urbanSTL

Have any businesses promised to move into the city if the tax is repealed?

Why is Dan Gilbert unphased by Detroit's 2.4/1.2% rate?

How is downtown Cincy seeing new development despite its 2.1% rate?

Good point quincunx. I'm really skeptical that we'll see an influx of business and residents if the tax is repealed.

We have other issues to address before the earnings tax.

jcity wrote:He is funding it because he believes the tax is a disincentive for businesses to locate or relocate to downtown St. Louis. You can certainly make the argument that that theory is true over the last 50 years. Many companies do throw out that the reason they won't come into the city is because of the additional tax. Whether that is the main reason or not is subject to debate.

If cutting income taxes drew business, Kansas wouldn't be hemorrhaging jobs. If the earnings tax revenue was being thrown in a dumpster, getting rid of it might make sense. But nobody wants to move to a St. Louis that cuts both the earnings tax and the services it pays for.

Also note that the primary goal (as in Kansas) isn't necessarily to reduce taxation, but to reduce taxation on the rich by replacing earnings taxes with consumption taxes. Wealthy people care a great deal about that distinction because consumption taxes permit them to exponentially grow their savings.

Mr. Sinquefield is going about this all wrong. Rather getting rid of the city earnings tax he should be trying to implement the tax County wide. A "walkable suburb" tax so to speak. In fact, the walkable suburb tax should be 2% because they generally have more money. Everyone needs to pay their fair share. To have a boundary is just not right.

Well, really he should be attacking suburban sprawl, but I doubt he has thought about the issue with sufficient depth to allow him to realize that.

It seems to me that every announcement I hear of a major retention or addition of primary (non retail) jobs in the city has some sort of abatement/forgiveness/redirection of the earnings tax. I wonder: How about the decisions of retaining or adding businesses with a relatively small number of jobs? Is the earnings tax playing a negative role? Is it the straw that kills some/many decisions to stay or to relocate in the city.

As I understand it the original rationale for the earnings tax was that it was needed as a way to collect revenue from large businesses and their employees located in the city who used city services heavily but did not pay much in tax relative to their use of city services. Seems to me there is a whole lot less of that going on these days.

MarkHaversham wrote:Well, really he should be attacking suburban sprawl, but I doubt he has thought about the issue with sufficient depth to allow him to realize that.

Maybe you should get in touch with Mr. Sinquefield's realtor. Maybe they can find you a nice place to live in the City too. It might also help with the debilitating case of white guilt that seems to cloud every single thought you have.

MarkHaversham wrote:Well, really he should be attacking suburban sprawl, but I doubt he has thought about the issue with sufficient depth to allow him to realize that.

Yeah, the man who is obsessed with chess and who also revolutionized the complex world of investments hasn't thought about it with "sufficient depth". You're a dandy Haversham.

ajwillikers wrote:I'm curious where Kansas is hemorrhaging jobs. If the losses are rural because there's not state money subsidizing those local economies they were deadweight loss.

It's really laughable for anyone in the Missouri government to say a 1% earnings tax is oppressive when there's a 4.225% State Sales tax and a 6% income tax (on taxable income over $9,000). Why not reduce that tax burden on St. Louis? The answer is because it funds the rural subsidies for those Jeff City jokers, especially the sales tax. Which also takes away the local economy's ability to fund other things like mass-transit or business improvement districts. Well I'm sure glad municipal services in counties I've never heard of are being funded by the state instead of a North-South Metrolink or separated bicycle infrastructure.

I notice no effort in MOLeg to provide relief to over taxed STL and KC residents and workers by adding a credit against state income taxes for the earnings tax.

leeharveyawesome wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:Well, really he should be attacking suburban sprawl, but I doubt he has thought about the issue with sufficient depth to allow him to realize that.

Yeah, the man who is obsessed with chess and who also revolutionized the complex world of investments hasn't thought about it with "sufficient depth". You're a dandy Haversham.

please. being good at 2 things doesn't make one an expert in all other unrelated things.

leeharveyawesome wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:Well, really he should be attacking suburban sprawl, but I doubt he has thought about the issue with sufficient depth to allow him to realize that.

Maybe you should get in touch with Mr. Sinquefield's realtor. Maybe they can find you a nice place to live in the City too. It might also help with the debilitating case of white guilt that seems to cloud every single thought you have.

It's not up to me.

No idea what the white guilt snark is about.

leeharveyawesome wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:Well, really he should be attacking suburban sprawl, but I doubt he has thought about the issue with sufficient depth to allow him to realize that.

Yeah, the man who is obsessed with chess and who also revolutionized the complex world of investments hasn't thought about it with "sufficient depth". You're a dandy Haversham.

There are plenty of homeless savants who could doubtless kick Rex's butt at chess. Chess talent isn't everything. Neither is investments. In fact, virtually every political mind who crows about their business experience goes on to vehemently suck at setting public policy. Businesses are fundamentally machines for converting happiness into cash. Governments should essentially be doing the opposite. We should take public policy cues from people who demonstrably suck at business. "Running government like a business" is how you end up with moronic stuff like Arizona selling and renting their own Capitol building, then buying it back at a loss. Or, Chicago selling its parking meter revenues to Dubai, so now wards can't throw a block party without paying compensation to the Middle East for 75 years.

urban_dilettante wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:If cutting income taxes drew business, Kansas wouldn't be hemorrhaging jobs.

one doesn't even need to appeal to Kansas as a counterexample. there are peer cities (Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, for example) with higher earnings taxes (2.1% and 3% respectively!!!) that are adding headquarters and jobs downtown. Rex's argument is total made-up bullsh*t. since he was an orphan and "made it" he now thinks he holds the key to all truth and opposes all taxes on principle. everyone should just hunt and gather for themselves 'cause, you know, that's what he had to do.

I think Kansas is a good counterexample because it's a model that Rex himself donated to legislators to get implemented, and it's crashing and burning. It's as close to real-world proof that Rex's policy ideas are bad as you could ever hope for.

^ ah, i didn't know he contributed to that. it's all just an experiment to him. he doesn't give a sh*t—he's rich.

Does anyone have a feel on how this might go?
Are there any polls or predictions?

addxb2 wrote:Does anyone have a feel on how this might go?
Are there any polls or predictions?

I'm guessing it passes comfortably, though probably not with 88% approval again. The folks motivated to vote in April municipal elections are already engaged, so the neighborhood meeting tour likely had its intended effect. But $2M of NO propaganda by King Rex will likely erode support from that 88% high water mark.

I also find it interesting that Lewis Reed has not been seen touting this heavily in public. Slay and Comptroller Green will seemingly show up anywhere there is a microphone to speak in favor of it.

Hopefully we can give Green credit for campaigning hard for Yes. If No wins, things are going to start getting hairy for the City.

Ebsy wrote:Hopefully we can give Green credit for campaigning hard for Yes. If No wins, things are going to start getting hairy for the City.

Yes, Slay and Green have done a commendable job making the case for YES on Prop E in the manner they chose to make their case.

addxb2 wrote:Does anyone have a feel on how this might go?
Are there any polls or predictions?

Slam dunk. No worries

I know 11 people voted and all 11 are yes.

^ i'd say that's WAY too uncertain of a wager for there to be any merit to that theory.

Making the city a charity case is a sure way to turn off county voters to an annexation proposition.