joe haslag's proposition b 2012 report - final version

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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


7/48

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)


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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



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


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


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.


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



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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


33/48

Page 33

References

Goolsbee, Austan and Joel Slemrod, (2004), Playing with Fire: Cigarette Taxes and Competition from

the Internet, unpublished manuscript.


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


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


36/48

Page 36

Appendix 2

Table 2A.1


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


0.0125 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


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


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


0.0125 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


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



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



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


0.0125 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


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


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


0.0125 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


44/48

Page 44


County SalesTax LossTotal $11,497,090.63


45/48

Page 45

Table 2A.4

Expected Annual Sales Tax Loss Comparing

Baseline Model to Modified Border Model Using CTFK Elasticity


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


46/48

Page 46

Table 2A.5


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


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


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


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


Central Region:

Columbia 2,845,148 $0.10 $284,515

Rolla 300,113 $0.05 $15,006

Kirksville 268,596 $0.05 $13,430


Statewide excise total $5,385,563



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


joe haslag's proposition b 2012 report - final version

Documents