Voters Could Always Decide on Earnings Taxes
I urge every voter in Missouri to vote NO on Proposition A on Tuesday. Â I’ll explain why but first I want to examine the arguments in favor.
The slogan for passage is “let the voters decide.” Sounds logical enough, why shouldn’t we get to decide? From the pro-A website:
If Prop A passes in November, will the local earnings taxes automatically be eliminated in St. Louis and Kansas City?
Prop A does not automatically repeal those existing earnings taxes. It allows local voters to make that decision in local elections. If Missouri voters pass Prop A this November, the politicians will be required to allow local votes of the people on the existing earnings tax in St. Louis and Kansas City every five years, starting in 2011. These local votes will let voters decide for themselves if they want to continue their local earnings tax or gradually phase it out at the rate of one-tenth of one percent per year for 10 years.
Okay here is where I have  a problem with their wording.  “It allows local voters to make that decision in local elections” makes it sound like we must pass Prop A in order to have a local election on continuing to have an earnings tax or eliminate it and get the 1/3 of our annual revenue through other taxes. This is just not true!
Anyone with a better idea on how to fund St. Louis & Kansas City could use the initiative petition process to propose changes that would reduce/eliminate the earnings tax.
“1. Article V of the City Charter provides a procedure by which registered voters may propose an ordinance or an amendment to the City Charter and have it adopted by the voters, with the same effect as if it had been enacted by the Board of Aldermen and approved by the Mayor. This procedure consists of gathering the signatures of registered voters on an initiative petition.”
But the wealthy backer of Proposition A, Rex Sinquefield, knew if he got petitions on the ballot in St. Louis & Kansas City that spelled out how our sales taxes and property taxes would increase up to 50% to make up for the loss in revenue from the earnings taxes that he wouldn’t stand a chance.
“Their next sentence is “If Missouri voters pass Prop A this November, the politicians will be required to allow local votes of the people on the existing earnings tax in St. Louis and Kansas City every five years, starting in 2011” Clearly they are playing to the anti-politician sentiment we’ve been seeing nationally. Sounds like making the politicians do something, making them give us the right to reconsider the earnings tax every five years.  So?
The translation is this gives Rex Sinquefield numerous times to personally fund the campaigns to end the earnings tax in St. Louis & Kansas City.  It also means when either city goes to sell bonds to finance projects the bond rating will be higher causing a higher interest rate, potentially sidelining projects that might be able to be funded today.
Governments provide services and people pay taxes to fund those services. Â There are many ways to fund governments. Â St. Louis and Kansas City are both on the state line and have workers paying the tax that don’t live in the city. Â Some live elsewhere in Missouri while others live in Illinois and Kanas, respectively. Â Both cities provide services within each region that benefit those workers as well as their respective regions.
I have no love affair with the earnings tax and would gladly look at alternative funding concepts. Â But until such alternates actually exist we don’t need to be trashing our bond rating and risking future projects. One-third of the St. Louis budget is a lot to try to make up elsewhere.
More info can be found at SayNoToA.org.
– Steve Patterson
Agree with your arguments. By the same logic, we should also be allowed to vote on our property and sales taxes every five years. And besides the initiative process, there's always the “vote da bums out” option – elect people who will do what you want them to do.
the earnings tax is like federal income tax – an entity which our country needs to operate as an advanced society should function. we need a larger entity than one person, rex sinqefield, to determine and support voters to decide the fate of 1 of the 3 largest revenue collection streams for the two largest cities in missouri.
In nyc the earings tax is approximately 5%, saint louis is 1% and like nyc, the city does not function with out the earnings tax. If voters are concerned about how the money is spent then you have a fair argument on an issue many would address. VOTE NO PROP A.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/services/business_tax_nys_income.shtml While you are right they have an earnings tax, it is only if people work for the City of NYC and/or residents of NYC. It doesn't apply to people working for businesses in the city and residing outside. The link states, “Most people living outside the City are not subject to NYC personal income tax.”
Just adding clarification to the discussion.
The TV ad featuring a business owner from Columbia, MO adds injury to insult. If the Columbia Chamber of Commerce thinks the earnings taxes but Stl and KC at an economic disadvantage then they should be all for the taxes, and using that to attract business to mid-MO. These cities provide services to people who work ther, but don't live there; the earnings tax addresses collecting for those services from the people who benefit.
Another important take-away: how taxes are levied is a huge driver of development. In St. Louis County there are municipalites that collect sales tax directly (point-of-sale cities) and others that get a share of the total collected throughout the county (pool cities). The share is per capita based, so there is no incentive for a pool city to encourage retail development and huge incentive for them to encourage more dense housing. Point-of-sales cities have incentive to poach retail from other areas, thus the plethora of TIFs that don't create long-term good jobs, but just rearrange mediocre retail jobs. There is no incentive AT ALL for good regional plannning.
This is what happens when we allow wealthy misanthropes to buy elections. This infamy will only get worse with the Citizens United decision from the current SCOTUS. Alito and Roberts not activist judges? Laughable.
I voted YES. Doesn't mean I will vote Yes to repeal the tax. But I WANT the ability to vote, yes or no. Also, lets say the tax gets thrown out… think of the potentially unattended consequences: MERGER OF CITY AND COUNTY.
O and in addition, I thought it was very poor taste of the “Vote NO to Prop A” for how they portrayed what the Proposition really was. http://www.saynotoa.org/facts NONE of those facts are correct if Prop A passes. If Prop A passes none of those services would be cut. Sure, if the next vote in April passes, then they will be cut, but to LIE and say that they will be cut right away if Prop A passes just boggles my mind.
“think of the potentially unattended consequences: MERGER OF CITY AND COUNTY.”
You're delusional
I guess you don't know Rex…
I was actually amazed when I moved to St. Louis from Chicago that an city earnings tax even existed. How archaic. A vote on ending property tax on personal vehicles should be the next initiative.
I would think that all of the smart people in St. Louis would be able to come up with some good alternatives to the earnings taxes over the next decade. Or maybe not, maybe St. Louis will just continue on as is with a fleeing business sector and very slow growth in residents. St. Lou IS . . . a land with no forward thinkers!