quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
They certainly aren't spending money fixing the roads. At least, not the last time I was there.

I do believe Missouri has the worst roads I have ever seen, let alone driven on.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
NH has no income tax and no sales tax. Property taxes, however, tend to be high. There is also a restaurant/meals tax.

If you live in a modest home and are a high wage earner, NH is a good place to live for wealth preservation.

As a former NH resident I have to agree with the above. The property taxes are about double what they are in the mid Atlantic.
NH also runs their liquor stores and is able to generate significant profit from all the tourists that come up for the lakes and mountains that are available. The prices are also very good compared to surrounding states.
Just looked it up and nh liquor sales generate $165 million in net income…

^^ Add it all up and NH has the third lowest tax burden of any state in the country!

AND, one of the free-est of the free states when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and firearms laws!

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:
I don't mind a reasonable income tax it's property tax that pisses me off.

^ditto (Plus all the hidden taxes like line items on cell, power and cable bills and the Fredrick County, VA "$40 license fee". Oh and 10.5% tax on prepared food)

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^ Add it all up and NH has the third lowest tax burden of any state in the country!

AND, one of the free-est of the free states when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and firearms laws!

And… My ancestor, Josiah Bartlett, who signed the Declaration of Independence, was from NH!

The two states I've lived in as an adult don't have an income tax. Texas and Tennessee.

In Texas the property taxes were pretty high tho. Sales taxes actually aren't too high and not all items are taxed (around 7.5% I think in the Dallas area). Most groceries did not have sales tax applied but items like carbonated drinks, and foods that are prepped. Retail products are taxed though and the tax could vary by as much as 1.5% depending on where you are located.

In Tennessee, everything has a sales tax on it (with some rare exceptions, like in some cases labor for services might not be subject to tax). In most areas of TN the local taxes are 9.75% so you pay that tax on everything you buy. Some items have additional taxes on them but that's added to the listed price of the item before you're charged the local tax rate.

With living in southwest TN, if you're making a large purchase a lot of people will go across the MS border to buy down there where the tax rate is 2.75% lower. MS has a state income tax, and only a 7% tax rate in most areas, compared to the 9.75% rate you'll find around the Memphis area.

And an oddity around here, Arkansas has state income tax but their sales taxes are as high as over 12% in some areas. The West Memphis sales tax rate is 10.5%. But it looks like they only charge .125% on standard groceries.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

And… My ancestor, Josiah Bartlett, who signed the Declaration of Independence, was from NH!

That is super cool! I thought I had one, Stephen Hopkins, but he was a distant branch. I have many ancestors going back to Jamestown and the Pilgrims coming to Plymouth. One ancestor was on the green at Lexington when the first shot was fired. Many others were involved in the Revolutionary and the Civil Wars.

Ordinary people did extraordinary things to build this country. They had a grasp of liberty which mostly eludes us these days.

Missouri Realtors pour $1.9 million into campaign to defeat Amendment 5 tax plan

The Missouri Association of Realtors donated $1.9 million to the campaign opposing Amendment 5 on Tuesday, escalating the fight over a proposed constitutional amendment that would create a pathway for lawmakers to eliminate the state income tax through expanded or increased sales taxes.

The contribution to Missourians for Fair Taxation came days after Missouri Promise PAC, the committee backing Amendment 5, reported receiving $1.9 million from Missouri Promise Inc., a same-name nonprofit incorporated in Delaware whose donors are not publicly disclosed.

The nearly identical donations — the Realtors donation was $1 more than Missouri Promise’s check — make clear that the August ballot measure is quickly becoming one of Missouri’s most expensive and politically consequential fights of the year.

If approved by voters, lawmakers would be directed to establish revenue triggers for reducing the top state income tax rate, which is currently 4.7% for taxable incomes greater than about $9,200. It would grant lawmakers five years to change what is covered by sales tax or increase the rate to generate revenue to speed the elimination of the income tax.

The revenue triggers are not specified. If no additional transactions become subject to the sales tax, the current rate of 3% would have to increase to as much as 11.5% to replace the money generated by income tax.

Opponents argue the amendment would give lawmakers broad new taxing power and could shift more of the cost of government onto everyday purchases and services.

Scott Charton, spokesman for Missourians for Fair Taxation, said the Realtors’ money comes from members across the state who are trying to defeat what opponents have branded the “Everything Tax.”

“These donations come from the pockets of Realtors who are on every Main Street, suburban circle and country road across Missouri,” Charton said in a statement. “We have 26,000 hardworking grassroots members who are mobilized to protect taxpayers against the deceptive Amendment 5’s Everything Tax.”

The Realtors have been among the most vocal opponents of Amendment 5, warning that the proposal could allow lawmakers to revisit constitutional protections voters previously approved against real estate transfer taxes and new sales taxes on services.

The Missouri Association of Realtors backed a successful 2010 constitutional amendment banning real estate transfer taxes, and supported a 2016 amendment prohibiting new sales taxes on services.

Charton said Amendment 5 threatens both protections.

“The real agenda behind Amendment 5 is to trick voters into giving politicians a license to ignore current constitutional taxpayer protections approved by the people,” he said.

Supporters of Amendment 5 reject that characterization and say the proposal is about eliminating Missouri’s income tax and creating a stronger economy.

Joe Lamie, spokesman for Missouri Promise PAC, said working families have “shouldered the tax burden for far too long.”

“No matter how much money is spent to preserve the status quo, our state is falling behind. If Missouri is going to compete in the modern world, we need a new tax code that lowers taxes, attracts jobs, and unleashes our economy,” Lamie said. “Passage of Amendment 5 will put money back in the pockets of taxpayers and Missouri back in the race for jobs and growth.”

Missouri Promise PAC reported last week receiving $1.9 million from Missouri Promise Inc. The nonprofit was incorporated in Delaware late last year and authorized to do business in Missouri earlier this year. Its Missouri filing lists Garrett M. Lott as chairman, officer and registered agent, and lists as its principal place of business a private mailbox at 701 Market St. in St. Louis.

The filing states that Missouri Promise Inc.’s purpose is “to promote the common good and general welfare.”

Missourians for Fair Taxation argues Amendment 5 would weaken the Hancock Amendment, the 1980 constitutional provision requiring voter approval for certain tax increases, and that the measure is so broad that voters cannot know how much taxes could ultimately rise if it passes.

“Amendment 5 is so vague, even the state auditor cannot say how much taxes could ultimately go up, which means Missourians are being asked to approve a constitutional change without knowing the full impact to their own pocketbooks,” Charton said.

The state auditor’s fiscal note says the General Assembly already has authority to reduce the state income tax, Charton noted, arguing that a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.

https://missouriindependent.co...mendment-5-tax-plan/

I’d say that’s a pretty resounding result from the voters in MO for Amendment 5. When 83% vote no, you should probably reevaluate things.


Link

quote:

you should probably reevaluate things.

I say this as a Republican in Missouri.

All too often the people are pretty clear in what they want, then those in elected office say they understand yet offer something different. When 83% of the voters reject an issue like that, it should have been known to be a looser before it ever made its way onto a ballot.

Not too much different than our Amendment 4, which would have limited initiative petition reforms to our state constitution. So many people have told me they would have voted for it had it not made it so "impossible".

In other words, they could have structured it to where it still made it very difficult, but went so over the top that it even turned off supporters.

Almost as if they went that direction on purpose, to claim they tried, but to not have it succeed.

On 5, most of those I've spoken with are wanting property taxes addressed first as they see that as a direct benefit to themselves. Many viewed 5 as a benefit to big business.

Amendments 4 and 5 both got smoked.
The Democrats were united against both, and funded the NO campaign.
There was no YES campaign for Amendment 4 at all.

quote:

Amendment 4, which would have limited initiative petition reforms to our state constitution. So many people have told me they would have voted for it had it not made it so "impossible".

In other words, they could have structured it to where it still made it very difficult, but went so over the top that it even turned off supporters.

Almost as if they went that direction on purpose, to claim they tried, but to not have it succeed.

I can't disagree with that, but there was no real effort to educate people.
When I explained it to several people, they voted Yes when they would have been No.

Amendment 5 was the Missouri legislature saying "trust us", which they don't deserve. Even Republicans thought they aren't worthy of the trust required of the legislature to do the right thing implementing this. During the phase out period there would have been double taxation, allowing the Missouri legislature to avoid the cuts necessary for a projected $65 million deficit for 2027.

Now, they will be forced to trim the budget, which to me is a good thing.

Still, there are good reasons to gradually do away with the State income tax. This just wasn't a good proposal.

Frequently Asked Questions About Amendment 5

https://showmeinstitute.org/ar...nt/amendment-5-faqs/

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
NH has no income tax and no sales tax. Property taxes, however, tend to be high. There is also a restaurant/meals tax.

If you live in a modest home and are a high wage earner, NH is a good place to live for wealth preservation.

NH does have a low overall tax rate and if you don’t have significant real estate that helps but the real estate taxes are virtually double what I pay in N.C.

Also, to their credit the state run liquor stores are strategically placed along the interstates so they sell their very reasonably priced liquor to all the Mass. residents that come up for vacation. It’s the only state I know of that has state run liquor stores at the Interstate rest areas…

Andy Biggs, who's running for gov. of AZ, has been talking about eliminating the state income tax. I don't see how it's possible and it will become a ginormous ballot initiative fight, if he wins and the issue becomes a serious discussion. Our sales tax is already pretty high, vehicle reg. fees and taxes are pretty high. Property taxes are very low and liquor stores are privately run and pretty cheap. I just don't see enough meat on the bone to eliminate income tax and find the same money somewhere else.

quote:

I just don't see enough meat on the bone to eliminate income tax and find the same money somewhere else.

Why not consider dealing with less money, and shrinking the government?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I just don't see enough meat on the bone to eliminate income tax and find the same money somewhere else.

Why not consider dealing with less money, and shrinking the government?

Obviously, I feel that way, personally. But we all know how this is going to be presented on a ballot, and then all the interest groups opposing it, screaming it will deprive the children and elderly of this or that. I'm all for it. But I think there's a better chance of getting spending and fee reductions enacted than a total elimination of the income tax.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I just don't see enough meat on the bone to eliminate income tax and find the same money somewhere else.

Why not consider dealing with less money, and shrinking the government?

That is exactly what we need to do here in Missouri. It can be done if legislators can muster the political will to step away from the lobbyists who write the campaign checks and therefor have their ear.