Susan Pendergrass is joined by Elias Tsapelas, director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute, to explain what was actually at stake in the recent federal government shutdown. They break down the debate over extended Affordable Care Act subsidies, why health insurance costs keep rising, how COVID-era provisions distorted the marketplace, and what Congress may do next.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Understanding the Government Shutdown
06:31 The Debate Over ACA Subsidies
09:10 Impact of the Affordable Care Act
13:24 Proposals for Health Care Reform
17:53 The Future of Health Care Costs

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Well, this is going to be a very timely and interesting conversation with the Show-Me Institute’s own Elias Tsapelas. You are the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy, two things that are front and center right now, but I really wanted to just have you on to talk about a little bit of stuff around the recent government shutdown.

And I just want to say upfront, if I understand this correctly, the federal government can’t pay its bills unless it’s got an approved budget to pay the bills, right? And the fiscal year runs October 1st to September 30th. And if you don’t have a new budget for the next year, you can’t pay your bills. So it’s up to the Senate, the House, and the President to agree on a budget. And this past September, as has happened before, they could not agree, and Democrats were holding out, and that caused the government to shut down. What were Democrats saying they were holding out for?

Elias Tsapelas (00:52)
Well, I guess I should start with just a little caveat that some of what the Democrats were saying they were holding out for was not precisely what was on the table. So no matter what happens, health care premiums are going to be going up, that’s just a fact, because health care costs are up. Health care costs are going up everywhere. Hospitals, Medicaid, we see it everywhere.

Susan Pendergrass (00:56)
You know, fix it up for me. Why?

Elias Tsapelas (01:20)
What they were holding out for were these extended or expanded ACA subsidies, Affordable Care Act subsidies. We’re talking about the marketplace here. This is typically for people making between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty limit. For example, a couple of two: 100 percent of the federal poverty limit is about $21,000 per year, 400 percent is about $85,000 per year. That’s roughly the range you’re looking at.

Now, some small employers do purchase plans through the marketplace, but the big piece here is that the ACA provides subsidies for people. And the way it works, essentially, is that people pay a proportion of their income. If your income is 100 percent of the federal poverty limit, you’re going to pay roughly 2 percent of your income. Now, there are extended subsidies that change that calculation. But the point being, the law set out that if you make this amount of money, you’re only going to pay this much on health insurance, and the government is going to subsidize the rest. You are not sensitive to costs at all, because your costs are tied to your income.

Susan Pendergrass (02:54)
So, for example, if you earn $4,000 a month, theoretically, and I don’t know the numbers, the government would say you won’t pay any more than $300 in insurance premiums?

Elias Tsapelas (03:05)
Yep. And so that is a percentage that you pay scaled off how much income you have from that 100 to 400 percent. That is a core piece of how the Affordable Care Act worked, and everyone paid a portion based on the base subsidies.

Now, what the debate was about, or what Democrats were holding out for, was expanded subsidies, which came about during COVID as part of the American Rescue Plan, ARPA. And it did a couple things, but they were subsidies on top of regular subsidies. So this was not, “If this doesn’t happen, everyone is going to be paying unsubsidized plans.” This was an additional type of subsidy. These additional subsidies were set to expire at the end of the year, at the end of December. ARPA gave four years of subsidies.

Susan Pendergrass (04:04)
Because it was COVID related, temporary, and they said, “We’ll cover more of your premium through December 31, 2025.”

Elias Tsapelas (04:14)
Yes, I think part of the calculation was that people were going to like it so much that it would be hard to get rid of. And it’s certainly the case: if these subsidies go away, people will be paying more.

Susan Pendergrass (04:15)
Ahem.

Elias Tsapelas (04:27)
But that is not to say there would be no subsidies at all. These extended subsidies did a couple things. For people between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, quick caveat: in Missouri, if you make under 138 percent, you’re on Medicaid, so you don’t pay anything, but in many states without Medicaid expansion, people go on the marketplace. What these expanded subsidies did is: if you made between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, you paid zero percent of your income. You got a plan for free.

You would still have some cost sharing, and the sliding scale up to 400 percent that the normal subsidies used was lowered, so people under regular subsidies who made 400 percent of the federal poverty limit were paying about 10 percent of their income. With the expanded subsidies, you’d only pay 8.5 percent, and the subsidies no longer stopped at 400 percent. They would go all the way up. You would never pay more than 8.5 percent of your income.

Susan Pendergrass (05:30)
Okay.

Elias Tsapelas (05:42)
But typically, people above 400 percent of the federal poverty limit don’t want to buy ACA plans because 8.5 percent of income is expensive. Still, a decent number of people were impacted. It costs a decent amount of money. The Congressional Budget Office says extending these expanded subsidies costs about $350 billion over 10 years. Very expensive. But there are a lot of issues here, which Republicans are pushing back on as they negotiate whether to extend these by the end of the year.

Susan Pendergrass (06:31)
So now we’re in this argument of whether we extend COVID subsidies or not. And like you said, Republicans seemed willing to say maybe a year, or maybe we’ll vote on it in December. Essentially the Democrats didn’t get any of what they asked for, right?

Elias Tsapelas (06:48)
Yeah. A key piece is that when Democrats passed this in ARPA, no Republicans voted for it. There’s a variety of reasons, but a big one is that it exacerbates problems with the Affordable Care Act. People buying health insurance are seeing higher prices, high deductibles, high copays, so people don’t want to buy it. These additional subsidies got more people into the market, but at a very expensive cost. And because people are not cost sensitive, their share is tied to their income, the subsidies scale regardless of what insurance companies charge. That creates unintended effects. There were allegations of fraud. And a larger discussion: if we’re going to spend $350 billion per 10 years, is there not a better way to get healthier people to buy health insurance? Is there a better way to help people?

And the people most impacted are those around 400 percent of the federal poverty limit, not very low income people. Higher income people. And often near retirement folks who aren’t working anymore but aren’t yet on Medicare. They need health insurance, they have health needs, and insurance gets very expensive. That was something the Affordable Care Act tried to deal with. But doubling down on continuously funding this subsidy system is something Republicans didn’t want to do.

Susan Pendergrass (09:10)
Yeah. So we had Brian Blase of Paragon on the podcast, and he absolutely did not want those COVID related subsidies extended. He claimed that the Affordable Care Act caused health related expenses to go up. Do you know how that works?

Elias Tsapelas (09:45)
There are a couple things going on. One big thing Brian talks about is likely enormous fraud from the expanded subsidies. Bloomberg had a good article about what happened in Florida. As soon as the federal government offered zero premium plans for people between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, background: Florida hasn’t expanded Medicaid, so people enroll on the marketplace. What happened is that it became a business for insurance brokers to get people enrolled. Brokers make money off enrollments, and people don’t care if they aren’t paying premiums.

So you had an enormous increase in people supposedly making between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit. Census data suggests far fewer people actually make that income. Tons were getting health insurance for free, and many weren’t using it. You’d expect higher usage. There are reasons to think there was widespread fraud.

More broadly, ACA plans must cover many things people don’t need, which drives up costs. And the marketplace risk pool is heavily made up of sick people, fewer healthy people, which makes insurance expensive.

So the bigger discussion is: how do you get healthier people into the market? How do you offer plans people want? Republicans are taking a stand that doubling down on the ACA model, with subsidies disconnected from costs, won’t work long term.

Susan Pendergrass (13:24)
Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but didn’t Senator Thune or somebody suggest just sending people $5,000?

Elias Tsapelas (13:30)
I don’t know if it was exactly that amount, but yes, there have been proposals essentially saying: maybe there will need to be a one year extension of subsidies because new plans start soon and it would be hard to roll out big changes in a month. But some ideas, from Senator Cassidy, Senator Thune, and others, propose approving the same amount of money but sending it directly to people instead of insurance companies. For many people, subsidies are worth over $30,000 a year. If people got $30,000, they might not spend it all on an ACA plan costing that much. They might buy a cheaper plan, use out of pocket spending, or seek non ACA compliant plans. There are ideas: HSAs, short term plans, specialized plans. A key piece is giving the money to people, not insurance companies, so someone has an incentive to reduce costs.

Susan Pendergrass (15:47)
Yeah. Well, the shutdown ended. Nothing really changed, right?

Elias Tsapelas (15:52)
Yeah. Congress will have to work a lot in the last month of the year. I’m a little disappointed. There were almost some very interesting budget related court cases that could have come from the shutdown. One argument was whether the government must fund food stamps, or SNAP, during a shutdown, whether they must give out money not appropriated. Some judges said yes. That raises major questions: can courts tell the executive branch to spend money Congress didn’t appropriate?

Susan Pendergrass (16:54)
I think they were told that they don’t, right, in the end?

Elias Tsapelas (16:59)
The Supreme Court basically said courts needed to wrestle with the issue. It got resolved before a final answer. We don’t know for now. Judges were on different sides. Democrats pushed back noting that in previous budgets, they fought to fund things, but the executive branch simply didn’t spend the money. There’s a lot of interesting stuff: can courts force funding, can the executive disregard congressional appropriations? I’m upset that didn’t get resolved. But the ACA issue is big enough that Congress has its hands full.

Susan Pendergrass (17:53)
Some folks said that because of the SNAP benefit question, we were just getting to the point where Americans were paying attention to the shutdown and then it ended. And what’s interesting is the amount of misinformation and hard to follow information. I saw headlines about someone’s insurance premiums going from $300 to $2,600. I don’t know if any of that was right, but it got a lot of play.

Elias Tsapelas (18:28)
I don’t think it was covered especially well in terms of what was being argued, because the government shut down far before these subsidies expired. There was a lot of muddying of the waters. Some people thought if subsidies weren’t extended, no one would have subsidies, even though the people most impacted would just go from paying 8.5 percent of income to 10 percent. Not nothing, but not catastrophic.

Health care costs are going up broadly. Medicare enrollees are getting renewal notices. Everything is going up. ARPA was designed to be temporary. If it were supposed to be permanent, Congress could have made it permanent. Whether Democrats thought it would be continued forever or just help temporarily is unclear. But if Congress comes up with something that makes health insurance better, I’m all for it. There are tough decisions. Congress has struggled with ACA reform for a decade.

Susan Pendergrass (20:20)
I think we know the answer to that. At the federal level, when they want to do big splashy things, ARPA, the ACA, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they make expenses short term to reduce the fiscal note, assuming someone will renew them later. Same thing with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. They assume future lawmakers will extend them. So it’s not unreasonable that ARPA had temporary provisions assuming they’d get extended. I guess not this time.

Elias Tsapelas (21:12)
People’s health care costs going up is a big issue. People won’t be happy regardless. But returning to issues that should have been addressed when the ACA passed is important. The marketplace is dysfunctional and too expensive. Hopefully Congress finds something better. And I don’t want to minimize issues for people close to retirement. That’s a big issue: people between 55 and 65, not on Medicare yet, often have significant health needs. If you tell a 60 year old who isn’t working that coverage is $40,000 a year, that won’t work.

Susan Pendergrass (21:53)
Yeah. That’s right.

Elias Tsapelas (22:23)
More options will be good. That is an important group that needs to be addressed.

Susan Pendergrass (23:07)
Well, thanks for explaining it so clearly and helping our listeners understand what was actually on the table. It’s a complicated topic, but we’ll watch it unfold over the next year, and hopefully you’ll come back and explain what’s happening as it unfolds.

Elias Tsapelas (23:23)
Hopefully something does happen, so there is something to explain. That would be the best case scenario.

Susan Pendergrass (23:25)
That’s right. All right, well, thanks so much, Elias. Really appreciate it.

Elias Tsapelas (23:31)
Thank you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post What the Government Shutdown Was Really About with Elias Tsapelas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

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

Listen to Part I Here

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

(Download Here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elias Tsapelas (10:43)
Well…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elias Tsapelas (24:28)
Yes.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

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

A good example is electricity bills in Missouri. From 2008 to 2017, the average retail electric bill in Missouri rose 29 percent—the second-biggest increase in the country over that time period. After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TJCA) lowered corporate tax rates from 35 to 21 percent, Missouri utilities reduced electric rates for customers. And it wasn’t just a coincidence; Missouri’s utilities specifically stated that the reason for the rate decreases was the corporate tax cuts.

For the past decade, electric rate increases for three of the four investor-owned utilities in Missouri have far outpaced average salary increases and general inflation. This means that a larger percentage of Missourians’ budgets are being dedicated to paying electric bills, with less being left over for other needs. However, that finally changed between 2018 and 2019 (2018 was the first full year of TJCA implementation) when electricity rates fell by 6 percent—customers of Missouri’s four investor-owned utilities saw cumulative savings of $159 million in 2018 alone.

In sum, just because you may not run a corporation doesn’t mean what happens to corporate tax rates doesn’t affect you. If a decrease in corporate tax rates meant an electric rate decrease for Missourians, it’s fair to believe a corporate tax rate increase would result in electric rate increases. And, as the last decade has shown, that’s an expensive proposition for all Missourians.

The post Does Your Household Pay Corporate Taxes? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With Super Sunday just around corner, we will cite the Apple commercial that introduced the Apple Macintosh personal computer in January 1984. It had the punch line: “You’ll see why 1984 won’t be like Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

That was an allusion to the dystopian future described in George Orwell’s book, 1984. The ad opens with a lone woman on the run. She bursts into an auditorium, where Big Brother—speaking not in person, but from a towering television screen—is haranguing a frightened mass of people. Then, spinning like a top, she hurls a sledgehammer at the figure on the screen. It flies high and right. Big Brother is silenced. The voice-over followed.

In this 60-second spot that aired during Super Bowl XVIII, the first Macintosh ad captured the one thing that an all-powerful or monolithic state cannot easily afford to tolerate. That is, any real expression of individual freedom and initiative.

We believe that is a timely message not just on the eve of another Super Bowl, but still more in the context of the current debate over economic and public policies.

Following a long period of stagnation, the U.S. economy has come roaring back to life. We now have full employment, a booming stock market, and rising wages for most workers, including the lowest paid.

How did that happen? Fast answer: Over the past three years, the free market became a whole lot freer.

In its first year in office, the current administration delivered on its promise of sweeping regulatory relief. Suddenly, the regulatory state, which had expanded by leaps and bounds during the previous administration, began to contract . . . and that has continued, as a result of major changes in policy and direction at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other arms of government.

Then came the biggest tax cuts and tax reforms since the Reagan era. With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the administration lowered income taxes across the board and left more money in the pockets of individuals and business entities alike.

So, we are now living in the best of times economically. How could anyone argue otherwise? But they can—and are. Never mind what the numbers say.

Among leaders on the Left, there is a broad consensus that we are living not in the best of times, but in the most desperate of times—almost as if we were back in the early years of the Great Depression, when industrial production plunged, unemployment soared, and more than a quarter of the population was without any income at all.

In the badly mistaken belief that capitalism and free enterprise have run amok, they are promoting economic policies and ideas that are diametrically opposed to those that got us where we are today.

With little disagreement between them, these same leaders want free college, free health care for all, universal child care, and the banning of fossil fuels as part of a many-splendored Green New Deal—and they don’t appear to care what anything costs or what the adverse impact may be on ordinary people.

Apart from the astronomically high price tags associated with all of these programs—which would quickly bring the economy to a shuddering halt if any serious attempt were made to implement them—it is worth thinking about the underlying message that the leaders who are espousing this great agglomeration of multi-trillion-dollar programs want to send to the American people.

The real take-away message comes down to this:

·         “If you or any of your children want to go to college, don’t worry about being able to afford the college tuition. We’ll take care of the problem for you.”

·         “If you’re worried about health care, don’t think you have to buy health insurance or do anything else. We’ll take care of you.”

·         “Got young children at home and want to go to work? We’ll take care of the kids, too.”

If all that sounds too good to be true, it’s because it is too good to be true. Someone has to pay for college tuition—and all the other freebies—and that can only mean higher taxes on working people at all levels of income.

As George Orwell, the author of 1984, understood very well, a free people who stop taking care of themselves and rely on the state to do everything for them make a very bad bargain. It is one of the insights you find on almost every page of his book.

When people cease to make their own plans—and trust government to make decisions for them in more and more areas of their lives—they commit the error of failing to make full use of their capacities as individual human beings. In failing to make the most of their own gifts and talents, and their own dreams and aspirations, they sell themselves short . . . and lead less-fulfilling lives.

How prophetic was Orwell’s book? Not that this was the author’s intention, but how well did the book foretell the future of socialism in his native country—this being Britain in the first few years after World War II?

The British elections in mid-1945 marked a major turning point—not only sweeping Winston Churchill and a Tory-led government out of office, but also standing as an unquestioned affirmation of the desire of most of the British electorate to bring a new government to power that was fully committed to socialism.

So how did things work out in Britain during the three and a half decades when socialism, as opposed to free-market capitalism, was the prevailing mode of government—a period lasting from 1945 to 1979, when Margaret Thatcher came to power?

Socialist Britain did not become a police state. But it did undergo a metamorphosis. It changed from a powerful and dynamic country into the perennial “sick man of Europe,” reeling from one financial crisis to another in a sustained period of economic stagnation and decline. It became a country obsessed with issues of job security and income redistribution as different groups competed with one another in trying to wring more favors out of an increasingly improvident state. There was little or no new business formation—none of the spark provided by people like Steve Jobs and products like the first Macintosh computer.

Even the Labor Party could see the futility of its centralized, interventionist approach. Jim Callaghan, the last Labor prime minister before Thatcher, admitted in Parliament: “Let me say that of course there has been a fall in peoples’ standard of life. It has fallen this year and will fall again next year.”

Fortunately, Thatcher supplied the leadership that was necessary to pull Britain out of the decades-long decline that began with the wrong turn that it took at the end of World War II.

Is there any possibility that we as a country could make the same mistake that Britain made in 1945?

The danger is there. It is time to throw another hammer—or sledge-hammer—into the works of another historic wrong turn—this time involving the United States.

This does not require heroic action on the part of a solitary individual. But it does require a willingness on the part of many people to play the same kind of role within their own group of friends and relatives that Thatcher played in Britain—in stressing the paramount importance of individual freedom and initiative in securing the future we want for ourselves and future generations.

The post Is There a 1984 in Our Future? A Super Bowl Reflection appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some economists and policymakers caution that the law’s loose language is ripe to be gamed or at the very least exploited outside the spirit of the program’s intent. Concerns about gentrification and the displacement of poor, minority neighborhoods in the name of economic development are legitimate, they say, and probably will play out in unexpected ways, should the program work as designed.

Later in the piece we learn the Kansas City Opportunity Zone Coalition is being “spearheaded” by the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. It is not a surprise that the chamber would be involved, but anyone familiar with their role in city and state economic development policy knows this isn’t necessarily a good sign the program won’t be gamed or exploited.

The Heritage Foundation recently published a piece on Opportunity Zones, and they remain skeptical:

Academic and government studies show that past place-based development experiments often failed to yield promised employment gains or advance general economic opportunity for targeted residents. Even in cases where place-based policies induce greater investment within the targeted zone, the favored businesses gain an unfair advantage over competitors elsewhere. Often, new investments simply represent a shift in capital away from other investment opportunities outside the zone’s boundaries. In those instances where place-based policies draw capital away from more productive investments, they can result in net economic losses of jobs and income.

Incentives lavished on downtown Kansas City are a perfect example of the failed promises of place-based development incentives. A great deal of tax dollars have been spent just to redirect investment; little if any new economic activity has occurred citywide. That’s not to say that governments are powerless. But the power they wield is often negative. They can do the most good by simply getting out of the way, as the Heritage piece notes:

The economic literature, however, does offer a positive vision for helping distressed communities access economic opportunity. Lifting government-imposed barriers to work, housing supply, and education choice can expand economic mobility and opportunity. In stark contrast, top-down federal incentives can unintentionally reward failing state and local policies by masking the need for reform. Paired with removing government-imposed barriers to success, broadly applied tax reforms that reduce taxes on investment for everyone can help lift struggling communities out of poverty.

Pundits and policymakers, like former Kansas City Star columnist Steve Rose pictured above, have for too long said they don’t care what the research reveals. That is unfortunate, because good public policy demands that we pay attention to successes and failures here and elsewhere.

The post Opportunity Zones? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who makes his livin’ off of the people’s taxes, held a press conference to bemoan the $2.3 billion drop in state income tax revenue in December and January alone. Cuomo suggested that this was the result of the 2017 tax reform bill which reduced the amount of state taxes one can deduct from one’s federal tax burden. As a result, states with high income taxes, like New York and California, fear that their wealthy residents will flee to lower tax states like Florida. As Steve Miller might say,

They got the money, hey, you know they got away
They headed down south and they’re still running today
Singin’ go on take the money and run

This should serve as an important reminder to public officials at every level, including the Missouri General Assembly and policymakers in St. Louis and Kansas City, that people do make choices based on tax burden. The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that 53 percent of Californians want to leave the state in part due to the high cost of living, impacted by high income taxes.

As we’ve noted numerous times before, taxes in Missouri are too high. If Missouri wants to attract residents, employers, innovators—or anyone—policymakers must be better stewards of taxpayer dollars and provide basic services at the lowest possible cost.

The post Go On Take Your Money and Run appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ June data for Missouri, there is good news for our state, too. Our unemployment rate ticked down to 3.5% from 3.6% in May, which was already down from 3.7% in January. Missouri is now half a percentage point below the national unemployment rate. Additionally, Missouri’s labor force saw an increase of 8,000 people in just the last month. These data might suggest that an increasing number of Missourians are interested in working, and they are successfully finding jobs.

These statistics do not tell the whole story, however. Historically, Missouri is one of the slowest growing states in the nation. Compared to Tennessee, a demographically similar state, Missouri is still underperforming despite having similar unemployment rates. When looking at the growth in employment, Tennessee trumps Missouri. The figure below displays total employment as a percentage of 1990 employment. Even with a good last few months, Missouri lags behind Tennessee.

With similar demographics and access to resources, it should be possible for Missouri to experience Tennessee’s level of growth. As we discussed before, Tennessee’s improved performance might be related to its education and workforce development initiatives or lower tax burdens. Missouri has been heading in the right direction in recent months—but should we be content, or should we examine whether Missouri could benefit from adopting the policies that have helped Tennessee’s growth outpace ours?

The post Missouri’s Making Improvements, but Still Trailing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Witness an incredible turn of events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the tax tables tell an entirely different story.

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

This is your conscience calling. I speak to all of you who call yourselves conservatives – the champions of limited government and economic freedom. Another year has come and gone and what do you have to show for it? “Too damned little,” I say, given super-majorities in both houses of the Legislature and control of the executive branch as well.

Look at what has just happened in the U.S. Congress. With far narrower majorities than you have in the Missouri Legislature, your counterparts on the national stage passed the most important pro-growth tax policy in many years – cutting the corporate income tax to 21 from 35 percent while also allowing businesses to write off the full costs of new equipment to improve operations and enhance productivity. In addition, under the new legislation, middle-income taxpayers will pay about $900 less in their 2018 tax bill than they would under the current law, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Though I may sound critical, I really do want you to succeed – for nothing is gained if you continue to ignore the chastisements of your often-troubled but ever-hopeful conscience. Here are my New Year’s Resolutions for you going into the 2018 session of the Missouri Legislature –

One, don’t be afraid to think big and act boldly. For almost three decades, Missouri has been one of the slowest-growing states in the nation. That alone should tell you that a major course correction is in order – and long overdue.

Two, say “No” to corporate welfare. Slaughter the fatted calves of tax credits for economic development (eliminating as much as $400 million in annual state expenditures).

Three, use those savings to lower taxes for all Missourians – both individuals and businesses.

Four, deregulate, deregulate, deregulate. Nationally, the undoing of many of the regulatory excesses from the Obama administration helped to power 3-percent-plus GDP growth in the second and third quarters. Further deregulation at the state and local government levels in Missouri can have a similarly beneficial effect. The governor’s No MO Red Tape initiative looks like a big step in the right direction.

Five, and this is a plea that is meant not just for lawmakers, but for who believe in the power of free markets: Do not shirk debate and, still more, do not shrink from the important task of ridding young people of the pernicious idea (widely accepted at colleges and universities in Missouri and across the country) that free-market capitalism is an evil system that promotes social injustice.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Free-market capitalism under limited (as opposed to wide-ranging) government is the only economic system that spreads opportunity far and wide and that reliably delivers both growth and prosperity to the many and not just the few.

To you lawmakers, I say, in closing: Good luck on ringing in the New Year with the strength and conviction that come from knowing that you are capable of achieving great things.

This op-ed also appeared in th Joplin Globe.

The post Arise and Shine, Missouri lawmakers: You Have Nothing to Lose but a Long History of Bad Performance. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Congress approved a sweeping $1.5 trillion tax bill on Wednesday that slashes rates for corporations, provides new breaks for private businesses and reorganizes the individual tax code.

The Senate passed the GOP bill early Wednesday morning and the House then voted on it for a second time to fix technical problems with the legislation, the final step before it’s sent to President Donald Trump for his signature.

According to the Tax Policy Center, 8 out of 10 Americans will see their taxes reduced under the finalized bill, including the vast majority of middle income earners. It also sounds like entitlement reform could be coming soon to pair any long-term revenue reductions from this tax relief with long-term spending reductions, as well. Entitlement reform should have happened with or without tax reform, obviously, but that the two issues are being talked about in the same breath now is a positive development for supporters of good, sustainable governance.

But let’s not forget one other big development in the tax reform bill: starting in 2019, the end of Obamacare’s mandate penalty/tax.

The individual mandate was included in ObamaCare in part to draw young and healthy people to sign up for insurance in the marketplaces as a way to offset the costs of older and sicker enrollees.

Still, not everyone agrees that the measure has worked as intended, with some saying the mandate hasn’t been as effective as originally thought to entice people to buy health insurance.

“Today, we’re turning Obamacare from a mandatory program into a voluntary program and providing additional tax relief for the millions and millions of Americans who have chosen and will choose not to buy a government-mandated product that for them provides not the value that they want,” Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), the No. 4 Senate Republican, told reporters on Tuesday.

To me as a Millennial, the functioning of Obamacare’s mandate was a particularly objectionable piece of that bill that used younger, generally poorer Americans to subsidize everyone else in the individual market. It’s why so many young people instead risked not getting the insurance at all, especially as the premiums on the plans available to them exploded year after year. 

In the end, while I’d like to have seen more from the bill—and frankly, more from this year, including a full repeal of Obamacare—the passage of the TCJA is a welcome win in what could otherwise have been a dicey year for supporters of free market reform. 

The post Tax Cuts And Jobs Act Passes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.