Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to break down the final week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. They discuss the constitutional amendment heading to voters that would begin the process of eliminating Missouri’s state income tax, where property tax reform efforts stand heading into the final days, the early literacy bill’s uncertain path through the Senate, the legislature’s approach to A through F school report cards, what the state budget does and does not get right, the Ferguson city council’s rejection of a major data center tax subsidy, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Zach Lawhorn (00:00): Welcome to the Show-Me Institute podcast. I’m Zach Lawhorn from Show-Me Opportunity. Today I’m joined by Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes from the Show-Me Institute. It is the last week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. Today we’re going to go through what has crossed the finish line, mostly what has not crossed the finish line, and see what these guys think about the possibility of that happening here in the home stretch. Elias, we’ll begin with something that has crossed the finish line, and that is the start of a discussion about phasing out Missouri’s state income tax. Legislation did pass. It goes to the governor, and he gets to decide when it goes on the ballot. So what do we know right now, what passed, and what are Missouri voters going to be asked sometime in the fall?

Elias Tsapelas (00:50): By May 22nd, the governor needs to decide whether this constitutional amendment will go on the August or November ballot. What it says, essentially, is to Missouri voters: do you want to start the process of getting rid of Missouri’s income tax? It comes with three main components. The first piece is the legislature will be required to enact legislation that would get rid of the state’s income tax based on revenue growth. Once that income tax is gone, it cannot be reinstituted. Previous versions of this bill had some details lined out about how the income tax rate would be cut based on revenue growth, but in later versions this was stripped back to just the legislature will decide this later. The other two pieces say you will also be authorizing the legislature to expand the state sales tax base, meaning the things the state sales tax applies to. This could also involve changing the rate, because right now Missouri’s constitution does not allow the state legislature to expand the sales tax to anything that was not taxed in 2015. But this does come with a guardrail: if the legislature does change the state sales tax, it has to be done in a revenue neutral fashion. So expanding the sales tax base or raising the rate to bring in additional tax revenues has to go towards lowering the state income tax. That gives the legislature the authority to change how much revenue comes in, which would speed up the process for getting rid of the income tax. The last piece is a component for local governments. If the state changes the number of things that the sales tax applies to, this would also increase revenues to local governments. Those additional revenues would have to go towards a list of other taxes that would be lowered. In places like St. Louis and Kansas City, that would go towards lowering the earnings tax. For other local governments, they get to choose whether it goes towards lowering the sales tax, property tax, personal property taxes, or real property taxes. The key piece being revenue neutral. This is not going to be a windfall for anyone. It is basically the start of a discussion, because they don’t say what the rate might need to go to, what the sales tax could be expanded to, or what revenues would trigger income tax elimination or cuts. This is just the start of the discussion, giving the legislature the authority to keep moving in the direction we started around 2014.

Zach Lawhorn (03:57): Taking those a piece at a time: the first one, if it passes and the income tax is eliminated at some point, it cannot come back. That seems pretty straightforward. The next two seem like responses to opposition that we hear on a regular basis. The first being the revenue triggers, which seem designed to prevent what we often hear about with Kansas, where they cut the income tax without cutting spending, leading to revenue shortfalls. And the expansion of the sales tax base seems like protection against having to raise the sales tax rate on goods. Do I have that right?

Elias Tsapelas (04:40): Yes. The revenue trigger piece is basically what Missouri has been doing for a while, waiting to see how much revenue we have before lowering the income tax by that amount. We’ve been doing that for over a decade now and have lowered the top individual income tax rate from 6% to 4.7%. We’re just continuing down that path to be sure we don’t create some enormous budget hole. Now, when you look at the sales tax, Missouri has a very complicated, out-of-date sales tax system. The state sales tax rate is 4.225%, but when you go to the store you’re paying something significantly higher, largely due to local governments and a lot of special taxing districts. Missouri also has a lot of sales tax exemptions. Missouri really needs a full look at its entire sales tax system. But economically, when thinking about switching a state from being primarily funded by income taxes to something closer to sales taxes, the best way to fund a state is to tax as broad a base as possible so you can have the lowest rate possible. You want to be taxing final consumption, not business inputs. As we start the idea of transferring to more of a consumption tax in Missouri, the goal is to make sure it doesn’t become a tax increase for some people while things change elsewhere. It’s trying to keep it level the whole way, and at least right now it seems like a pretty neutral proposal going forward.

Zach Lawhorn (06:24): David, for people who don’t think about taxes as a corresponding tax system, can you explain the idea of local governments rolling back certain taxes and how people might experience that on their property tax bills or personal property tax bills?

David Stokes (06:44): It’s trickier than you might think, but it’s vital that it be done right. If you expand the sales tax base at the state level, as Elias discussed, you don’t want local governments to start collecting significantly more sales tax revenue for no reason. At the state level we’ll do something good with that and phase out the income tax, but at the local government level we don’t want just more revenue with nothing to spend it on. You need tax relief for citizens, which is why they’re going to require rollbacks. They’ve given local governments some options in how you roll that rate back, which is a good thing, but they need to give them a few more options. For example, they said you could roll back property taxes, real property taxes, personal property taxes, or sales taxes. A few things that need to be considered: many municipalities don’t have a property tax, so they won’t be able to roll back the property tax. And it’s trickier to roll back sales taxes than you might think. Unlike property taxes and income taxes, which can be reduced in small increments, sales taxes have to be done in set increments. You can’t go from a 1% sales tax to a 0.92% sales tax. It’s just not allowed and would be incredibly difficult for retailers to implement. So local governments need even more flexibility in how they roll back taxes. I would say the utility tax, which just about every county imposes, is a great option to add to the choice mix for rollbacks. These are the sales taxes that can be placed on utilities, which unlike other sales taxes can be rolled back in small increments. That’s a very good option. The biggest challenge of all, though, is the special taxing districts that Elias mentioned earlier, such as transportation development districts and community improvement districts. These usually only have sales taxes and nothing else. You have to address what they do if their sales tax collections go up 30% and they have no legal way to roll it back by that same amount. So we need to adjust that. I would also hope that part of this whole deal would be a substantial cap on how these special taxing districts like TDDs and CIDs operate in the first place, to really restrict their continued expansion in Missouri, which has been very harmful. Those are just a few ideas out of many in how local governments are going to have to address this.

Zach Lawhorn (09:59): Finally, Elias, as you said, it’ll be on the ballot sometime in the fall. But between now and either August or November, people interested in this topic are going to see a lot of data, modeling, estimates, and projections. We want to be honest about what we can know and what we cannot know. With the legislation that has passed now, what should people keep in mind when they see some of these estimates or models or projections this summer?

Elias Tsapelas (10:39): The first thing is, if you see anything claiming this is going to generate a tremendous budget shortfall or major harm to local governments, this thing is set up to be revenue neutral. This is not something that is going to create enormous holes. Most of the time, estimates that reach that conclusion assume this would work in an entirely different way than what is allowed. So that is something you don’t necessarily need to worry about. What people are more reasonably worried about is: if you empower the legislature to expand or raise the sales tax, how is that going to impact everyone? Missouri’s state and local combined sales tax rates are relatively high already. The state’s portion is pretty low, but combined it’s relatively high. So what the state decides to do in terms of how much it expands the sales tax base, whether that involves more services versus goods, will impact different people differently, in different parts of the state and at different income levels. Anything right now that says this is definitely going to be bad for X person, we just can’t know that, because there’s not enough information out there. Everyone should keep an open mind and also recognize that the reason for this amendment and this proposal is that Missouri’s economy is falling behind. We are falling behind our neighbors in terms of tax competitiveness, and the only way to change that is to improve Missouri’s tax standing. Our sales tax system is incredibly broken, so this is something that is going to need to be fixed. At least right now we are at the point of asking: do we want to go down this path? Let’s hope the legislature does a good job. We’ll be shining a light on whatever they do, but we can’t know some of the things that people are warning about right now.

Zach Lawhorn (12:50): David, after the legislature got the income tax bills out the door, they shifted to talking about property taxes, which is something we hear a lot about. People want property tax reform. With only a few days left in the session, where do those efforts stand and what are your thoughts?

David Stokes (13:11): Unlike a lot of the property tax changes of the past few years, I actually like the property tax changes being proposed this year. At least one property tax bill is in conference committee being debated between the House and Senate right now. Another major bill has passed out of the Senate but hasn’t made it through the House yet. I’m told there are going to have to be some compromises on both sides to get a bill across the finish line, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The biggest change this year, which seems very much in the weeds but is significant, would take the way property taxes are imposed in St. Louis County and apply it to the rest of the state. St. Louis County has different tax rates for all the different types of property: residential, agricultural, commercial, and personal property, which includes your car, boat, farm equipment, livestock, and the like. Those rates adjust differently as assessments go up and down each year. This approach was originally intended to be extended to the rest of the state about 20 years ago when they did it in St. Louis County, but the following year they came back and said the rest of the state didn’t have to do it. It’s a good idea. It might sound strange to some people, but a good example of why it would be beneficial came from stories in the St. Louis Business Journal about the real decline in commercial property values in the city of St. Louis over the past year. Because they set one tax rate measured under one unified property value, residential homeowners in St. Louis end up making up with their taxes for the decline in commercial property. In St. Louis County, with the siloed tax rates, if commercial property goes down, the commercial property tax rate will go up to offset that instead of passing it on to homeowners. In rural Missouri, which has so much agricultural property, this would allow agricultural property tax rates to increase to fund goods in rural areas without as dramatically impacting commercial and residential property. I think this is a good idea and I hope it passes. There are also some good amendments that would put taxpayer protections in place to avoid the temptation of local officials to target commercial property with these new different tax rates. It’s in the weeds, but I think these are good changes this year.

Zach Lawhorn (16:24): That sounds like the other side of the coin from what’s happened in Jackson County, where over the last few years people have been very upset that their assessments have gone up by more than 20% and residential homeowners have seen gigantic leaps in their property taxes. Is this kind of like having to turn one knob one way and another knob the other way?

David Stokes (16:55): Sort of. The tricky part is that the situation in Jackson County for the past 10 years has been so bad, it’s hard to compare it to other counties. It’s been uniquely horrible for the people of Jackson County. But it does start with one basic truth: 15 to 20 years ago, Jackson County was under-assessed. The assessor was ordered to increase the valuations because they were improperly low, and probably artificially and intentionally low. The right approach would have been to raise those assessed valuations to more accurate totals while lowering the rates at the same time to avoid crushing people with higher taxes. But Jackson County’s taxing entities have not really done that, starting with the Kansas City 33 school district, a very large school district in Kansas City, which is the only taxing body in Missouri exempt from rolling back rates as values increase. So you’ve seen these giant increases within that school district and they don’t even have to roll back rates. They just get to keep their same rates, as they have frequently over the past 10 years. So people are getting walloped. And then you throw in the fact that the Kansas City Assessor’s Office has done a terrible job managing the process year after year, not hitting deadlines for notifying people about changes and not properly running the appeals process. It’s just been a terrible system in Jackson County, and almost uniquely so.

Zach Lawhorn (18:30): All right. Before we have Elias read the budget line by line, Avery, I want to get an update on the education items here in the last week of the session. Early literacy, the reading bill, we’ve been talking about it all session long. How’s it looking?

Avery Frank (18:47): When it first passed out of the House before spring break, 131 to 10, I was genuinely excited. It wasn’t necessarily that it passed so early; it was that it passed with such little resistance and such bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. Teaching our students how to read, giving every student the best chance to become a confident, capable reader, that seems like common sense and a goal that everyone wants to work toward to help our state improve and perhaps become the next Mississippi. It looked that way before spring break, but the Senate version of the early literacy bill got filibustered and set aside. The House bill has made it through the process and is on the informal calendar for third reading, so it could be taken up at any time. If it does pass the Senate, I anticipate it would easily pass the House again. But that is the problem with a lot of education legislation: can it pass the Senate? There have been different concerns about the early literacy bills. Some people are concerned that the MAP test, or the Missouri Assessment Program, which we use to test all of our students, is not a good measure and we shouldn’t be basing anything on it. Some are concerned with third-grade retention and whether it actually helps, looking at states like Mississippi and noting that while fourth-grade scores are great, eighth-grade scores have only improved a little. Those are the main pushbacks we’re seeing. I would still say this is something we really need to do. The early literacy bill is built on two different pillars. The first is a mandatory third-grade retention policy. Missouri already tests all K through third-grade students with a reading screener to see how they’re doing with reading. What this bill would do is set a passing score for those screeners. If students don’t meet that score, they would be retained in third grade, because reading is such a foundational skill. If you don’t know how to read, that’s something worth holding back for, to make sure students get it down before moving on for the rest of their educational career. Students would still have the opportunity to retake the screener, and there would be good-cause exemptions for students with disabilities, for students who have been held back previously, and for English language learners. The second main pillar is reforming our teacher preparation programs. In 2023, the National Council on Teacher Quality conducted a survey of all of our universities and teacher preparation programs and found that half of them received an F in teaching the science of reading, which is the best evidence-based way to teach students to read. The early literacy bill would align our teacher prep programs with those best practices. If they don’t do it, they can’t certify teachers. You can see how there could be pushback and reason why people would filibuster or not want it to come to the floor. That’s where it stands right now. I’m hoping people set aside their objections and recognize that this is a great first step to get Missouri back on track. Our reading scores have been really poor, especially after the pandemic. They continue to decrease and have not bounced back at all. They’re lower now than they were the first year after the pandemic, and we have to turn things around. These early literacy bills, I hope people see the common sense in them.

Zach Lawhorn (22:30): It’s not even the perfect being the enemy of the good. It’s just people being afraid to push back against the status quo. Missouri has fallen back in reading test scores, and other states, most notably Mississippi, have found ways to improve. I don’t think it’s helpful to frame this as some kind of radical moonshot. In the final days of the session, the urgency cannot be overstated. The other thing we’ve talked about a lot this session is A through F report cards, a transparency measure. Governor Kehoe issued an executive order before the session started. What’s the status of the legislature trying to adhere to the governor’s executive order?

Avery Frank (23:19): The legislature has tried to legislate its own way into how the executive order gets implemented, because DESE, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, could implement it in their own way. The legislature wants to determine how things are going to be scored instead of letting DESE make that decision. There’s been a lot of back and forth, and a lot of different interested parties. Not to get too in the weeds, but some districts really want academic achievement, their base score on the Missouri Assessment Program, to be weighed the most heavily because that would give them the highest score. Some want growth to be weighed the most heavily for the same reason. Some want basically no grades and a lot more qualitative information. There are a lot of different factors. The best vehicle for A through F report cards right now looks like Senate Bill 1351, which continues the long legacy of education omnibus bills used in recent years in Missouri. It combines the report card, limits on screen time for young students, and a couple of other things. I’m not sure if that’s going to make it past, to be honest. People are still concerned about whether the Missouri Assessment Program is something they want to base all of this on. Personally, I think the executive order is better than the legislation as it currently stands. They got rid of one aspect I liked as a researcher: in Governor Kehoe’s executive order, there was a penalty if districts didn’t report their data properly. In the current legislation, Senate Bill 1351, if districts don’t report sufficient data, it’s just written as an aside, basically saying they have to note on their report card that there is not sufficient data, and then they’re not included in the ranking as much. I don’t like that. It gives districts, especially poorly performing ones, an incentive not to report their data so they can have this qualifier on all of their report cards. I also don’t like it because, from all the education research I’ve been doing, we really do have a data reporting problem and we need to be a lot better about transparency. I hope we get some good report cards, because right now at the Show-Me Institute we do our best with the data we have, but we have to work with unsuppressed data, meaning we don’t have data that could potentially identify certain students. So there are some districts we have no data on because they’re so small. But DESE and the state have the best data possible. They could make a really good report card even better than we could, because they have better data than we do. That’s why I’m really hoping we get a good report card, because it would be very helpful for all the parents, legislators, and researchers across the state to see which districts are doing well and learn from them, and which ones are doing poorly and need more support.

Zach Lawhorn (26:42): Let’s talk about the budget. Elias, the legislature passed the budget a little early this year. They beat the deadline by a couple of days, right?

Elias Tsapelas (26:53): They finished early, which is a little bit different than the last few years.

Zach Lawhorn (26:56): Are we spending more or less money than last year?

Elias Tsapelas (27:01): Spending less, but I’m not throwing them a party. There’s just a lot less federal money going around. There was a lot of COVID money in recent years, and Missouri hasn’t spent all of it. The current budget this year is about $54 billion. What the legislature passed is a little bit less than $50 billion, depending on whether you count different construction items. But there was a lot of federal money in that total. At the end of the day, what we’re looking at is a budget that is still going to spend more general revenue, where our income and sales tax dollars go. It’s still going to spend more than we expect to bring in. So we’re still going to exhaust all of our surplus that we built up over those years. There were some positive things that happened this year, but ultimately part of how they got the budget done early was by spending just a little bit more, so they left some of the good on the table.

Zach Lawhorn (28:20): So we’re spending the surplus, as you’ve been warning about for several years, the federal money is drying up, and to circle back to the opening segment, I think part of the trust the legislature is going to have to build this summer is demonstrating we’re getting spending under control. You said you’re not throwing them a party. But is this reduction, whatever the reason, directionally good enough for the legislature to say they’re working on the spending side of things, or is it just not good enough?

Elias Tsapelas (29:00): I think I’ll know a lot more going into next year, because there were a lot better discussions this year, especially looking at spending incentives. As was mentioned, DESE is going to have a new funding formula, or at least the governor has a task force working on one. The way education is funded for K through 12 is going to change. There was also a big fight this year about how to fund higher education. What seemed to me like a common sense idea, essentially having the legislature fund colleges based on how many students are enrolled, turned out to be considered too radical and was pushed off for the future. But there’s talk of coming back with a performance funding measure going forward. There’s also some movement on changing how the state does its IT work. There are a lot of IT changes coming, including things affecting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Missouri has a very bad track record with IT. Part of this budget moves some IT resources over to the Department of Social Services to support getting things going there, because most IT for the state of Missouri is currently consolidated in the Office of Administration. While that can seem efficient because every state department doesn’t need its own IT department, it also makes it a lot harder to hold people accountable. There has been a big issue recently with the state’s accounting software, where a contract is millions of dollars behind schedule and not working. The budget tries to get at that too, and it raises this major incentive question: are the people in charge of implementing new IT going to do their best at something that will ultimately try to eliminate their job? I think the legislature is finally starting to deal with that. Ultimately, if we go down the path of a more efficient government and a better tax system, that may mean fewer state employees, and that is something that hasn’t come up much but I think the legislature is finally starting to look at. Pushing toward better funding models, a better state workforce, all those type of things, is moving in the right direction as opposed to how it has been, where the budget just grows larger every year. They’re looking in the right direction. I would have liked to see more, but I think we’ll know a lot more in the next year, especially because the federal COVID funding will essentially be gone.

Zach Lawhorn (32:12): Our final topic, partly so we can put it in the title of the episode for clicks, but also because it seems like every week there’s a story from across the country or across the state about data centers and communities pushing back for a lot of reasons. The most recent one was Ferguson in the St. Louis area. David, can you catch us up on what was on the table for this data center in Ferguson and what happened?

David Stokes (32:40): The vote that the Ferguson city council took last week was strictly on a tax subsidy, I believe about $1.8 billion in tax abatements and various subsidies for the project. It was not a vote on approving the data center itself. This was a commercially zoned area, so it didn’t need any permission to put a data center there, and that’s a good thing. But the city nonetheless rejected the tax subsidy, which I thought was the right call. These data centers are very profitable and important, and I’m certainly not anti-data center. But the demand that they get enormous subsidies everywhere they seem to be going is improper. Festus was right to approve the data center operation there, but I think very much wrong to approve the enormous tax subsidy the city granted, which I believe was about a half a billion dollars. Avery can correct me if I’m wrong on that exact number. I like what Ferguson did, and I hope the data center moves into the old Emerson complex there nonetheless. We need data centers. Data centers produce so much tax revenue that they can generate their own tax cuts, and I don’t mean a special subsidy for the data center itself. I mean they go into a city or a small area, generate so much revenue, and you can cut taxes for everybody in that community, including the data center itself. I think that’s the road to follow, and hopefully that’s what we’ll have in Missouri. I also think we need to change the way data centers are taxed in an upcoming legislative session, taxing them a little more like utilities to reduce the incentive for one city or county to hand out a big subsidy and instead spread those tax benefits around a little more.

Zach Lawhorn (34:46): Avery, are you heartened by this rejection? Because as David said, we need the data centers, but we really want to avoid this new layer of corporate welfare that could pop up everywhere. So how do you feel about it?

Avery Frank (35:00): I’m actually very excited by the rejection in Ferguson. I’ve talked to a lot of people on both sides of the data center debate, those who have gone to the meetings and stayed up until 3 a.m. and protested, and those who want them. When I look at this Ferguson project specifically, the numbers David was talking about involved granting up to 15 years of tax abatements on real estate, personal property, and sales tax for a data center project. When I see something like that, it gets at what David was talking about. The only true significant benefit of a data center is the tax revenue it could bring. It doesn’t bring a lot of jobs. It takes a lot of electricity and a lot of water. It generates noise. It already makes a lot of people upset, and there are concerns about housing values and everything else. So if you’re not getting any tax revenue, there really is no strong incentive to have a data center project. That Emerson complex in Ferguson had thousands of employees. A data center does not take very many employees at all. So when you have people coming up and saying this data center project won’t succeed unless we get all these tax subsidies, I say that’s fine and I hope you don’t build a data center there, because the tax revenue is really the only benefit you’re getting from it. One of the bigger things is just something about Missouri in general. I’m from Tennessee and there are a lot of concerns there about having too much growth. Missouri sometimes feels like the opposite of Tennessee. We’re so desperate for growth that we’re willing to hand out a bunch of money. We don’t have enough pride. This Emerson complex is a good building and a good place. Ferguson has a STEM high school that produces very high test scores and graduates people who can work in the tech industry or an engineering industry. We shouldn’t waste a good building and a good workforce on a project that’s going to get all these tax subsidies and not bring a lot of jobs. The same thing happened over in Independence, where they gave out billions in subsidies for a data center project. Whenever I see that, I think we have to have a little bit of pride in Missouri. We can’t just be giving out all this money to get anyone to come. We have a good parcel of land, a good workforce, a lot of water, and a central location in the country. We can attract good projects, data centers or not, without giving out a bunch of subsidies. We need to understand what the benefits and costs of a data center are and what data center developers are actually looking for. They have a lot of money already. If you give them a good workforce, a place to build, and community support, I think they’ll come, even without a bunch of money.

Elias Tsapelas (38:28): I was really hoping this was the discussion we were going to have this year in Missouri’s legislature, because it started off so well with the discussion of how to get rid of the income tax and everything that goes with that. Talking about the income tax is really about how you make your state more desirable and how you grow faster. But Missouri for so long has just said: we want this industry or this type of business, so let’s give it an economic development tax credit. Let’s give out a billion dollars worth of those. Let’s give out sales tax exemptions. As far as I know, data centers in Missouri already get state and local sales tax exemptions. We just give those out. If we’re really going to start thinking about how to make the state the most desirable place, how to grow the fastest and be the most desirable for families and businesses, that’s really more about making the tax climate the best for everyone, not constantly picking winners and losers. Unfortunately, the budget didn’t see as many cuts as I had hoped. As we go into the last few days of the legislature, there are plenty of tax credit bills waiting to pass. The film tax credit is back and there’s talk of extending the sunset on it. There are other tax credits. We’re still going down that path. There are still more sales tax exemptions being considered. Missouri just needs to decide what direction we want to go, because ultimately if we do get rid of the income tax, a lot of these economic development incentives don’t even really work anymore. You have to look at different things. You have to look at what is really the criteria for families and businesses. States across the country are dealing with these issues, changing their economic conditions, their tax policy, and people are moving there. We know people are leaving Missouri. We know income is leaving Missouri. We need to change things. The status quo is not going to work going forward, and I was hoping that would have sunk in a little bit more this year than it did.

Zach Lawhorn (40:37): We will leave it there this week. We’ll talk to everyone again after the session ends over the next few days and see how everything turned out. As always, plenty more at showmeinstitute.org. David, Avery, and Elias, thank you very much.

The post Missouri’s 2026 Legislative Session Final Week appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

They say that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is now. That about sums up my opinion on the City of St. Louis’s one-percent earnings tax, the continuation of which is before St. Louis voters on the April ballot. The best time to start phasing out the earnings tax really was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is still now.

The 20 years in the saying is particularly appropriate in this case, as the Show-Me Institute released its first study on the earnings tax almost exactly 20 years ago. Professor Joseph Haslag, then at the University of Missouri, documented how the earnings tax reduces overall income and employment in the city by encouraging businesses and individuals to locate outside of the city. Additional studies conducted by Show-Me Institute analysts and others have found similar results regarding the harms of local income taxes generally.

Haslag didn’t just demonstrate the harm of the earnings tax; he also recommended a strategy to replace it in order to maintain necessary city services. Haslag suggested changing state laws to allow St. Louis to institute a land tax, which is simply a property tax on the value of the land only. Pittsburgh is one city that had beneficial results from implementing land taxation in the 1980s. Alas, while land taxes are popular with economists and fiscally beneficial, they are politically unpopular to say the least. Needless to say, land taxes have never been adopted in St. Louis (nor has state law been amended to allow them). But the harms of the earnings tax have continued to help drive St. Louis’s population and economy lower, and those fiscal harms were exacerbated during the pandemic.

An easier change (legally, if not politically) than a land tax would have been to start phasing out the earnings tax 20 years ago while increasing a combination of property and sales taxes over time to replace the lost revenues (while cutting spending where possible as well). Poor decision-making over the past two decades has made that already-difficult change almost impossible. Damaging special sales taxes such as community improvement district (CID) taxes are now ubiquitous throughout shopping areas in the city. Primarily used as a smokescreen for harmful corporate welfare, CIDs and other special sales taxes have driven sales tax rates sky high. While the sales taxes have gone up, commercial property values have plummeted. According to the St. Louis Business-Journal, downtown St. Louis office buildings have lost 19 percent of their assessed value since 2019, and even more if you go back further. The largest office building downtown, the AT&T building at 909 Chestnut, paid $5.5 million in property taxes in 2009. It paid just $200,000 in 2024. While that is the most extreme example, similar examples can be found throughout downtown.

The economic situation in the city was already bad, and the tornado that hit in May made it even worse. It was the type of disaster that could make people consider radical changes, and perhaps the land tax is the type of radical change the city needs. (For the record, the Show-Me Institute’s offices were destroyed in the tornado, and while we’re a nonprofit, our office building is subject to property taxes.)

As large parts of the Central West End and the Northside are still recovering from the tornado, St. Louis city government has commendably allowed homeowners with damaged homes to reduce their tax payments, but the long-term impacts on city tax revenues may be significant. The population of New Orleans still hasn’t recovered from Hurricane Katrina and, while the damage to St. Louis was not that severe, the risk is the same.

I suggest it is time to change state law to allow for a land tax, including on land owned by larger “nonprofits” like Barnes Hospital. The land tax could be imposed on the value of the land throughout St. Louis at a level that would gradually increase to make up for revenue lost as the earnings tax is phased out over a period of 10 years (or more). (Other changes would be necessary, including ending the tax subsidies the city gives out.) What makes land taxation so beneficial is that as homeowners and businesses rebuild their damaged property, they aren’t hit with higher taxes for the home or building. The tax is set to the land, which can’t be altered, rather than the building. So, return to the city, rebuild your home or business, make it even larger—do whatever you want—and you won’t be punished with higher taxes.

Pittsburgh in the 1970s was experiencing economic difficulties just as St. Louis is now. Land taxation helped spur investment in Pittsburgh, and it could have the same effect on St. Louis. The city has been hemorrhaging population, jobs, and wealth for decades. Honestly, at this point in its history, what does St. Louis have to lose?

The post It’s Time to Phase Out the Earnings Tax. Honestly, Nothing Else Has Worked . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So here is my contribution to the effort. Just tell St. Louis’s Bi-State Development Agency (also known as Metro) “no” on its application for around $700 million in federal funds for the ludicrous Green Line (formerly known as the North-South Line) proposal. Like Nancy Reagan said to Arnold on Diff’rent Strokes, “Just say no.”

The new leadership in the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) has instituted major changes in how the DOT is going to make decisions. This doesn’t look good for the Green Line, as the St. Louis Business Journal wrote about this week. The new DOT guidelines state that, among many other things, the DOT isn’t funding projects for local political purposes or social justice reasons. The new DOT leadership is focused on moving people and goods, and actually moving people is one thing the Green Line isn’t going to do. Metro’s own estimates—which based on history are probably inflated—claim that the Green Line will have only 5,000 boardings (so, about 2,500 people) per day. That is for a billion-dollar project. That’s absurd.

Whether you call it the “Green Line” or the “North-South Route,” I call it an inevitable failure and a huge waste of tax dollars. Even if you support MetroLink, there is no reasonable argument for the Green Line project. The federal government ought to reject this plan and many other similar, though not quite as bad, applications from around the country.

You’re welcome, Elon.

The post Hey Elon, Here Are Some Cost Savings for You in St. Louis . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Back in 2022, in response to the seemingly endless parade of scandals and mismanagement coming from City Hall downtown and the county offices in Clayton, several city managers in the area circulated an op-ed arguing that both the City of St. Louis city and St. Louis County should adopt a city/county manager system of government. Are they correct? Would the City of St. Louis benefit from professional, nonpartisan city management? (We will save the county discussion for later.)

As part of my new paper on municipal government in Missouri, just released by the Show-Me Institute, I reviewed the research and evidence on the use of city managers in local government. It is certainly an idea worth considering. Four of the five largest cities in Missouri use a city manager system, as do nearly all the larger suburbs in St. Louis County (if you count the closely related city administrator form).

The authors advocating for adoption of professional management argued that the change would, among other things, reduce corruption and improve the quality of public services.  Based on the research I reviewed, the first point is likely; the second is possible but by no means certain.

Overall, the academic evidence suggests that adopting a city manager would reduce corruption, improve financial reporting, lead to more broadly focused legislation (and fewer narrowly targeted measures), reduce political conflict, and increase innovative policy thinking (in ways good and bad). St. Louis may not reap all of these benefits, but it should get some of them, especially reduced corruption.

On the other hand, there is not enough evidence to state that professional management would significantly affect taxes and spending, city employee pay levels, or the quality of city services.

The last claim by proponents of a city manager is key. Would the adoption of a city manager improve the quality of basic governmental services? (For example, would the potholes get filled faster under a city manager?) The presumption of better service quality with professional management is common, and it may be correct. But the evidence is not as clear as its supporters would suggest. Professional management might well perform better than management by elected officials. But as one academic stated, “For decades, analysts have presumed this performance gap exists, but they have yet to empirically demonstrate that any differences actually exist.”

Discussing change in St. Louis without considering the crime problem would be an enormous omission. The prevailing assumption is that police are more insulated from public pressure (for better or worse) in cities with a city manager. But even assuming that this presumption is true, does it lead to higher or lower crime rates? Another economist researched that question and found that there was no evidence that the presence (or absence) of professional management has any effect on municipal crime rates.

Professional city management may be what St. Louis needs, and it deserves careful consideration, but it is unlikely to provide dramatic or easy solutions to the city’s many problems.

The post Does St. Louis Need a City Manager? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My purpose here is simply to respond to one statement in the article by St. Louis’s Mayor Jones:

“I urge those who want to eliminate the earnings tax to show me their plan to replace it, their pro forma on these so-called ‘fiscal cliffs,’ and why cities with much higher earnings tax rates continue to grow,” Jones said in a statement.

I would like to remind people that, as for a plan to replace the earnings tax, the PFM Group out of Philadelphia has provided St. Louis with multiple, enormous reports on fiscal options for the city. Having read these studies, I assure you they go into great detail on these topics. If the city and its leaders aren’t serious about considering and incorporating these recommendations, among others, that’s on the city.

Do some cities with earnings taxes continue to grow? Of course they can. Some cities, like, say, New York City, have qualities and advantages that help them overcome the harms of local income taxes and continue to grow nevertheless. That shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it doesn’t mean local earnings (also known as income or wage) taxes don’t harm cities. Nobody is saying that a city can’t grow if it has an earnings tax. The claim—backed up by evidence—is that they would grow faster without one.

You don’t have to take our word for it (but you should). In Triumph of the City, Harvard economist Ed Glaeser states: “The indirect effect of a local income tax is to encourage richer citizens and businesses to leave.” He cited this study, in which the authors determined that, among other findings, “We estimate that between 1971 and 2001 Philadelphia lost 172,889 jobs because of the increase in city wage tax rates.” (Similar effects were found for New York City.)

It’s one thing to say the city is not in a position to immediately drop the earnings tax in one fell swoop. That’s a defensible position. It’s another to deny that it harms economic growth. That’s not defensible. The worst part, though, is watching the city enact legislation and pass constant tax subsidies that make it more dependent on the earnings tax, instead of trying to be less dependent on it over time. The city has chosen to put itself in this position, and that is regrettable.

The post Yes, Mayor Jones, the Earnings Tax Really Does Hinder Economic Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As systems evolve and become more complex over time, certain things that used to be commonly provided by cities and counties have moved beyond the realistic capacity of local governments. Two such examples are sewers and hospitals. The last public hospital in St. Louis closed in 1997, and municipal sewer systems in Arnold and Eureka have both been privatized recently. Not all of these changes result in the private sector taking over service provision. For example, in the City of St. Louis and most of St. Louis County, the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) is a large, independent public agency with the resources and expertise to manage the sewer system for our region. Local governments in two areas in our region are currently preparing to hand over responsibility for major services to outside providers, and in each instance the prospects for beneficial transformations are being put at risk by a process that is not being managed in the best interest of the public.

First, the sewers. Festus and Crystal City are considering selling their shared municipal sewer system to the Jefferson County Public Sewer District (JCPSD). Like MSD, this larger, regional system has more resources and expertise than the cities do. However, the leadership of both cities have missed an opportunity to get the best deal for their residents. Earlier this summer, both councils approved a plan to consider only JCPSD’s proposal for a $5 million sale of the sewer system—that is, to exclude any other potential applicants from participation—after quietly negotiating only with JCPSD for months. This is despite the fact that representatives from both Missouri-American Water, which has recently purchased systems in Jefferson County, and Central States Water Resources, which operates sewer systems throughout Missouri, expressed interest in making a proposal once the idea become public. Those private utilities have been denied the opportunity to participate thus far.

Leaders in both cities deserve credit for their willingness to consider major changes to their sewer system. JCPSD’s $5 million offer may well be the best overall proposal the cities receive. But how can the cities know it is the best deal for their residents if they don’t even take any other offers?

The hospital example is even more troubling. In Perry County, located between St. Louis and Cape Girardeau, the county hospital board is planning to sell county-owned and operated Perry County Memorial Hospital (PCMH) to Mercy. Such a deal is almost certainly necessary and likely beneficial for the county and its residents, but the manner in which it has been conducted would make former Kansas City political boss Tom Pendergast blush. While they probably don’t have smoke-filled rooms for politicians in Perry County hospital, they might as well have. There are two boards that run the hospital—one elected and one appointed—and the boards have gone so far as to deny vital financial information to elected members of the hospital’s own board who have had the audacity to ask tough questions about the deal. You read that right. Elected members of the hospital board who aren’t falling into lockstep are being shoved aside as the board majority forces the deal through. Things like the Sunshine law and open records requirements are not suggestions; they are the law, and someone needs to inform the Perry County hospital boards of that.

In general, I strongly support local government changes such as outsourcing services to the private sector or other, larger public bodies. Divesting entities like the Perry County hospital and the Festus–Crystal City sewer system could benefit both communities. However, elected officials in both places have a responsibility to go through the process in an open, transparent fashion. They have utterly failed that test in Perry County, and they aren’t off to a good start in Festus and Crystal City. Residents of Perry County, Festus, and Crystal City should demand better from their local leaders.

The post Good Ideas Done Poorly in Jefferson and Perry Counties appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Opportunity cost. The concept is so simple that a first-grader could understand it. I know, because I used to teach it to first-graders. Had you walked past my classroom at just the right time, you might have heard 20-something first graders chanting, “Opportunity cost is the opportunity lost.” The students understood that our decisions have consequences. It was a lesson they learned every time they went out to recess. If they chose to play kickball, they couldn’t play basketball. This basic life lesson bears some repeating for the adults who set policy in our state.

Though the term opportunity cost was not coined until 1914, French economist and writer Frédéric Bastiat provided one of the most salient examples of the concept in his 1850 work, “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.” Using the parable of the broken window, Bastiat explained how money being spent on one activity is money that cannot be put to more productive use elsewhere. Imagine that a pane of glass is broken at a baker’s shop. Obviously, the money that the baker must pay to have it repaired becomes revenue for the window repair man. Anyone walking by can see the repair man doing work and recognize that he’ll be paid for his labor. But it makes no sense to look at the repair man’s good fortune in isolation. Doing so would lead to the harebrained conclusion that breaking windows leads to economic growth! Instead we need to remember that, had the window stayed intact, the baker could have done something else productive with the money. The problem is that we can’t see what the baker could have done with the money—only what he actually did with it.

Unfortunately, our board of aldermen and other policymakers regularly make decisions based on what they see without accounting for what they can’t see. Take for example the earnings tax in Saint Louis. Policymakers can see the revenue generated by the tax, but they can’t see the economic activity that has been lost. They can’t see the jobs that might have been created had those dollars been reinvested by the businesses. Nor can they see the economic activity that might have been generated if those dollars had remained in workers’ pockets.

Think about opportunity cost the next time you see a ribbon-cutting at some new development that has received tax breaks or some other form of support from the government. Whether it is a property that has been blighted and given property tax abatements for development in the Central West End or a big box store that receives tax-increment financing, we can see the product of those government actions. We cannot see the harm they do to other businesses through unfair economic competition.

I was reminded of these ideas when I read Lindenwood economist Howard Wall’s most recent paper for the Show-Me Institute, “Is Growth in Outstate Missouri Tied to Growth in the Saint Louis and Kansas City Metro Areas?” Wall uses an econometric model known as Granger-causality to estimate the impact of employment growth in Saint Louis and Kansas City on the rest of the state. He finds a statistically significant downstream relationship between Saint Louis and the rest of Missouri. That is, employment growth in Saint Louis leads to employment growth in the state. He estimates that a 1 percentage point increase in growth in Saint Louis would lead to an increase of 0.35 percentage points in outstate Missouri within two or three years. Why this connection exists (he doesn’t find a similar relationship in Kansas City) is a matter for some hypothesizing or future research. Nevertheless, the point is clear—Saint Louis is an economic driver for the state.

While Wall’s paper does not deal directly with the idea of opportunity cost, his findings make it all the more important for policymakers to understand the importance of their actions. When they support an earnings tax or other policies that harm the city’s economic growth, they are hurting the economic growth of the entire state.

Missourians, not just those who live in the city, benefit from a thriving Saint Louis economy. That’s why we need policymakers to put in place pro-growth policies that create the economic conditions for the market to thrive.

The post Opportunities Squandered in St. Louis Affect All of Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• The new Alderwoman for both areas, Tina Pihl (Ward 17) has been more hesitant to grant tax subsidies for projects in her ward. This is a beneficial policy change from her predecessor, and the new Alderwoman deserves credit for this.
• The quickest way to get tax subsidies in Ward 17 appears to be to agree to make a donation to the city’s new Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This is a terrible policy that reeks of impropriety. “You get your tax deal after my favorite fund gets its money,” is an awful way to run government, and Alderwoman Pihl deserves criticism for this.
• The St. Louis Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) board has approved substantial increases in tax subsidies for certain projects in Ward 17 without approval from the Board of Alderman, and against the wishes of the alderwoman. The LCRA took a subsidy package that had been approved by the elected Board of Alderman, changed it significantly, and then approved the larger package of tax subsidies. The LCRA board is completely out of line here and seems to continue to function primarily as a shill for corporate welfare interests. Alderwoman Pihl is correct here in her request that the proposal should go back to the Board of Aldermen, as our game of policy tennis continues.
• Finally, there are complaints that the alderwoman is moving too slowly in approving various things for her ward and slowing development. Time is money for everyone but the government. The key part here is that some of these projects being held back are over minor issues, such as simple variances, that if the necessary legal conditions are met, should be able to be approved by city departments without the local Alderperson weighing in. From the article:

But for Lengyel — he isn’t seeking tax abatement for the three houses — it was never clear what she wanted. He still has never spoken to Pihl

If a project meets the zoning regulations for the area (or requires only modest variances), and the developer is not asking for any tax subsidies, then why shouldn’t city staff make the approval decision (presumably giving the go-ahead)? Why should the local alderman be involved in the process at all, except in rare instances? In most other Missouri cities, minor permitting issues do not involve elected officials at all. For zoning changes or variances, elected officials would usually just be involved at the end of the process, which makes everything move faster.

The delay in approvals for generally routine matters (which is bad) is being caused by a new alderwoman who wants to be more cautious about tax giveaways (which is good). But the real problem here is the tradition and assumption within the City of St. Louis’s government that a ward’s alderperson is entitled to approve or halt any project, no matter how large, small, unique, or routine the proposal may be. Many of these smaller projects should never go to the alderperson for approval in the first place, and eliminating this unnecessary step is a would benefit the City of St. Louis.

The post Broken Approval Process Slows Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 1977, the Chicago Sun Times newspaper bought a bar. They didn’t just buy it to serve people drinks. They bought it—under a fake name—for the purpose of loading it up with video and audio recording equipment to expose the rampant political corruption in Chicago. For months, as the bar went through the standard process of getting permits, licenses, and so on, the operators recorded the unending stream of bribe requests, kickback demands, and more that were (and arguably still are) commonplace in Chicago.

Even though news of corruption in Chicago was hardly earth-shattering, the series of stories released in 1978 caused a sensation. Rarely had the political cancer been so clearly documented via media, and the constant brazenness of the corruption startled the people of Chicago, who until then may have thought they’d seen everything.

Which leads us to last week’s news about the federal indictments of three St. Louis City aldermen on corruption charges. I may work at a think tank, but I know a little about bribery attempts. Back in 2001, I got a first-hand look at an attempted bribe for then-County Councilman John Campisi. He had just finished a meeting with a taxicab operator who, as he departed, left a brown paper bag on the Councilman’s desk. Suspicious, Campisi asked me (at the time a council aide) to come to his office so that we would both be present when someone (me) opened the bag. Sure enough, the bag had a bribe in it. The next year, that taxicab operator, another councilman who had arranged the meeting, and a few other county employees involved in the racket were convicted of bribery. That was the biggest scandal Clayton had seen until Steve Stenger decided to turn the 9th floor of the county building into a live-action RICO performance.

A part of me is delighted with the bribery charges. I have spent years decrying (including in the pages of this newspaper) the abuse of precisely the two things that appear to be at the heart of the corruption charges: tax abatements and the city land bank. Rest assured, I am going to update my talking points on these two issues, and trust me when I say that audiences pay a lot more attention when the lead is “politicians take bribes” than when the lead is “studies show . . .”

But on a more serious note, a much larger part of me is angry and depressed over the allegations. While everyone is innocent until proven guilty, the main question I ask is not about the guilt or innocence of these three politicians, but whether we have a system that enables corruption in St. Louis and the rest of our state (paging Tom Pendergast, please). I have to think the answer is a very dispiriting “yes, we do.” The ease with which tax subsidies, abatements, and so on can be handed out has long made them susceptible to this risk.

The tax subsidy rot is not limited to the minnows. Never forget that, for all Governor Eric Greitens’s flaws and self-inflicted wounds, the tax-credit industry apparently mobilized a political hit squad for him after he had the audacity to kill their golden goose in the low-income housing tax credit program. And while large-scale developers around the state may be smart enough to ensure their payments to elected officials are done as perfectly legal political donations instead of unreported cash-in-a-bag, one strongly suspects that the abuse of tax-increment financing (TIF), special taxing districts, and other forms of corporate welfare is greased by the legal version of just what got the three aldermen indicted. I have no doubt that some of the people at St. Louis’s country club bars who are most appalled by bribery charges in the city are standing next in line to get their own special tax credits or floodplain TIF deals.

The stench of corruption, both now and in the past, carries with it very real harms for our region. So back to Chicago: Studies have shown (see, I can’t avoid that phrase) that corruption costs Illinois $550 million a year. That represents the cost of not only the direct bribery, but, much more so, the decreased economic growth and lost investment that result from the fear of corruption. Ask yourself: would you think twice about investing in Mexico now? Of course you would. The endemic violence and corruption would make any rational person think twice. The same thing is true for cities and states known for corruption in our own country. Under Steve Stenger, some bidders undoubtedly thought twice about bidding on St. Louis County projects, knowing as they did that a winning bid was not going to be finalized until the county executive received a large campaign donation. Accounts of corruption in the City of St. Louis give residents and investors one more reason to keep themselves and their money out of the city. That’s the last thing the city needs right now, but that’s what it has.

As is often said, when the business of buying and selling is controlled by the legislature, the first thing to be bought and sold will be the legislators. Good government types (of which I am one), must do more than simply call for “electing better people.” We need to remove the incentives and opportunities for corruption. In the latest instance in the city, we should respond by completely eliminating the ability of politicians to dole out tax subsidies, credits, and abatements. Gambling addicts shouldn’t hang out in casinos and hope they aren’t tempted. The problem of corruption in our community will continue until we reduce the involvement in government in our daily lives and shrink the number of things that can corrupt politicians in the first place.

The post Corruption Allegations: Disappointing but Hardly Surprising appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Between 2014 and 2019, ridership on St. Louis Metro buses and light-rail trains dropped by nearly 25 percent. Thanks to the pandemic, ridership in recent months has only been half what it was in 2019, and thanks to increased numbers of people working at home it may not ever return to 2019 levels.

This suggests that St. Louis doesn’t need to spend hundreds of millions—or billions—of dollars building new light-rail lines. Yet that is exactly what St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones wants to do, not because St. Louis needs it, but because federal funding might become available for it. That federal funding would depend on local matching funds, meaning St. Louis taxpayers would have to pay higher taxes for train rides few of them will take.

St. Louis’s light-rail record is unimpressive. In 2001, Metro opened the 17-mile MetroLink College extension, doubling the total number of miles in the system. Metro carried fewer bus and light-rail riders the year after opening this line than it had carried the year before. The same thing happened when it opened the 3.5-mile Shiloh-Scott extension in 2003. The 8-mile Shrewsbury-Lansdowne MetroLink extension gained some new riders, but all of those riders were lost after the 2008 financial crisis, and most never came back.

Overall, light rail has failed to boost the region’s transit ridership. In 1993, before the region’s first light-rail line opened, buses carried 40.3 million riders. Since then, Metro has spent around $2.5 billion building 45 miles of light-rail lines. In 2019, buses and light rail together carried 36.1 million riders, 11 percent fewer than before light rail.

Part of the problem is that light rail is functionally obsolete: just about anything light rail can do, buses can do better for far less money. Counting capital costs, Metro spent $12.80 per light-rail rider but only $8.30 per bus rider in 2019.

The current proposal to expand MetroLink with a new north–south corridor line through downtown fails on two key fronts. First, while transit advocates say spending more money on transit helps low-income people, the fact is that most low-income people do not take transit to work. Census Bureau survey data show that only 4.4 percent of St. Louis–area workers who earned less than $25,000 a year took transit to work in 2019. Meanwhile, the sales taxes used to support Metro buses and light rail are highly regressive, meaning the 95.6 percent of low-income people who aren’t dependent on transit are disproportionately paying taxes to support rides they aren’t taking.

Second, cities that have successful rail transit have a high concentration of jobs in a central business district, and St. Louis is not one of those cities. The percentage of regional jobs in downtown St. Louis has been declining for years. It is currently down to about 60,000 employees downtown, very few of whom take light rail to work. Expanding MetroLink on the proposed north–south route will be a very expensive attempt to take people who don’t use light rail for work to jobs in an area where they don’t work.

The places in downtown St. Louis that benefit from MetroLink (the stadiums, convention center, etc.) already have it. The money Metro wisely spent adding and improving stations at Cortex and Barnes Hospital cost a fraction of the amount of a new line and served an area where people of all incomes actually use MetroLink to go to work. (The Barnes/Central West End stop is the busiest stop in the system.)

Meanwhile, while we debate MetroLink’s further expansion, Metro’s bus system is “disintegrating,” says engineer Richard Bose at the pro-transit NextSTL website, because the agency can’t find enough drivers to keep it operating. Jones and other city and regional officials should devote their efforts toward helping Metro run the system it already has rather than trying to expand it. Federal and local funds spent on an effective bus system offer a better solution to address the needs of the people who live in North St. Louis County. Otherwise, people might get the idea that the real purpose of light-rail transit is not to move people, but to move dollars from taxpayers’ pockets into the hands of light-rail contractors.

The post MetroLink Light Rail is MetroWaste appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, the program has become another way for lenders to target the disadvantaged. I know what you may be thinking if you are familiar with Show-Me Institute’s work. “Wait, I thought you liked privatization?” Yes, I do. But this PACE program really is a combination of the worst of all options. The PACE program:

• Is a government program of questionable need in the first place. Is it really the government’s job to facilitate personal loans for new appliances?
• Was outsourced to the private sector with basically no oversight at all,
• Authorizes private lenders to use government taxing authority to collect on loans. PACE bills can be placed on your tax bill, and if you don’t pay the PACE bills, tax authorities can take your home on behalf of the lenders.

We learned about all of this through terrific reporting by investigators at Pro Publica. Jeremy Kohler and Haru Coryne documented how private lenders were making loans above the value of someone’s entire house at relatively high interest rates to people with risky credit histories. They were targeting these people and doing this precisely because they had greatly reduced risk. If the homeowners didn’t pay, the loan amounts would be put on the tax bills and the lenders would be able to take the homes eventually. Here are examples from the Pro Publica report:

But in St. Louis, an elderly widow said she had no idea she had taken on thousands of dollars in PACE debt, though she saw her property taxes rise sharply. A disabled couple in the Kansas City suburb of Raytown said they weren’t told of the impact on their property taxes; now they’re two years behind on their property taxes.

A Vietnam veteran and his wife in Kansas City are struggling to pay off a $21,658 loan for a solar panel array despite being enrolled in an energy assistance program; they said they just wanted to do something good for the environment.

A PACE loan is NOT a mortgage. Even with a mortgage, the private lender has to go through a civil process with their own lawyers to enforce the loan on the home. With a PACE loan, the county collector is required to do it for them. That is wrong. This situation is like taking out a loan for a new car, and then losing your house if you can’t make the payments. If the PACE private lenders were assuming more risk themselves, they would have been much more careful about their loans.

I have defended the title and payday loan industries in the past. Those companies loan very small amounts compared to what PACE programs will lend you—at admittedly extreme interest rates. But at least when you miss payments to the payday loan company, you don’t lose your home. (My understanding of title loans is they just work with vehicle title.) Those companies take some risk.

PACE lenders basically take on very little risk. Sure, if they loan more than the value of the house and don’t get any money back, you can say they are taking some risk. But how often will the recipient make no payments at all? Between the comparatively high interest rates cited in the articles and the availability of seizure for non-payment, the PACE lenders are incentivized to make large loans to people who might not normally justify the risk.

The St. Louis Business-Journal also has a very good story on this issue this week. There have been bills introduced to reform PACE in Missouri, and reforms are much needed. Some of the true heroes of this fight have been local county collectors who have pushed back against the involvement of their counties in this harmful program.

In my opinion, we should probably get rid of the entire program, but at the very least the ability of lenders to put the loan on your tax bill and take your home if you miss payments must be eliminated.

The post PACE Loans Are Out of Line appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My first work in government was in property assessment and tax issues. I was hired in June of 2001 to work for the St. Louis County Council as an aide. A short time later, the 2001 “Drive-By Assessment” scandal erupted, and the next few months of my life were devoted to property tax and assessment-related constituent work. In 2019, taxpayers in Jackson County experienced a similarly critical and difficult assessment cycle.

The Times story discusses studies that have found that lower-value homes tend to be over-assessed, and higher-value homes tend to be under-assessed. This leads to a shift in the property tax burden to the poor. Why does this happen? It’s due to the way assessment systems work. Home valuations are based on comparable sales data, and at the extreme high and low ends there are fewer sales to compare to. This naturally creates a regression to the mean; houses at the higher end get compared to houses that aren’t quite as expensive, and houses on the lower end get compared to houses that are a bit more expensive. That leads to lower-value homes being over-assessed, and higher-value homes being under-assessed.

That does not mean we should get rid of the average-based assessment system. In fact, I think we should expand on it and stop individually assessing homes every two years. We should just raise or lower assessments based on the average in an area. We could combine that with accurate assessments at sale price for sold properties (important for high-value ones), individual assessments for new construction, and maintaining the appeal system for property owners who believe their property value has increased less than average.

I have been discussing this problem for years. In a 2007 op-ed for the St. Louis Business-Journal, I wrote:

This would safeguard against incorrectly undervaluing properties – particularly expensive ones – that might be underassessed over time by the use of an average-based system.

These changes would make for a much easier rollback of tax rates. When assessments go up, property tax rates are rolled back because assessments are not supposed to lead to a tax increase. However, this isn’t the case for many people. The rollbacks are based on averages, but assessments are currently individual. So if your assessment increased by 20 percent, but the average in the area was only 10 percent, you will get hit with a significant property tax increase. Using an average would mean that everyone faces the same increase, and the same rollback.

I will have much more to say over the coming months about property taxes in Missouri. In particular, it’s time to remove the Kansas City school district’s exemption from property tax rate rollback requirements. That is a big part of the assessment issues in Jackson County that needs to be addressed. But clearly, as the article in the Times shows, we have work to do in Missouri.

The post The New York Times Talks Property Assessments in St. Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As voters in the City of St. Louis prepare to vote on whether to retain the earnings tax in April, the city is in a tight spot. The city and school district need more revenue, which comes about through more taxes. But because taxes are high and a detriment to growth (especially the one-percent earnings tax), businesses are not locating in the city and the economy is not growing. So, to attract new businesses and convince current ones to stay, the city selectively gives out generous tax incentives. These may attract some businesses and residents, but because of the incentives, they don’t provide the tax revenue that the city was after in the first place.

Are you with us so far? Count us among those who agree that poor public schools and a high crime rate are harming the City of St. Louis more than taxes. But if the economy were growing, City Hall and the board of education would have more money to hire more police officers and teachers. It’s as if St. Louis is in its own Catch-22: a problem or situation where every solution is impeded by other conflicts. Call it our Catch 1%.

St. Louis’s “solution” to the problem of losing businesses and residents over the past couple of decades has been to offer generous tax benefits to every politically influential Milo Minderbinder who asks for them. Last year alone, there were 70 million uncollected tax dollars because of various subsidies. That approach has been a failure. It has led to substantial tax subsidies for developers who do not need them, such as the St. Louis Cardinals and their Ballpark Village development. They succeed while paying significantly reduced taxes. Their subsidies have helped them drive out smaller competitors (e.g., Mike Shannon’s) who paid taxes, but now no longer do because, well, they are closed. The use of tax subsidies actually leads to a reduction in tax revenues. That’s Catch 1%.

The same thing goes for the idea that tax subsidies are intended for blighted sections of the city. Clearly, there are parts of St. Louis that are struggling, and these areas might well benefit from the use of tax subsidies. But for the most part they aren’t getting them. Why not? From an economic development official’s point of view, the incentives are misaligned. If you have tax dollars to invest, why not direct them into a thriving area surrounded by other successful businesses? You’ll look that much smarter when the development succeeds—even if it would have been just as successful without the government handout. The projects that truly need the incentives aren’t the sure things . . . and that’s the whole point of the incentives—to bridge the gap between failure and success for a project in an economically depressed area. But in St. Louis, the less a project needs a tax subsidy, the more likely it is to get one. That’s Catch 1%.

So here we are, giving out tax incentives to people who don’t need them in places that don’t need them and still funding city government with an earnings tax that limits economic growth. Could the City of St. Louis operate without the earnings tax if the residents and voters wanted to do so? Of course. Most large cities in the United States do not have local income taxes. One problem (of several) with the tax subsidies and abatements the city gives away is that they make it impossible to rely less on the earnings tax and more on local property taxes, which is how many comparable cities fund their local services. Nobody says it will be easy to phase out the tax, which brings in an estimated $159 million per year. But if voters decided to end it, during the 10-year phase-out period an overall effort toward ending corporate welfare, raising alternative (and less economically harmful) taxes, budget cuts, continued pension reforms, service sharing with other governments (as in re-entering St. Louis County), and privatization efforts (e.g., the water utility) would allow St. Louis to continue to fund necessary services. It bears repeating that most comparable cities, including Chicago, Memphis, Omaha, Tulsa, and Nashville, fund their local services without local income taxes.

As St. Louis City voters prepare to decide the fate of the one-percent earnings tax in April, they do not have a simple choice. But the way the city has been operating for years is not working. The population is still declining, crime rates are high again, and the schools are failing too many students. If the city continues to go along as it has been for years, managed decline is about all we can hope for. Perhaps it is time to break out of the Catch 1% the city is in and do something radical.

The post Earnings Taxes and St. Louis’s Catch 1%. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

[A]lternatives need to be examined because the tax totals a third of the city’s general revenue. “That is just unsustainable,” she said. “We need to see how we can diversify our sources of funds to make us not so dependent on the earnings tax should the voters ever decide that they don’t want to pay it anymore.”

She is absolutely right. The City of St. Louis needs to get serious about leaning less on the earnings tax, for a variety of reasons. The newest reason, resulting from the pandemic, is the increase in working from home. The city is, unfortunately, attempting to claim that people working from home in the suburbs still have to pay the tax. Through legislation or litigation, I hope that this new and intentionally improper implementation of the law is prohibited. Nevertheless, the long-term impacts from increased working from home on the earnings tax in St. Louis will likely be substantial.

And yes, voters may one day (Tuesday was clearly not that day) decide they want to phase it out, and the city should move in a direction to encourage that, not discourage it. The single most important thing the City of St. Louis can do is reduce the enormous tax subsidies it gives out each year. As stated in our recent op-ed in the St. Louis Business Journal, the city gives out about $70 million per year in subsidies. Expanding the tax base by letting those subsidies expire and not granting new ones is the single best way to phase out the earnings tax without large tax increases elsewhere.

Even if one thinks that the City of St. Louis (and Kansas City) should maintain the earnings tax, not depending on it so much would be a smart thing to do.

The post More on the Earnings Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Expanding the one percent earnings tax to include St. Louis County was proposed by one of the candidates at the forum. Can the earnings tax be extended to St. Louis County? The short answer is no. Proposition A, passed by voters in 2010, disallows earnings taxes in cities other than St. Louis and Kansas City. So, no, Chesterfield can’t impose an earnings tax even if it wanted to (and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t). State law can always be changed—as Proposition A itself did—but as it is now establishing an earnings tax in St. Louis County is not allowed.

In fairness to the candidate who discussed expanding it, she was aware of that. She discussed making earnings tax expansion a part of the currently stalled Board of Freeholders process (the Board of Freeholders is the entity considering changes to the relationship between the city and county). Could it happen that way? That is possible. If the Board of Freeholders suggested merging St. Louis City and St. Louis County into one unified city, and if voters approved that proposal, then it is possible that the current exemption allowing an earnings tax in the City of St. Louis could be applied to the new, unified city.

Short of a full reunification, could the Board of Freeholders simply choose to enact an earnings tax in St. Louis County as part of any new governmental plan? Again, perhaps. The state constitution states that the new plan:

shall become the organic law of the territory therein defined, and shall take the place of and supersede all laws, charter provisions and ordinances inconsistent therewith relating to said territory.

But a new Board of Freeholders charter won’t be able to just pass any new rule it wants in conflict with statewide rules on local governments. For example, the Board of Freeholders can’t decide that the new region will tax a retail merchant’s inventory or the car of a disabled former POW. There are limits on what can be passed. So would a county earnings tax be allowed in this situation? It would simply depend on how Proposition A is interpreted. The only thing I am comfortable predicting is that litigation would result, and the courts would decide the question.

All of this leaves aside the fact that expanding the earnings tax to St. Louis County is a bad idea in and of itself. More to come on this issue, including a post on the part of the article where I agree with the candidates.

The post Should You Pay the Earnings Tax in Wildwood? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is a tired tale here in St. Louis; developers say they have a great idea and a great plan, and then turn to the government instead of the market to finance their idea. Government officials pick winners and losers by offering advantages to some and not others.

We can point fingers at the developers and say they should seek private investors, but they aren’t the only ones to blame. The various incentive and subsidy programs in St. Louis have created a situation where bargaining for handouts during the development process is the norm. You can’t blame developers for seeking the best deal they can get. It might be too much to ask developers not to reach for the millions of dollars offered to them; we need to get the government to stop offering!

In this particular case, there may actually be good news. Though the St. Louis City TIF Commission approved a motion for a public hearing for this project, there was some resistance from commissioners, and that’s what we need to see more of at the hearing. Good projects shouldn’t need to rely on handouts to be successful, and developers certainly shouldn’t assume taxpayer money will be gifted for private projects. Developers and government officials should allow projects to face market forces on equal footing to see which projects are truly demanded in the St. Louis market.

The post A Tired Tale of Incentives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, it’s worth recalling that in 2018 the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) demonstrated how tax rates affect innovation. Looking at state-level taxation dating back to the early twentieth century, the NBER concluded, “A one percentage point higher tax rate at the individual level decreases the likelihood of having a patent in the next 3 years by 0.63 percentage points.” Specifically, they found that, “higher personal and corporate income taxes negatively affect the quantity, quality, and location of inventive activity at the macro and micro levels.” This should not surprise anyone; resources that might be put toward innovation can’t be used for that purpose if they are spent paying taxes.

The new study from Arizona State University, titled “Doing Business: North America“ looked at 115 cities in the United States, Canada, and Mexico and rated them in six different categories. Those were “starting a business,” “employing workers,” “getting electricity,” “registering property,” “paying taxes,” and “resolving insolvency.” (All U.S. cities tied for first place regarding insolvency.)

While St. Louis ranked 31st overall out of the 115 cities in Canada, the United States, and Mexico (no other Missouri cities were included in the study; Chicago scored 45th overall), the areas where it scored less impressively—starting a business and employing workers—feature significantly in attracting entrepreneurs and innovation.

St. Louis scored 60th on “starting a business” (46th among U.S. cities). This ranking resulted from a “study of laws, regulations, and publicly available information on business entry,” along with consideration of the time and cost of complying with applicable regulations.

Regarding “employing workers,” St. Louis ranked 47th both for the whole sample and among the 66 U.S. cities examined. This ranking was more involved and is described on page 177 of the report, but it reflects the cost of wages and wage regulations such as probationary periods, overtime requirements, and sick leave.

Policymakers can debate the value of local and state mandates and regulations associated with starting a maintaining a business, but all should acknowledge that each one imposes a cost on the employer. Forty-six other U.S. cities have formulated less costly ways to meet their public policy objectives when it comes to employing workers. And St. Louis was outranked by cities in in all three countries examined when it came to ease of starting a business!

All this suggests that when working toward the important goal of taking advantage of St. Louis’ “innovation districts” in the agri-tech, biomedical and technology fields, city government could do a lot more to help entrepreneurs take advantage of what the city may already offer.

The post St. Louis Ranked in the Middle in Ease-of-Doing-Business Study appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, that isn’t usually what happens in practice when government tries to help business.

Consider a recent story in the St. Louis Business Journal about the owner of the Civil Life brewery and his effort to use taxpayer subsidies to expand. Everyone seems to be well meaning, but good intentions aren’t enough in designing good policy.

The business owner sought special tax treatment from the city in order to expand his business. The St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) agreed, and the businessman thought he had a deal. Before the 33-member St. Louis Board of Aldermen—and you thought presidential primaries were crowded—could approve the deal, one member introduced a resolution seeking a slightly better deal for the city. The owner objected to this new deal and scrapped the expansion plan.

The executive director of the SLDC told the Journal, “Generally, most of the aldermen are very comfortable with our analyses.” I cannot understand why this would be the case. The SLDC’s own examination of its economic development incentives concluded, “. . . it is clear that the City gains no net benefit from an extremely costly program with no real economic development impact.” The SLDC’s point is that they are necessary to help save the city from enacting bad programs. But if that’s the case, why is St. Louis rife with extremely costly programs with no real economic development impact?

In the Journal piece, Megan Green, the alderwoman who sought a better deal in this particular case, made an excellent point about the business in question:

If their business model is such that they cannot expand and pay a few thousand dollars more in taxes, the difference between a 95 percent and 90 percent abatement, after having a 100 percent abatement for the last eight years, then the business model needs to be re-evaluated.

Unfortunately, this statement didn’t go far enough. If the business needs any subsidy at all then the business model may need to be re-evaluated. After all, if a business is seeking a subsidy, the business owner in question has an idea that private investors do not think is a good one. If private investors won’t invest their own money, why should taxpayers invest theirs?

This whole episode speaks to the utter dysfunction of economic development policy in St. Louis. If the alderwoman can be faulted for anything, it isn’t standing in the way of this deal; it’s for not standing in the way of every deal. Her reasoning is correct; it just needs to be more widely applied.

The post What’s Wrong with St. Louis Economic Development Incentives? Everything appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Nine key organizations, including the St. Louis Economic Development Partnership, St. Louis Regional Chamber and St. Louis Development Corp., claim a role in economic development. They collect and spend some $78 million annually, mostly from businesses and taxpayers.

…Kansas City counts roughly 10 key entities focused on development, and spends $21 million, according to the review. Its organizations include the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City Area Development Council. Kansas City’s rankings for job growth (91st), wage growth (83rd), and high-tech gross domestic product growth (96th) were better than those of St. Louis.

Note that the combined $99 million spent in Kansas City and St. Louis is just on the staff and overhead of the organizations that offer economic incentives—it does not include the additional hundreds of millions of dollars for the incentives themselves! While Kansas City’s growth barely places us in the top half of the 200 cities studied, St. Louis fares much worse. The Lou ranks 152nd in job growth, 142nd in wage growth, and 99th in high tech GDP growth.

Despite faring slightly better than St. Louis, it appears Kansas City proper isn’t getting much for its efforts. If you look at the news release webpage of the Kansas City Area Development Council—the same folks that put together the still-secret regional bid for Amazon’s second headquarters—you’ll find ten press releases for 2018. Several of them talk about positive developments in the Kansas City “region,” but only one, TrialCard, is actually about new jobs within the borders of Kansas City, Missouri. The announcement projected 225 new jobs.

Well, maybe. A Kansas City Business Journal story at the time suggested those numbers are temporary:

The Kansas City center will get up to the 200-225 employee mark beginning around November, including temporary workers, and drop to between 100 to 150 after about February, (TrialCard VP Scott) Dulitz said. Over time, he said, activity—and the employee count—could increase.

As if to underscore the St. Louis Business Journal’s point about the money spent, the release included:

KCADC was proud to work with a number of regional partners in attracting TrialCard to the region including the State of Missouri, Missouri Partnership, City of Kansas City, Missouri, Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City, Missouri, Clay County Economic Development Council, KCP&L, Spire Energy, Cushman & Wakefield and CBRE.

The problems with Kansas City and St. Louis won’t be solved by lavish economic development incentives. Instead, city leaders need to focus on the basics: infrastructure, public safety, education and the like. There is no shortcut to success—no matter how much you spend.

The post Missouri’s Biggest Cities Spend $100 Million Annually Just to Give Away Money! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to their November 29 piece, St. Louis and Kansas City spend a combined $99 million annually just in staff and overhead of various organizations to promote their respective regions. Not all of this is taxpayer money; some of it is from chambers of commerce, regional councils, and economic development corporations. But much of the effort probably results in publicly financed incentives such as abatements, tax-increment financing, tax credits, and the like. In short, we spend money to give away money.

For example, these were the organizations that put together the infamous taxpayer giveaways meant to lure the second Amazon headquarters to the Show-Me State. The bids were unsuccessful, but someone had to foot the bill for putting together the proposals.

To add insult to injury, Robbins and Kirn point to a study of economic growth in 200 U.S. cities by the Milken Institute. It shows that we appear to be getting little return on our investment. In the areas of job growth, wage growth, and high-tech GDP, St. Louis ranks 152nd, 142nd, and 99th, respectively. Kansas City does little better at 91st, 83rd and 96th, respectively.

Missouri needs to reform its tax credit and economic development incentive policies to make sure that over-eager cities aren’t handicapping themselves with expensive and apparently fruitless efforts. We’re spending money just to spend money, and we have little to show for it.

The post You Gotta Spend Money to… Spend Money? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.