December 8, 2014

Iowa, Nebraska, and Arkansas Legislators Gear Up for Income Tax Cuts

In 2014 the Missouri Legislature passed a modest income tax reduction which, given its size, by no means solved the state’s tax competitiveness problems. That fact is reaffirmed by the news we’re now hearing from some of Missouri’s neighbors. For instance, in Iowa—where state lawmakers cut taxes as recently as 2013—the income tax reform movement is getting bipartisan support.

State Rep. Tom Sands, R-Wapello, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said his preference would be to examine corporate and individual income taxes while exploring ways to simplify the tax system. Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said any tax cuts should be focused on helping middle-class Iowans.

“We will most definitely be looking at income tax reform, making the tax code flatter and simpler,” Sands said.

Sands added he hopes lawmakers will offer “substantial and meaningful tax cuts,” although he explained it’s too early to provide a specific dollar estimate because of uncertainties over state revenue.

Iowa is not the only border state looking to make income tax changes. In neighboring Nebraska, legislators (with the help of the Platte Institute) are exploring a round of tax cuts of their own that would also chop the state’s tax on incomes. On Missouri’s southern border, Arkansas is looking to cut its income taxes too, in part by getting the state’s tax exemption culture under control.

“They’re important to you; therefore, they’re important to me,” [Governor-elect Asa] Hutchinson told the [farming] group. “But we are now reaching a point in Arkansas that we need to look beyond more and more exemptions to our tax structure, and we need to look at an across-the-board reduction of our state income tax.”

Missouri lawmakers deserved applause for finally getting a tax cut across the finish line in 2014, but as we said at the time, that small cut alone is not enough to get the state on a firm, competitive footing for the years ahead—precisely because other states in the region weren’t going to stand still on tax relief. News out of Iowa, Nebraska, and Arkansas confirm this.

And make no mistake: The support for tax cuts has never been greater in the Missouri Legislature than it will be in 2015. Legislative leaders should not sit on their hands and let the opportunity pass them by. Our neighbors certainly aren’t.

November 6, 2014

Proposed Property Tax Increase Fails in Columbia

Since the proposed property tax increase failed in Columbia, it seems the city is heading for a disaster of biblical proportions. I mean Old Testament, real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes . . . the dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together . . . mass hysteria! Okay, not really. In fact, if you read my commentary on the ballot measure, you’d know that crime, especially violent crime, and the total number of fires are actually declining in Columbia. This is a good thing.

However, what if you’re among the more than 10,000 residents who feel that Columbia needs a bit more in the way of police and fire protection? I’d say don’t despair. There are other means by which the city can increase revenues without resorting to a property tax increase.

For instance, the city could look at the fire expense reimbursement that it receives for services that it performs for the three colleges located in town. According to the Columbia budget, these reimbursements are declining and have been for the past couple of years. Columbia can renegotiate with these colleges in order to get higher reimbursements.

Columbia also could look into privatizing its water and electric utilities. The sale of these types of utilities can bring in an immediate infusion of cash to cities’ bank accounts. For example, the city of Florissant, Missouri, privatized its water utility in 2002 and received $14.5 million from the sale. More recently, the residents of Arnold approved the sale of their sewer system, which brought the city $13.2 million. Not only can the sale of the utilities themselves bring in more money to the city, but privatization can also expand the city’s property tax base, which would generate more revenue in the future.

The instances of crime and fire have declined in Columbia, yet for those who believe that public safety is underfunded, there are other ways to raise revenue besides a tax increase. Maybe it’s time they explore them.


October 16, 2014

The Columbia Police Department and Pennies from Heaven

As Columbia residents prepare to decide whether to increase the budget of the police department through property tax increases, they might be interested in how the police department spends the funds available today. In the video below (begin viewing at 8:43), from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Columbia’s chief of police explained how the department used funds derived from civil asset forfeiture. Reducing the tax burden for Columbia residents, however, was not one of those uses.

Without addressing the propriety of civil forfeiture laws, a department does not inspire confidence when it claims it needs more taxpayer dollars although it spends the proceeds of assets seized from residents on “toys,” as though they were “pennies from heaven.” Columbia residents might consider whether the funds the department currently receives are prudently managed before more is allocated.

October 7, 2014

User Fees Stop Pass-through Traffic from Getting Free Ride

In debates over the ill-fated Amendment 7, which proposed a statewide transportation sales tax, opponents often pointed out that if Missouri used sales taxes to pay for roads, trucking companies essentially would get a free ride. Indeed, large trucks, which can do thousands of times the damage of a regular vehicle, make up a significant portion of traffic on Missouri’s interstates. In retort, proponents of using sales taxes to pay for highways have consistently stated that we all benefit from trucking, and that raising prices on commercial vehicles using Missouri highways will simply lead to those companies passing on their higher costs to Missouri consumers. However, Missouri freight data severely challenges this notion.

In the Missouri State Freight Plan, drafted by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), 2011 data showed that truck freight totaled over 500 million tons, carrying goods valued at approximately $711 billion. Proponents of using sales taxes to pay for highways argue that if it costs more to move those 500 million tons (by increasing user fees for commercial vehicles), shipping companies will charge higher prices to haul goods, leading to higher prices for Missourians.

However, setting aside the counterargument that charging shipping companies for the highways they use promotes efficient supply chains and local production, the fact is the vast majority of trucking freight in Missouri is not bound for Missouri. For example, of the 500 million tons of freight traffic in 2011, only 39 percent of that freight is either inbound or intrastate trucking. Forty-six percent of traffic by weight simply passes through Missouri. In terms of value of the goods transported, only 26 percent has a destination within Missouri while 61 percent of goods by value transit the state.

truck traffic MO

This means that if Missouri were to use general sales taxes—or any other type of non-user fee—to subsidize highways, the downstream price benefits would mostly accrue to consumers and producers in other states. Having commercial vehicles pay the actual costs of maintaining the highways might mean that prices rise on Missouri goods, but most of the effect would be exported to other states.

That’s why user fees are almost always preferable, when feasible, to general taxation; the cost of using the highway is internalized into the cost of the good, no matter where the final consumer lives. The use of general taxation to pay for highways would lead to higher prices for Missourians, who would provide a subsidized ride for shipping companies and artificially cheap products to residents of other states.

September 9, 2014

Ditch the Tax Incentives and Pursue General Tax Cuts Next Year

The Missouri Legislature’s 2014 veto session begins this week, and the chambers are set to reconsider dozens of bills rejected by the governor earlier this summer. While a handful appear to have enough support for an override, most sit in legislative limbo, fates to be determined. Among those bills hanging in the balance are a package of tax incentives I’ve talked about many times before.

These incentives are bad policy in general, but to create these handouts well outside of the legislature’s normal budgeting protocol is inexcusable. The budget must balance, and this late-breaking special interest goody bag throws the state’s budget out the window. Missourians deserve better than to be treated like a cash spigot for the well-connected.

There’s also a larger picture that needs to be understood here. Some of the most vocal tax cutters are also big boosters of tax incentives, but by creating, expanding, and sustaining tax handouts like these, our state is making the enactment of future tax cuts much more difficult. We should all be paying for the cost of our government, but increasingly, well-connected special interests are being exempted from that burden. That’s wrongheaded policy. As a general rule, if taxes are going to fall for anyone, they should fall for everyone. It’s time to kick the tax incentive circus out of Jefferson City.

The legislature should come back next year and pass broad and responsible tax cuts for Missourians. The first step is rejecting this year’s incentives.

August 26, 2014

How to Attract Jobs, or at Least Not Repel Them

Public officials in Kansas City and elsewhere are eager to be seen as job creators. Almost every taxpayer-subsidized development project, every act of crony capitalism, every public project like a new $1.2 billion airport terminal, $62 million-per-mile streetcar, or convention hotel is discussed in terms of the jobs it will create. Politicians tells us, as they did in the TIF Commission hearing for the Burns & Mac handout, that the city cannot “wait for the free market,” that government must act.

But is government’s use of taxpayer dollars more successful than people making their own decisions?

Economist Enrico Moretti was interviewed on NPR’s Here and Now about his book, The New Geography of Jobs. He was asked about how successfully innovative regions are created and replicated [segment begins at 8:27]:

“[Interviewer] This is the unsettling part of your book: How do cities replicate these innovative job clusters?

“[Moretti] It’s very tough, because if you look historically where the innovation clusters are located, almost none of them [were] created by some deliberate, explicit policy. It’s really hard to engineer an innovation cluster. We talk about Seattle, but if you look at a lot of the clusters, they were all born in very random, often serendipitous, ways. So it’s really hard for policy makers to engineer from scratch.”

There is no magic formula known to bureaucrats or politicians about which companies and industries will be successful in the future. But they use public resources time and again chasing that white rabbit of jobs and growth. And unfortunately, the impact of taxing many businesses to subsidize a few is more often than not a recipe for destroying jobs, or at least keeping them away.

A better investment, as Show-Me has argued for years, is for government’s action to be broad and neutral: keep taxes low for everyone, maintain infrastructure, deliver necessary city services, and ensure quality education. Maybe those aren’t as appealing as large edifices named after politicians, but they are more successful.

August 24, 2014

Local Road Funding in Missouri

The Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT) growing funding problem has put the issue of state highway funding on the center stage. This focus on the state road system obscures the fact that most of Missouri’s streets are the responsibility, in terms of funding and maintenance, of local governments.

Missouri has more than 90,000 lane miles of local roads that are the responsibility of cities and counties, as compared to 33,000 lane miles of highways under MoDOT’s purview. While MoDOT receives most of its funding from fees placed on drivers, local roads do not. Counties and municipalities partially fund their streets with the 25 percent of state fuel taxes remitted to localities, but in most areas that is inadequate. Local governments, therefore, rely on local sales taxes, property taxes, and specially formed taxing districts known as transportation development districts (TDD) to pay for road improvements.

One source of funding localities technically could use—but do not—are local fuel taxes, even though they might be a fair and economically sound way to fund roads. Paying for streets with fuel taxes, as opposed to other forms of local taxation, also might have the benefit of limiting wasteful spending, because the Missouri Constitution stipulates that all local fuel tax proceeds must be spent on roads.

The likely reason no Missouri localities collect fuel taxes (although attempts have been made) is that the state constitution stipulates that voters approve any such measure by a 2/3rd majority. Other forms of local taxation, such as transportation sales taxes or property taxes, require only simple majorities. TDDs, semi-democratically created ad hoc taxing districts, also are much easier to implement than fuel taxes. It is, perhaps, unsurprising that while no city has a fuel tax, there are more than 170 TDDs in Missouri, collecting revenue with little accountability or oversight.

Moving forward, many of the funding problems that MoDOT faces for highways is mirrored on the local level. Counties and cities face street maintenance backlogs, and residents have noticed. Recent surveys in Springfield and Kansas City showed residents were highly unsatisfied with the state of local streets.

It is hard to tell what portion of the need arises from a genuine lack of funding and what portion is the result of misplaced priorities. However, as Missourians consider if more must be spent, they also should question how more would be raised, and whether the current methods are transparent and economically sound.


August 15, 2014

Kansas City Transit: Light Rail Never Sleeps

Because voters in downtown Kansas City rejected a plan for a streetcar expansion, Kansas Citians might have hoped for a short reprieve from expensive rail transit projects. But it wasn’t to be. In November, Kansas City residents will be asked to vote for a ¼-cent and 1/8-cent tax increase to implement Clay Chastain’s $2.4 billion light rail plan.

In a strange twist, the ballot language will not mention a rail plan. That’s because city leadership has fought Chastain’s rail plan for years, even going to court to prevent it from making it on a ballot. Although the city has now lost that fight, because officials and Chastain could not agree on ballot language that included the rail plan, voters will be asked to decide on tax increases for “capital improvements” and “transportation.”

City leadership has described Chastain’s plan as unfeasible, and it does not take much math to figure out why. A 3/8-cent sales tax increase would net Kansas City approximately $30 million per year. However, just the initial part of the plan (a line from downtown to just south of the Plaza) would have $1.4 billion in upfront capital costs and $11 million in yearly operating costs. Assuming that the line can be built for $1.4 billion and that no major capital costs are incurred for 25 years (25 years is also the lifespan of the taxes), the plan has a $900 million funding shortfall.

Light Rail Icon

Supporters of the plan hope that 60 percent or more of the necessary funding will come from the federal government and private donations. However, because the city leadership and MARC back a streetcar, not light rail, plan, the federal government might not give the project much support. Even if the federal government does provide funding, it would be unlikely to exceed 50 percent of total capital costs, not nearly enough to cover the shortfall. Bottom line, it might not be financially possible to implement the rail plan even if the proposed sales tax increases pass.

But imagine that everything breaks in the plan’s favor. Say the tax increase passes, the federal government provides 50 percent of the capital costs, and more than $200 million in private support materializes. After all that, Kansas City would have one light rail line from the Plaza to downtown. Hardly a transportation revolution worthy of $1.4 billion. But for some rail supporters, that does not matter. The initial rail line is a part of a larger dream; a dream that involves many more lines and billions more taxpayer dollars. Voters get to decide whether this plan, at least, is finally put to bed.

August 12, 2014

That Burns & McDonnell TIF And Vandalism

Earlier this year, the Kansas City Council voted to use tax dollars to subsidize a project for Burns & McDonnell, one of the nation’s largest engineering firms. The Tax Increment Financing (TIF) site — a property featuring a former synagogue and school but otherwise dominated by a large parking lot — is literally next to the company’s world headquarters. We wrote at the time the TIF was being considered that the subsidy would be a poor use of limited public resources, especially for a successful firm that could certainly afford to expand and build upon a vacant property adjacent to its own.

Of course, Burns & Mac got its taxpayer subsidy, in part because of the “vandalism” that had occurred inside the empty buildings. In a hearing before the Kansas City TIF Commission, Scott Belke, the consultant who prepared the blight study, said, “This is one of the most vandalized buildings I’ve seen in my 29 years of work.” Thus, TIF supporters argued, the site and buildings needed to be remediated … with taxpayer support.

Belke admitted in questioning that he has never failed to find a site blighted, and that’s no surprise; we at the Show-Me Institute have been unable to find any case in the entire state of Missouri where a consultant has not considered a proposed TIF site blighted.

So, how were the buildings remediated? They … were bulldozed.


Why was vandalism even considered a reason for blight if the entire structure was going to be razed anyway? Burns & Mac was never going to inhabit the synagogue; the building’s condition was, in practice, irrelevant to what Burns and Mac’s plans were for it: destruction. The only reason the building’s condition was an issue was because it was a foothold for the company to steer taxpayer dollars to its project, through TIF. That’s a cynical and objectionable path to getting city taxpayer money, but that’s business as usual in Kansas City.

Some people believe in the power of TIF, and perhaps it has a role to play in some development projects. But in Kansas City and elsewhere in Missouri, TIF is so frequently used and abused — and not even in legitimately blighted urban areas for which TIF was intended — that the whole enterprise has become a farce: a farce, as in this case, that enriches wealthy developers at the cost of city taxpayers.

August 7, 2014

Kansas City Streetcar District Fails To Win Support

On Aug. 5, voters in downtown Kansas City rejected a Transportation Development District (TDD) that would have funded a half billion dollar streetcar expansion plan (60 percent to 40 percent). The city’s streetcar plan was expensive and had little transportation merit, making this result welcome news for those who support sound transportation policy in the Kansas City area.
Light Rail Icon

The Kansas City streetcar plan required the approval of a TDD to provide local funding. Because voters rejected the formation of the TDD, the project lacks local funds and, thus, cannot proceed. But this is unlikely to be the last we hear of plans to expand the streetcar. Some Kansas City officials have made it clear that they view this election as just a setback for their vision of an extended streetcar system. The mayor stated:

“It’s very possible either way, but we’re not going to just roll over and let it go…We’ve got to continue to look for options to get the job done.”

That might mean a newly drawn TDD or some other tax increase that will provide enough local funding to apply for federal grants.

However, for the time being, the election has halted any streetcar expansion plans. Let’s hope the ultimate result of the election is a renewed focus on efficient transportation policy for all of Kansas City.

Gas Taxes And Funding MoDOT

In the aftermath of the transportation sales tax (Amendment 7) defeat, former supporters are still on a misinformation campaign. They claim that Missouri’s roads are in dire straits (they aren’t), and of course, that a sales tax was the only good option. They claim increasing a user fee such as Missouri’s gas tax, which is the sixth-lowest in the nation, is not possible. Bill McKenna, one of the principle supporters of Amendment 7, stated:

“You’ve got to realize how much money [the Missouri Department of Transportation] MoDOT needs,” he said. “You’re not talking 2 cents. You’re talking 16 to 20 cents.”

That’s a significant tax increase, but former Amendment 7 supporters seem to have different estimates. Missouri Sen. Mike Kehoe (R-Dist. 6), who introduced the Senate version of Amendment 7, said the gas tax would have to increase by 20 to 25 cents a gallon. Luckily for Missourians, these numbers appear to be disconnected from any real assessment of MoDOT’s needs.

Auto Icon

According to MoDOT Director Dave Nichols, MoDOT needs a $485 million construction budget to maintain Missouri’s highways. This year, MoDOT’s construction awards are greater than $720 million. MoDOT assumes that the federal government will scale back its support in the future, leaving MoDOT with less than $485 million by 2017. That scenario may not come to pass, but if it does, MoDOT’s construction budget would fall to $325 million, about $400 million less than today and $160 million less than the ability to maintain the roads. If the federal government continues to maintain current support, Missouri officials only need to ensure that the state has matching funds, necessitating less than $130 million in extra revenue.

The amount the Missouri fuel taxes would have to increase is nowhere near sales tax supporters’ claims. Last year, Missouri sold more than 3.9 billion gallons of fuel. Therefore, to raise $400 million, the state would have to raise the fuel taxes 11 cents. That maintains current spending ($300 million more than maintenance only) under dire circumstances. If the federal government does not reduce funding, a 5-cent increase likely would be sufficient to maintain matching funds. Missouri officials also could increase the diesel rate more than the regular gasoline rate, a practice in place nationally and in many states to account for the disproportionate damage trucks do to highways. McKenna’s 20-cent increase would raise $705 million for MoDOT and Kehoe’s 25-cent increase would raise $882 million (remember, Amendment 7 would have raised $397 million for the state highway system).

The defeated transportation sales tax proponents’ fuel tax estimates are exaggerated, much like their claims about the imminent collapse of the Missouri highway system.

August 6, 2014

Amendment 7 Defeated

Yesterday, Missouri voters rejected Amendment 7, the proposed statewide transportation sales tax (59 percent to 41 percent). Using a sales tax to pay for highways and bridges is bad policy, and the state of Missouri is better off having rejected this unfair, economically unsound proposal.

Winners And Losers At A Glance    The Votes County By County   St. Louis Public Radio

From St. Louis Public Radio

However, this defeat of Amendment 7 is just the start of creating a sustainable funding source for the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). In the very near future, the department may not have enough funds to maintain the existing state highway system. A deteriorating highway system would be damaging for both residents and the state economy. It is time for policymakers and opinion leaders in the state to convince Missourians not just about the amount of money MoDOT needs, but also about the proper and most efficient way of raising revenue for those needs: user fees. Whether that means raising the gas tax or implementing tolling, the basis of good policy is an informed, not a frightened, electorate.

While these future challenges remain, yesterday was a defeat for poll-driven policy and a victory for Missouri.

Older Posts »
A project of the

Search Show-Me Sunshine docs @

Top Posts

Show-Me Data



Powered by Wordpress