Rex might run out the clock. He's no spring chicken.
- 1,044
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.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.
- 472
I had an amazing exchange today with a co-worker who moved to the St. Louis area a few years ago. He initially looked at the city, but then he moved to Kirkwood when he heard about the earnings tax. By his reasoning it is the same quality of life but with more income.
Personally, I've never really seen the big deal, but anecdotally it actually influences people.
If the earnings tax must go away and the war against it is going to be constant from Sinquefield and friends, why can't we enact a mechanism to wean the city off of it? Is it legal for the city to make donations to non-profits? What if every year 3% of the earnings tax was dumped into the public school foundation. So by 2020 15% is being dropped into the public schools endowment and 85% is part of the general budget. By 2030 55% is in the budget and 45% is being dropped on the schools. Some time around then is when the anti-earnings tax agenda would probably succeed, but we wouldn't be hit has hard because we only relied on part of it. And when it's finally gone, there would still be a massive endowment sustaining our schools.
Let's enact that as a ballot initiative rather than the wholesale removal of the tax in a single year.
3% is an arbitrary number. 5% each year seems extreme.
Personally, I've never really seen the big deal, but anecdotally it actually influences people.
If the earnings tax must go away and the war against it is going to be constant from Sinquefield and friends, why can't we enact a mechanism to wean the city off of it? Is it legal for the city to make donations to non-profits? What if every year 3% of the earnings tax was dumped into the public school foundation. So by 2020 15% is being dropped into the public schools endowment and 85% is part of the general budget. By 2030 55% is in the budget and 45% is being dropped on the schools. Some time around then is when the anti-earnings tax agenda would probably succeed, but we wouldn't be hit has hard because we only relied on part of it. And when it's finally gone, there would still be a massive endowment sustaining our schools.
Let's enact that as a ballot initiative rather than the wholesale removal of the tax in a single year.
3% is an arbitrary number. 5% each year seems extreme.
- 1,868
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.
- 182
^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
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
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.
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.
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.
- 1,868
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.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
- 182
Not a dumb question, in fact it's one that's only asked when you start paying attention.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.
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.
This is why Millenials like Bernie Sanders. He's the first angry Liberal since Lyndon Johnson. We need more punk-rock in the Democratic party and not be scared to cut off the nose to spite the Republican dominated face.
- 1,868
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.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.
- 1,792
...huh, thats a pretty damn good idea.quincunx wrote:MoLeg could add a credit to state income taxes for the earnings tax, if they were really worried about over-taxation.
hypothetical - State gov and St. Louis city work out a deal. St. Louis repeals earnings tax while State of Missouri remits 1 % of income collected within the city back to St. Louis city for some predetermined number of years, I'm thinking 10-15 years. At the end of that period the State can evaluate the ability of St. Louis to self support or if the city is not ready extending at the same or a reduced level, the earnings tax remittance. If the city loses the revenue they would have the option to re-vote in the earnings tax at the same or a reduced level.
If opposition of the earnings tax is correct St. Louis city will have seen enough rising property values to make up the revenue.
If the proponents are correct the city wouldn't see any budget busting. It'd be fairly smooth sailing with a slightly scary vote at the end, but at least they wouldn't have to go through the same vote every 5 years.
- 1,864
What if St. Louis made a 'challenge agreement' to end the earnings tax? Say, once total property values reach X value, X amount of businesses/jobs move downtown, and/or X amount of people move downtown they'll drop the tax?
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
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
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.St. Louis City&County and Jackson County (KC) have about 35% of the state population but contribute over half of the State revenues.
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?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.
I guess this?
The fact that STL is the sole target of this effort right now infuriates me. What is the agenda for the guy in Columbia?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.”
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ne ... 02683.html
To get elected to a higher officeolvidarte 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?
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.
![]()
- 1,868
Why does StL uniquely require an earnings tax? That is to say, compared to other local municipalities that are able to survive from property and sales taxes. Oughtn't St. Louis, a dense urban area, be even better equipped to live off of property taxes than its neighbors?ward24 wrote: 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.
^ That, and
I hate this line of reasoning - as much as I hate the "I'm on a fixed income so my property tax shouldn't go up when everyone else's does" line of reasoning.
It's really easy for folks to vote for things that can't be afforded when they know they won't have to bear a portion of the cost that everyone else would. Why would we want our most vocal voting bloc to have no "skin in the game" when tax increases or spending decisions come up? I know why politicians who like to spend money would like that, but why would the rest of us?
Why is it more "fair" that retired people don't have to pay the tax?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.
I hate this line of reasoning - as much as I hate the "I'm on a fixed income so my property tax shouldn't go up when everyone else's does" line of reasoning.
It's really easy for folks to vote for things that can't be afforded when they know they won't have to bear a portion of the cost that everyone else would. Why would we want our most vocal voting bloc to have no "skin in the game" when tax increases or spending decisions come up? I know why politicians who like to spend money would like that, but why would the rest of us?
Why does STL need the earnings tax vs. other municipalities?
First off, many municipalities aren't living on sales and property taxes. Many munis in STL & Jefferson County aren't providing even rudimentary services. Policing is non-professional and unaccredited, they don't have parks, there's no building inspector, municipal court is open two hours a week, they can't pave streets or build sidewalks, they can't even borrow money. So the property & sales tax route is already failing miserably in many places - and the results is places whose revenue is based on the speed trap model.
Second, St. Louis provides services to the rest of the region in ways other municipalities generally do not. Forest Park is the 4th most visited park in the country, St. Louis City residents pay for it. City hosts a variety large events, Fair St. Louis for instance, that no one else in the region can host. You need a robust police and fire dept. to do that. We provide policing, fire, and EMS for a lot of people who don't live in St. Louis everyday. St. Louis spends more in Forest Park every year than many municipalities entire budgets. Its great for residents, but people around the region get that for free.
Third, sprawl. Federal and state policies have created more sprawl in the St. Louis region than most places, and we've obviously lost tons of population. As population leaves, sales tax and property tax also decline. You can't really pin the problem just on the City when the state is spending billions building bridges to St. Charles.
Fourth, a lot of property in St. Louis is tax exempt, including some of the most valuable property. SLU & BJC, etc. High value, important service to the region, employment hubs for the region, but no property tax.
Fifth: We're old, and we're largely poor. We're older than any suburb. Places like Creve Couer have much newer infrastructure and higher median incomes, lower poverty. Its just less expensive to maintain new places. Check back with Creve Couer in 100 years, they may want an earnings tax too.
Sixth: State caps the property tax rate. That works fine in Ladue with high assessed values and a very affluent population, but property values in St. Louis are low - in many cases property is functionally a liability rather than an asset, and its owned by people with very low incomes.
Seventh: St. Louis and Kansas City aren't unique. Many successful cities, and many unsuccessful places, have City or County income or earnings taxes. Its just one means of revenue, its not predictive of success or failure. NYC has an income tax, so does Detroit, so does Portland. So does Cleveland, so does Birmingham AL. Its not unique, its just part of the mix of how some places fund local government. Some places have higher state income taxes but do more things for Cities - Minnesota for example.
Eighth: Missouri is not a high tax state - its in the bottom half overall no matter how you slice it. But personally I want to live in a City and state with decent services. I want the fire truck or ambulance to show up. I want a top quality park. I want streets paved. I want to know someone inspected the kitchen in the restaurant. Etc, etc. I'm more than willing to pay 1% of my income for those things, just like I've been doing for the last 15 years.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
First off, many municipalities aren't living on sales and property taxes. Many munis in STL & Jefferson County aren't providing even rudimentary services. Policing is non-professional and unaccredited, they don't have parks, there's no building inspector, municipal court is open two hours a week, they can't pave streets or build sidewalks, they can't even borrow money. So the property & sales tax route is already failing miserably in many places - and the results is places whose revenue is based on the speed trap model.
Second, St. Louis provides services to the rest of the region in ways other municipalities generally do not. Forest Park is the 4th most visited park in the country, St. Louis City residents pay for it. City hosts a variety large events, Fair St. Louis for instance, that no one else in the region can host. You need a robust police and fire dept. to do that. We provide policing, fire, and EMS for a lot of people who don't live in St. Louis everyday. St. Louis spends more in Forest Park every year than many municipalities entire budgets. Its great for residents, but people around the region get that for free.
Third, sprawl. Federal and state policies have created more sprawl in the St. Louis region than most places, and we've obviously lost tons of population. As population leaves, sales tax and property tax also decline. You can't really pin the problem just on the City when the state is spending billions building bridges to St. Charles.
Fourth, a lot of property in St. Louis is tax exempt, including some of the most valuable property. SLU & BJC, etc. High value, important service to the region, employment hubs for the region, but no property tax.
Fifth: We're old, and we're largely poor. We're older than any suburb. Places like Creve Couer have much newer infrastructure and higher median incomes, lower poverty. Its just less expensive to maintain new places. Check back with Creve Couer in 100 years, they may want an earnings tax too.
Sixth: State caps the property tax rate. That works fine in Ladue with high assessed values and a very affluent population, but property values in St. Louis are low - in many cases property is functionally a liability rather than an asset, and its owned by people with very low incomes.
Seventh: St. Louis and Kansas City aren't unique. Many successful cities, and many unsuccessful places, have City or County income or earnings taxes. Its just one means of revenue, its not predictive of success or failure. NYC has an income tax, so does Detroit, so does Portland. So does Cleveland, so does Birmingham AL. Its not unique, its just part of the mix of how some places fund local government. Some places have higher state income taxes but do more things for Cities - Minnesota for example.
Eighth: Missouri is not a high tax state - its in the bottom half overall no matter how you slice it. But personally I want to live in a City and state with decent services. I want the fire truck or ambulance to show up. I want a top quality park. I want streets paved. I want to know someone inspected the kitchen in the restaurant. Etc, etc. I'm more than willing to pay 1% of my income for those things, just like I've been doing for the last 15 years.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
Don't forget taking care of the homeless. And other cities' major roads are taken care of by the state or county. They also didn't have a couple square miles of productive land turned into highways.
Other cities are reliant on visitors too. Chesterfield gets tons of revenue from shoppers. Richmond Heights says that's its goal in its budget. Can't all win that game as we see with St Ann and Crestwood.
Other cities are reliant on visitors too. Chesterfield gets tons of revenue from shoppers. Richmond Heights says that's its goal in its budget. Can't all win that game as we see with St Ann and Crestwood.
- 307
^^Scott - Thanks for that explanation. It's the most concise, complete and convincing argument for the earnings tax I've ever seen.