Tuesday's vote on the earnings tax in Kansas City, Missouri, resembled a worker's decision to contribute to a 401(k) retirement plan. Voters came to the conclusion that the 1-percent tax on their wages was worth keeping because it's "matched" by people who work in Kansas City but live in surrounding communities.
The e-tax cruised to an easy victory, surviving the challenge to its legitimacy. Wealthy financier and libertarian Rex Sinquefield spent a reported $11 million on a statewide ballot measure that forced Kansas City and St. Louis to put their earnings taxes up for a vote. Kansas City voters approved the tax by a margin of 7 to 2. In St. Louis, the ratio was 9 to 1.
Proposition A, Sinquefield's civics experiment, demands that Kansas City and St. Louis voters consider the e-tax every five years. Politicians in Kansas City say they want state lawmakers to rewrite the language so the next referendum will not take place until 2021 or beyond. In St. Louis, meanwhile, Mayor Francis Slay says he wants to figure out a "better way" to pay for city services.
The e-tax's opposition group in Kansas City, Freedom PAC, raised $600,000 from undisclosed donors. On Tuesday night, campaign spokesman Woody Cozad tried to spin the results. His statement read, in part:
Tonight, a small minority of Kansas Citians choose to continue with an earnings tax that is driving small businesses out and pushing homeowners away. For the first time in 40 years Kansas Citians had a discussion about whether or not the earnings tax makes sense. Thousands of Kansas Citians have decided it does not.Of course, the "small minority" outnumbered the "thousands" by a substantial margin. The unofficial count indicated that 56,965 voted to keep the tax in place, while 16,494 said they wanted it to go away.
Showing 1-11 of 11
In many parts of the city, it was the only thing on the ballot, but thanks for playing.
Your other questions also miss the point-the election happens only because one rich guy wants to advance his untested and loony ideas ... ideas that were rejected by the voters here and in St. Louis by massive amounts.
It wasn't a special election, it would have been held regardless of the ETax issue. So the taxpayers aren't out any real money they wouldn't have spent anyway.
Should Sinquefield pay for his opposition's media and advertising expense?
If he had won, should his opposition have been forced to pay his expenses?
I don't think so. Denver isn't a shining example of economic growth, nor Portland, nor NYC. While they aren't ghost towns. They all blame it on the national economy. royalsretro might be right and he might be wrong, but I don't think he was being sarcastic.
What say you, royalsretro? Serious or sarcastic?
If Sinquefield had any pride, he'd offer to pay for the election. Those aren't free to hold.
Yea Denver and Portland are considered some of the fastest growing and most desirable cities in the country to live. Clearly you haven't left your house in the last decade.
City income taxes have killed cities like Denver, Portland and New York City. Go to any of those cities and you will see what ghost towns they have become.
Gotta love spin. "Small minority" and "thousands" = "78%" and "22%".
The e-tax may be annoying, but I'd be shocked if it's in anyone's top 5 considerations when deciding whether to live or start a business in KCMO.
And for those who claim businesses and people are fleeing to Kansas because of this: state income tax in KS is 6.45%. KCMO residents are paying 7% (6% state + 1% local).
like
dislike
