As I have said before, I’m a good conservative who does not like taxes. However, these two ballot measures are not simple votes against taxes. Instead, both are top down (or at least middle-down) prohibitions that limit the choices cities, towns, and other municipalities can make to fund their priorities and prevent voters from making revenue decisions in the future.
The text of Constitutional Amendment 3 is:
Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?
It is estimated this proposal will have no costs or savings to state or local governmental entities.
Fair Ballot Language:
A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.
A “no” vote will not change the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing a new tax on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
Basically, it Constitutionally prevents municipalities from imposing taxes on real estate transfers. That is, it prevents additional sales taxes that hit you when you buy your home (or when you sell your home, depending upon your negotiating acumen). Realtors love this because it lowers the actual costs involved with selling a house or piece of land, but ultimately, it’s not a big concern. Meanwhile, cities, states, and municipalities still get thousands of dollars of taxes on houses every year, with the exact percentage of each assessed value creeping up every ballot and the assessed value creeping up pretty much annually.
The text of Proposition A is:
Official Ballot Title:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
* repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets;
* require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every 5 years thereafter;
* require any current earnings tax that is not approved by the voters to be phased out over a period of 10 years; and
* prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget?The proposal could eliminate certain city earnings taxes. For 2010, Kansas City and the City of St. Louis budgeted earnings tax revenue of $199.2 million and $141.2 million, respectively. Reduced earnings tax deductions could increase state revenues by $4.8 million. The total cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown.
Fair Ballot Language:
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets. The amendment further requires voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax, St. Louis and Kansas City, to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every five years or to phase out the tax over a period of ten years.
A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding earnings taxes.
If passed, this measure will impact taxes by removing the ability of cities to fund their budgets through earnings taxes. The only exception is that voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax may vote to continue such taxes.
Again, my main sticking point with this amendment is that it absolutely prohibits cities and municipalities from using an earnings tax. I favor forcing voters to reapprove these taxes periodically and favor lower taxes generally, but if the remaining residents of the city of St. Louis want to continue to pay 1% viggorish and to compel employees of companies that are located in the city due mainly to the complex web of incentive packages that lure and retain businesses to a decidedly unbusiness friendly environment so that the city can continue to pay mortgages on failed public-private development deals, to offer unaccredited schooling, and to provide lunar landscape simulators instead of streets, that’s up to voters in the city of St. Louis.
Both of these initiatives bring two conservative principles into conflict: lower taxes versus power pushed to lower levels of government.
Proponents seem to base these blanket prohibitions merely on the principle that We Don’t Like Taxes, a principle that could yield similar initiatives to ban other revenue types like parking meters, home occupancy inspection fees, and sales taxes on food. As principles go, it’s not a firm foundation for these measures, and the principle of allowing local governments to make their own revenue decisions and to thereby somewhat compete and test ideas independently should trump it.
Proponents like to say that the measures give the voters the chance to decide. No, each gives voters one single vote one time to make a decision that will render city, state, and municipal governments impotent into perpetuity to use these types of taxes. They do not give future voters the chance to decide based on community needs 20 years fom now.
Tomorrow, I’m voting no on both measures.
(Cross-posted at 24th State.)
