-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
1/48
Page 1
Holding Whom Harmless:
An Analysis of the Economic and Fiscal
Impacts Associated with Proposition B
A report by
Joseph Haslag, Ph D*
August 20, 2012
*Dr. Haslag is Professor and Kenneth Lay Chair in Economics at the University of Missouri-Columbia. The views
expressed in this report are Dr. Haslags and do not reflect the views or opinions of the University of Missouri.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
2/48
Page 2
Executive Summary
In this report, I quantify the economic and fiscal impacts associated with an increase in the Missouri
cigarette excise tax. The November 2012 ballot includes Proposition B. If passed, Proposition B would
raise Missouris state cigarette excise tax from $0.17 to $0.90. Suppose everything else in Missouri
remained unchanged. Consistent with such a tax increase, cigarette prices in Missouri will increase and
the quantity purchased in Missouri will decline.
Proposition B would have effects on other tobacco products and on a select group of tobacco
manufacturers. If passed, roll-your-own tobacco would be subject to a 35 percent tax applied on
manufacturers invoice price. Missouri would apply a 25 percent tax on the invoice price on tobacco
products other than cigarettes. Currently, both roll-your-own and other tobacco products are subject to a
10 percent tax on the invoice price. In addition, cigarette manufacturers that did not participate in the
Master Settlement Agreementso-called Non-Participating Manufacturerswould be required to make a$0.569 payment per pack sold in Missouri as the allocable share repeal is implemented. Overall, Non-
Participating Manufacturers would see taxes on their cigarettes increase by $1.299 per pack.
Data are not readily available for sales of roll-your-own and other tobacco products. Consequently, in this
report, I focus on cigarette sales.
Two impacts are analyzed in this report. The economic impact is measured by the change in the quantity
of cigarettes purchased in Missouri. The fiscal impact is measured by the change in revenues collected by
Missouris state, county, and municipal governments. At the state level, there will be new revenuescollected from the higher excise tax. It is important to note that existing funds will not be held harmless as
the expected monies paid per year into the State School Money Fund will decrease by $3.3 million, the
expected monies paid into the Health Initiative Fund will decrease by $1.5 million per year, and the
expected monies paid into the Fair Share Fund will decrease by $1.5 million per year. Thus, the expected
decrease to the three funds is $6.3 million.
In addition, sales tax receipts collected by Missouri will suffer. In each of the three political subdivisions,
sales taxes are collected as a fraction of cigarette prices before any state excise sales tax is applied.
Accordingly, a decrease in the quantity of cigarettes purchased in Missouri will affect the sales tax
revenues. The total reduction in expected state sales tax collection is $16 million per year. Sales tax
collections by counties and municipalities will also be affected. In my baseline model of cigarette
purchases by political subdivision, my calculations indicate that the expected decrease in Missouri county
sales tax receipts is $6.7 million per year. St. Louis County is expected to see sales tax receipts fall by
$1.8 million per year alone. St. Louis City is expected to lose over $900,000 in sales tax receipts per year
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
3/48
Page 3
and the city is expected to lose another quarter million dollars in city excise taxes collected per year. Sales
tax receipts collected by municipalities will also fall. By my calculations, the twenty largest
municipalities, excluding St. Louis City, would see total sales tax receipts fall by $2.6 million per year if
Proposition B passes. Each political subdivision is collecting its own sales tax on cigarettes.
With Proposition B passing, Missouris cigarette excise tax will be higher than Kansas, Nebraska,
Kentucky and Tennessee. I modify the baseline model to account for cigarette purchases by county. There
are 16 counties that are contiguous to those four states. The modified model is constructed so that
cigarette purchases in those 16 counties exhibit greater price sensitivity than counties not contiguous to
those four states. For Jackson County, sales tax receipts are expected to decrease by over $500,000 per
year with border effects taken into account. In addition, Jackson County is expected to lose another
$500,000 in county excise tax receipts per year.
Thus, Proposition B will reduce state, county & municipal revenues by $34.8 million per year as follows:
$6.3 million per year from existing funds = $3.3 million from the State School Money Fund +$1.5 from the Health Initiative Fund + $1.5 million from the Fair Share Fund.
$25.3 million per year in sales taxes = $16 million state + $6.7 million county + $2.6 millionmunicipals.
$3.2 million per year in local cigarette excise taxes.
In summary, a higher cigarette excise tax in Missouri will raise cigarette prices and reduce the quantities
of cigarettes purchased in Missouri. The price increase will have adverse effects on the state, county and
municipal revenues that rely on cigarette purchases. Based on economic theory, Proposition B fails to
satisfy the hold-harmless condition. Indeed, the fiscal impacts will be widespread and felt by every
political subdivision in the state of Missouri. Instead, no one will be held harmless if Proposition B
passes.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
4/48
Page 4
1. Introduction
Missourians will consider an increase to the states cigarette excise tax. The November 2012 ballot
initiativehereafter referred to as Proposition B--raises the tax from $0.17 cents per pack to $0.90 cents
per pack.
An increase in cigarette excise taxes will increase the price that consumers pay. Consumers respond to
higher prices by reducing their purchases. As cigarette purchases decrease, there are two important
questions. First, what is the expected decrease in cigarette purchases in Missouri owing to the higher
cigarette excise tax? Second, what are the implications of the decreased purchases on tax receipts for
state, county and municipal governments?
The Missouri State Auditor provided an answer to the first question. In the Fiscal Note for Proposition B,
the Office of Administration calculated the expected decrease in cigarette purchases in Missouri. In this
report, I assess the validity of the underlying assumptions used by the Office of Administration in their
calculations. The State Auditors Fiscal Note completely ignored the fiscal impact; that is, How will the
cigarette excise tax affect tax receipts paid to the state, counties and cities in Missouri? In the current
economic environment, with budget stresses at the state and local levels continuing from the last
economic recession, the answers to the second question are particularly important.
The purpose of this study is to quantify the effects that the excise tax increase will have on economic
activity and fiscal impacts. In particular, I am interested in assessing the revenue impacts on state and
local jurisdictions. I structure my analysis on the following five questions: the effects on (i) statewidecigarette sales; (ii) revenues from the additional excise tax and the expected monies distributed to the new
excise tax funds; (iii) revenues paid to the existing excise tax funds; (iv) general revenue fund from sales
taxes; and (v) revenues collected at the county level and for selected municipalities across the state.
The report is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the most important elements of
Proposition B. In addition, I describe the current excise tax structure. In Section 3, I present evidence on
state excise tax receipts over time, focusing on the most recent evidence as a way to initialize the analysis.
I quantify the expected economic impact that a $0.73 increase in the cigarette excise tax will have on the
quantity of cigarette packs purchased in Missouri in Section 4. I compare my results with those presented
in the State Auditors Fiscal Note and compute the expected fiscal impacts that the reduced quantity of
cigarette purchases will have on state sales tax receipts. In Section 5, I compute the expected sales tax
receipts lost by county and selected city governments because of the reduction in cigarette purchases
accompanying the excise tax increase under Proposition B. I consider two alternatives, one in which the
cigarette purchases are distributed according to county populations and another in which there is a border
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
5/48
Page 5
effect for counties contiguous to Kansas, Nebraska, Kentucky and Tennessee. I pick those four states
because Proposition B would result in cigarette prices in Missouri being higher than in those four
contiguous states. An alternative analysis conducted by Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is presented in
Section 6 along with the implied expected revenue impacts per year. Section 7 offers a brief summary of
my findings.
2. Proposition B: Key Features of the Law
Currently, Missouri collects 17 cents on each pack of cigarettes sold within the state. Missouris state
cigarette tax is the lowest in the nation. Table 1 provides July 2012 data on state-level cigarette taxes for
all fifty states and the District of Columbia. As Table 1 shows, Missouri applies the lowest tax per pack of
cigarettes in the United States. The next lowest state cigarette tax is Virginias $0.30 per pack.
Meanwhile, New York State collects $4.35 per pack, followed by Rhode Island collecting $3.50 per pack.
Table 1
State Cigarette Excise Taxes and Rankings
State Tax Rank State Tax Rank State Tax Rank
Alabama $0.425 47t Kentucky $0.60 40th North Dakota $0.44 46th
Alaska $2.00 11th Louisiana $0.36 49th Ohio $1.25 28th
Arizona $2.00 11t Maine $2.00 11th Oklahoma $1.02 31st
Arkansas $1.15 30t Maryland $2.00 11th Oregon $1.18 29th
California $0.87 33r Massachusetts $2.51 10th Pennsylvania $1.60 21st
Colorado $0.84 34t Michigan $2.00 11th Rhode Island $3.50 2nd
Connecticut $3.40 3rd Minnesota $1.60 21st SouthCarolina
$0.57 42nd
Delaware $1.60 21st Mississippi $0.68 37th South Dakota $1.53 24th
District ofColumbia
$2.86 6t Missouri $0.17 51st Tennessee $0.62 39th
Florida $1.339 27t Montana $1.70 17th Texas $1.41 25th
Georgia $0.37 48t Nebraska $0.64 38th Utah $1.70 17th
Hawaii $3.20 4t Nevada $0.80 35th Vermont $2.62 8th
Idaho $0.57 42nd New
Hampshire
$1.68 19th Virginia $0.30 50th
Illinois $1.98 16t New Jersey $2.70 7t Washington $3.025 5th
Indiana $0.995 32n New Mexico $1.66 20th West Virginia $0.55 44th
Iowa $1.36 26th New York $4.35 1st Wisconsin $2.52 9th
Kansas $0.79 36t NorthCarolina
$0.45 45th Wyoming $0.60 40th
Source:Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids;http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdf
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdfhttp://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdfhttp://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdfhttp://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdf -
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
6/48
Page 6
Proposition B is on the November 2012 Ballot. The ballot initiative, if passed, would increase the
Missouri excise tax from $0.17 to $0.90 per pack, or a 429 percent increase in the Missouri cigarette
excise tax. Additionally, Proposition B repeals a provision in the Missouri escrow statute that will cause
Non-Participating Manufacturers (hereafter NPMs) to escrow an additional $0.569 per cigarette pack. In
doing so, the base price for NPM cigarette brands will increase by $0.569 per pack. 1 The escrow is not a
tax per se, but acts like a tax causing the price of the NPM brands to increase. Current law allows NPMs
to receive a refund of monies escrowed in excess of the states share of national tobacco settlement
payments and allows NPMs to receive all escrowed monies after 25 years. Proposition B, if implemented,
would deny this refund. Thus, when coupled with the cigarette excise tax increase, the additional escrow
requirement results in the price of NPM cigarette brands to increase by more than 760 percent.
Proposition B also includes language that affects retail tobacco sales. Specifically, the tax on roll-your-
own cigarettes will increase from 10 percent to 35 percent on tobacco sales. Other tobacco products, such
as cigars and smokeless products, will be subject to a 25 percent tax rate, 15 percentage points above the
current 10 percent rate. Wholesale cigarette sellers apply the state tax stamp. The compensation paid to
wholesalers will fall from 3 percent of the face value of the stamp to one-half cent per stamp under
Proposition B.
Proposition B specifies where monies from the tax increase are to be distributed. Monies collected from
the $0.73 cigarette excise tax increase will not go into the states general revenue fund. Rather, the state
treasury will create a new fundthe Health and Education Trust Fundand revenues from the excise tax
increase are dedicated to that fund. Within the Fund, monies will be allocated into three separate
accounts: (1) Tobacco Use Prevention and Quit Assistance Account; (2) Public Education Account; and
(3) Public Higher Education Account. Monies generated by the proposed cigarette tax hike will be
distributed as follows: 20 percent will be credited to the Tobacco Use Prevention and Quit Assistance
Account, 50 percent will be credited to the Public Education Account, and 30 percent will be credited to
the Public Higher Education Account.
The bottom line is that if Proposition B passes, cigarette prices in Missouri will increase as sellers pass
the tax increase along with the NPMs per-pack fee along to buyers. With an increase in cigarette prices,
the quantity demanded will decline.
1Non-Participating Manufacturers are cigarette manufacturers who are not included in the 1998 Master Settlement
Agreement. The Master Settlement Agreement (hereafter, MSA) required the states to pass legislation that includeda provision that imposed a per-pack fee on non-participating manufacturers. The funds were to be placed in anescrow account and applied against any claims made by a state against a NPM.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
7/48
Page 7
3. Proposition B revenue impact
Effective October 1, 1993, Missouri implemented its $0.17 cigarette tax.2 Figure 1 plots the cigarette tax
revenue by calendar year from 1993 through 2011. The data indicate a sizeable increase between 1993
and 1994, owing partially to fact that the cigarette tax was $0.13 from January 1, 1993, through
September 30, 1993.
Figure 1 shows that cigarette tax revenues peaked at nearly $100 million in 1996. There is a modest
downward trend present in cigarette taxes collected since 1996. In 1996, Missouris cigarette excise tax
raised $109.7 million. Since 1996, cigarette taxes have, on average, fallen 1.1 percent a year. In 2011,
Missouri reported $88.67 million in cigarette taxes collected. Note that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has
a price index for cigarettes. According to their data, cigarette prices have increased at average annual rate
of 9.1 percent since 1997. The price increases reflect all the factors affecting the equilibrium retail price,
including cigarette tax increases.3
It is straightforward to compute the number of cigarette packs purchased in Missouri. Divide the cigarette
excise tax revenue by the excise tax per pack and the result is the quantity of cigarette packs sold in
Missouri. Thus, divide the revenue by 0.17.
Figure 1
2See Missouri Revised Statute 140.015.
3Other factors would include tobacco costs, labor costs, peoples preferences and the like.
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
1993 1998 2003 2008
Cigarette Tax Revenue--Missouri
1993-2011 (Calendar Year)
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
8/48
Page 8
Based on the historical cigarette tax revenue collected, the number of packs sold in Missouri peaked in
1996 at over 645 million packs. In 2011, the quantity sold was 521,588,235 packs. Compared with 1996,
over 123 million fewer cigarette packs have been purchased in Missouri in 2011.
4. Quantity Effects
The purpose of this section is to compute the expected number of cigarettes sold if the proposed excise
tax is implemented.
The Law of Demand says that a goods quantity demanded is negatively related to the price. The Law,
however, leaves open the question of how sensitive the quantity demanded is to an increase in the price.
In the case of cigarettes, the conventional wisdom is that quantity is not very sensitive to price changes.
In economics parlance, sensitivity is referred to as elasticity. Formally, elasticity is the percentage change
in quantity divided by the percentage change in price. To illustrate, suppose the price of a good goes up,
say, ten percent and the quantity goes down by three percent. In this example, the elasticity of demand is
0.3. Because the number is less than one, the goods demand is inelastic.4 When designing a tax system,
inelastic goods are desirable precisely because a tax increase creates a smaller distortion in terms of the
change in the quantity chosen by consumers.
The demand for cigarettes is believed to be inelastic. It may be true for national markets. The mistake
made by state governments is that the measure of the elasticity depends on the definition of the market.
For example, at the national market, a countrywide price increase of ten percent may not affect the
quantity consumed by people. In contrast, if the price increase is focused on just on a single store, people
will be able to avoid the price increase by purchasing their cigarettes at a nearby store. From the
perspective of the single, price-raising store, the elasticity of demand is infinity since the quantity
purchased will fall to zero. If the market is small geographically, there are more substitutes for cigarettes
in that market and the elasticity increases.
States are somewhere between the global market size and the single-location size. Given the price
increase that accompanies a tax hike, the implication is that the quantity of cigarettes purchased in
Missouri are more sensitive to such a price increase than if the prices of all cigarettes across the country
increased.
Assumption 1: The elasticity of demand for Missouri cigarettes is 1.2.
4The astute reader will recognize that the elasticity is a negative number since the quantity demanded decreasedby
three percent while the price increasedby ten percent. It is standard to focus on the absolute value of the elasticity.Hence, throughout this report, I will refer to the elasticity of demand as a positive value.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
9/48
Page 9
Assumption 1 plays a critical role in computing the economic impact of Missouris proposed cigarette
excise tax increase. Because the excise tax increase is 429 percent, some consumers will quit smoking.
Moreover, consumers presently crossing state lines to purchase lower-priced Missouri cigarettes will do
so less frequently. In the case of border areas between Missouri and four states--Kansas, Nebraska,
Kentucky and Tennesseethe increase in the Missouri tax will result in Missourians crossing the border
into these four states to purchase lower-priced cigarettes. Goolsbee and Slemrod (2004) find that the
online sales alternative raises the elasticity of cigarette sales to between 1.2 and 2. Throughout my
analysis, I use the lower end of the Goolsbee-Slemrod range. My principal reason is that 1.2 is a
conservative estimate of the elasticity of state cigarette purchases in Missouri. An elasticity of 2 is
plausible, but with changes to the Jenkins Act, it is more plausible to use the more conservative value.
With an elasticity value, we need three additional values to compute the quantity of Missouri cigarettes
sold under the proposed excise tax. Specifically, we need to know the current quantity of cigarettes sold
in Missouri, the current price of Missouri cigarettes and the projected price of Missouri cigarettes with the
proposed excise tax implemented.
To obtain the quantity of cigarette packs sold in Missouri, we use the amount of taxes collected in
Missouri and divide that revenue figure by $0.17, which is the current cigarette excise tax. In calendar
year 2011, the Department of Revenue reported that it collected $88,670,000 in cigarette excise taxes. At
$0.17 per pack, this implies that 521,588,235 cigarette packs were purchased in Missouri.5
The current consumer price is obtained from the report, The Tax Burden on Tobacco, Vol. 46 (2011). Not
all cigarettes packs have the same price. Instead a weighted average price is reported using quantity and
price data for the different cigarettes sold in Missouri.6 In 2011, the weighted average price was $4.30 in
Missouri. With a $0.17 excise tax, the pre-tax price of Missouri cigarettes is $4.30 - $0.17 = $4.13. Note
that the pre-tax price is relevant because Missouri collects sales tax on cigarette prices, which is computed
as the product of the pre-state-excise-tax price and the sales tax rate.
Assumption 2: All cigarette excise taxes are passed through completely to consumers.
With Assumption 2, it is straightforward to compute the consumer price of cigarettes for the case in which
the proposed excise tax is implemented. I use as the initial consumer price of cigarettes in Missouri. By
Assumption 2, I add $0.73 to the current consumer price. In addition, the fee charged on NPMs cigarettes
is $0.569. In Missouri, 23 percent of the cigarettes purchased are from NPMs. Thus, with Proposition B
5The arithmetic is $88,670,000/$0.17 which equals the number of cigarette packs.
6See Table 14 on p. 186.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
10/48
Page 10
passing, the price is $4.30 + $0.73 + (0.23)*($0.569). Correspondingly, the consumer price must account
for the market share of NPM cigarettes times the fee applied on those cigarettes. The projected Missouri
cigarette price is $5.16 per pack if Proposition B passes.
With the current price, the price including the higher state excise tax and fees, the current quantity and
the elasticity of demand for cigarettes, we can compute the expected number of cigarettes sold in
Missouri if the cigarette excise tax is raised from $0.17 to $0.90. The equation is the arc elasticity
formula, represented as
( )
( )
where is the elasticity of cigarette demand, is the quantity of cigarettes sold with the proposed
increase in the cigarette excise tax, is the quantity of cigarettes sold in 2011, is the price of
cigarettes with the proposed increased in the cigarette excise tax and is the price of cigarettes in 2011.
With excise taxes increasing 429 percent, the effect on consumer prices is an 18 percent increase. With
the proposed increase in the cigarette excise tax, I compute that the expected number of cigarettes
purchased in Missouri will fall from 521,588,235 packs a year to 429,360,450 packs in the first year after
the excise tax increase is implemented. Thus, the quantity of cigarettes purchased in Missouri is expected
to decrease by 92,227,785 packs
Comparison with Missouri State Auditors Office Fiscal Note
In the January 30, 2012 fiscal note, officials from the Office of Administration (hereafter, BAP) computed
the expected revenue impact with a $0.73 increase in the cigarette excise tax implemented. Table 2
reports the values for the price elasticity of cigarettes, the current price, the current quantity, the expected
price if the $0.73 excise tax were implemented, and the expected quantity if Proposition B passes for both
the baseline model and the BAP.
Table 2
Variable Baseline BAP
521,588,235 529,211,235 $4.30 $4.50
$5.16 $5.23
1.2 0.8
429,360,450 469,281,167
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
11/48
Page 11
There are some minor differences that arise because BAP used Fiscal Year while the Baseline uses
calendar year values for the initial quantities. In addition, BAP uses $4.50 as the initial price instead of
the $4.30 Tax Burden on Tobacco report. Lastly, BAP uses a smaller price elasticity of demand for
cigarettes. Overall, the change in cigarettes purchased in Missouri falls by approximately 60 million packs
according to the BAP analysis while my baseline model calculates the expected number of packs
purchased in Missouri to decrease by approximately 92 million packs.
One factor plays the largest role in accounting for the discrepancy between my findings and those
presented by BAP in the State Auditors Fiscal Note. The most important difference is the value of the
elasticity of cigarette demand. BAP offers no economic justification for using the elasticity of cigarette
being equal to 0.8. Instead, they reference the elasticity estimates by Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
equal to 0.4 and the Goolsbee and Slemrod value of 1.2, picking the midpoint of those two estimates. A
key problem with settling on the midpoint is that the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids estimate is
consistent with the elasticity of cigarette demand in the national market. Here, the appropriate measure of
market is the state. Therefore, a greater elasticity value is justified in this analysis.
It follows immediately that with two different quantities, the fiscal impacts on state revenues will be
different. According to BAPs calculations, Missouri should expect to receive an additional $332,387,140
in cigarette tax revenue in Year 1 of the cigarette excise tax increase. With the higher elasticity of
cigarette demand, my calculations indicate that Year 1 expected additional cigarette excise tax revenues
are $313,433,128. Thus, with a more reasonable elasticity value, the expected gains in cigarette excise tax
revenues will decline by nearly $19 million.
4.1 Revenue implications for new and existing state funds
Currently, cigarette excise tax revenues are allocated between three funds. The State School Money Fund
receives $0.09 per pack sold in Missouri while the Health Initiatives Fund and the Fair Share Fund each
receive $0.04 per pack. Proposition B specifies that these three funds will be held harmless. Indeed,
stipulates that monies from the $0.73 cigarette excise tax will be allocated to each fund so that the hold-
harmless condition is satisfied. The transfer cannot exceed 3 percent of the new additional revenues.
The baseline model expects that annually 92 million fewer packs of cigarettes will be purchased in
Missouri if the $0.73 excise tax increase is implemented. Multiplying the reduction in cigarette packs
purchased in Missouri by $0.17, we know the expected reduction in monies allocated to the three existing
funds; the expected reduction is $15,678,723 per year. According to the cap on amounts transferred from
new revenues, the maximum transfer amount is 0.03 times $313,577,020, which equals $9,402,994 per
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
12/48
Page 12
year. The difference between the hold-harmless amount and the transfer cap is $6,275,730 per year. If the
difference is allocated among the three existing funds by the allocation formula, then the State School
Money Fund will see its funding allocation decline from the cigarette excise tax by $3,322,445 per year.
In addition, the Health Initiatives Fund and the Fair Share Fund will each see their funding allocation
from the cigarette excise tax decline by $1,476,642 per year.
Monies from the $0.73 increase in the cigarette excise tax are dedicated to a newly created Health and
Education Trust Fund. Additional costs associated with implementing the increase in the cigarette excise
tax are to be paid from this fund. The additional costs cannot exceed 1.5 percent of the revenues from the
$0.73 excise tax increase. Of the net proceedsthat is, the revenues collected from the $0.73 excise tax
increase less the hold-harmless transfer less the additional actual costsare apportioned among three
accounts. The Tobacco Use Prevention and Quit Assistance Account is credited 20 percent of the new
excise tax monies, the Public Education Account receives 50 percent, and the Public Higher Education
Account receives 30 percent. Based on the expected new monies calculated in the baseline model, the
Tobacco Use Prevention and Quit Assistance Account will receive 0.2 times $299,328,637 per year,
which equals $60,491,180 per year. Meanwhile the expected monies credited to the Public Education
Account will be $151,227,951 per year and the Public Higher Education Account is expected to be
credited $90,736,771 per year.
4.2 Sales Tax Revenues
Missouri collects sales tax on cigarettes purchased in Missouri. The state sales tax is $0.04225 per dollar
of cigarette sales. The sales tax rate is applied to the pre-excise tax price of the cigarette pack. With a
decline in the number of packs purchased in Missouri, sales tax collection will decline. Of the $0.04225
per dollar, three cents is placed in Missouri General Revenue, 1/8 cent is dedicated to Conservation, $0.01
to Education, and $0.001 to Parks and Soil.
Assumption 3: Foregone cigarette purchases are not spent on items subject to Missouri sales tax.
Hereafter, I will refer to the calculations based on this model as the baseline model. The baseline model
takes the difference between the current and Proposition B quantity of cigarette purchased in Missouri. I
multiply this difference by the price of cigarettes subject to the sales tax by the sales tax rate. I find that
the expected decline in state sales tax is $16,093,057. Of this amount, there will be an expected reduction
in General Revenue equal to $11,427,023 less state sales tax monies collected per year.
In addition, the sales tax monies dedicated to Education will decline by $3,809,008 per year, sales tax
monies dedicated to Conservation will decline by $476,126 per year and sales tax monies dedicated to
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
13/48
Page 13
Table 3
Annual State Revenue Picture with
Cigarette Excise Tax Increase Implemented
New Revenues$0.73 excise taxincrease
$313,433,128
less hold harmlesstransfer
$9,402,994
less actual cost $4,701,497
equals net newrevenues
$299,328,637
Revenue Losses
State Sales Tax $16,093,057
equals General
Revenue
$11,427,023
plus Education $3,809,008
plus Conservation $476,126
plus Parks/Soils $380,901Source: authors calculations
Parks and Soil will fall by $380,901 per year.
Table 3 provides an overview of the annual impact to state revenue if the cigarette excise tax increases
from $0.17 to $0.90.
5. County and Municipal Revenue Impacts
In this section, I examine the effects that changes in the cigarette excise tax will have on political
subdivisions within Missouri. In the baseline model, there is no assumption regarding the distribution of
cigarette purchases within Missouri. In other words, the analysis focuses on the statewide impact.
What is the distribution of cigarette purchases in Missouri by county? Direct measurement is not possible
since the tax data are not compiled at the county or city level. Therefore, I must make an assumption in
order to pin down distribution of cigarettes purchased in each of Missouris 114 counties and St. Louis
City.7
Assumption 4: Cigarette purchases per Missourian are constant.
7The federal excise tax is applied to cigarette manufacturers. Thus, the state and local sales taxes are generally
applied to the wholesale cigarette price, which already includes the federal excise tax. However, state and local salestaxes are applied against the sales price less the state excise taxes.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
14/48
Page 14
Because Missouri currently has the lowest cigarette excise tax in the nation, it is natural to expect that
Missouri sells cigarettes to people living outside Missouri. Hence, the distribution of population along
Missouris border plays a big role in determining the distribution of cigarette sales inside Missouri.
Assumption 4 embodies the population of people living along the Missouri border in the sense that if
large numbers of out-of-state buyers are coming to Missouri to purchase cigarettes, there will be
employment in those Missouri stores. Insofar as population is positively related to employment,
population in the Missouri counties will mirror cigarette buying out-of-state folks. Therefore, I assume
cigarette purchases per Missourian is a constant and is a reasonable proxy for cigarette purchases by
county.
Appendix 1 is a table with population data for all 114 counties in Missouri and the City of St. Louis. The
population data are 2011 levels taken from the United States Census Bureau. We know the quantity of
cigarettes purchased in Missouri. Divide the quantity by the county weight, where the weight is simply
the fraction of Missouris state population. If the proposed cigarette excise tax is implemented, there will
be a decrease in the quantity of cigarettes purchased in Missouri. I use the expected decrease in cigarette
purchases statewide and allocate that decline by the population of people living in each Missouri county.
In other words, each countys population weight is multiplied by the expected quantity of cigarettes
purchased in Missouri. For example, if County X has 10 percent of the Missouri population and statewide
cigarettes sales decline by 50 million packs because of the cigarette excise tax increases, then cigarettes
purchased in County X would fall by 5 million packs.
To compute the expected decline county sales tax revenues, we need the decrease in the number of
cigarette packs sold. Next, multiply the decrease in the number of cigarette packs sold in the county by
the pre-excise tax price per pack, which is $4.13. The resulting product is the measure of sales lost by
county. Finally, I multiply the lost sales by the county sales tax rate to obtain the expected decline in
county sales tax revenues.
Table 4 reports the county sales tax rate and the expected decrease in sales tax revenue for each county in
Missouri. By far, the largest decline in expected sales tax revenue occurs in St. Louis County. With nearly
1 million inhabitants, or 1/6thof Missouris population, St. Louis County would see cigarette purchases
decline by over 15.2 million packs. At $4.13 per pack, this amounts to annual cigarette sales falling by
over $64 million. In St. Louis County, the sales tax rate is 2.95, resulting in sales tax revenue falling by
over $1.86 million per year.8
8 The baseline model is subject to forecast errors. For example, St. Louis City collects a city excise tax. For FiscalYear 2011, it is possible to back out the number of cigarette packs purchased in St. Louis City from the city excise
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
15/48
Page 15
Table 4
Expected Annual Sales Tax Revenue Decreases
By County With Proposition B Passing
County SalesTax Rate County
Decrease inAnnual County SalesTax Revenue
0.01 Adair $ 16,192.45
0.017 Andrew $ 18,525.25
0.0225 Atchison $ 7,940.49
0.01875 Audrain $ 30,377.48
0.0125 Barry $ 27,948.01
0.01 Barton $ 7,811.69
0.01 Bates $ 10,778.07
0.01375 Benton $ 16,655.770.01625 Bollinger $ 12,723.86
0.0125 Boone $ 131,198.48
0.011 Buchanan $ 62,499.86
0.01 Butler $ 27,301.31
0.02 Caldwell $ 11,805.94
0.01 Callaway $ 28,149.21
0.0125 Camden $ 34,599.54
0.01CapeGirardeau $ 48,562.14
0.0125 Carroll $ 7,620.31
0.01 Carter $ 4,033.54
0.0125 Cass $ 79,254.41
0.01 Cedar $ 8,838.93
0.02 Chariton $ 9,802.16
0.0175 Christian $ 87,132.96
0.02 Clark $ 8,895.96
0.00875 Clay $ 124,850.09
0.01 Clinton $ 13,174.11
0.015 Cole $ 72,668.31
0.0175 Cooper $ 19,588.000.0175 Crawford $ 27,502.83
0.0175 Dade $ 8,657.85
0.02 Dallas $ 21,227.88
tax receipts. The data are consistent with 66.16 million cigarette packs sold in St. Louis City in Fiscal Year 2011.The baseline model assigns St. Louis City 27.6 million packs by its population share. Note that expected sales taxrevenue decrease is not necessarily affected by the initial quantity of packs, rather the change in the packs purchasedin St. Louis City matters.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
16/48
Page 16
0.015 Daviess $ 7,901.99
0.01 DeKalb $ 8,090.52
0.01 Dent $ 9,933.97
0.01 Douglas $ 8,585.45
0.01 Dunklin $ 20,262.11
0.0175 Franklin $ 113,047.72
0.01375 Gasconade $ 13,216.57
0.01 Gentry $ 4,300.33
0.01125 Greene $ 197,631.12
0.015 Grundy $ 9,722.31
0.0125 Harrison $ 7,023.04
0.01 Henry $ 14,080.31
0.015 Hickory $ 9,151.98
0.025 Holt $ 7,626.65
0.025 Howard $ 16,165.83
0.009375 Howell $ 24,153.10
0.015 Iron $ 10,129.15
0.01125 Jackson $ 482,189.87
0.00975 Jasper $ 73,176.62
0.01625 Jefferson $ 226,014.32
0.025 Johnson $ 84,661.50
0.02 Knox $ 5,229.34
0.01 Laclede $ 22,582.74
0.01625 Lafayette $ 34,197.69
0.015 Lawrence $ 36,710.570.02375 Lewis $ 15,283.79
0.0175 Lincoln $ 58,860.49
0.01 Linn $ 7,963.15
0.0075 Livingston $ 7,164.36
0.02 McDonald $ 29,121.31
0.01375 Macon $ 13,585.15
0.015 Madison $ 11,592.06
0.0166667 Maries $ 9,686.21
0.01125 Marion $ 20,472.89
0.0225 Mercer $ 5,423.890.01 Miller $ 15,696.89
0.0175 Mississippi $ 15,865.14
0.015 Moniteau $ 14,920.92
0.1 Monroe $ 55,347.86
0.0175 Montgomery $ 13,607.25
0.01 Morgan $ 12,992.24
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
17/48
Page 17
0.01 New Madrid $ 11,902.90
0.00875 Newton $ 32,390.13
0.01 Nodaway $ 14,871.81
0.01 Oregon $ 6,981.54
0.0175 Osage $ 15,431.53
0.015 Ozark $ 9,120.61
0.0125 Pemiscot $ 14,396.21
0.01875 Perry $ 22,624.48
0.01 Pettis $ 26,728.44
0.00875 Phelps $ 24,963.25
0.02 Pike $ 23,538.37
0.01375 Platte $ 79,207.91
0.01 Polk $ 19,752.61
0.0075 Pulaski $ 25,272.98
0.02 Putnam $ 6,309.17
0.02 Ralls $ 13,030.26
0.01 Randolph $ 16,061.91
0.015 Ray $ 22,081.48
0.01 Reynolds $ 4,174.85
0.015 Ripley $ 13,443.75
0.01725 St. Charles $ 399,162.04
0.005 St. Clair $ 3,054.78
0.02Ste.Genevieve $ 22,970.57
0.0125 St. Francois $ 51,945.65
0.0295 St. Louis $ 1,866,986.73
0.01625 Saline $ 23,973.09
0.02 Schuyler $ 5,552.53
0.0125 Scotland $ 3,824.41
0.01 Scott $ 24,800.71
0.01 Shannon $ 5,343.41
0.015 Shelby $ 5,969.51
0.01 Stoddard $ 18,888.87
0.0175 Stone $ 35,779.18
0.0275 Sullivan $ 11,604.58
0.01625 Taney $ 54,306.05
0.015 Texas $ 24,653.69
0.01 Vernon $ 13,284.37
0.02 Warren $ 41,209.88
0.025 Washington $ 39,727.01
0.01 Wayne $ 8,539.18
0.01833 Webster $ 41,165.33
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
18/48
Page 18
0.01875 Worth $ 2,554.63
0.01 Wright $ 11,860.44
0.04516 St. Louis City $ 910,254.68
County SalesTax Loss
Total $ 6,769,380.76Source: Sales tax rates are obtained from Missouri Department of Revenues Sales and Use Tax Rate Changes Reportand the authors
calculations.
Table 4 also shows that Worth County, with a population of 2,150 inhabitants and a sales tax rate at 1.875
percent is expected to see county sales tax revenue decrease by more than $2,500 per year if higher
cigarette excise tax is implemented.
Population is the primary variable that accounts for the expected sales tax revenue decline; large
population centers are expected to have the largest cigarette purchases. However, the county sales tax ratevaries across counties. St. Louis City has the highest sales tax rate at 4.516 percent while Pulaski County
has the lowest rate at 0.85 percent.
Table 5 reports the ten counties with the largest expected sales tax revenue decline given the passage of
Proposition B. Nine counties are expected to realize a sales tax revenue decline that exceed $100,000.
Table 5
Ten Missouri Counties with Largest Expected Annual
Decreases in Sales Tax Revenues with Proposition B Passing
County Expected AnnualSales Tax
Revenue Decline
St. Louis $1,866,987
St. Louis City $910,255
Jackson $482,190
St. Charles $399,162
Jefferson $226,014
Greene $197,631
Boone $131,198
Clay $124,850
Franklin $113,048
Christian $87,133
Total Sales TaxDecrease for 10 Largest
Counties
$4,538,468
Source: authors calculations
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
19/48
Page 19
To put some perspective on the expected decline, it would be useful to know what the revenues are for
some of these counties. For example, Governmental Activities Revenues are $660.5 million in 2011 for
St. Louis County. Thus, the expected decline in sales tax revenues is 0.3 percent of the Countys budget.
In Boone County, Government Activity Revenues are $47.7 million. The expected sales tax revenue
decline is also 0.3 percent. Meanwhile, the Greene County budget is $34.5 million per year so that the
expected sales tax revenue decline is nearly 0.6 percent of the county budget. The expected sales tax
revenue decline is not a large fraction of county revenues, but in a period in which county budgets are
struck by other declines, a decline in sales tax revenues will further stress these counties to maintain their
programs.
5.1 Border Effects
In the county-level analysis, Assumption 4 holds that the quantity of purchases is based on a per-
Missourian basis. In other words, the decline in cigarette purchases is distributed evenly among
Missourians.
Assumption 4 notably ignores the transaction cost borne by non-Missourians who purchase cigarettes in
Missouri presently because the excise tax is low. Put another way, Kansans are unlikely to drive to Cole
County (Jefferson City) to buy cigarettes. Rather, they will drive to Jackson County. If the cigarette
excise tax increase is implemented, that flow of out-of-state purchases will stop as the Kansas excise tax
will be lower than Missouris excise tax.
One way to approach this is to alter the weight associated with each countys cigarette sales. In the
baseline model, the weight is the ratio of the countys population to the states population. To compute
the countys share of the reduction in cigarette packs purchased in Missouri, I take the weight and
multiply itby the states expected quantity of cigarette packs after the implementation of a $0.73 increase
in the state excise tax. If a countys weight decreases, for example, then the expected share of states
cigarette purchased in that county will decline. In other words, that county will realize a larger share of
the reduction in state cigarette purchases than its population would have predicted.
To incorporate a change in county weights, I take as given the statewide expected quantity of cigarette
packs purchased after implementing the higher state excise tax. This means that the county weights must
continue to sum to one. If a county receives a smaller weight because it is on the border, then non-border
counties must receive a larger weight.
In this analysis, I construct a set of weights such that imposes three conditions: First, to address the
sensitivity of price changes on cigarette purchases in counties that border Kansas, Nebraska, Kentucky
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
20/48
Page 20
and Tennessee, I construct a set of county weights that apply smaller weight to those border counties that
are contiguous with those four states. Second, I construct those county weights so that the sum across all
the Missouri counties is one. Third, approximately 25 percent of Missouris population is from the sixteen
counties that border the same four states. In the baseline model, these sixteen counties account for
approximately 25 percent of the decline in cigarette purchases by construction. In the border-sensitivity
analysis, I construct the county weight such that 33 percent of the reduction in cigarettes purchased across
the state falls upon those counties bordering Kansas, Nebraska, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In other words,
these border counties will account for one-third of the expected 92-million reduction in cigarette packs
purchased in Missouri.
Table 6 reports the counties that are contiguous to at least one of the four states that will have lower
cigarette excise taxes than Missouri if Proposition B passes. In addition, the population for each of these
sixteen counties is included. Table 6 shows that there are nearly 1.5 million inhabitants in these sixteen
counties.
Missouris total population is slightly above 6 million according to the 2011 Census Bureau reports.
Hence, the sixteen counties account for 24.8 percent of Missouri total population.
To raise the cigarette purchases in the sixteen contiguous counties to 33 percent of total purchases, I
modify the county weights for the border counties according to the following formula.
Note that the first term is simply the population weight for a particular county, the ratio 99 divided by 115
is the proportion of counties contiguous to the four states with lower cigarette excise taxes if Proposition
B passes, and the term kis a constant that is set so that the sixteen contiguous counties account for 33
percent of the cigarettes purchased in Missouri.9
Alternatively, the county weights for the non-contiguous counties is
9The equation represents a modification to the county weight that is an additive constant. Note that this additive
transformation to the county weight means that the smaller population counties will experience a disproportionatelarger change to their county environment while large population counties will realize a disproportionately smaller
change to their county weight.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
21/48
Page 21
It is straightforward to verify that the sum of the modified county weights sum to one. By setting k =
0.00125, the fraction of cigarettes sold in the sixteen contiguous border counties accounts for 33 percent
of total change in cigarettes purchased in Missouri.
Table 6
List of Missouri Counties
Contiguous to Kansas, Nebraska, Kentucky, or Tennessee
County Population
Atchison 5,569
Holt 4,814
Andrew 17,196
Buchanan 89,666
Platte 90,903Clay 225,161
Jackson 676,360
Cass 100,052
Bates 17,008
Vernon 20,963
Barton 12,327
Jasper 118,435
Mississippi 14,306
New Madrid 18,783
Newton 58,414
Pemiscott 18,174Total Population for 16 counties 1,488,131
Table 7 reports the expected sales tax revenue decreases for each Missouri county with the modified
county weights. Note one consequence associated with the modified county weights, some smaller
counties will see their expected sales tax revenue increase. Knox, Mercer, Schuyler, Scotland, and Worth
counties realize a small expected sales tax revenue gain because they are away from the border. Holding
the change in statewide cigarettes constant, and redistributing the losses toward the border counties, the
arithmetic shifts the change in sales toward the non-contiguous counties, even resulting in some gains in
small counties.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
22/48
Page 22
Table 7
Expected Sales Tax Revenue Decreases by County
With Proposition B Passing and Modified County Weights
CountyDecrease in AnnualSales Tax Revenue
Adair $ 13,108.52
Andrew $ 50,964.32
Atchison $ 50,874.55
Audrain $ 24,595.11
Barry $ 24,093.10
Barton $ 26,893.50
Bates $ 29,859.87
Benton $ 12,415.37
Bollinger $ 7,712.48
Boone $ 127,343.57
Buchanan $ 83,489.85
Butler $ 24,217.38
Caldwell $ 5,638.08
Callaway $ 25,065.28
Camden $ 30,744.63
Cape Girardeau $ 45,478.21
Carroll $ 3,765.40
Carter $ 949.61
Cass $ 103,106.67
Cedar $ 5,755.00
Chariton $ 3,634.30
Christian $ 81,736.08
Clark $ 2,728.11
Clay $ 141,546.67
Clinton $ 10,090.18
Cole $ 68,042.41
Cooper $ 14,191.13
Crawford $ 22,105.96
Dade $ 3,260.97
Dallas $ 15,060.02
Daviess $ 3,276.10
DeKalb $ 5,006.59
Dent $ 6,850.04
Douglas $ 5,501.52
Dunklin $ 17,178.18
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
23/48
Page 23
Franklin $ 107,650.84
Gasconade $ 8,976.17
Gentry $ 1,216.40
Greene $ 194,161.70
Grundy $ 5,096.42
Harrison $ 3,168.13
Henry $ 10,996.38
Hickory $ 4,526.09
Holt $ 55,331.16
Howard $ 8,456.01
Howell $ 21,261.92
Iron $ 5,503.26
Jackson $ 503,656.90
Jasper $ 91,781.38
Jefferson $ 221,002.94
Johnson $ 76,951.68
Knox $ (938.52)
Laclede $ 19,498.81
Lafayette $ 29,186.31
Lawrence $ 32,084.68
Lewis $ 7,959.47
Lincoln $ 53,463.62
Linn $ 4,879.22
Livingston $ 4,851.41
McDonald $ 22,953.46Macon $ 9,344.74
Madison $ 6,966.17
Maries $ 4,546.32
Marion $ 17,003.47
Mercer $ (1,514.95)
Miller $ 12,612.96
Mississippi $ 49,258.30
Moniteau $ 10,295.03
Monroe $ 24,508.58
Montgomery $ 8,210.37Morgan $ 9,908.31
New Madrid $ 30,984.70
Newton $ 49,086.71
Nodaway $ 11,787.88
Oregon $ 3,897.61
Osage $ 10,034.65
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
24/48
Page 24
Ozark $ 4,494.72
Pemiscot $ 38,248.47
Perry $ 16,842.12
Pettis $ 23,644.51
Phelps $ 22,264.82
Pike $ 17,370.51
Platte $ 105,445.39
Polk $ 16,668.68
Pulaski $ 22,960.03
Putnam $ 141.32
Ralls $ 6,862.40
Randolph $ 12,977.98
Ray $ 17,455.58
Reynolds $ 1,090.93
Ripley $ 8,817.86
St. Charles $ 393,842.27
St. Clair $ 1,512.81
Ste. Genevieve $ 16,802.71
St. Francois $ 48,090.74
St. Louis $ 1,857,889.14
Saline $ 18,961.71
Schuyler $ (615.33)
Scotland $ (30.50)
Scott $ 21,716.78
Shannon $ 2,259.48Shelby $ 1,343.62
Stoddard $ 15,804.94
Stone $ 30,382.31
Sullivan $ 3,123.78
Taney $ 49,294.66
Texas $ 20,027.80
Vernon $ 32,366.18
Warren $ 35,042.03
Washington $ 32,017.19
Wayne $ 5,455.26Webster $ 35,512.49
Worth $ (3,227.74)
Wright $ 8,776.51
St. Louis City $ 896,327.66
Total County Annual SalesTax Revenue Loss $ 6,684,847.26
Source: authors calculations
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
25/48
Page 25
In addition, other non-contiguous counties would see the decline in their expected sales tax decreases
become smaller as the distribution of cigarette purchases in Missouri shifts away from the contiguous
counties. For example, in the baseline model, St. Louis City is expected to see sales tax revenues decrease
by more than $910,000 per year. In the modified border county model, the expected sales tax revenue
decrease is smaller, declining by $896,000 per year.
Table 8 reports the expected sales losses in the baseline and the modified border county models for the
sixteen counties. Most of the counties contiguous to Kansas, Nebraska, Kentucky and Tennessee are
small in terms of population. The nature of the modified border county weight affects these small
population counties disproportionately. Consequently, Table 8 shows that the expected sales tax revenues
Table 8
Expected Annual Sales Tax Loss Comparing
Baseline Model to Modified Border Model
Source: authors calculations
will decrease substantially more when the border effect is taken into account. For example, Andrew and
Atchison counties are expected to see county sales tax receipts decline by more than $50,000 per year
CountyExpected AnnualLoss (Baseline)
Expected AnnualLoss (Mod Border)
Andrew $18,525 $50,964
Atchison $7,940 $50,875
Barton $7,812 $26,894
Bates $10,788 $29,860
Buchanan $62,500 $83,490
Cass $79,254 $103,107
Clay $124,850 $141,547
Holt $7,627 $55,331
Jackson $482,190 $503,657
Jasper $73,177 $91,781
Mississippi $15,865 $49,258NewMadrid $11,903 $30,985
Newton $32,390 $49,087
Pemiscott $14,396 $38,248
Platte $79,208 $105,445Vernon $13,284 $32,366
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
26/48
Page 26
with a strong border effect. Compared with expected sales tax receipts with no strong border effect,
expected county sales tax receipts fall by approximately $18,000 per year in Andrew and less than $8,000
per year in Atchison when no border effect is considered.
If the distribution of expected sales tax losses is too heavily shifted to small counties, there is another way
to look at things. Instead of county-by-county, suppose one is interested in the sum of the expected sales
tax losses across the sixteen border counties. With no strong border effect, the expected sales tax losses
total $1,041,709. With a strong border effect, expected sales tax losses total $1,442,895. Thus, with
greater border sensitivity, expected sales tax losses in those sixteen border counties increase by about
$400,000.
It is possible to construct a variety ofad hoc distributions such that the extra $400,000 in expected sales
tax revenues is distributed differently across the border counties. For example, Jackson County accounts
for roughly 40 percent of the population in these sixteen border counties. Suppose one were to allocate the
extra $400,000 in expected sales tax revenue decreases by population. Jackson Countys expected sales
tax revenue decrease would be $482,000 per year with no border effect. In contrast, with a strong border
effect and the distribution of expected sales taxes consistent with population centers, Jackson Countys
expected sales tax revenue decrease would rise to $660,000 per year.
5.2 City Sales Tax Revenues
With cities in Missouri also applying sales tax rates, a reduction in cigarette sales will also affect
municipal sales tax receipts. Here, I use the baseline model developed for the county-level analysis to
calculate expected sales tax losses at the city-level.
Table 9 reports the expected decline in city sales tax rates and receipts for Missouri cities with population
exceeding 20,000 inhabitants. The municipal tax rates range from 0.5 percent in Wildwood to 3 percent in
Maryland Heights. The Baseline City model indicates that the expected decline in sales tax revenue is
over $837,000 for Kansas City. Kansas City collects slightly less than $138 million in sales tax revenues
so that the reduction accounts for about 0.6 percent of revenues from this source. Overall, seven Missouri
cities (excluding St. Louis City) would see expected sales tax revenues decrease by more than $100,000.
Springfield collects nearly $111 million in city sales taxes, so with a decrease in sales tax receipts equal to
nearly $215,000 accounts for about 0.2 percent of sales tax receipts. The total expected annual decrease in
city sales tax receipts across the 20 largest municipalities is $2.6 million.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
27/48
Page 27
Table 9
Expected Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Decreases By City With Proposition B Passing
SalesTax Rate Municipality
Decrease inAnnual CitySales TaxRevenue
0.02 Columbia $ 137,514
0.02375 St. Joseph $ 115,558
0.0275 Cape Girardeau $ 66,119
0.025 Liberty $ 46,180
0.02 Jefferson City $ 54,599
0.02125 Springfield $ 214,784
0.015 Blue Springs $ 49,976
0.02 Grandview $ 31,020
0.0225 Independence $ 166,581
0.02875 Kansas City $ 837,688
0.0225 Lee's Summit $ 130,270
0.0275 Raytown $ 51,455
0.02625 Joplin $ 83,423
0.0125 Arnold $ 16,483
0.02375 Sedalia $ 32,189
0.02 O'Fallon $ 100,542
0.015 St. Charles $ 62,541
0.016 St. Peters $ 53,3070.025 Wentzville $ 46,055
0.0075 Florissant $ 24,790
0.01 Chesterfield $ 30,091
0.015 Hazelwood $ 24,622
0.015 Kirkwood $ 26,178
0.03 Maryland Heights $ 52,227
0.01 Ballwin $ 19,267
0.03 University City $ 67,244
0.02 Webster Groves $ 28,257
0.005 Wildwood $ 11,254Total for LargestMunicipalities $ 2,580,214
Source: authors calculations
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
28/48
Page 28
The point is that the loss may not be a sizeable portion of the sales tax receipts. However, the expected
losses in the current economic environment are challenges for cities that see revenues decline and
program cutbacks.
5.3 City and County Excise Tax
In addition, many cities and both St. Louis and Jackson counties in Missouri impose an excise tax on
cigarettes.10 Table 10 reports the decrease that would occur for selected city and county cigarette excise
taxes if Proposition B passes. I have also divided the local political subdivisions into regions around the
state. Table 10 uses the calculated expected change in cigarette sales from the baseline model. For the
selected cities and counties included in Table 10, the range of excise tax is from $0.02 in Poplar Bluff to
$0.10 in St. Charles, Kansas City, Lees Summit, and Columbia.
Some of the most notable annual decreases are expected to occur in the St. Louis and Kansas City
regions. Both St. Louis City and St. Charles would expect their cigarette excise tax receipts to decrease by
more than $300,000 and $100,000 per year, respectively. Kansas City is expected to suffer the largest
decrease in city excise tax, losing more than $700,000 in cigarette excise taxes per year if Proposition B
passes. Lees Summit is expected to have their cigarette excise tax decrease by more than $140,000 per
year. St. Louis County and Jackson County are expected to see excise tax receipts decrease by more than
$500,000 per year each. Overall, the St. Louis and Kansas City regions expect excise tax receipts to
decrease by $1.2 million and $1.5 million per year, respectively.
Springfield and Columbia are the other Missouri cities that expect cigarette excise taxes to decrease by
more than $100,000 per year. For the selected group of cities and counties with excise taxes included in
Table 10, the total decrease in excise tax collections is $3.2 million per year.
5.4 Funds Harmed by Proposition B
Three types of funds are harmed if Proposition B passes. In each of these three cases, receipts are
expected to decrease precisely because the proposed $0.73 increase in Missouri cigarette prices induces a
decline in the quantity of cigarettes purchased in Missouri. First, there is the set of funds to which the
10In the case of St. Louis City, the baseline model underpredicts the initial quantity of cigarettes purchased while the
baseline model overpredicts the initial quantity for Jackson County. For Fiscal Year 2011, the excise tax implies that47.48 million packs were purchased in Jackson County. The baseline model assigns the quantity of cigarette packspurchased in Jackson County to be 58.7 million packs.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
29/48
Page 29
Table 10
Expected Annual Reduction in Local Cigarette
Excise Tax Receipts with Proposition B Passing
City or County
Expected AnnualDecrease inCigarettes Excise Tax
Expected Annual Decreasein Excise Tax Revenues
St. Louis Region:
St. Louis City 4,880,440 $0.07 $341,631
St. Charles City 1,009,541 $0.10 $100,954
St. Peters City 806,709 $0.05 $40,335
St. Louis County 15,323,895 $0.05 $766,195
Regional Total $1,249,115
Kansas City Region:
Kansas City 7,054,956 $0.10 $705,496Independence 1,729,635 $0.05 $86,482
Blue Springs 806,709 $0.04 $32,268
Lee's Summit 1,401,886 $0.10 $140,189
St. Joseph 1,178,160 $0.05 $58,908
Jackson County 10,378,044 $0.05 $518,902
Regional Total $1,542,245
Southwest Region:
Springfield 2,447,332 $0.05 $122,367
Joplin 769,500 $0.04 $30,780
Regional Total $153,147Southeast Region:
Cape Girardeau 582,165 $0.03 $17,465
Poplar Bluff 261,200 $0.02 $5,224
Regional Total $22,689
Central Region:
Columbia 1,664,820 $0.10 $166,482
Rolla 300,113 $0.05 $15,006
Kirksville 268,596 $0.05 $13,430
Regional Total $194,917
Statewide excise total $3,162,113Source: authors calculations
current $0.17 state cigarette excise tax is dedicated. Second, there are sales tax receipts paid to the state,
county and municipalities. Third, there are local cigarette excise taxes paid to counties and cities.
Table 11 summarizes the expected annual decrease in each of the three types of harmed funds. By adding
across the three types of harmed funds, the total expected decrease is $34.8 million.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
30/48
Page 30
Table 11
Summary of Funds
Harmed by Proposition B
Type of Fund Expected Decrease in Fund (mil $)
Dedicated Fundsfrom $0.17 StateExcise Tax $6.3
State Sales Tax $16
County Sales Tax $6.7
Selected CitySales Tax $2.6
Selected City and
County ExciseTax $3.2
Total HarmedMissouri Funds 34.8
6. Analysis by Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
In a separate quantitative analysis, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids expected decline in cigarette
packs is 157,615,632.11 Note that if one were to use the larger expected reduction in cigarette packs, the
expected impact that Proposition B would have on state, county & municipal revenues is $67.7 millionper year. The revenue declines are allocated on an annual basis as follows:
$18.8 million per year from existing funds = $10.0 million from the State School Money Fund +$4.4 million from the Health Initiative Fund + $4.4 million from the Fair Share Fund.
$43.5 million per year in sales taxes = $27.5 million state + $11.6 million county + $4.4 millionmunicipals.
$5.4 million per year in local cigarette excise taxes.Please refer to Appendix 2 for Tables detailing the $67.7 million per year revenue decrease.
11Data prepared by Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids submitted by Robert L Hess, II to the Missouri State Auditor
and included in the Fiscal Note preparation for the Prop B fiscal summary.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
31/48
Page 31
7. Summary
Missouris Proposition B seeks to add $0.73 to the state cigarette excise tax, raising the total state excise
tax on a pack of cigarettes from $0.17 to $0.90. Additionally, Proposition B increases the escrow
requirement for NPMs by $0.569 per pack. With a higher cigarette excise tax and NPM escrow
requirement, cigarette prices will increase. Consumers will respond to the price increase by reducing the
quantity of cigarettes purchased in Missouri. Some Missourians will stop smoking, other Missourians will
reduce their in-state purchases and out-of-state consumers will reduce their purchases in Missouri.
The results of this analysis are summarized as follows:
The expected quantity of cigarettes purchased in Missouri decreases from 521 million packs to429 million packs per year;
The expected revenues from the net, new excise tax is $299 million per year, and not $332million, after transferring monies to hold existing funds harmless and additional costs are
accounted for;
These existing funds will suffer reduced funding, totaling $6.3 million per year:o Expected monies paid into the State School Money Fund will decrease by $3.3 million
per year;
o Expected monies paid into the Health Initiative Fund will decrease by $1.5 million peryear;
o Expected monies paid into the Fair Share Fund will decrease by $1.5 million per year; Cigarette purchases are subject to state sales tax and the state sales tax receipts are expected to
decrease by $16 million per year:
o Net General Revenue is expected to decrease by $11.4 million per year;o Sales tax receipts dedicated Education are expected to decrease by $3.8 million per year;o Sales tax receipts dedicated to the Conservation Department are expected to decrease by
$500,000 per year;
o Sales tax receipts dedicated to Parks and Soils are expected to decrease by $400,000 peryear;
Sales tax receipts collected by Missouri counties and cities are also expected to decrease:o Sales tax receipts collected by Missouri counties are expected to decrease by $6.7 million
per year;o Sales tax receipts collected Missouris 20 largest municipalities are expected to decrease
by $2.6 million per year;
Excise tax receipts are expected to decrease as the quantity of cigarette packs decrease:o In the 15 cities and counties in Missouri in which the excise tax is applied against
cigarette packs, the expected decrease statewide is $3.2 million per year.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
32/48
Page 32
Thus, if Proposition B passes, tax revenues for state, county, and municipal coffers will decrease by at
least $34.8 million per year.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
33/48
Page 33
References
Goolsbee, Austan and Joel Slemrod, (2004), Playing with Fire: Cigarette Taxes and Competition from
the Internet, unpublished manuscript.
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
34/48
Page 34
Appendix 1
County Population Table
County 2011 Pop County 2011 Pop
Adair 25,552 Dallas 16,749
Andrew 17,196 Daviess 8,313
Atchison 5,569 DeKalb 12,767
Audrain 25,566 Dent 15,676
Barry 35,282 Douglas 13,548
Barton 12,327 Dunklin 31,974
Bates 17,008 Franklin 101,938
Benton 19,115 Gasconade 15,168
Bollinger 12,356 Gentry 6,786
Boone 165,627 Greene 277,214
Buchanan 89,660 Grundy 10,228Butler 43,082 Harrison 8,866
Caldwell 9,315 Henry 22,219
Callaway 44,420 Hickory 9,628
Camden 43,679 Holt 4,814
CapeGirardeau 76,632 Howard 10,204
Carroll 9,620 Howell 40,655
Carter 6,365 Iron 10,656
Cass 100,052 Jackson 676,360
Cedar 13,948 Jasper 118,435
Chariton 7,734 Jefferson 219,480
Christian 78,570 Johnson 53,439
Clark 7,019 Knox 4,126
Clay 225,161 Laclede 35,636
Clinton 20,789 Lafayette 33,209
Cole 76,448 Lawrence 38,620
Cooper 17,663 Lewis 10,155
Crawford 24,800 Lincoln 53,076
Dade 7,807 Linn 12,566
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
35/48
Page 35
County Population Table (cont.)
County 2011 Pop County 2011 Pop
Livingston 15,074 Randolph 25,346
McDonald 22,977 Ray 23,230
Macon 15,591 Reynolds 6,588Madison 12,195 Ripley 14,143
Maries 9,171 St. Charles 365,151
Marion 28,717 St. Clair 9,641
Mercer 3,804Ste.Genevieve 18,124
Miller 24,770 St. Francois 65,577
Mississippi 14,306 St. Louis 998,692
Moniteau 15,697 Saline 23,280
Monroe 8,734 Schuyler 4,381
Montgomery 12,270 Scotland 4,828Morgan 20,502 Scott 39,136
New Madrid 18,783 Shannon 8,432
Newton 58,414 Shelby 6,280
Nodaway 23,468 Stoddard 29,807
Oregon 11,017 Stone 32,263
Osage 13,915 Sullivan 6,659
Ozark 9,595 Taney 52,736
Pemiscot 18,174 Texas 25,936
Perry 19,041 Vernon 20,963
Pettis 42,178 Warren 32,515Phelps 45,020 Washington 25,076
Pike 18,572 Wayne 13,475
Platte 90,903 Webster 35,439
Polk 31,170 Worth 2,150
Pulaski 53,175 Wright 18,716
Putnam 4,978 St. Louis City 318,069
Ralls 10,281
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
36/48
Page 36
Appendix 2
Table 2A.1
Expected Annual Sales Tax Revenue Decreases
By County With Proposition B Passing Using CTFK Elasticity
County SalesTax Rate County
Decrease inAnnual CountySales TaxRevenue
0.01 Adair $ 27,672.61
0.017 Andrew $ 31,659.31
0.0225 Atchison $ 13,570.16
0.01875 Audrain $ 51,914.56
0.0125 Barry $ 47,762.640.01 Barton $ 13,350.04
0.01 Bates $ 18,419.52
0.01375 Benton $ 28,464.41
0.01625 Bollinger $ 21,744.85
0.0125 Boone $ 224,215.85
0.011 Buchanan $ 106,811.15
0.01 Butler $ 46,657.45
0.02 Caldwell $ 20,176.14
0.01 Callaway $ 48,106.49
0.0125 Camden $ 59,130.00
0.01CapeGirardeau $ 82,991.82
0.0125 Carroll $ 13,022.98
0.01 Carter $ 6,893.24
0.0125 Cass $ 135,444.36
0.01 Cedar $ 15,105.57
0.02 Chariton $ 16,751.72
0.0175 Christian $ 148,908.66
0.02 Clark $ 15,203.04
0.00875 Clay $ 213,366.570.01 Clinton $ 22,514.32
0.015 Cole $ 124,188.83
0.0175 Cooper $ 33,475.55
0.0175 Crawford $ 47,001.84
0.0175 Dade $ 14,796.10
0.02 Dallas $ 36,278.06
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
37/48
Page 37
0.015 Daviess $ 13,504.37
0.01 DeKalb $ 13,826.56
0.01 Dent $ 16,976.98
0.01 Douglas $ 14,672.37
0.01 Dunklin $ 34,627.58
0.0175 Franklin $ 193,196.53
0.01375 Gasconade $ 22,586.88
0.01 Gentry $ 7,349.18
0.01125 Greene $ 337,748.04
0.015 Grundy $ 16,615.26
0.0125 Harrison $ 12,002.26
0.01 Henry $ 24,062.99
0.015 Hickory $ 15,640.57
0.025 Holt $ 13,033.81
0.025 Howard $ 27,627.12
0.009375 Howell $ 41,277.22
0.015 Iron $ 17,310.54
0.01125 Jackson $ 824,053.85
0.00975 Jasper $ 125,057.53
0.01625 Jefferson $ 386,254.43
0.025 Johnson $ 144,684.99
0.02 Knox $ 8,936.85
0.01 Laclede $ 38,593.49
0.01625 Lafayette $ 58,443.24
0.015 Lawrence $ 62,737.710.02375 Lewis $ 26,119.73
0.0175 Lincoln $ 100,591.52
0.01 Linn $ 13,608.87
0.0075 Livingston $ 12,243.76
0.02 McDonald $ 49,767.80
0.01375 Macon $ 23,216.77
0.015 Madison $ 19,810.63
0.0166667 Maries $ 16,553.56
0.01125 Marion $ 34,987.81
0.0225 Mercer $ 9,269.330.01 Miller $ 26,825.71
0.0175 Mississippi $ 27,113.24
0.015 Moniteau $ 25,499.58
0.1 Monroe $ 94,588.50
0.0175 Montgomery $ 23,254.54
0.01 Morgan $ 22,203.50
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
38/48
Page 38
0.01 New Madrid $ 20,341.83
0.00875 Newton $ 55,354.15
0.01 Nodaway $ 25,415.65
0.01 Oregon $ 11,931.32
0.0175 Osage $ 26,372.20
0.015 Ozark $ 15,586.96
0.0125 Pemiscot $ 24,602.87
0.01875 Perry $ 38,664.84
0.01 Pettis $ 45,678.43
0.00875 Phelps $ 42,661.75
0.02 Pike $ 40,226.65
0.01375 Platte $ 135,364.90
0.01 Polk $ 33,756.85
0.0075 Pulaski $ 43,191.07
0.02 Putnam $ 10,782.27
0.02 Ralls $ 22,268.48
0.01 Randolph $ 27,449.51
0.015 Ray $ 37,736.85
0.01 Reynolds $ 7,134.75
0.015 Ripley $ 22,975.13
0.01725 St. Charles $ 682,160.78
0.005 St. Clair $ 5,220.56
0.02Ste.Genevieve $ 39,256.29
0.0125 St. Francois $ 88,774.19
0.0295 St. Louis $ 3,190,646.87
0.01625 Saline $ 40,969.58
0.02 Schuyler $ 9,489.17
0.0125 Scotland $ 6,535.86
0.01 Scott $ 42,383.97
0.01 Shannon $ 9,131.79
0.015 Shelby $ 10,201.78
0.01 Stoddard $ 32,280.74
0.0175 Stone $ 61,145.99
0.0275 Sullivan $ 19,832.02
0.01625 Taney $ 92,808.06
0.015 Texas $ 42,132.71
0.01 Vernon $ 22,702.76
0.02 Warren $ 70,426.95
0.025 Washington $ 67,892.75
0.01 Wayne $ 14,593.31
0.01833 Webster $ 70,350.81
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
39/48
Page 39
0.01875 Worth $ 4,365.81
0.01 Wright $ 20,269.27
0.04516 St. Louis City $ 1,555,608.94
County SalesTax Loss
Total $11,568,750.42
Source: authors calculations
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
40/48
Page 40
Table 2A.2
Ten Missouri Counties with Largest Expected Annual Decreases
in Sales Tax Revenues with Proposition B Passing Using CTFK Elasticity
County Expected AnnualSales Tax
Revenue Decline
St. Louis $3,190,647
St. Louis City $1,555,609
Jackson $824,054
St. Charles $682,161
Jefferson $386,254
Greene $337,748
Boone $224,216
Clay $213,367Franklin $193,197
Christian $148,909
Total Sales TaxDecrease for 10 Largest
Counties
$7,756,162
Source: authors calculations
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
41/48
Page 41
Table 2A.3
Expected Sales Tax Revenue Decreases by County
With Proposition B Passing and Modified County Weights Using CTFK Elasticity
CountySales TaxRate County
Decrease in AnnualSales Tax Revenue
0.01 Adair $ 25,058.33
0.017 Andrew $ 59,158.20
0.0225 Atchison $ 49,965.74
0.01875 Audrain $ 47,012.80
0.0125 Barry $ 44,494.80
0.01 Barton $ 29,525.85
0.01 Bates $ 34,595.34
0.01375 Benton $ 24,869.780.01625 Bollinger $ 17,496.66
0.0125 Boone $ 220,948.01
0.011 Buchanan $ 124,604.54
0.01 Butler $ 44,043.18
0.02 Caldwell $ 14,947.59
0.01 Callaway $ 45,492.22
0.0125 Camden $ 55,862.16
0.01CapeGirardeau $ 80,377.55
0.0125 Carroll $ 9,755.13
0.01 Carter $ 4,278.97
0.0125 Cass $ 155,664.13
0.01 Cedar $ 12,491.30
0.02 Chariton $ 11,523.17
0.0175 Christian $ 144,333.68
0.02 Clark $ 9,974.49
0.00875 Clay $ 227,520.41
0.01 Clinton $ 19,900.04
0.015 Cole $ 120,267.42
0.0175 Cooper $ 28,900.570.0175 Crawford $ 42,426.87
0.0175 Dade $ 10,221.13
0.02 Dallas $ 31,049.51
0.015 Daviess $ 9,582.96
0.01 DeKalb $ 11,212.28
0.01 Dent $ 14,362.71
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
42/48
Page 42
0.01 Douglas $ 12,058.10
0.01 Dunklin $ 32,013.31
0.0175 Franklin $ 188,621.55
0.01375 Gasconade $ 18,992.25
0.01 Gentry $ 4,734.91
0.01125 Greene $ 334,806.98
0.015 Grundy $ 12,693.85
0.0125 Harrison $ 8,734.42
0.01 Henry $ 21,448.72
0.015 Hickory $ 11,719.16
0.025 Holt $ 53,473.34
0.025 Howard $ 21,091.44
0.009375 Howell $ 38,826.34
0.015 Iron $ 13,389.13
0.01125 Jackson $ 842,251.64
0.00975 Jasper $ 140,828.94
0.01625 Jefferson $ 382,006.23
0.025 Johnson $ 138,149.31
0.02 Knox $ 3,708.30
0.01 Laclede $ 35,979.22
0.01625 Lafayette $ 54,195.05
0.015 Lawrence $ 58,816.30
0.02375 Lewis $ 19,910.83
0.0175 Lincoln $ 96,016.55
0.01 Linn $ 10,994.600.0075 Livingston $ 10,283.06
0.02 McDonald $ 44,539.26
0.01375 Macon $ 19,622.15
0.015 Madison $ 15,889.22
0.0166667 Maries $ 12,196.43
0.01125 Marion $ 32,046.75
0.0225 Mercer $ 3,387.21
0.01 Miller $ 24,211.43
0.0175 Mississippi $ 55,420.91
0.015 Moniteau $ 21,578.170.1 Monroe $ 68,445.77
0.0175 Montgomery $ 18,679.56
0.01 Morgan $ 19,589.22
0.01 New Madrid $ 36,517.65
0.00875 Newton $ 69,507.98
0.01 Nodaway $ 22,801.38
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
43/48
Page 43
0.01 Oregon $ 9,317.05
0.0175 Osage $ 21,797.23
0.015 Ozark $ 11,665.55
0.0125 Pemiscot $ 44,822.63
0.01875 Perry $ 33,763.08
0.01 Pettis $ 43,064.15
0.00875 Phelps $ 40,374.26
0.02 Pike $ 34,998.10
0.01375 Platte $ 157,606.64
0.01 Polk $ 31,142.58
0.0075 Pulaski $ 41,230.36
0.02 Putnam $ 5,553.72
0.02 Ralls $ 17,039.93
0.01 Randolph $ 24,835.24
0.015 Ray $ 33,815.44
0.01 Reynolds $ 4,520.48
0.015 Ripley $ 19,053.72
0.01725 St. Charles $ 677,651.16
0.005 St. Clair $ 3,913.43
0.02Ste.Genevieve $ 34,027.74
0.0125 St. Francois $ 85,506.35
0.0295 St. Louis $ 3,182,934.77
0.01625 Saline $ 36,721.39
0.02 Schuyler $ 4,260.63
0.0125 Scotland $ 3,268.01
0.01 Scott $ 39,769.69
0.01 Shannon $ 6,517.51
0.015 Shelby $ 6,280.37
0.01 Stoddard $ 29,666.46
0.0175 Stone $ 56,571.01
0.0275 Sullivan $ 12,642.77
0.01625 Taney $ 88,559.87
0.015 Texas $ 38,211.30
0.01 Vernon $ 38,878.57
0.02 Warren $ 65,198.41
0.025 Washington $ 61,357.07
0.01 Wayne $ 11,979.04
0.01833 Webster $ 65,558.84
0.01875 Worth $ (535.95)
0.01 Wright $ 17,655.00
0.04516 St. Louis City $ 1,543,802.89
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
44/48
Page 44
Source: authors calculations
County SalesTax LossTotal $11,497,090.63
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
45/48
Page 45
Table 2A.4
Expected Annual Sales Tax Loss Comparing
Baseline Model to Modified Border Model Using CTFK Elasticity
Source: authors calculations
CountyExpected AnnualLoss (Baseline)
Expected AnnualLoss (Mod Border)
Andrew $31,659 $59,158
Atchison $13,570 $49,966
Barton $13,350 $29,526
Bates $18,420 $34,595
Buchanan $106,811 $124,605
Cass $135,444 $155,664
Clay $213,367 $227,520
Holt $13,034 $53,473Jackson $824,054 $842,252
Jasper $125,058 $140,829
Mississippi $27,113 $55,421
NewMadrid $20,342 $36,518
Newton $55,354 $69,508
Pemiscott $24,603 $44,823
Platte $135,365 $157,607
Vernon $22,703 $38,879
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
46/48
Page 46
Table 2A.5
Expected Annual Sales Tax Revenue Decreases
By City With Proposition B Passing Using CTFK Elasticity
MunicipalSales TaxRate
Municipality Decrease in AnnualSales Tax Revenue
0.02 Columbia $ 235,009
0.02375 St. Joseph $ 197,486
0.0275 Cape Girardeau $ 112,997
0.025 Liberty $ 78,920
0.02 Jefferson City $ 93,308
0.02125 Springfield $ 367,062
0.015 Blue Springs $ 85,407
0.02 Grandview $ 53,012
0.0225 Independence $ 284,683
0.02875 Kansas City $ 1,431,593
0.0225 Lee's Summit $ 222,630
0.0275 Raytown $ 87,935
0.02625 Joplin $ 142,569
0.0125 Arnold $ 28,169
0.02375 Sedalia $ 55,010
0.02 O'Fallon $ 171,825
0.015 St. Charles $ 106,882
0.016 St. Peters $ 91,101
0.025 Wentzville $ 78,706
0.0075 Florissant $ 42,365
0.01 Chesterfield $ 51,425
0.015 Hazelwood $ 42,079
0.015 Kirkwood $ 44,738
0.03 Maryland Heights $ 89,256
0.01 Ballwin $ 32,927
0.03 University City $ 114,9200.02 Webster Groves $ 48,291
0.005 Wildwood $ 19,232
Total for LargestMunicipalities
$ 4,409,539
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
47/48
Page 47
Table 2A.6
Expected Annual Reduction in Local Cigarette
Excise Tax Receipts with Proposition B Passing Using CTFK Elasticity
City or County
Expected AnnualDecrease inCigarettes Excise Tax
Expected Annual Decreasein Excise Tax Revenues
St. Louis Region:
St. Louis City 8,340,548 $0.07 $583,841
St. Charles City 1,725,827 $0.10 $172,583
St. Peters City 1,378,651 $0.05 $68,933
St. Louis County 26,188,262 $0.05 $1,309,413
Regional Total $2,134,769
Kansas City Region:
Kansas City 12,056,793 $0.10 $1,205,679Independence 3,063,582 $0.05 $153,179
Blue Springs 1,378,651 $0.04 $55,146
Lee's Summit 2,395,798 $0.10 $239,580
St. Joseph 2,013,368 $0.05 $100,668
Jackson County 17,735,891 $0.05 $886,795
Regional Total $2,641,047
Southwest Region:
Springfield 4,182,446 $0.05 $209,122
Joplin 1,315,061 $0.04 $52,602
Regional Total $261,724Southeast Region:
Cape Girardeau 994,910 $0.03 $29,847
Poplar Bluff 261,200 $0.02 $5,224
Regional Total $35,071
Central Region:
Columbia 2,845,148 $0.10 $284,515
Rolla 300,113 $0.05 $15,006
Kirksville 268,596 $0.05 $13,430
Regional Total $312,950
Statewide excise total $5,385,563
Source: authors calculations
-
7/31/2019 Joe Haslag's Proposition B 2012 Report - Final Version
48/48
Table 2A.7
Summary of Funds
Harmed by Proposition B Using CTFK Elasticity
Type of Fund Expected Decrease in Fund (mil $)
Dedicated Fundsfrom $0.17 StateExcise Tax $18.8
State Sales Tax $27.5
County Sales Tax $11.6
Selected CitySales Tax $4.4
Selected City and
County ExciseTax $5.4
Total HarmedMissouri Funds $67.7
Source: authors calculations