urbanSTL

And where's the payback for supporting "Right to Farm?"

I suspect Coater is being groomed to be mayor after Slay.

Rex might run out the clock. He's no spring chicken.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ While he would have some time to recover before next election, I think if we lose NGA to Metro East Slay's days as Mayor would be in danger of coming to an end. Personally I think we need a younger and forward thinking person in office who can move things forward into the 21c.

I think if we lose NGA to Scott it will have more to do with a President from the state paying back his cronies then Mayor Slay.

^ Ah, the nebulous, mysterious cronies. Are masons or scientologists included?

What is the difference between slashing spending immediately, and doing it over time? If you don't have any kind of solution being put into place, you're just ramping up the pain over a longer period of time. It's not as though the police or the garbage men will gradually begin working for free if you cut the payments slowly enough.

Let's leave it alone and focus on other issues. These votes are a forced distraction.

MoLeg could add a credit to state income taxes for the earnings tax, if they were really worried about over-taxation.

Apologies for the dumb question, but can someone explain why the State is allowed to have a say in what/how the city taxes, policy, etc. etc.

I'm sure the answer is more complicated and convoluted than I can comprehend, but I'm curious.

It seems over the past few years there have been a few issues that outstate voters get to vote on that are St. Louis specific and I really resent the fact that people who don't understand urban life can vote on issues that affect the city I live in.

I've never been able to vote on the way Podunk Missouri taxes its citizens or how they monitor emissions on their cars, why would they get to have a say about my City?

I guess more than anything, it's frightening to me how little power KC and STL have to fight these kinds of things and pursue their own interests on a state level.

We did on Amendment 7.

Cities, counties, school districts, etc are political subdivisions of the state. Home rule, charter cities give more power to cities on how they run themselves, but they are certainly not autonomous.

ajwillikers wrote:^Distraction indeed. Rural Republicans get people talking about a 1% earnings tax so we forget about the State Sales tax and State Income Tax used to subsidize Rural Missouri roads, schools, hospitals, and state government jobs.

If 1% is a burden on St. Louis residents and businesses, then by that logic where's the outrage at the burden a 4-point-whatever% state sales tax and a 4ish% state income tax? I'd much rather see those be zero and keep our tax dollars in St. Louis. The current Missouri tax structure is designed to siphon money away from the Urban areas.

#EconomicSecession

The MO legislature is happy to slash the state income tax, but good luck getting their permission to replace it with comparable municipal taxes. It's not about state vs city, it's a campaign to cut taxes on wealth at every level.

olvidarte wrote:Apologies for the dumb question, but can someone explain why the State is allowed to have a say in what/how the city taxes, policy, etc.

Not a dumb question, in fact it's one that's only asked when you start paying attention.

The short answer is that's the hierarchy of the levels of government: Federal->State->Local. Sometimes we do get to vote on state-wide issues (Conceal Carry, Puppymills, State Sales Tax to Fund Transit) that just get overridden in the Legislature anyway.

The irony being Missouri Republicans campaigning on how they don't want the Federal Government to tell Missouri what to do, and then turn around and use the State Government to tell local governments what to do.

Also of note is Missouri's rural/urban population mix. St. Louis City&County and Jackson County (KC) have about 35% of the state population but contribute over half of the State revenues. So even if the government were "fair" and spent the same amount per person on roads, hospitals, schools, services, and et cetera the spending would skew away from where it originates.

This is why I view the Missouri State Government as an undemocratic burdensome bureaucratic layer (Really State Government? A Senate?) meant to siphon money away from the Urban Economic Engines to benefit Rural Interests. Which, before the rise of the post 2008-Tea Party wing of the GOP wasn't so sickeningly hypocritical. And in this state, the Democrats spend all their time in Rural Missour-ah wearing plaid kowtowing about how much they'll protect the rural subsidies. And thus the even more sad irony of current Missouri politics. The Democrats fight for programs that benefit people that Vote Republican and the Republicans are all too happy to rake in State Spending because it benefits their voters at a cost to Urban voters and nobody is really looking out for, and really are openly hostile to, St. Louis.

I dream of the "Burn Jefferson City down" Pro-St. Louis Democrat who isn't afraid to hit Republicans where it hurts, the State Sales Tax, in response to all this Right To Work/Planned Parenthood funding/Voter ID GOP nonsense.

ajwillikers wrote: I dream of the "Burn Jefferson City down" Pro-St. Louis Democrat who isn't afraid to hit Republicans where it hurts, the State Sales Tax, in response to all this Right To Work/Planned Parenthood funding/Voter ID GOP nonsense.

There are lots of Democrats with that attitude, but they don't have any power at the state level for reasons which should be obvious.

I posted this in another thread but I thought I'd copy it here, with a little extra info:

First off, why does the state get to meddle in municipal tax affairs? The state constitution gives the state all tax authority. Every tax that a City or County levys is first created and approved by the legislature. Including the earnings tax. If any City or County or entity like Metro wants a new tax, they first have to go to the state legislature and get it authorized. That's how it is and its not going to change.
>>>>
In reply to question above about E tax: I think what isn't very well appreciated about the Earning tax is that it really can't be replaced with other revenue. State govt has to authorize all local taxes that Cities and Counties can levy. And we're already using almost all of those taxes. We don't have the ability, for example, to double the portion of the property tax that the City gets, or add 2% to the sales tax. Kansas City is in the same place.

The main local sources of revenue we have are the Earnings tax, sales taxes, property tax, payroll tax, and then various fees. If we lose earnings tax, at 31.5% of general revenue, we could probably raise fees and claw back 3 or 4%, but nowhere near what the earnings tax brings in.

I think we ought to be clear, really clear, that losing the earnings tax will result in immediate very severe service cuts, and municipal bankruptcy for StL & KC in a few years.

STL & KC aren't special though - if you take away 30% to 40% of any city's revenue across the country over a very short period, they'd also go bankrupt. Bankrupt cities mean enormous cuts to police and fire departments - and cuts literally everywhere else too.

The irony is that the Earnings tax is the best, most stable, fairest revenue source we have. Doesn't hit retired people or folks not working, unlike other taxes. And if you earn more, you pay more.

But takeaway should be this: There's no "plan" to replace E tax because there's no legal means to do it. State would have to give us a new tax, which is unlikely. E tax loss would truly be catastrophic for St. Louis residents and people who work here.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

St. Louis City&County and Jackson County (KC) have about 35% of the state population but contribute over half of the State revenues.

How can the urban centers bring home the bacon, yet have no clout to move their agenda's forward? KC and STL have nothing in their pocket that can be used to get these people in line? I mean i guess the answer is no, but if we make the money, I don't get how there are no "consequences" we can pull out when someone tries to mess with us.

The state constitution gives the state all tax authority. Every tax that a City or County levys is first created and approved by the legislature. Including the earnings tax. If any City or County or entity like Metro wants a new tax, they first have to go to the state legislature and get it authorized.

This statement leads me to this question....If the city had to have the earnings tax approved by the state, why wasn't the earnings tax unconstitutional when it was first proposed? Why is it all of a sudden unconstitutional?

I guess this?

Sean Marotta, a Washington, D.C., based attorney who argued the Supreme Court case, said Kansas City and St. Louis’ earnings taxes are unconstitutional because they don’t provide a credit for income taxes paid in other states.

The argument that ending the tax would hurt city budgets was made to the Supreme Court in the Maryland case, Marotta said, and “the court wasn’t moved.”

The fact that STL is the sole target of this effort right now infuriates me. What is the agenda for the guy in Columbia?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ne ... 02683.html

olvidarte wrote:The fact that STL is the sole target of this effort right now infuriates me. What is the agenda for the guy in Columbia?

To get elected to a higher office

City's last republican mayor was first to create earnings tax, but it was overturned by the mo Supreme Court. He also tried to take on merger/unification. Poor guy didn't stand a chance. Almost 70 years after he left office...here we are.