2012–2013, Missouri continued to lose income and residents to other states.

Missouri experienced a net outflow of adjusted gross income (AGI) based on individual tax forms filed. On net, over $61 million in income left the state in 2012–2013.Which states where the major recipients of our income? The left-hand panel of the table below provides the answer. (A complete ranking using all 50 states can be downloaded from the IRS website.)

Kansas, ninth on the list of where Missouri residents have (on net) relocated, is the number one destination state to which Missouri income fled. In 2012–2013, over $165 million in AGI found a new home in Kansas. Is it possible that tax cuts in Kansas had a bigger initial effect than many thought? This question is a clearly a worthy subject for future research.

Missouri also experienced a net outflow of total exemptions (i.e., tax filers and dependents) to other states in 2012–2013.Where did these 3,232 individuals go? The right-hand panel of the table below shows the top five destination states. (Again, a complete ranking using all 50 states is available at the IRS website.) Of the states to which Missouri has lost net population, Texas and Florida (both zero income tax states) are the top destination states, just as they were in 2010–2011.

The post Income and Money Flee Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But the pain may not hit customers in the price tag alone. Indeed, many Obamacare insurance purchasers are subsidized by the government on the basis of their income, meaning that even when the price of insurance goes up, those consumers usually don't bear the brunt of the hike—the taxpayers subsidizing them do.

At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

According to an update on Obamacare that the IRS recently sent to Congress, out of the 4.5 million taxpayers who got Obamacare's "advance payment" subsidies last year, only 2.7 million had filed the required tax forms as of the end of this May.

The rest filed for an extension (360,000), haven't filed at all (710,000), or didn't submit (760,000) the new ObamaCare form—Form 8962—that's required to make sure they got the right subsidy amount.

These 1.8 million taxpayers actually represent 2.8 million individuals, according to the IRS, because one taxpayer can file on behalf of his or her spouse and children.

In other words, taxpayers who have not filed the proper paperwork for their subsidies—or those whose income has moved them out of the subsidy range—might not only lose that money next year, but also have to return subsidies they have already received incorrectly. And in case you were wondering whether the government would really demand subsidy money back, rest assured: it's already happening. Not only could subsidized consumers see hikes in their insurance rates for insurance they're now forced to buy, but they could suddenly experience those costs without the financial insulation that had been provided to them by the government. 

Rather than simplify America's already complicated health care system, Obamacare made it even more complex, and that hurts the poor and those unaware of how this Rube Goldberg–style law operates. That complexity could lead to a new round of negative financial consequences for millions of Americans in the months ahead.

The post Tax Man Cometh: Obamacare Subsidies Pose Risk for Millions of Tax Filers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But even in an aspiring liberal utopia like Columbia, the consequences of overbearing government are still very real. Enter the IRS, two weeks ago.

Graduate students employed by the University of Missouri will have a harder time paying for health insurance after the university told students Friday it is taking away subsidies that help with premium costs.

Associate Vice Chancellor for Graduate Studies Leona Rubin said the change is the result of a recent IRS interpretation of a section of the Affordable Care Act. The law, which requires adults to have health insurance or face tax penalties, “prohibits businesses from providing employees subsidies specifically for the purpose of purchasing health insurance from individual market plans,” the university said in a letter sent to students Friday.

The IRS, Rubin said, considers the university’s student health insurance plan from Aetna to be an “individual market plan.” Because of the IRS classification, the university cannot give graduate students with assistantships a subsidy to help with health insurance costs, Rubin said.

According to Rubin, the University “could be fined $36,500 per student per year” if it continues its health insurance subsidy program…which makes it even more strange that the University apparently restored the subsidies in question last week.

It remains to be seen whether the threatened fine noted by the associate vice chancellor was a paper tiger meant to provide cover for cost cutting on Mizzou’s part or if that enormous fine is still actually on the horizon. The University of Missouri–St. Louis (UMSL), which took similar action in stopping insurance subsidies of its own, is sticking by its original decision to end its program. And it’s part of a national trend, thanks to Obamacare and the IRS. Keep in mind: while Mizzou has reversed its decision, the IRS certainly hasn’t changed its interpretation.

There’s a sad irony involved here, of course, when a university community generally supportive of big government is itself undermined by big government. And there’s lots to criticize: the credibility gap facing Mizzou’s administration, the timing of the announcement, the threatened walk-out by the graduate students, and so on.

But one of the most disturbing elements of this story is how disruptive Obamacare has been to a health care practice that, by most accounts, was working just fine, and the swift manner in which unaccountable federal bureaucrats were able to upend it nationwide. That a law passed 5 years ago is still changing without legislation is great cause for concern—not only for our health care, but for our democracy, as well. This is a teachable moment, but there’s no telling whether Missouri’s universities will learn from it.

The post IRS Obamacare Ruling Buffets Some Missouri Graduate Students appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you’re short on time, however, the case deals with what happens when a state declines to set up an insurance exchange under Obamacare, forcing the federal government to do so instead. Here’s the big question in King: Does the Affordable Care Act (ACA) block federal subsidies from going to insurance plans purchased in government exchanges that were not, as the law says, “established by the State”? If the answer is yes, it could simultaneously take subsidies away from millions of insurance plans and protect millions of taxpayers from the law’s mandates. It’d be a body blow to the law.

Why would Congress condition subsidies on states building their own exchanges? The answer is reasonably straightforward: Congress didn’t want the burden of creating exchanges to be on the federal government—that is, Healthcare.gov—and thought offering the subsidy as a carrot would get states to do the heavy lifting. Congress never thought the federal government would be running the exchanges for basically two-thirds of the country, as it’s doing today. Healthcare.gov’s rollout disaster was part and parcel of this miscalculation by Congress.

Supporters of Obamacare now contend the “established by the State” language was a drafting error, but there is lots of evidence that runs against that claim. The state exchange “carrot” strategy had appeared in prior, contemporaneous bills that were combined to form the ACA—suggesting that at least some legislators were well aware of the system they were creating. In fact, in the years that followed, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber famously repeated what the consequences of states not building their own exchanges would be:

With most states declining to create their own exchanges, the Internal Revenue Service then wrote rules that would extend the federal subsidies not only to exchanges “established by the State,” but also to federal exchanges. The problem is that since the federal subsidies are the basis for penalties that, thanks to the IRS, would suddenly apply to tens of millions of Americans in states that didn’t create exchanges, those subsidies could be an illegal tax. Thus, we have the King litigation.

After Wednesday’s oral arguments, we’ll likely see a decision handed down on the case sometime this summer. How will it turn out? We’ll keep you posted.

The post King v. Burwell: A Quick Preview appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Our earlier analysis used information provided by Atlas Van Lines and United Van Lines. These moving companies track outbound and inbound moves for all states. Calculating the ratio of outbound moves to total moves provides a rough gauge of whether more households are relocating into or out of a state.

Both companies recently published their findings for 2014. The table below reports the ratio of outbound to total moves for Missouri and its neighboring states. The evidence from Atlas Van Lines shows that more households moved out of Missouri (55.5 percent of total moves) than in. United Van Line’s 2014 National Movers Study also finds that outbound moves exceeded inbound moves.

Here are two aspects about these numbers. First, they prolong a trend that began several years ago: more households moving out of Missouri than moving in. Second, in 2014 Missouri’s percent of outbound moves exceeded that of most neighboring states. The Atlas report found that the percent of outbound moves was lower in six states relative to Missouri. Five states had relatively fewer outbound moves than Missouri, according to the United study.

“Relying on data sources as varied as moving companies to the Census Bureau and the IRS,” Rathbone and I noted, “our evidence reveals that, especially since 2007, more of Missouri’s residents have relocated out of the state than others have moved in.” Updating the moving company figures does not alter that conclusion.

The post Still Movin’ On Out appeared first on Show-Me Institute.