The General Assembly convened today in the Constitutionally mandated veto session. We have been blogging for a couple of weeks about one of the bills likely to be considered for override – House Bill (HB) 1329. Almost 1,100 emails were sent to senators and representatives in less than 48 hours to NOT support a veto override. How did it come out? YOUR VOICES WERE HEARD!
When the required reading of the bill number and title was made, no motion to override was even made! In caucus meetings prior to the session convening it was apparent that the votes to override were not present. There was some grumbling and complaining about the way the argument had been framed as a tax increase when many wanted it to be called just re-instituting a tax. The problem is that it was a tax increase. I’m not very popular in some offices today! đŸ™‚
I’ve written before that when the bill was originally passed, many on both sides of the aisles thought it was the right if not only solution to the problem of the un-level playing field. Since that vote, more legislators learned that some of the information they had received was either not complete or accurate.
For example, one legislator was heard to say that they did not know that local governments could place this issue on the ballot on their own. If they had known that at the time of the vote, they would not have voted for the bill.
It’s easy to condemn those who supported the bill originally. I don’t argue that legislators could and should have possessed more knowledge about the bill but that doesn’t work out as you might think it does.
I believe the sponsor of the bill Rep. Ryan Silvey believed it was the right thing to do. While I disagree with him, he still believes it is the right thing and that it’s not a tax increase. Rep. Silvey is also the House Budget Chair. Legislators had no reason to doubt the bill with the Budget Chairman sponsoring it.
The faces of the municipal league folks as I left the building were very long. They now will have to go back to their “members” – cities that use your tax dollars to join and work against you on issues such as this – and propose alternatives.
Solutions to the Car Sales Tax Increase is a feasible alternative. It would place on a statewide ballot in every locality that didn’t have a use tax in place the question of whether or not the voters of that locality want to have one. If it passes in a locality (municipality or county) they will have a local use tax. If it doesn’t, they won’t.
This alternative would meet the Constitutional requirement for the local taxes to be approved or disapproved by local voters. The state picks up the tab for the elections which is more efficient and saving local taxpayers money and the question is asked all at once. It would level the playing field for all that chose to do so.
It’s a better solution than HB1329.
So what would you tell the people that will face layoffs from Missouri Auto Dealers from sales going across the river. I know many will say so what its just car dealers. Well car dealers employee people with above average wages. There are dealers in Illinois that are actively promoting the short drive across the river to save on sales tax. This lack of action will take sales that were destined for Missouri and take them right across the river to Granite City Columbia Collinsville Edwardsville and Fairview Hieghts. You say you are protecting the people from unlawfull sales tax. The much bantered number is 177,000 Missourians on person to person sales. These transactions average $10,000 per person or $100 to $200 per person in tax savings. Or $30,000,000.00 in total tax relief as Governor Nixon stated. Lets compare that with lost revenue and in turn lost jobs. If 100 sales cross the border per month at $25,000 average per sale that is 2,500,000.00 in revenue at 20% profit that is 500,000.00 PROFIT PER MONTH. You claim to promote small business where will 500,000 come from. How many jobs will that be? ONE METRO-EAST DEALER IS SAYING HE HAS INCREASED 20 SALES PER MONTH ALONE. THERE ARE MORE THAN 30 FRANCHISED DEALERS IN ILLINOIS WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF ST CHARLES COUNTY 15 MINUTES FROM ST LOUIS COUNTY. IF THEY SEE A SIMILAR INCREASE THAT IS 600 SALES OR $15,000,000.00 REVENUE AND $3,000,000 IN PROFIT PER MONTH NOW IF MISSOURI DEALERS LOOSE $3,000,000.00 PER MONTH IN ST LOUIS WHAT ABOUT KANSAS CITY? Even if all municipalities get a ballot initiative by April 2013 it will be one more year before the laws will be changed to ensure that the laws of Missouri are not set to help promote Illinois. You are not saving any money. The annual loss will total 36 million in St Louis alone.
What will be the cost of the state provided benefits for those jobs lost be? Unemployment pay, health care cost, free school lunches, food stamps etc. Since Jay Nixon and the tea party are on the same page maybe you can endorse him for Governor.
So your solution is to simply ignore the state constitution to pass a law that benefits some at the expense of others while violating the constitution? That should never happen under any circumstances. Here’s the problem with your argument.
Every dealer that might be adversely affected is being affected because of one of two reasons and perhaps a combination thereof:
1. The county and/or city or both in which they are located have failed to place before the voters the opportunity to “level” this playing field.
2. If they have taken the action in #1 above, the voters have said NO and that is the supreme will.
St Louis City, St Charles County, and much of Kansas City area have a voter approved use tax. St Peters in St Charles County does not and neither does St Louis County? Why? Their voters said NO.
EVERY CITY AND COUNTY WITHOUT THE USE TAX HAS HAD 3 CHANCES TO GET IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS! Those that didn’t take the action in June, August or November are the ones who failed to take their responsiblity to “Fix” the problem and address the impacts of your exaggerated example and do what they were supposed to do. It’s not a failure of the state. It’s a failure of those entities to do it.
Economics is never the reason to violate the constitution. There is a solution to the problem but it wasn’t HB1329.