Proposed constitutional amendment would create ‘Freedom from Taxes’ fund and empower review board to pare exemptions

House Concurrent Resolution 50 14 — introduced in the 2025 session — would place a constitutional amendment before Kansas voters to create a “Freedom from Taxes” fund and a temporary review board with authority to review and eliminate state sales‑tax exemptions. Supporters and outside analysts debated the proposal's mechanics, governance and long‑term fiscal effects during the committee meeting.

What the resolution would do - Create a protected fund: The constitutional change would establish a Freedom from Taxes Fund, with two subfunds (a property‑tax elimination fund and an income/privilege‑tax elimination fund). Transfers into principal are protected from appropriation or transfer; only identified interest can be used under the amendment’s rules. - Citizen review board: The resolution establishes a temporary Kansas Citizens Freedom Review Board (details of composition and appointment to be set by statute) authorized to review and approve or eliminate state sales and compensating use tax exemptions. When the board eliminates an exemption, the estimated revenue gain would be transferred into the fund as principal and held to grow. - Phased tax reduction: The amendment’s intent is that interest generated by the fund, once sufficient, would be used to eliminate the state motor‑vehicle property tax first, then the statewide school finance (20‑mill) levy, and later to phase down or eliminate state income and privilege taxes. The ballot language in the draft ties the fund’s use to these specific goals.

Arguments raised in committee - Supporters’ view (Representative Carpenter and others): They described the proposal as a long‑term, pre‑funded strategy to relieve regressive tax burdens (vehicle tags and property tax) and to reduce reliance on income taxes over decades while protecting principal for the long term. Representative Carpenter suggested a compounding‑interest model could eliminate vehicle taxes in 6 years and the school 20‑mill levy in about 12 years under illustrative assumptions; income‑tax elimination could take decades. - Concerns from analysts and legislators: Tax Foundation analyst Catherine Lawhead praised the goal of reducing income taxes but raised multiple concerns. She said taxing business inputs must be avoided (pyramiding and competitiveness problem), warned that allowing an unelected board to repeal exemptions outside the legislative process raises separation‑of‑powers and accountability concerns, and recommended using the board in an advisory role or having the legislature phase down rates using tighter guardrails. Several lawmakers asked for clearer language about board composition and appointment, and for clearer transition rules and guardrails to prevent unintended local revenue shocks.

Fiscal mechanics and uncertainty Auditors and KLRD asked how to count proceeds: the amendment as drafted would deposit the estimated annual savings from removed exemptions into a protected fund as principal; only interest earnings would be available for tax reductions under the amendment’s rules. The committee heard a range of technical critiques: (a) the plan depends heavily on the size of initial transfers (seed principal), (b) investment returns, (c) whether local sales‑tax receipts would follow state base broadening, and (d) political acceptability of removing exemptions that benefit particular constituents.

Next steps and committee interest Members asked staff and supporters to provide: a) sample ballot language in plain English (Representative Carpenter provided a draft explanatory statement for voters), b) trailer bill concepts (how the board would be constituted and how transfers and investment management would be handled), and c) sensitivity analyses showing timelines under conservative and aggressive investment returns and different principal levels.

Ending: The committee did not vote; members asked for follow‑up materials, including corrected fiscal sensitivity tables and sample statutory language for a follow‑up implementation bill if the resolution goes to voters.