The Tax Shift Nobody Is Talking About

Missouri Governor "Lying Mike"

What Missouri Voters Need to Know Before August 5

As state leaders warn of looming budget shortfalls, Missouri voters deserve clear answers about who will pay if income tax revenue disappears.

By Nosmo King

Missouri voters are being told that the state has a spending problem.

The warning has become a common talking point in Jefferson City. State leaders, including Governor Mike Kehoe, have echoed concerns raised by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick that Missouri is on a path toward significant budget challenges if spending continues at its current pace.

On its face, the warning sounds reasonable. Most Missourians agree that government should spend responsibly and live within its means.

But beneath the headlines and political sound bites lies a question that has received far less attention:

If Missouri eliminates or dramatically reduces its income tax, who will make up the difference?

That question deserves an answer before voters are asked to embrace one of the most significant tax policy changes in Missouri history.

Income taxes generate billions of dollars for Missouri's budget each year. Those dollars help fund schools, highways, law enforcement, health programs, courts, and countless services citizens rely upon every day.

If that revenue disappears, the state cannot simply pretend the obligation disappears with it.

Government still has bills to pay.

Roads still require maintenance.

Schools still need funding.

State employees still draw paychecks.

Emergency services still operate.

The money must come from somewhere.

That reality leaves lawmakers with limited options. Spending can be cut. Other taxes can be increased. New taxes can be created. Government fees can be expanded. Or some combination of all four can be implemented.

The public discussion has focused heavily on eliminating income taxes.

The discussion about what replaces those revenues has been far quieter.

That silence should concern every Missouri voter regardless of political affiliation.

Many supporters of income tax elimination argue that lower taxes stimulate economic growth and attract businesses. They point to states that have reduced income taxes and claim economic activity eventually fills the gap.

Critics are less convinced.

They note that states without income taxes often rely more heavily on sales taxes, property taxes or other sources of taxation.

Missouri already imposes sales taxes on a wide range of purchases. In many communities, local taxes stack on top of state taxes, creating a significant burden at the cash register.

If income tax revenue declines substantially, future legislatures may face pressure to broaden the list of taxable goods and services.

What services could become taxable?

Professional services?

Repair services?

Personal services?

Business services?

Today, many of those areas remain untouched or lightly taxed.

Tomorrow, they could become attractive targets for lawmakers searching for replacement revenue.

And that raises another question rarely discussed in campaign advertisements:

Would Missouri voters get a direct say before those new taxes are imposed?

Or would future legislatures be free to expand taxation through ordinary legislative action?

The distinction matters.

Many voters support lower taxes because they want less government spending.

Others support lower taxes because they believe individuals should keep more of what they earn.

Both arguments are legitimate.

But neither argument eliminates the need for transparency.

If Missouri's leaders believe income taxes can be reduced or eliminated without creating future tax burdens elsewhere, they should provide a detailed roadmap explaining exactly how that will happen.

What programs will be reduced?

How much revenue will be lost?

How will budget gaps be filled?

Which taxes could increase in the future?

Will voters have direct approval over those changes?

These are not partisan questions.

They are practical questions.

Missourians deserve answers before they are asked to support a fundamental restructuring of the state's tax system.

Governor Kehoe is correct about one thing: Missouri must address its fiscal future responsibly.

But responsibility requires more than warning voters about spending.

It requires complete transparency about the consequences of proposed solutions.

The issue is not whether Missouri has budget challenges.

The issue is whether voters are being shown the entire picture.

Before any major tax overhaul moves forward, Missouri citizens should insist upon one simple principle:

Show us the numbers.

Show us the plan.

And show us who pays the bill.

Until then, skepticism may be the most responsible position a voter can take.

If voters pass amendment 5 on August 5th, it will temporarily suspend or bypass parts of Missouri's constitutional tax-limitation system legislators could raise or broaden sales taxes without returning to voters for approval during that period.

Regards Maconites,

Nosmo King