Missouri is not alone in wanting to give its economy a boost in 2012. But what is the best way to do it? As Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s (D) State of the State address approaches on Tuesday, it might be useful to take a look at what some of our neighbors are doing. Recently, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) unveiled his proposal for tax reform in that state.

Highlights of the Brownback Plan include:

• Lower the top individual income tax rate from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent (Missouri’s is 6 percent).
• Double the standard deduction to $9,000 for head-of-household filers.
• Eliminate various tax breaks, including those for home mortgages and earned income.
• Eliminate individual income taxes on non-wage business income like limited liability companies.
• Preserve the 1-cent state sales tax.

Now, the plan is described as “close to revenue neutral” and the article quotes a legislator who states “the devil is in the details,” and I happen to agree. However, this proposal points Kansas in the right direction. Any attempt to lower tax rates and broaden the tax base (i.e., closing loopholes and ending tax breaks) should be commended. Is Missouri going to follow (Kansas is not alone in proposing tax reform; Nebraska also is looking at cutting taxes)? State officials in Jefferson City have the opportunity, with the new legislative session, to make some serious changes and set Missouri on the right path to compete economically.

At the Show-Me Institute, we have proposed various tweaks in the state’s tax code that could be beneficial and make the state more competitive. Is Missouri going to move down this road, or are state officials going to continue promoting economic development debacles like Mamtek (and other projects that should remain dead), which make for good photo-ops but have resulted in a failure to grow Missouri’s economy?

There has been a lot of political talk about fairness lately, with the notion that businesses and consumers are often on opposite sides.  Really?  There are steps Missouri lawmakers can take that would be fair and beneficial to both, and maybe a boost to the faltering state economy.

In its effort to change the business climate in Missouri, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry has identified three broad policy initiatives for the current legislative session. According to Chamber president Daniel Mehan:

“Among the list are issues left unresolved last legislative session that will be advocatied (sic) by Missouri’s top business associations and employers: workers’ compensation reform, employment law, and tort reform,” Mehan says.

Within the context of these broader policy initiatives, the following topics are among the most important issues the Chamber addressed. As briefly discussed below, each deserves careful consideration as a reform measure that can foster economic growth in Missouri.

1. Making Missouri employment discrimination law consistent with federal law. Businesses face confusing and parallel obligations under federal and state laws. Making Missouri law consistent with federal law reduces confusion and lowers compliance costs for businesses, which in turn lowers the cost of doing business in Missouri. Consumers and businesses then share the benefits of lower costs.
2. Capping damages in employment discrimination cases. Caps make future business costs more certain and predictable. Although the plaintiffs’ bar does not favor this idea, no one is closing the doors to the courthouse. Policymakers should carefully weigh the benefits and costs and make the decision that best advances business competitiveness and the administration of justice.
3. Exempting co-employees from liability for injuries sustained in workers’ compensation cases. Currently, employees injured by co-employees at work may sue the latter for damages outside the workers’ compensation system. This gives rise to costly disputes among employees, disruptions in the workplace, and an increase in employer costs (not always monetary). Also, multiple lawsuits for the same injury may occur as the injured employee sues both his employer in workers’ comp and his co-employee in circuit court. Time, money, and effort may be economized by requiring injured employees to maintain a single suit in a workers’ comp venue.

Again, these are but a sample of current issues impacting the business climate in Missouri. These issues are important in that each imposes additional costs on businesses in Missouri. As a result, consumers and households may suffer because they will face higher prices, fewer goods, and lower employment. Remember, we are all in this together, despite what some others may say or imply. Isn’t it possible that sometimes what is good for business is good for the people?

During the recently-completed not-so-special Missouri legislative session, some lawmakers continued to push for a new set of tax credit programs, arguing that tax credits can encourage economic growth.

Today, the Show-Me Institute is releasing a new policy study on the effectiveness of tax credits: “Tax Credits as a Tool of State Economic Development Policy.” This study, by Howard J. Wall, director of the Institute for the Study of Economics and the Environment at Lindenwood University, reviews academic studies of tax credit programs in other states and discusses some of the broad arguments made in favor of tax credits.

One of the most striking findings in Wall’s study is the following: “State tax credits do not tend to lead to higher levels of employment for local residents, nor, by extension, do they lead to higher levels of employment for state residents.”

Consider the academic evidence:

• In a 2009 Michigan study, the authors found that tax credits were associated with a decline in employment.

• Some academics say that tax credits would be effective if used in distressed areas. However, an Ohio study found that tax credits generally are not awarded in distressed areas – a pattern that I suspect exists here in Missouri. Just look at The Chase Park Plaza, a luxury hotel and recipient of a great deal of tax credit money.

• In fact, tax credits may be awarded to companies that would have expanded anyway. A Georgia study found that 75 percent of tax credits were awarded to companies that would have hired more workers without receiving tax credits.

• There have been three prominent surveys of tax credit research in recent years. None of the surveys concluded that tax credits are an across-the-board, effective tool. In fact, one concluded that legislators should abandon tax credits altogether.

Most academic research on tax credit programs across the U.S. has shown that tax credits don’t work. Why do some legislators think that the situation in Missouri is any different?

First, a hearty congratulations to the St. Louis Cardinals. The team’s late-season and post-season play has been the stuff of sports legend, and I’ll be watching the game closely tonight.

If you visited the Cardinals’ official website today to buy tickets, you’ve probably seen this page:

Now for the good news: Tickets to the game are still available! The bad-ish news? It’s going to be expensive if you want into Busch Stadium tonight. The lowest price going on StubHub right now is $489, for standing room only.

The most expensive ticket for the game: more than $12,000. David Stokes, a Show-Me Institute policy analyst, wrote Wednesday about the effect of legalizing scalping on the cost of after-market ticket purchases. From the article he quotes:

The ante rises during the playoffs, when a box seat can fetch more than $1,000 and even the price of standing through a nine-inning ballgame can run as high as $300.

We are well beyond that point today. But simply put, secondary markets – whether on the street or online – usually do a fine job of reducing product inventories by matching willing sellers with willing buyers. Those that value a ticket literally as much as a house payment can buy one; those seeking to unload their ticket can sell it; and those making the market receive their own cut for the service they provide. Everybody wins.

(By the way, originally I was going to write that “thousands of tickets are still available,” but that’s rapidly becoming untrue. During the 20 or so minutes it took to write this post this afternoon, the available number of tickets dropped from approximately 2,100 to 1,800. Prices are high, but they’re obviously not too high.)

This all naturally flows into David’s other post on the World Series regarding parking prices. Websites like StubHub (which is, not surprisingly, owned by eBay) are great because the market is pretty clearly informing what sellers are charging. World Series tickets, while they may have some collectible value after the fact, are ultimately perishable: they’re used for a game, or they’re not. That’s why if you want to go to a regular-season game and don’t mind missing the first inning or two, you can get better deals, as scalpers try to avoid getting stuck with tickets when the music stops. That “wait and buy” opportunity will, for the most part, be non-existent tonight (I think) but the moral of the story is that people place different values on different products, services, and conveniences. Parking lots around the stadium wouldn’t raise their prices if they didn’t think those spaces were valuable to parking customers. World Series ticket prices are very similar in that regard.

In any case, enough economics. Here’s to you, Cards. May the rally squirrel be with you.

Ticket scalping was one of the first issues this blog tackled when we started in 2007. This story in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch gives an update on how the situation has unfolded in St. Louis for the 2011 World Series baseball playoffs. Just as predicted, using basic economics, legalization of ticket scalping has resulted in lower prices and greater consumer choice (StubHub!, etc.). One scalper doesn’t bother with political spin:

“You made more money when it was illegal — it wasn’t even remotely close,” said Tony Green, a ticket broker for 20 years. “We knew all the cops, so they wouldn’t bust us.”

So, how did my 2007 prediction on ticket scalping work out? There may be no way of knowing if more people are paying above face value for their tickets to these playoffs, but I still think that is a reasonable belief. However, my predicted overall price decrease for major sporting events was apparently dead on (not that it was a difficult prediction).  

In case you have not watched it yet, please enjoy this video of the Show-Me Institute turning all of our interns loose in a ticket-scalping competition last summer.

I enjoy the Bernie Miklasz show on 101 ESPN FM and 101sports.com. I also enjoy his writings in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. But the other day, while listening to his show on the way back from lunch (I think it was last Friday), I heard him complaining about parking lot operators in downtown St. Louis raising prices during the baseball playoffs. This, of course, is flabbergasting to someone like myself. Why, on God’s green earth, shouldn’t parking lot operators raise prices in response to increased demand for parking brought about by the playoffs?

There really is no legitimate argument against it. There might be legitimate gripes or complaints against it, but those aren’t arguments. Every person reading this, or listening to Bernie’s show (probably more of the latter), would – if they owned a parking lot downtown – raise prices in this situation. Parking for sporting events like this is an example of market-day supply, like the fish market in your economics textbook. The supply of parking is fixed for any individual baseball game. With the increased attendance for the playoffs (the dominant, but not only, factor, increasing demand here), the demand for parking increases. Because the supply of parking is fixed, prices will increase. This will happen in every situation everywhere, and there is nothing wrong with it. (Note: the supposition that the supply of parking is fixed in a single day is correct, but there might be some exceptions. You can’t build a new parking lot in a few days because the team makes the playoffs. However, some things could be added to the supply in response to high demand. For example, a private parking lot may open itself to the public in response to high demand and high prices. That, of course, would result in more supply and lower prices.)

None of this says that parking lot operators are taking advantage of monopolistic power. People have plenty of choices here. Parking farther away from the stadium will still be less expensive than parking closer. If you are willing to walk further, you can save money. You can carpool and share parking expenses. You can take a bus or Metrolink. If parking lot operators set the price at $1,000 per spot, they won’t sell many spots. Every parking operator is going to set the price at a level they think will result in selling all their spots for as much as they can. If they set their prices too high, they will lower them quickly as market equilibrium sets in.

Of course, Mr. Miklasz would do the exact same thing with his show and column. If his ratings skyrocket, he wil increase the advertising rates for his show. Now, he might not be able to increase his rates today in response to more listeners during the playoffs.  But that is not because he is behaving morally and parking lot owners immorally. It is likely because he has chosen to sell long-term advertising agreements with customers for so many spots over a period of time because that is the best way for him and his station to operate. The parking lot operators who service the ballpark are not under such constraints.  

If Bernie was to say, write a terrible book that for some strange reason millions of people buy and it becomes a terrible movie, he will demand a raise from his employers. If they don’t give him the raise he feels he deserves, he can write more terrible books and make money that way. If he has enough time and desire, he can try to do all of these things at once. But he will sell his services, and the various items that accompany his services (ad rates, etc.) for the highest price he can based on the ever-changing market conditions. 

The parking lot operators do the exact same thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The Kansas City Star kindly published a letter to the editor from us the other day on the earnings tax. Our letter was in response to one of their editorials. Thanks to John Combest for linking to the letter. Because the letter is so short, it is reprinted below. Enjoy (if reading letters to the editor about taxation on political blogs is the type of thing you enjoy):

The Star’s Sept. 29 editorial, “Voters spoke: Don’t kill e-tax or hike debt levy,” criticized outgoing Kansas City Federal Reserve chairman Tom Hoenig for recommending that Kansas City eliminate its earnings tax. The editorial stated Dr. Hoenig’s comments weren’t backed up with facts.

All the “facts” Dr. Hoenig needs is that as a PhD economist who has spent 38 years with the Kansas City Fed, he knows that Kansas City’s earnings tax harms economic growth in the city. Studies document the harm local earnings taxes have on economic growth, including three relating to Kansas City by Missouri’s Show-Me Institute (which did recommend a way to replace the tax).

Even though a large majority of Kansas City voters chose to keep the tax, that does not prove those studies or Dr. Hoenig wrong. It proves that the people of Kansas City wanted to keep the tax for a variety of reasons, which is entirely their right.

But good economics and popular public policy don’t always go together, which is exactly what Dr. Hoenig has been trying to warn us about at the national level for the last three years as well.

 

All of us at the Show-Me Institute were shocked and saddened to hear of the sudden passing of Dr. Ed Robb. Dr. Robb was a wonderful economist who took his ideals and beliefs into the marketplace of American politics. As a member of the University of Missouri Department of Economics, he directed a fiscal policy research center at MU. He also was a great teacher who taught courses on public finance economics to generations of MU students. He served on our Board of Scholars during the short period between his service as a Missouri state representative and his successful campaign for Boone County Commissioner. (See page 4 for a description of his participation in one of our Columbia lectures.) More important, however, was his unofficial involvement with the Show-Me Institute as a friend and economist. I know that Dr. Joe Haslag, Dr. Michael Podgursky, and others at the institute, will miss him dearly, and Boone County has lost a community public servant. 

Ed Robb, Rest In Peace.

This is a depressing sign of the new reality. A group of young entrepreneurs is requesting government assistance. This new organization, which consists of young people who are probably pretty awesome in many ways, is looking to the federal government for assistance:

The Young Entrepreneur Council is proposing a Youth Entrepreneurship Act that would address the barriers that he [Scott Gerber, founder of the YEC] says young entrepreneurs face. One element would be a program to forgive student loans and debt for young entrepreneurs, which he says would address a major hindrance to recent graduates who want to set up their own shop.

“Now more than ever, with young unemployment being so high, we have to be educating people that youth entrepreneurship is a viable career path and not some renegade choice,” Gerber said.

You know what would really be a renegade choice? Not requesting special legislation from the government.

In the interest of full disclosure, I used to work for the government and when I had a small business in the 1990s it had a few government agencies as clients. I make no claim to moral purity here, but just wanted to note how depressing it is that a group of young innovators and risk-takers (of all people) would adopt the nasty habit of seeking government handouts as their standard practice of doing business.

If you like alcohol, cigarettes, and gasoline — though, of course, not all at the same time — then this video is for you. Check out our latest video on the good economic reasons why Missouri’s low excise taxes on these products benefit our state. Please read the text accompanying the video as well, because, you know… I worked hard on it.

Working at the Show-Me Institute, located in the highly walkable Central West End, my colleagues and I often take short walks to lunch. Recently, food trucks have entered the competition for our dining dollars.

Given the large crowds that form around these trucks, they seem to be a hit, but apparently this is not the case for everyone. This week, police have cracked down on food trucks in the area — allegedly in response to a complaint.

A regulation in the city code forbids street vending within the Central West End, but until recently the restriction had not been enforced. Earlier this week, officers and inspectors issued warnings to multiple food trucks asking them to leave the area or face fines for violating vending regulations.

Christine Harbin, a former SMI policy analyst, wrote numerous times on these restrictions on private enterprise. First spotting food trucks in the Central West End back in March, she later followed up on the issue in a video interviewing both food truck owners and their customers. The verdict is still clear: there exists a strong consumer demand for these food trucks. Why should government inhibit healthy competition and growth of consumer choices?

Some people worry about the safety and health concerns associated with food trucks, but like any other restaurant or food provider, they must undergo government health and safety inspections to obtain permits for legally selling their goods.

Another common concern is the potential increase in street congestion. In Dr. Donald Shoup’s book, The High Cost of Free Parking, he explains the best way to manage street traffic is to introduce market determined parking fees.  Parking is not a free good, and should not be treated as one. Busy streets with more traffic and higher demand would have higher parking fees, while quiet less crowded streets with lower demand would cost less. This would force food trucks to internalize the externality of over consuming street parking.  If the trucks wanted prime location they would have to pay extra for it.

These trucks may be “technically illegal” in the area, but clearly there is a demand here that the government is barring. Originally, the downtown area had this same restriction, but now it benefits from many popular street vendors and food trucks. Why should the Central West End or any other area be treated differently?

Consumers would benefit if this restrictive ordinance was repealed throughout St. Louis, allowing their preferences — not the preferences of bureaucrats — to dictate food trucks’ placement and success.

To follow this issue further, watch Christine’s other video on the subject in which food truck owner Jeff Pupillo and a number of customers weigh in on food trucks and the unwanted competition they provide for some local restaurants.

Brazil: A land entailing natural wonders, a powerhouse economy, and sugar cane ethanol? Yes, that’s right. Ranked second in terms of production and first for exporting, Brazil has long been a pivotal mover and shaker in the global ethanol industry.

Together with the United States, Brazil produces nearly 88 percent of the world’s ethanol supply. However, Brazil uses sugar cane as a preferred alternative to corn in its ethanol production.

With an annual yield of nearly 370 million bushels of corn, many Missourians are deeply connected to the corn-based ethanol industry. If the industry were to dry up, thousands stand to suffer in the short run. Even so, could there be a sweeter alternative?

Well, quite literally, yes. The Brazilian sugar cane industry is said to be seven times more efficient than that of the United States, and less expensive, too — nearly 30 percent cheaper, in fact. Regardless, it appears that the federal government has little interest in the more viable Brazilian blend.

In order to offset a federal tax credit targeted to ethanol blending companies, the United States has levied a tariff on Brazil’s ethanol, perhaps as a way to keep the international market out while spurring on its own domestic product.

Current and past administrations have vowed to reduce foreign oil imports, claiming that we have become too dependent on them. So, why a virtual ban on Brazilian imports? If ethanol is federally promoted as a solution to the so-called national security issue of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, why wouldn’t cheap, clean-burning ethanol from friendly Brazil be satisfactory? If officials are serious in addressing this as a national security issue, they would invest in other forms of energy — namely, those which are not harmful to our country’s environment and well-being.

Thankfully, it appears that lawmakers might be making a move in a better direction. Last week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fathered an amendment that would slash government subsidies of the corn industry while also lifting the tariff. Unfortunately, Coburn’s amendments may never become actual laws. Nonetheless, the Senate has shown an ever-increasing readiness to bring ethanol subsidies to the curb.

So, is investing in the precarious, ever-expanding corn-based ethanol industry worth the higher food prices, loss of necessary agricultural groundwater, and increased pollution that result? Well, some would argue that the aforementioned are a small price to pay to support an industry. I contend the contrary. Surrounding Missouri’s ethanol industry, we have corn farmers benefiting from subsidies, cattle farmers suffering from feed shortages, and mandates that often require we burn at least 10 percent less-fuel-efficient ethanol in our cars.

When subsidies are involved, benefits for some lead to costs for others. So, who’s right? You be the judge.