Poll: Will St. Louis Voters Repeal The Earnings Tax in April 2011?
Tuesday Missouri voters approved Proposition A by a wide margin.
Yes 1,294,705 [68.4%]
No 597,920 [31.6%]
Total Votes 1,892,625
As a result, Missouri cities no longer have the option of an earnings tax. Â The two cities with an earnings tax, Kansas City & St. Louis, must hold a vote in the Spring to see if voters wish to keep the earnings tax. Â If they vote to eliminate the earnings tax it would be phased out over a 10 year period. Â If kept, another vote must take place 5 years later, in 2016.
Voters in both cities voted against Proposition A, although not as strongly in Kansas City
St. Louis:
YES 28,251 [31.84%]
NO 60,473 [68.16%]
Kansas City:
YES 37,264 [44.85%]
NO 45,826 [55.15%]
The poll question this week seeks to find out what you think will be the outcome of this vote in St. Louis.  The answers have two parts — will Rex Sinquefield fund the campaign to repeal the earnings tax and will we keep the tax or repeal it?  The poll is in the upper right sidebar.
– Steve Patterson
The more I think about it, the more I think that Rex Sinquefield is crazy like a fox. Even though KC voters only rejected A with 55% of the vote, the margins against Prop A in STL and KC cities were biased toward white/conservative/Republican turnout and against black/liberal/Democrat turnout on Tuesday. When people in those cities have to vote to repeal their earnings taxes, the latter will turn out big, and it will lose in STL with 70-75%, and in KC with at least 60%. Where Sinquefield is crazy like a fox is that every five years, the liberal body politics in both cities will have to go to the well just to save their earnings taxes. This is money not available to Democrat candidates in Missouri, nor to ballot issues, constitutional amendments and referenda that liberals may or may not like. R.S. is forcing liberals to go to the well so often that it's going to dry up.
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/entries/breaking-prop-even-passed-kc/
Turns out the 55-45 No in KC was only for KC proper within Jackson Co. KC City as a whole passed it 52-48. Now I know why KC's leaders wanted Prop A defeated now.
Instead of framing it as a Rex versus city argument, why not frame it as a Rex versus city-employee union argument? Trust me, the unions WILL be spending big money on the May election, since they have both benefits and pensions riding on its outcome. And, for better or worse, the ads will focus on cuts to “popular” services, like fire houses and parks, and not on more complex tax and budget issues, like TIF's, health care and pensions . . .
He personally funded the entire campaign behind Prop A.
Come to think about, how tough is that in Missouri. He funded a no brainer petition as far as the vast majority of the voters were concerned in the year of the no-tax mandate.
It really doesn't matter who funds the get-rid-of-the-tax side of the argument, since a certain number of “no-brainer” voters will always vote for no or lower taxes. The bigger question is who will fund the keep-the-tax side and how they will frame the argument(s). Saying that it makes up a third of the budget is of limited value. Documenting that suburban workers generate x% is probably more valuable. And documenting how the city has, and continues to, reduce(d) personnel costs, through more efficient delivery methods, will be the most effective argument.
The problem is that our city unions don't embrace the concept of lower personnel costs being a good thing. Framing the closure of one or two fire stations as a life-or-death decision is fear-mongering at its worst. In a “perfect” world, we'd have twice as many fire fighters, paramedics and police. We don't live in a perfect world. We live in a city with limited resources. If a fire house has seen its run decline to the point where it's no longer needed, it should be closed, so that our limited resources can be deployed elsewhere.
why not counter act rex sinquefield – wait what a waste of resources for one guy – who the f@#$ is he and how can one person have this much influence? is slay for or against the earnings tax? i have heard different stories and slay showing support to multiple interests that conflict philosophically. i am more confused help me!
He is VERY SMART, and very PRO City. O, he is VERY rich too. 🙂
Mayor Slay would like to see the city reduce its dependence on the earnings tax, but is well aware of how much revenue it currently generates. He has stated that that he did not invest much effort in opposing Prop. A since its passage, as a statewide issue, was a essentially a done deal. He has also stated that he will actively work to keep the tax when it comes up for the local vote next year.
The city earnings tax is a complex philosophical and political issue. City residents shouldn't have any more objections to it than they do to property taxes or local sales taxes – the taxes we pay support the services we receive. The real opposition comes from suburban residents who work in the city and have their earnings taxed, as well as paying higher property taxes where they choose to live (since their cities and counties don't impose earnings taxes).
Nobody likes taxation without representation, but we do end up paying taxes where we don't get to vote on a regular basis, be they sales taxes, hotel taxes, rental car taxes, etc, etc. Whether they're “fair” or not is a question of both degree and perception. What will be interesting in the upcoming election is how all these questions will be both framed and answered . . .
I honestly think Rex will lay off and not try to pursue city votes. I don't think he sees this as winning proposition or at least not in St. Louis proper. Sorry, but Rex is not going to throw money away at a very unlikely outcome in the immediate future. Also, I think he has bigger fish to fry, specifically his next target is getting the State Income Tax out the door. Some state representatives already want to put it on the legislative agenda. If that becomes reality, then the city earnings tax is the only income tax on the state level.
I also think Rex will surprise a few and start pushing for local control of Police and Fire. Rex knows very well that the city can't have any chance at reforming their revenue sources without getting control of all obligations. Not to mention that he is strong supporter of Slay.
Instead, he will give the city another five years. In that time you could see a couple of possible outcomes impacting the city and region significantly – Lambert lands cargo hub, city and county officials make a run at bringing St. Louis into the county as 92nd muni (Rex will support in my opinion), and city has local control of both police and fire, Appeals courts let McKee make a run at the Northside Project (who knows, maybe Rex invests some of his own money, especially if region lands a cargo hub). All big ifs, but will have an impact. Which gets back to my point, Rex knows that the city needs to be in a stronger or growth situation for voters to kill the golden egg.