Missouri Senate Race Heating UP

If the fair tax won’t make up revenue shortfalls, then neither will the income tax. Other ways of raising money, or better yet, cutting spending will have to be found any time there is a shortfall. Good times, bad times, no difference in the outcome.

Doling out tax subsidies to attract business is a carrot on a stick that catches some jobs. Yes I agree. But where do those subsidies come from? The taxes we pay. And then usually those same companies are given tax credits and the company won’t pay income tax etc. Obviously a company can see the advantage of not having to pay income tax as an incentive to locate in Missouri. those companies stay for their 20 year obligation, then look for another state with better incentives than Missouri can offer.

The best tax credit and incentive we can offer businesses without shooting ourselves in the foot, looking to replace lost revenue, is by replacing the income tax with the sales tax. What kind of advantage is created when a company, including it’s employees no longer has to pay an income tax?
A very big advantage. A business can manufacture a product and remove all built in income taxes that are now reflected in the finished product under the current tax structure.

Those cities you mention have been operated by Democrats for years. Every failing public entity in America, Municipal, County, State etc has been mismanaged by the local politicians. They have contributed to their own declines with high taxes, city earning taxes, higher sales tax, and general mismanagement. Same for the schools. It is unfortunate. but their problems are their own and without changes in the local politics, the state cannot rescue them when other cities and suburbs are booming in the state.

Between 1969-2002 Personal income in St Louis fell 8.3%. Instate suburbs grew 140.8%. Out of state suburbs grew 70%.

Kansas City personal income grew during the same period by 63.6%, suburbs 202.4% and out state suburbs 194.3%.

But here is the kicker. Springfield personal income grew 198.2% and their suburbs grew 527.6%.

Springfield income grew over 200% compared to St Louis and three times more than Kansas City. Suburbs grew 1.5 times morethan KC suburbs. Why? Because KC and STL have city earnings taxes in addition to their already high tax base. Their economic problems are because they spend more than they take in on a perpetual basis.

Tell me how to make these cites competitive under the current tax system? Especially with the current severe recession. We should not be extending tax credits to companies that locate in those cities. Why? Because it has no benefit to me. I live in a community that has no real estate tax. How do they operate? Sales tax provides over 90% of the operating revenue for a town of about 5000 people. We have been one of the fastest growing small communities in Missouri. Why Lower? No real estate tax.

With due consideration, the real estate tax has little bearing on our tax discussion except it points out how taxes DO make a big difference in developing an economy.
But the local sales tax, operating a city budget, according to city officials, provides MORE revenue than the property tax.
And the same will happen by abolishing the State Income Tax and replacing it with a sales tax.

The income tax for a Missouri family of four with gross income of $63,000 would be closer to $1,800 than $3,800.

Chuck Purgason is a two time State Rep, and completing his 2nd term as State Senator. Check out his wikipedia page I posted in an earlier post. Then check out his campaign page in the same post.

The rate over $9000 is 6%. Unadjusted gross $64,000 x .06 = $3840.

The 6% is applied to net income, after applying deductions to Missouri adjusted gross income (AGI). Using as an example a married couple with two dependents, if AGI is $64,000, Fed tax $7,500, and standard deduction, net income is $39,000.

AGI $64,000
deduction exemption $4,200, Fed tax $7,500, standard deduction $10,900, dependents $2,400, total $25,000.

Net income $64,000 - $25,000 =$39,000

The Missouri tax is computed separately for each spouse, with $315 paid on the first $9,000. So if the $39,000 was split $20,000 for one spouse and $19,000 for the other, the tax would be $1,890.

Spouse 1: $20,000 - $9,000 = $11,000. $11,000 * 6% = $660. $315 + $660 = $975.

Spouse 2: $19,000 - $9,000 = $10,000. $10,000 * 6% = $600. $315 + $600 = $915.

$975 + $915 = $1,890.

Where are you getting your information?

You are not even close to actual known fact.

Personally, after the last year, I'll vote for the conservative candidate in the primaries, then I will vote for the candidate who comes closets to representing my views in the general.
If the Conservative candidate doesn't win the primary, and you throw a temper tantrum and sit out the general vote to show your displeasure

I will NEVER sit out an election.
The issue I see here is that I, too, will vote for the conservative in the primary.
However, the person who comes closest to representing me in the general may, or may not, be a Republican. The person who comes closest to representing me may be a third party candidate.

I will hold my nose no longer. I will vote for the lesser of two evils no longer, unless there are ONLY two on the ballot.
More than two on the ballot means that neither the D OR the R may get my vote.
If the third party candidate matches me closer, so be it.

First, the Fair Tax is not a bad idea...instead of ‘punishing those that can least afford it’ (your words)...it makes every person that votes for every government give back available, more accountable for their vote. The Fair Tax does not punish those that actually provide jobs to the economy to an unfair extent.

But you are right about Blunt...in these days of name recognition (unfortunately), a known candidate is more effective than a no-name...and Blunt is Conservative enough at this point.