Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commerce Committee OKs committee substitute to let legislature pursue income-tax elimination; ballot-language amendment fails
Summary
The Missouri House Commerce Committee voted to advance a committee substitute for HJR 173 and HJR 174 that would authorize the legislature to use sales‑and‑use tax changes as a mechanism to reduce and ultimately eliminate the state individual income tax; an amendment to alter the ballot language failed on a voice roll call.
The Missouri House Commerce Committee voted to advance a committee substitute for House Joint Resolutions 173 and 174 that would authorize the legislature to pursue reductions in the state individual income tax tied to revenue triggers and to use sales‑and‑use tax authority as the primary implementation mechanism.
Committee members debated an amendment offered by Representative Kimball to change the ballot wording to read that the measure is a “tax replacement, not a tax cut,” a formulation Kimball said would make the measure “more honest with voters about what we’re trying to do.” Representative Seitz called the proposed wording “the worst amendment I’ve seen in my five years here,” warning it would “shackle the hands of the voters” and allow the possibility of tax increases. Representative Mayhew said he found the language deceptive and would not support the amendment.
After debate, the committee rejected Kimball’s amendment. Chairman Castillo then moved the committee substitute for HJR 173 and HJR 174; by roll call the committee voted to report the substitute “due pass” by a tally the chair announced as 7 yes and 3 no.
Under the committee substitute as described in the executive session, the proposal ties incremental reductions of the individual income tax to new revenue amounts (the substitute discussed a reduction of 0.01 percentage point for each $20 million in new revenue plus a CPI adjustment and described a pathway that would eliminate the tax once a statutory floor is reached). Committee discussion focused on how broadly to describe the measure on the ballot and whether the proposal would open the door to broad sales‑tax expansions to offset lost income‑tax revenue.
The action sends the committee substitute forward for further consideration; committee members said there will be additional floor debate and opportunities for public review.
The committee did not adopt the ballot‑language amendment; the substitute itself advanced on the committee’s vote and will move to the next legislative step.
