For some reason, film tax credits remain popular in Jefferson City. They are much less popular with economists.

Missouri lawmakers are once again debating whether to extend the state’s film tax credit program. Earlier this month, I testified against legislation that would continue the subsidy. For those who don’t remember, this is a debate the state has already had.

Missouri operated a film tax credit program before ending it more than a decade ago. In 2010, the state’s Tax Credit Review Commission examined the program and concluded it served too narrow an industry to justify its cost to taxpayers. Lawmakers shut it down soon after. The idea never fully disappeared, though, and in 2023 the subsidy returned, this time with the promise of better results. The current program allows up to $16 million per year in credits for film and television productions.

So far, there is little evidence that anything has changed. Supporters point to production spending as proof that the program works. The Missouri Film Office reports that productions spent more than $40 million in the state in 2025 while receiving roughly $15.7 million in credits. But production spending is not the same as fiscal return. Much of that activity consists of temporary wages, lodging, equipment rentals, and other short-term expenses tied to a shoot. When filming ends, much of that spending leaves with it. What matters for taxpayers is how much tax revenue actually makes its way back to the state.

On that measure, film subsidies perform poorly almost everywhere they have been tried. Research summarized by the Tax Foundation estimates governments recapture between eight and twenty-eight cents in new tax revenue for every dollar of credit issued. Even Georgia, often cited as the model for film incentives, struggles to demonstrate that the program pays for itself. A 2020 performance audit by the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts found that tax revenue generated by film production activity fell well short of the credits the state awarded.

There is also a basic budget reality lawmakers should keep in mind. Film tax credits are sometimes treated as something different than spending because the state only grants them after a production films in Missouri. But the fiscal effect is the same. Each credit issued is a commitment to collect less revenue in the future.

Meanwhile, the productions most closely associated with Missouri often film somewhere else entirely. A new HBO series set in St. Louis, DTF St. Louis, was filmed in Georgia. The Netflix series Ozark, which was set at Missouri’s Lake of the Ozarks, was also largely filmed in Georgia.

Though it should go without saying, Missouri’s lawmakers should be focused on using state tax dollars as effectively as possible. And there’s no disputing that film tax credits have repeatedly failed that test. Extending the credit today would mean ignoring the state’s past experience and choosing to repeat it.

The post Missouri’s Film Tax Credits Still Don’t Add Up appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Elias Tsapelas, and I’m the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy at the Show-Me Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, Missouri-based think tank that advances sensible, well-researched, free-market solutions to state and local policy issues. The ideas presented here are my own and are offered in consideration of proposals that will affect tax credits in Missouri.

Senate Bill 1079 consolidates Missouri’s existing film and series production tax credit sub-caps into a single $16 million pool for both, leaving the state’s total commitment the same. The only substantive effect of the bill would be to give the Film Office more flexibility in how the same dollars are allocated. That flexibility does not address the fundamental problem with this program.

Current and Past Tax Credit Failures

Despite the Missouri film tax credit’s recent revival, our state has a long history with this troubling incentive. Until its sunset in 2013, Missouri’s previous iteration made promises similar to what supporters are touting today. Missouri’s own Tax Credit Review Commission recommended the credit be eliminated because it served too narrow an industry and failed to provide a positive return on investment.¹

Research confirms that pattern holds nationally. Film tax credits have not resulted in job growth, have not affected market share or industry output, and have produced only short-term wage gains for those already in the industry.² Credits in many states generated just cents on the dollar. As one Tax Foundation analyst notes, “non-favored activities and businesses remain on the hook to bear the full impact of the state’s tax code.”³

The Missouri Film Office has pointed to the number of projects approved and production spending in the state as evidence the program is working, but that is not the right measure for determining whether the program is a good investment for state taxpayers.⁴ The relevant question is how much the state receives back in tax revenue and broader economic activity—and by that measure, the research is consistent: film tax credits do not generate a positive return.

The Competitiveness Argument Doesn’t Hold

Supporters of SB 1079 argue that pooling the sub-caps will make Missouri more competitive for productions. Even setting aside the ROI question, that argument doesn’t hold.

Steven Conrad, the showrunner who created a new HBO series set in St. Louis and filmed it entirely in Atlanta, recently suggested that governments may not be well-served by chasing the film industry at all.⁵ His observation reflects a structural reality: Georgia has spent two decades building the studios, crews, soundstages, and production infrastructure that make large productions possible. Missouri has not. No reallocation of $16 million changes that.

Georgia’s own state auditor found that even Georgia’s fully developed, deeply established program returned just 10 cents to the state for every dollar of credit granted, producing a net revenue loss of $602 million in a single year.⁶ If one of the most mature film-incentive programs in the country cannot generate a positive return on investment, a program at a fraction of its scale operating in a state without comparable infrastructure has no prospect of doing so.

Targeted Credits Are Poor Economic Policy

Targeted economic development tax credits are just another way for lawmakers to pick winners and losers, a job that is better left to consumers in the market. When tax breaks are given to some, other taxpayers have to make up for the lost revenue. The impulse to do something to support an industry is understandable, but tax credits are a poor substitute for the conditions that make industries thrive organically. A dollar of film tax credits reduces state revenue by exactly the same amount as a dollar of direct appropriations—the difference is that credits bypass the appropriations process and receive less scrutiny.

Prioritize Tax Relief That Benefits All Missourians

Missouri is already a national leader in state spending in the name of economic development. Over the past few decades, Missouri has forgone billions in state tax revenue in favor of a host of narrow incentives that have consistently shown poor results. In FY2025 alone, Missouri redeemed more than $961 million in tax credits—nearly double the $521 million redeemed in 2010.⁷ The General Assembly is simultaneously weighing whether to eliminate the state income tax, a reform that would deliver broad economic benefits to every Missourian. The legislature should consider whether a growing tax credit portfolio is consistent with that goal. Expanding targeted credits that erode the income-tax base works against broad-based tax relief, and Missouri would be better served by pursuing the latter.

The film tax credit is a small program, but it exemplifies the approach to tax policy that makes comprehensive reform harder to achieve. Tax credit programs have not been successful in Missouri in the past, there is little evidence to suggest the film tax credit is succeeding now, and there is no reason to believe this program will perform differently under a restructured allocation. If increasing economic opportunity is the goal, the research is clear: Instead trying to manufacture more opportunities at the expense of taxpayers, lawmakers should provide broad-based tax relief to every Missourian.

NOTES

1. “Report of the Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission.” Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission. 2010; https://www.semissourian.com/files/tcrcfinalreport113010.pdf.
2. “Lights, camera and no action: How state film subsidies fail.” USC Press Release. August 18, 2016; https://pressroom.usc.edu/lights-camera-and-no-action-how-state-film-subsidies-fail.
3. Loughead, Katherine. “Illuminating the Hidden Costs of State Tax Incentives.” Tax Foundation. 2021; https://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-incentives-costs.
4. “Made-in-Missouri Film and TV Productions Spent $40.7 Million in 2025.” Missouri Department of Economic Development. February 2026; https://ded.mo.gov/press-room/made-missouri-film-and-tv-productions-spent-407-million-2025.
5. Neman, Daniel. “HBO’s DTF St. Louis has a dream cast, but it wasn’t shot here.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. February 26, 2026; https://www.stltoday.com/life-entertainment/local/movies-tv/article_cfa2d34c-435a-40fd-9fa5-75933d716915.html.
6. “Impact of the Georgia Film Tax Credit.” Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts, Performance Audit Division. Report No. 18-03B. January 2020; https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/23536.
7. “Fourth Quarter Tax Credit Report, Fiscal Year 2025.” Missouri Department of Revenue. 2025; https://dor.mo.gov/public-reports/documents/Fourth-Quarter-FY25-Tax-Credit-Report.pdf.

The post Senate Bill 1079: Film Tax Credits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Elias Tsapelas, and I’m the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy at the Show-Me Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, Missouri-based think tank that advances sensible, well-researched, free-market solutions to state and local policy issues. The ideas presented here are my own and are offered in consideration of proposals that will affect tax credits in Missouri.

House Bill 2142 consolidates Missouri’s existing film and series production tax credit sub-caps into a single $16 million pool for both, leaving the state’s total commitment the same. The only substantive effect of the bill would be to give the Film Office more flexibility in how the same dollars are allocated. That flexibility does not address the fundamental problem with this program.

Current and Past Tax Credit Failures

Despite the Missouri film tax credit’s recent revival, our state has a long history with this troubling incentive. Until its sunset in 2013, Missouri’s previous iteration made promises similar to what supporters are touting today. Missouri’s own Tax Credit Review Commission recommended the credit be eliminated because it served too narrow an industry and failed to provide a positive return on investment.¹

Research confirms that pattern holds nationally. Film tax credits have not resulted in job growth, have not affected market share or industry output, and have produced only short-term wage gains for those already in the industry.² Credits in many states generated just cents on the dollar. As one Tax Foundation analyst notes, “non-favored activities and businesses remain on the hook to bear the full impact of the state’s tax code.”³

The Missouri Film Office has pointed to the number of projects approved and production spending in the state as evidence the program is working, but that is not the right measure for determining whether the program is a good investment for state taxpayers.⁴ The relevant question is how much the state receives back in tax revenue and broader economic activity—and by that measure, the research is consistent: film tax credits do not generate a positive return.

The Competitiveness Argument Doesn’t Hold

Supporters of HB 2142 argue that pooling the sub-caps will make Missouri more competitive for productions. Even setting aside the ROI question, that argument doesn’t hold.

Steven Conrad, the showrunner who created a new HBO series set in St. Louis and filmed it entirely in Atlanta, recently suggested that governments may not be well-served by chasing the film industry at all.⁵ His observation reflects a structural reality: Georgia has spent two decades building the studios, crews, soundstages, and production infrastructure that make large productions possible. Missouri has not. No reallocation of $16 million changes that.

Georgia’s own state auditor found that even Georgia’s fully developed, deeply established program returned just 10 cents to the state for every dollar of credit granted, producing a net revenue loss of $602 million in a single year.⁶ If one of the most mature film-incentive programs in the country cannot generate a positive return on investment, a program at a fraction of its scale operating in a state without comparable infrastructure has no prospect of doing so.

Targeted Credits Are Poor Economic Policy

Targeted economic development tax credits are just another way for lawmakers to pick winners and losers, a job that is better left to consumers in the market. When tax breaks are given to some, other taxpayers have to make up for the lost revenue. The impulse to do something to support an industry is understandable, but tax credits are a poor substitute for the conditions that make industries thrive organically. A dollar of film tax credits reduces state revenue by exactly the same amount as a dollar of direct appropriations—the difference is that credits bypass the appropriations process and receive less scrutiny.

Prioritize Tax Relief That Benefits All Missourians

Missouri is already a national leader in state spending in the name of economic development. Over the past few decades, Missouri has forgone billions in state tax revenue in favor of a host of narrow incentives that have consistently shown poor results. In FY2025 alone, Missouri redeemed more than $961 million in tax credits—nearly double the $521 million redeemed in 2010.⁷ The General Assembly is simultaneously weighing whether to eliminate the state income tax, a reform that would deliver broad economic benefits to every Missourian. The legislature should consider whether a growing tax credit portfolio is consistent with that goal. Expanding targeted credits that erode the income-tax base works against broad-based tax relief, and Missouri would be better served by pursuing the latter.

The film tax credit is a small program, but it exemplifies the approach to tax policy that makes comprehensive reform harder to achieve. Tax credit programs have not been successful in Missouri in the past, there is little evidence to suggest the film tax credit is succeeding now, and there is no reason to believe this program will perform differently under a restructured allocation. If increasing economic opportunity is the goal, the research is clear: Instead trying to manufacture more opportunities at the expense of taxpayers, lawmakers should provide broad-based tax relief to every Missourian.

NOTES

1. “Report of the Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission.” Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission. 2010; https://www.semissourian.com/files/tcrcfinalreport113010.pdf.
2. “Lights, camera and no action: How state film subsidies fail.” USC Press Release. August 18, 2016; https://pressroom.usc.edu/lights-camera-and-no-action-how-state-film-subsidies-fail.
3. Loughead, Katherine. “Illuminating the Hidden Costs of State Tax Incentives.” Tax Foundation. 2021; https://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-incentives-costs.
4. “Made-in-Missouri Film and TV Productions Spent $40.7 Million in 2025.” Missouri Department of Economic Development. February 2026; https://ded.mo.gov/press-room/made-missouri-film-and-tv-productions-spent-407-million-2025.
5. Neman, Daniel. “HBO’s DTF St. Louis has a dream cast, but it wasn’t shot here.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. February 26, 2026; https://www.stltoday.com/life-entertainment/local/movies-tv/article_cfa2d34c-435a-40fd-9fa5-75933d716915.html.
6. “Impact of the Georgia Film Tax Credit.” Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts, Performance Audit Division. Report No. 18-03B. January 2020; https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/23536.
7. “Fourth Quarter Tax Credit Report, Fiscal Year 2025.” Missouri Department of Revenue. 2025; https://dor.mo.gov/public-reports/documents/Fourth-Quarter-FY25-Tax-Credit-Report.pdf.

The post House Bill 2142: Film Tax Credits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Elias Tsapelas, and I’m the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy at the Show-Me Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, Missouri-based think tank that advances sensible, well-researched, free-market solutions to state and local policy issues. The ideas presented here are my own and are offered in consideration of proposals that will affect tax credits in Missouri.

House Bill 2058 consolidates Missouri’s existing film and series production tax credit sub-caps into a single $16 million pool for both, leaving the state’s total commitment the same. The only substantive effect of the bill would be to give the Film Office more flexibility in how the same dollars are allocated. That flexibility does not address the fundamental problem with this program.

Current and Past Tax Credit Failures

Despite the Missouri film tax credit’s recent revival, our state has a long history with this troubling incentive. Until its sunset in 2013, Missouri’s previous iteration made promises similar to what supporters are touting today. Missouri’s own Tax Credit Review Commission recommended the credit be eliminated because it served too narrow an industry and failed to provide a positive return on investment.¹

Research confirms that pattern holds nationally. Film tax credits have not resulted in job growth, have not affected market share or industry output, and have produced only short-term wage gains for those already in the industry.² Credits in many states generated just cents on the dollar. As one Tax Foundation analyst notes, “non-favored activities and businesses remain on the hook to bear the full impact of the state’s tax code.”³

The Missouri Film Office has pointed to the number of projects approved and production spending in the state as evidence the program is working, but that is not the right measure for determining whether the program is a good investment for state taxpayers.⁴ The relevant question is how much the state receives back in tax revenue and broader economic activity—and by that measure, the research is consistent: film tax credits do not generate a positive return.

The Competitiveness Argument Doesn’t Hold

Supporters of HB 2058 argue that pooling the sub-caps will make Missouri more competitive for productions. Even setting aside the ROI question, that argument doesn’t hold.

Steven Conrad, the showrunner who created a new HBO series set in St. Louis and filmed it entirely in Atlanta, recently suggested that governments may not be well-served by chasing the film industry at all.⁵ His observation reflects a structural reality: Georgia has spent two decades building the studios, crews, soundstages, and production infrastructure that make large productions possible. Missouri has not. No reallocation of $16 million changes that.

Georgia’s own state auditor found that even Georgia’s fully developed, deeply established program returned just 10 cents to the state for every dollar of credit granted, producing a net revenue loss of $602 million in a single year.⁶ If one of the most mature film-incentive programs in the country cannot generate a positive return on investment, a program at a fraction of its scale operating in a state without comparable infrastructure has no prospect of doing so.

Targeted Credits Are Poor Economic Policy

Targeted economic development tax credits are just another way for lawmakers to pick winners and losers, a job that is better left to consumers in the market. When tax breaks are given to some, other taxpayers have to make up for the lost revenue. The impulse to do something to support an industry is understandable, but tax credits are a poor substitute for the conditions that make industries thrive organically. A dollar of film tax credits reduces state revenue by exactly the same amount as a dollar of direct appropriations—the difference is that credits bypass the appropriations process and receive less scrutiny.

Prioritize Tax Relief That Benefits All Missourians

Missouri is already a national leader in state spending in the name of economic development. Over the past few decades, Missouri has forgone billions in state tax revenue in favor of a host of narrow incentives that have consistently shown poor results. In FY2025 alone, Missouri redeemed more than $961 million in tax credits—nearly double the $521 million redeemed in 2010.⁷ The General Assembly is simultaneously weighing whether to eliminate the state income tax, a reform that would deliver broad economic benefits to every Missourian. The legislature should consider whether a growing tax credit portfolio is consistent with that goal. Expanding targeted credits that erode the income-tax base works against broad-based tax relief, and Missouri would be better served by pursuing the latter.

The film tax credit is a small program, but it exemplifies the approach to tax policy that makes comprehensive reform harder to achieve. Tax credit programs have not been successful in Missouri in the past, there is little evidence to suggest the film tax credit is succeeding now, and there is no reason to believe this program will perform differently under a restructured allocation. If increasing economic opportunity is the goal, the research is clear: Instead trying to manufacture more opportunities at the expense of taxpayers, lawmakers should provide broad-based tax relief to every Missourian.

NOTES

1. “Report of the Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission.” Missouri Tax Credit Review Commission. 2010; https://www.semissourian.com/files/tcrcfinalreport113010.pdf.
2. “Lights, camera and no action: How state film subsidies fail.” USC Press Release. August 18, 2016; https://pressroom.usc.edu/lights-camera-and-no-action-how-state-film-subsidies-fail.
3. Loughead, Katherine. “Illuminating the Hidden Costs of State Tax Incentives.” Tax Foundation. 2021; https://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-incentives-costs.
4. “Made-in-Missouri Film and TV Productions Spent $40.7 Million in 2025.” Missouri Department of Economic Development. February 2026; https://ded.mo.gov/press-room/made-missouri-film-and-tv-productions-spent-407-million-2025.
5. Neman, Daniel. “HBO’s DTF St. Louis has a dream cast, but it wasn’t shot here.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. February 26, 2026; https://www.stltoday.com/life-entertainment/local/movies-tv/article_cfa2d34c-435a-40fd-9fa5-75933d716915.html.
6. “Impact of the Georgia Film Tax Credit.” Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts, Performance Audit Division. Report No. 18-03B. January 2020; https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/23536.
7. “Fourth Quarter Tax Credit Report, Fiscal Year 2025.” Missouri Department of Revenue. 2025; https://dor.mo.gov/public-reports/documents/Fourth-Quarter-FY25-Tax-Credit-Report.pdf.

The post House Bill 2058: Film Tax Credits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In his January 30 op-ed for the Post-Dispatch, Kansas political scientist Michael Smith called Governor Mike Kehoe’s proposal to cut income taxes in Missouri a “near carbon copy” of Governor Sam Brownback’s 2012 income tax cuts in Kansas.

But Kehoe’s proposal for Missouri has large and important differences from Brownback’s. It isn’t a “carbon copy” at all.

The single largest flaw in Brownback’s tax cut was a peculiar change that eliminated all income taxes on “pass-through” business entities such as limited liability corporations (LLCs) without changing the tax code for other types of businesses. Even the right-leaning Tax Foundation criticized the provision at the time. Put simply, it didn’t encourage investment; it ended income taxes for one type of business while keeping them for others.

Not surprisingly, many businesses changed their corporate structure to suddenly become pass-through entities. The Tax Foundation found that over 390,000 entities claimed the exemption by 2015, more than double what was projected. These businesses didn’t invest in the state, hire more workers, or do anything other than change their legal status. Tax revenues declined significantly, and little growth followed.

Kansas also made critical mistakes in how it implemented income-tax cuts. The state slashed its top income-tax rate by nearly 30 percent immediately in 2012, with plans to cut even further. At the same time, Kansas’s elected officials failed to rein in spending. The combination of the pass-through exemption, immediate and deep rate cuts, and lack of spending discipline during this period fostered a fiscal crisis that could have been avoided. Even worse, the timing of these actions gave the state little room to adjust when projections weren’t borne out.

Kehoe’s proposal is fundamentally different. It asks Missouri voters whether they want to eliminate the income tax. If they do, the state can then expand and adjust its sales tax to replace the lost revenue. While many details remain to be finalized (and Missourians have every right to be skeptical while awaiting those details), the plan ensures that income tax rates can only be lowered after meeting revenue benchmarks, meaning Missouri would only cut taxes when it has the fiscal capacity to do so.

Setting aside the phasing out of the income tax, addressing Missouri’s outdated sales tax system is long overdue. While states nationwide are broadening what they tax, Missouri’s system remains narrow, with much of what is sold today escaping taxation entirely. Larger exemptions like home sales and healthcare services might make sense, but other current exemptions clearly don’t.

When you buy a book in person at Barnes & Noble or have the same book delivered to your house by Amazon, you pay the sales tax. However, when you buy the same text as a download to your Kindle, you pay no sales tax. Correcting such inconsistencies in Missouri’s tax code can level the playing field while expanding the sales tax base at the same time.

Opponents can point to Missouri’s western border all they want, but Missouri has other neighbors besides Kansas. Look at Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which have all cut income tax rates significantly in recent years without any of the issues Kansas had. Look to our southeast border to see Tennessee, a state that has been growing rapidly for years thanks, in part, to having no state income tax. This isn’t surprising, as decades of economic research have shown consistently that states without income taxes grow faster economically than those with them.

As the Tax Foundation, which was highly critical of Kansas’ tax cut, wrote in 2024 about the larger picture of state tax cuts between 2012 and 2022:

In fact, far from tax cuts precipitating a Kansas-like crisis, tax collections have risen more on average in the past decade in the 25 states that cut income taxes (31.9 percent in inflation-adjusted terms) than in the four states and D.C. that raised them (27.8 percent).

The lesson from Kansas isn’t that eliminating the income tax is a bad idea, it’s that implementation matters. There’s no doubt that states without income taxes are growing faster than Missouri, and our state needs a new approach to keep pace in the national competition for families and businesses. Voters deserve the full picture, not an overly simplistic “Kansas” bogeyman, when debating our state’s tax future.

The post Missouri Doesn’t Have To Be Kansas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For Missouri, perhaps the biggest change will be the cost of SNAP going up. Unlike Medicaid, the federal government has historically paid for 100% of the SNAP benefit, with states only on the hook for 50% of its administrative costs. The OBBB increases the share of administrative costs borne by states to 75%, and has the potential to start charging states for some program benefit costs as well.

There’s a noticeable focus in the OBBB on improving program integrity in America’s welfare programs. With Medicaid, the focus was on checking program recipients’ eligibility more frequently. For SNAP, the focus is on reducing state payment error rates. Last year, the national rate of overpayment for SNAP (awarding benefits to people who don’t qualify or offering more benefits than the recipient was eligible for) approached 10%, with Missouri not much behind at 8.16%. Perhaps the most surprising thing about the payment errors is that they’re almost entirely overpayments. The error rate for underpayments barely exceeds 1%.

To be clear, there could be myriad reasons for the errors, but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that the government needs to do better. One possible explanation is that states tend toward overpayments because they aren’t responsible for the cost. The OBBB tries to address this misaligned incentive by requiring states to get their error rates below 6% by 2028; states that fail to meet this goal will need to start paying for a portion of the cost, with the share scaling by how far away the state is from the 6% goal.

All told, the SNAP changes contained in the OBBB could have a greater impact on Missouri’s budget than the changes to Medicaid. According to the Tax Foundation, these new costs could reach up to $400 million per year for Missouri if the state isn’t able to sufficiently reduce its payment error rate. It’s important to remember that the only guaranteed increase in cost for states is the higher share required for administrative services. If Missouri can find efficiencies in how it administers the program, the state’s cost might not need to go up much at all.

In the coming weeks, I’ll explain more about the OBBB’s changes to SNAP (no, these aren’t all of them), but these are the two that could have the largest impact on Missouri’s budget. Now that the federal government has finally gotten around to tackling the many broken incentives in America’s welfare system, it’s time for Missouri to step up and follow through on enacting comprehensive reform.

The post SNAP Back to Reality appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Our two biggest cities—the economic engines of the state—have failed to grow as well. The City of St. Louis is emptying out, dropping from 622,236 in 1970 to 301,578 in 2020, though the larger metropolitan area has absorbed much of that loss. Kansas City saw dramatic population drops in the 80s and 90s, though recent growth has brought us up to over 500,000 around where we were in 1970. (Even still, the Kansas suburbs have been growing at a much higher rate than the city proper for decades.)

U-Haul publishes a migration index each year. For 2024, Missouri ranked 28th for growth.

Where is everyone fleeing to? The largest beneficiary of Missourian departures is Kansas—which is not a surprise to those of us here in the eastern part of the state. Kansas’s suburbs offer better schools, seemingly better-maintained infrastructure, and lower crime. Second is Illinois, with Texas, Arkansas and Florida rounding out the top 5 destinations.

(Aside: Yes, Florida and Texas have better climates than Missouri, but so do plenty of other states. Florida and Texas also have no state income tax. The Tax Foundation reports that low-tax states saw greater population growth than high-tax states.)

Missouri’s portion of the national GDP is shrinking as well. We produced 2% of the nation’s GDP in 1997. Today we produce only 1.5%.

Missouri’s leaders, at the state and local level, must decide if they are satisfied with our slow and steady decline. If they aren’t, what are their plans to reverse it? It can’t be more of the same, where we have driven up housing costs through foolish energy policies, or failed to deliver basic public safety. It certainly cannot be a continuation of former Governor Mike Parson’s profligate spending.

The Show-Me Institute has some ideas, thank you for asking, and most of them are about helping Missourians by getting government out of the way of families, businesses and entrepreneurs.

Not everyone will agree with our proposals. That is fine. But every leader should be asked: if not these policies, then what is your plan for reversing Missouri’s glide path to oblivion?

The post Missouri is Shrinking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Getting rid of the corporate income tax has many benefits, chief among them is raising Missouri’s GDP growth rate. Countless studies have found that corporate income taxes are economically harmful. Missouri ranks 26th in the United States for GDP growth, and eliminating this tax would make Missouri a more competitive, pro-growth state. While eliminating the corporate income tax would mean giving up the $900 million in revenues that the tax raised in 2023, some of the lost revenue would be offset by higher sales and personal income tax revenues owing to stronger economic growth. Moreover, the gradual nature of the phase-out would ease the transition.

Cutting the corporate income tax rate will also lead to business growth. A 2016 peer-reviewed article in the American Economic Review found that a 1% cut in a state’s corporate income tax rate leads to a 3–4% growth in the number of establishments over a 10-year period. The study found that a lower corporate tax is also good for increasing entrepreneurship. Missouri will become more attractive to both new and existing businesses with the elimination of the corporate income tax.

Another study found that a little more than half of the total incidence of corporate taxation falls on consumers through higher product prices, with capital owners bearing only 20% and workers bearing the remaining 28%. The Tax Foundation reports that, because corporate income taxes make it more expensive for businesses to invest in technology and equipment, eliminating the tax can increase efficiency which would generate higher revenue for companies. A tax cut will enable companies to not only increase wages but also create new jobs. If Missouri’s policymakers want to increase overall economic growth, HB 2274 is a step in the right direction.

The post House Voting on Corporate Income Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My general position on taxation has always been about maximizing growth, and specifically moving from income taxes to the least destructive tax for growth—the property tax. That does not mean, however, that I am unaware of or unsympathetic to alternative considerations that could be reasonably offered.

• Property taxes are the least destructive tax for promoting growth, but other objectives beyond “growth” do enter the calculus for policymakers. Is it “fair” for a taxpayer who owns property to get a tax benefit, but not a taxpayer who rents? Are real property taxes problematic in the same way personal property taxes are, or are they completely different policy issues? Like most things in life, tax policy is not a one-dimensional issue; stipulating to that reality is appropriate, even as I support reforms that stoke growth, against possible alterative priorities.
• From a practical perspective, it also isn’t great if seniors on fixed incomes find themselves unable to make their property tax payments if a massive assessment adjustment, like what we’re seeing in Jackson County, makes staying in their longtime homes fiscally impossible.

All that said, cutting the state and local tax base to ribbons, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, is a precarious proposition precisely for the very reason David highlights: unless government spending falls as tax exceptions are made, the cost of government will inevitably fall to the rest of the taxpayers.

And speaking of . . .

Missourians shopping for school supplies, clothes and computers during the state’s tax-free weekend Aug. 4-6 can save up to 5% more than in previous years.

A 2021 Missouri law taking effect this year prevents all cities, counties and special tax districts from charging local sales taxes during the back-to-school weekend.

Tax holiday shoppers have been exempt from the state sales tax of 4.225% since 2004, but many municipalities still charged local sales taxes. With local sales taxes eliminated, this year, shoppers will save up to 9%.

I would love to say that the sales tax holiday for school supplies is a net good for the state and families, but as The Tax Foundation notes:

While sales tax holidays have been politically popular for a long time, they have seen a boost this year as lawmakers look for ways to share surplus funds with taxpayers who are struggling to afford goods and services amid high inflation. But however well-intended they may be, sales tax holidays remain the same as they always have been—ineffective and inefficient. [emphasis mine]

Sales tax holidays have been and always will be dubious tools for promoting reasonable public policy objectives—they simply shift consumer spending patterns instead of changing them and are often used to promote illusory economic development benefits. As with tax credits on income taxes and tax abatements on property taxes, carving up the sales tax base with “tax holidays” can have similarly unintended consequences, even if the policy is good politics and good intentioned. But as with the senior property tax carveout, even a good intentioned sales tax holiday is bad policy.

The post “Tax-Free Weekend” Underscores Importance of Sound, Stable and Uniform Tax Policies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2013, Missouri ended its film tax credit program. Now there’s legislation moving in Jefferson City to revive the failed program.

Legislators should leave film tax credits where they lie, on the cutting room floor.

Studies Cited:

Tax Foundation: https://bit.ly/3Zln1zy

Mackinac Center: https://bit.ly/3ZsgPWi

The post The Case Against Rebooting Film Tax Credits in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state pays unemployment benefits from this fund, and the COVID-19-induced recession meant that the state was dipping into this fund more than normal. When the balance of the UI Trust Fund is too low, an increase in tax contribution rates on business owners is triggered.

As stated in the spending guide:

States can replenish their UI Trust Funds up to the difference between the balance on January 27, 2020 ($1.054 billion) and May 17, 2021 ($637 million). Thus, Missouri lawmakers should make a one-time contribution to the state UI Trust Fund of $417 million to prevent small businesses from facing hikes in their UI taxes and to keep the fund balance healthy in case of heavy future use.

A tax increase for businesses is the last thing anyone needs right now. Businesses pass on higher taxes to customers, which in turn means higher prices and costs for everyone.

With the finalization of the rules governing State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, there is now a tighter timeline for spending stimulus funds on replenishing the UI Trust Fund. If states use funds to replenish their UI trust funds after April 1, 2022, they will be subject to a maintenance of effort requirement for UI benefits through 2024. This means that if states use stimulus funds to supplement UI funds after April 1, they would not be allowed to take any action to reduce weekly unemployment benefits or the number of weeks of benefits available until after 2024.

As Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation wrote in a great summation piece:

Many states may have no desire to do this. Others may anticipate the need for an adjustment. Regardless, state lawmakers may be wary of having their hands tied by the federal government. But there is a grace period, which could be a motivation for states to act fast.

The bottom line is that if Missouri lawmakers want to replenish the UI Trust Fund without strings attached, they need to act quickly.

The post Lawmakers Should Replenish Unemployment Insurance by April 1st appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Per the Tax Foundation, states with the best tax systems “will be the most competitive at attracting new businesses and most effective at generating economic and employment growth.” A state should aim for a tax system that does not negatively affect business decisions; you don’t want businesses to relocate or decide not to expand because of tax concerns. Research has found that taxes that are low and broad based are least likely to affect business decisions in this way, and therefore make the best tax systems.

Missouri ranked relatively well for state corporate income tax, unemployment insurance tax, and property tax. Areas for improvement are the individual income tax and sales tax, as Missouri ranked 21st and 25th respectively. (It’s important to note that local taxes are factored into the index, but the main focus is state taxes, so this may not be a full picture of the taxes that affect Missouri’s businesses.) As explained in the index, Missouri has a good definition of taxable income, but a lot of income tax brackets, standard deductions, and exemptions, which complicate the tax system. Missouri’s highest income tax rate, 5.4 percent, is higher than the highest tax rate of 20 other states. The sales tax index is affected by sales tax rates, including the high local sales tax rates from numerous special taxing districts across Missouri.

Lawmakers should act to improve our ranking in this index—not just for bragging rights, but to attract businesses to our state. Lowering tax rates is one way to move Missouri in the right direction. Lawmakers should continue to lower income tax rates and work to rein in special taxing districts to improve the business tax climate in our state.

The post State Business Tax Climate Ranking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Tax Foundation study focuses on funding for America’s highways, and how road usage has been growing while the revenue to maintain them has been shrinking. This is true nationwide and for Missouri.

The bulk of Missouri’s highway funding (and that of many other states) comes from the federal Highway Trust Fund—which is funded by a federal fuel tax that has not changed since 1993. The tax is levied on vehicles that are increasingly fuel efficient. State fuel taxes supplement the federal funding; each state approaches its fuel tax differently. Some index the tax to inflation, some periodically raise it, and still others keep it constant, as Missouri has since 1996, with inflation eating away at its purchasing power.

This funding formula disparity will only get worse as fuel economy improves and no change is made to fuel taxes. In fact, the Highway Trust Fund, which sends money to states for road maintenance, is on the verge of insolvency by the end of next year unless the current funding formula is changed.

The study’s author promotes a charge on highway vehicle miles traveled as a potential solution. This charge would vary based on how much the vehicle weighs to account for the damage it does to the road. As the study notes, this highway formula “gets closer to capturing the externalities and approximating the road maintenance cost of each vehicle.”

In other words, toll roads.

The highway funding situation in Missouri will need to be addressed soon. Travel on Missouri’s interstates has increased 17 percent since 2008, and travel on other Missouri freeways and expressways has increased 20 percent since 2010 (the most recent year for which data for the latter category is available). Conversely, since 2008, the Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT) overall revenue has decreased by 15 percent, with state fuel tax revenue—the largest state-contributed source of funding—falling 0.5 percent.

Making MoDOT do more with less led to an average of $745 million in unfunded road and bridge priorities between 2014 and 2018. And some of the most traveled roads in Missouri—Interstates 44, 55, and 70—will need to be reconstructed soon.

With these pressing problems, shouldn’t Missouri lawmakers heed the advice of the Tax Foundation report and consider tolling?

The post New Research Highlights Need to Modernize Transportation Funding appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri ranked 14th and 18th in 2017 for income and sales tax collection as a percentage of state and local tax collection, respectively. I’m sure many Missourians can believe those rankings; with earnings taxes in our major cities and special taxing districts piled up across the state, we pay a lot of income and sales taxes. Though all taxes mean money out of our pockets, they don’t all have the same effects on economic growth.

Research (including research from SMI) shows that income and sales taxes have a larger negative effect on economic growth than property taxes. Income and sales taxes distort decisions related to working and spending, two huge drivers of economic growth. Decisions on property tend to be more permanent; a 3 percent increase in sales taxes may make you spend less at the store, but a 3 percent increase in property taxes probably won’t make you sell your house. This is why property taxes tend to distort the market less.

Revenue from income and sales taxes also tends to be more volatile than revenue from other kinds of taxes. During economic downturns (and especially during an economic shutdown), income and sales tax collections will fall quite a bit as people lose their jobs and have less money to spend. We won’t necessarily see such a large decrease in property tax revenue due to the same reason discussed above; it’s harder to make quick, short-term decisions about big investments like property. This is bad news if government-funded programs and services rely heavily on income and sales taxes for revenue.

It’s important to understand how our taxing decisions affect the overall growth of our state. Relying on income and sales taxes creates problems, and other states seem to be clued into this. It may be time to think about shifting toward property taxes and away from income and sales taxes in order to stay competitive with other states and promote economic growth in Missouri.

The post Missouri Doesn’t Rely on Property Taxes as Much as Other States. Is That a Problem? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tangible personal property taxes fall under the large umbrella of property taxes. TPP is property that can be moved or touched, like business equipment and furniture. This is separate from real property (land and structures) and intangible property (stocks, bonds, intellectual property). 

The Tax Foundation study reported personal property as a percentage of the state property tax base for all 50 states. This number tells us how much states are relying on personal property as part of their property tax base. Nationally, personal property made up 9.98% of the average state property tax base in 2017. Missouri’s number is nearly double that; personal property made up 18.79% of Missouri’s property tax base in 2017.

Okay, Missouri is relying heavily on TPP taxes. So what?

Well, TPP taxes are inefficient and distort decision-making. With respect to businesses, taxes on machinery, inventory, and other capital discourages them from expanding and investing. Businesses can avoid the TPP tax by moving to lower tax areas and changing their capital investment decisions. They also pass along the tax costs to consumers by raising prices. All of this alters the business environment and reduces business investment. Distortions occur on the consumer side of the market as well when TPP, like cars, are taxed—as they are in Missouri. We see a lot less of these distortions with real property taxes because they are much more difficult to avoid (you can’t move your land to a lower tax area) and the costs generally cannot be dispersed to third parties.

In general, property taxes are more efficient than other taxes, but tangible personal property taxes are less efficient than real property taxes. Missouri’s heavy reliance on such an inefficient form of property tax is a red flag. If we want to create a tax environment that encourages business investment, maybe we need to rethink our property tax base.

The post Is Missouri Discouraging Business Investment? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While tax exporting may succeed in disproportionately burdening nonresidents with a rental car tax, the taxes have negative economic effects for the taxing jurisdiction. In addition to lowering the quantity of car rental services demanded, there is evidence that consumers will travel to lower tax jurisdictions nearby, as was the case when Kansas City, Missouri levied a $4 per day rental car tax. Residents and nonresidents alike traveled across the state line to nearby Kansas, which offered a lower effective tax rate on an ad valorem basis, to avoid the tax in Missouri. This harmed Kansas City, Missouri’s economy, resulting in missed tax revenue, lower output, and potentially lost jobs in the rental car industry.

I myself have gone across the state line to rent a car in Kansas to save money. Many people in the region have done this, I am guessing, and the impact adds up. The paper cites research that put numbers to this behavior regarding rental cars:

Tax scholars William Gale and Kim Rueben found that a $4 per day rental car levy in Kansas City, Missouri—an effective tax rate of about 13 percent on an economy vehicle—reduced the number of customers at affected branches by 9 percent relative to branches that were unaffected. While consumers had less than a proportionate response to the tax, they altered their behavior by using other transportation options.

Kansas City cannot tax its way to prosperity. If city taxes remain high while services remain low, consumers and residents will continue to do what they have been doing: vote with their feet.

The post Taxes and Fees Affect Shopping Decisions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Tax Foundation’s rankings are a composite based on each state’s corporate, individual income, sales, property, and unemployment insurance taxes. Missouri ranks in the top ten for three of the taxes (corporate, unemployment insurance, and property), but 25^th for the remaining two (individual income and sales).

Despite the generally favorable ranking of Missouri’s tax climate from the Tax Foundation, the state’s economic growth continues to lag. In 2017, Missouri was ranked 37th among states with a paltry 1.1 percent real Gross State Product (GSP) growth rate, while the average growth over the previous ten years is even worse at only 0.48 percent. The tax climate is certainly not the only contributor to economic growth, but the difference in state rankings raises the question of whether the Tax Foundation’s index may be missing something.

To evaluate the applicability of the ranking results to Missouri, it is helpful to consider what makes a business climate attractive to new businesses, and whether the index attempted to capture those criteria. Studies show the main determinants of business climate are the tax and regulatory burdens each business must bear. From the outset, the Tax Foundation index does not measure regulatory burden, and also excludes most local taxes from their calculations. If the Index is missing several important components, should the state’s Department of Economic Development be touting the results?

The Tax Foundation’s rankings offer valuable information about Missouri’s business tax climate, but should not necessarily be the basis for future policymaking. If lawmakers are serious about improving Missouri’s business climate, reducing the regulatory burden and reforming local taxes should be part of the discussion.

The post Is Missouri’s Business Tax Climate Competitive? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Tax Foundation reported last year that 32 states exempt food purchased for consumption at home from tax. It reports that six other states tax food at a lower rate,

Food sales tax rates in these states are as follows: Arkansas: 1.5 percent, Illinois: 1 percent, Missouri: 1.225 percent, Tennessee: 5 percent, Utah: 3 percent, and Virginia: 2.5 percent.

This is true but incomplete. The Missouri General Assembly did in fact reduce its sales tax on food, but local sales taxes are still collected on food and beverage purchases. In St. Louis’s Central West End, the tax rate on groceries adds up to 7.4 percent; in Kansas City’s Power & Light District it is 7.6 percent.

What makes this the most unkindest tax of all, as Shakespeare might say, is that it is regressive, meaning it weighs disproportionately on the poor as everyone must buy food. Because Kansas City and St. Louis charge additional sales taxes on top of the state rate, any intention by the General Assembly to spare low-income consumers this tax is undermined.

To make matters worse, both Kansas City and St. Louis charge a flat and regressive 1 percent earnings tax on every dollar earned. The earnings tax is levied on the first dollar earned, and there is no exemption for lower-income workers. Adding insult to injury, the earnings tax is not levied on types of income enjoyed by wealthier citizens such as investment income or retirement.

Kansas City and St. Louis have a large number of low-income residents. Unfortunately, the cities’ taxes only add to the problem. The first order of business for any city leader who wants to help low-income workers should be to take less of their money away from them.

The post The Most Unkindest Tax of All appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That doesn’t mean that nothing should be done on taxes this year. In fact, a bill that would reform the state’s corporate income tax, sponsored by Sen. Andrew Koenig, has emerged from the Senate and is now before the House for consideration. The bill, Senate Bill 674, represents good policy pursued on a revenue-neutral basis, and while the legislation could be imagined as a “side car” to comprehensive tax reform plans, the bill itself is a strong standalone measure that would drastically reduce the state’s corporate income tax rate.

Cutting the corporate income tax is a cause near and dear to my heart and, with my colleague Michael Rathbone, it was the subject of one of my first essays at the Institute in 2012. That essay dove deeply into the importance of corporate income tax reform and some ways to achieve it, drawing on the broad academic consensus about the economic destructiveness of income taxes. To quote researcher Jens Arnold of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,

[a] stronger reliance on income taxes seems to be associated with significantly lower levels of GDP per capita than the use of taxes on consumption and property. Within income taxes, those on corporate income seem to be associated with lower levels of GDP per capita than personal income taxes. In fact, corporate income taxes appear to be the least attractive choice from the perspective of raising GDP per capita. [emphasis mine]

That’s why SB 674, even on its own, is important. Thus, the concern here—and a concern shared by the Washington D.C.–based Tax Foundation—is not policy-specific, since the bill is a good one, but procedural. If SB 674 is amended in the House, chances are good that the bill would simply die as the legislative session comes to a close, since the Senate would have to reconsider it and time is obviously running out.

I think most reformers would want to see reform come all at once, and in truth, there is no reason why over the last two years that couldn’t have happened on tax reform. But there is something to be said for methodical incrementalism, and I hope that serious consideration will be given to the subject of corporate income tax reform on its own terms as a springboard to larger reforms, passed this year or in the near future.

After two years of missed opportunities, it would be excruciating to see another opportunity for reform vanish at the end of this legislative session. I hope the House doesn’t let this happen.

The post Incremental Tax Reform: Don’t Let the Perfect Be The Enemy of the Good appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

None of this is to say that taxes are unnecessary or even bad. Taxes are necessary to fund the basic services we all agree are the responsibility of government. But Missouri can do better. A report from the Tax Foundation released last week underscores the point. According to the Tax Foundation’s count, Missouri has 1,393 sales tax jurisdictions, second only to Texas.

This staggering number is due to special taxing districts such as community improvement districts, transportation development districts, and the like. These districts are easily established and are often not open and transparent. Many were established without a public vote. Yet each has the power to tax us on each purchase.

One effort to cap the sales tax rate in Missouri at 14 percent is making its way through the legislature. But if the proliferation of special taxing districts itself is not addressed, the general assembly risks ceding its influence over tax policy to an ever-growing number of tiny fiefdoms.

The post Missouri’s Dubious Tax Honor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.