As Missouri Republicans push a constitutional amendment to phase out the state income tax, the proposal’s House sponsor told a Senate committee Wednesday that sales taxes are a fairer, more transparent way to raise money — even as he insisted the measure itself would not directly raise them.
Pressed on language allowing lawmakers to expand sales taxes on goods and services to replace the income tax, GOP state Rep. Bishop Davidson of Republic said the amendment simply authorizes that debate.
“This doesn’t tax any services whatsoever,” he said.
If approved by voters, the amendment would gradually reduce the top income tax rate as state revenue grows, while giving lawmakers three years to broaden the sales tax base and eliminate exemptions to replace the money now raised by the income tax without another statewide vote.
It would lift a constitutional restriction that now limits lawmakers’ ability to apply sales taxes to services and other transactions not currently taxed — from haircuts and legal services to streaming subscriptions and home repairs. And it would allow a sales tax on motor fuel for the first time and exempt that revenue from the constitutional provision dedicating all taxes on gasoline and diesel to highway needs.
Missouri’s personal income tax is almost flat, with the top rate of 4.7% applying to taxable incomes greater than $9,436. The current state sales tax is 3% for general revenue, plus 1.225% earmarked for public schools, conservation, state parks and soil conservation. Local option sales taxes add to the 4.225% total, and there are more than 50 locations in the state where the total sales tax is 11% or higher.
Without expanding the transactions subject to sales tax, replacing the revenue now generated by the individual income tax would require raising the state sales tax to nearly 13%.
The income tax, Davidson told the committee, is “the worst of all” taxes, calling it unfair and an invasion of privacy. He contrasted it with sales taxes, which he described as transparent, easier for consumers to see and more likely to reach tourists and other nonresidents who spend money in Missouri.
“This is the most significant change we can make now to improve the lives of Missourians and their economy,” Davidson said of the proposed amendment.
The amendment, Davidson said, is meant to constitutionally lock in the revenue triggers for cutting the income tax and prevent a future legislature from reinstating it once the rate reaches zero.
State Sen. Patty Lewis, a Kansas City Democrat, underscored why opponents remain alarmed.
After asking Davidson to read the provision aloud, Lewis pointed to the sentence stating that state and local sales taxes “may be expanded by legislation to impose taxes on transactions involving any goods and services.” Davidson agreed that the language would allow lawmakers to tax services in the future but stressed it wouldn’t require them to.
That tension has become the central fight over the proposal.
Supporters describe it as a gradual, growth-triggered phaseout of the income tax and a modernization of a tax code built around the sale of physical goods. Critics say it asks voters to approve a broad constitutional framework now and trust a future legislature to decide later which services, exemptions and transactions should be taxed.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank, estimated that Missourians earning roughly $49,000 to $78,000 would pay about $535 more a year on average under a shift from income taxes to higher sales taxes, while those earning about $24,000 to $49,000 would pay about $850 more. The top 1% of households, by contrast, would receive an average annual tax cut of nearly $40,000, according to the group.
Davidson cast Tennessee, Florida and Texas as proof that states without an income tax can outperform their competitors. He told the committee Florida is beating 48 states on measures like population and income growth, with Tennessee the only state outpacing it.
“When I look at Tennessee, I actually see a lot of assets in Missouri that Tennessee doesn’t have,” he said. “I see a lot of similarity between our states. The great differences truly are tax policy and regulatory policy, and I think this is the point of the spear.”
Critics say those states are poor comparisons for Missouri. Florida draws enormous sales-tax revenue from tourism, while Texas benefits from its outsized oil-and-gas economy. Tennessee has no tax on wage income but relies on one of the highest combined state and local sales tax rates in the country.
Lewis noted Wednesday that the tax cut debate is playing out while lawmakers are wrestling with a shrinking state budget. Last week, the Missouri House approved a budget that will close an almost $2 billion deficit by using almost all the state’s remaining surplus in the general revenue fund.
The state treasury’s surplus peaked at $8 billion at the end of fiscal 2023. As of Feb. 28, the remaining balance was $3.9 billion, but projections for declining revenue this year and sluggish growth after that put the surplus at around $265 million by June 30, 2027.
“We’re facing losses in general revenue and making cuts to the budget,” Lewis said. “I don’t think this is a fiscally responsible thing.”