advertisement

WHAT OTHERS SAY: Taxpayers become casualties of Kansas-Missouri border war

Friday, December 14, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CST

Respected business and civic leaders in the Kansas City area get it: Companies that scoot across the state line to snare lucrative tax breaks leave behind a bigger tax burden for others.

“Those of us who don’t move are paying for those who do,” said Bill Hall, president of the Hall Family Foundation.

That costly and irritating fact gets to the heart of the problem as Kansas and Missouri officials engage in the financially destructive race to hand out taxpayer subsidies.

Those “who don’t move” include hundreds of thousands of residents and thousands of business leaders who must pay the taxes required to do public good — by providing high quality schools, social services and fire and police coverage — that those selected for special public subsidies won’t be supporting.

Millions upon millions of tax dollars are being wasted this way, and for what? The back-and-forth activity has created almost no new net job growth for the area.

A review of job growth in the Kansas City region and 17 others, including 10 that are considered Midwestern benchmarks for this area, shows our region falling behind. It was an abysmal 16th in percentage growth in total nonfarm employment from July 2009 to July 2012, or roughly the time that the amped-up economic battle has been occurring. Growth was only one half of 1 percent.

Yet the dueling goes on and on.

SelectQuote Senior Insurance Services last week announced a planned several-block move of 150 workers from Kansas City to Leawood, Kan. The company could get to keep up to 95 percent of its employees’ state income taxes for up to seven years, depriving the state of that money. Health Outcomes Sciences said a few days ago it is seeking similar income tax subsidies to move 13 workers from Kansas City to Overland Park.

Hall, a tenacious follower of this ongoing debacle, estimates that Kansas has decided to forgive $131 million in state income taxes since 2009 because of the border war, while Missouri is forgiving $60 million in income taxes. Kansas is giving up more than $250,000 in income taxes for each additional employee it has gained from Missouri.

That’s simply unconscionable.

Unfortunately, neither Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback nor Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has shown the leadership needed to help the metropolitan area deal with this problem. Both ignored a 2011 letter signed by 17 top metro area executives calling for a ceasefire.

Steps have to occur to change the situation. Both states should give no — or reduced — incentives to companies that relocate across the state line. Both states should reduce subsidies for development in green fields.

Kansas City area business leaders must keep up the pressure on state legislators to ratchet back subsidies that are doing little to build regional employment. It’s time to make everyone pay a fairer share of taxes.

Copyright The Kansas City Star. Reprinted with permission.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Michael Williams December 14, 2012 | 9:14 a.m.

I'm in favor of this kind of state-state competition, mainly because I want to see where it leads; that is, what will Kansas look like in 10 years as a result of the dramatic tax changes made by the state?

It is true that the companies that move will get to keep more of their money. The question is: What will they do with it?

And, the bet is this: They will expand with it. They will build more buildings (paying the money to contractors) and hire more workers (who will buy more cars, refrigerators, and clothes)...all-in-all, increasing the velocity of money where each exchange results in a taxable event down the road....the ultimate goal.

I like it. It's a grand experiment, and I'm looking forward to the results. The experiment is sufficiently isolated (reducing the number of variables) such that we will clearly see any cause-effect relationships.

Given what I've noticed BEFORE this tax revision, I'd say KS is winning. KCMO, not so much...but that city's arrow has been pointed down for decades and the locale possesses a need for a dramatic economic and social come-to-Jesus moment anyway. I especially look forward to that particular outcome.

Losing a competition forces change, almost always for the better unless you just give up.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 14, 2012 | 9:24 a.m.

Speaking of health care and the ACA:

Did you know that the State of Missouri AND the federal government already have programs for those who have lost, or cannot get, health insurance?

Here is the webpage:

http://www.mhip.org/

Now, scroll down about halfway and successively click on eligibility requirements, available plans, and...especially...premiums.

Great plans, huh? And cheap (gag), too!

Personally, I'm convinced this is what our new ACA health exchanges will look like. See what you think.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements