Missouri Senate approves constitutional amendment to eliminate state income tax; amendment to exempt used goods fails

The Missouri Senate on a late‑night floor session approved a senate substitute to House Joint Resolutions 173 and 174 that would direct the General Assembly to enact legislation to eliminate the state individual income tax by expanding transaction‑based taxes and bar the legislature from reimposing an income tax once it is eliminated.

Senator Ferrum, the sponsor, told the chamber the measure "requires the general assembly shall enact legislation to eliminate the income tax" and said implementing legislation must be revenue neutral and would occur within a five‑year window. Ferrum said the substitute also requires local subdivisions to make a one‑time adjustment of their sales‑tax rate, after a 12‑month grace period, and that those rollbacks may be used to reduce sales, real property, personal property or earnings taxes at the local level.

The debate centered on how detailed the constitution should be and what protections — if any — to include for low‑income residents. Senator Sarah Lawrence asked whether the amendment language could be interpreted to allow a value‑added tax; Ferrum responded that he "doesn't believe this can be interpreted to include a value added tax" and emphasized the five‑year implementation window and revenue‑neutral requirement. Lawrence also proposed, as a policy suggestion, limiting taxation to "services and new goods" to protect seniors and low‑income families who rely on used‑goods purchases, saying, "How can we protect them?"

The idea of embedding such specific exemptions in the constitution divided the floor. Ferrum argued the constitution should set broad principles and that specific policy choices belong in implementing statute: "The constitution should be a framework ... How we accomplish that is a set of policies." He warned that putting detailed policy into the constitution could hamstring future legislatures and complicate implementation.

Senators speaking for passage framed the measure as a conservative, pro‑growth reform. A senator supporting the substitute said states without an income tax show stronger growth, calling the plan "the most conservative policy" and urging colleagues to be "bold." Another senator cited state comparisons and data, saying "3 of the top 5 states ... have a 0% income tax," and argued the proposal would help Missouri compete for population and economic growth.

Senate amendment 1, offered to strike "goods and services" and insert "services and new goods" (an explicit exclusion of used goods), was read into the record and moved for adoption. Ferrum and other opponents asked the body to reject the amendment and defer such policy choices to implementing legislation. The amendment was put to a voice vote and failed.

A roll call was requested on final passage. The Secretary called the roll and the chair announced that by a vote of 18 yeas and 11 nays the measure received the constitutional majority required and was declared passed in the Senate. The chair directed the journal to show that titling and perfecting motions were made and carried. The resolution now proceeds to the next steps required by the constitutional amendment process (the measure, if enacted by both houses and later approved by voters, would require implementing legislation to execute the changes described).

The Senate then completed announcements and adjourned under the rules.