Proposition A debate politically framed, not focused on solution

When voters go to the polls to vote between two candidates they weigh a number of issues. Unfortunately, many voters aren’t given a fair shake during the campaigns when it comes to a full and accurate understanding of where a candidate stands on each issue. Although ballot initiatives are usually single issue questions, it’s hardly any easier to weigh the implications. With the mid-term elections next week, many are focused on individual candidates and not as much on ballot initiatives also being decided.

Proposition A has to do with municipalities and their ability to decide whether to implement an earning tax on those who live and work within the city limits. Cities all over the country, both big and small, have a variety of mechanisms for collecting revenue to provide services to their citizens. Kansas City and St. Louis use an earnings tax and are currently the only cities in the state to have such a tax at one percent. Passage of Proposition A would prevent other cities from implementing a similar tax along with require Kansas City and St. Louis to vote every five years on whether to keep the tax starting this upcoming spring.

Proponents of Proposition A could have several reasons for supporting it. Currently, people who don’t live in Kansas City, but commute from surrounding communities such as Platte City, Blue Springs, or Belton to work within the city limits, are taxed at one percent, the same amount as those who live in the city limits. Others may believe the tax is unnecessary and the city’s services aren’t justified with the revenue they collect from it. Also, voters in rural areas may support Proposition A to prevent their city or town from implementing an earnings tax in their area.

Opponents of Proposition A see potentially severe budget problems if the measure passes. The current earnings tax represents about 40% of Kansas City’s total revenue accounting for nearly $200 million to provide a number of city services including trash pick-up, snow removal, street repairs, and emergency personnel such as police officers and firefighters. They believe repeal would require substantial increases in property and sales taxes to make up for the shortfall.

While my description of both sides of the issue only brushes the surface, the debate that should have taken place hasn’t happened yet. The truth is, like most ballot measures, this is political and was placed on the ballot counting on a high turnout among people likely to support it. The issue at hand should not be an argument of anti-tax vs. pro-tax, but more of a discussion of why the current tax hasn’t resulted in quality services from Kansas City and how they need to be improved, not eliminated.

I agree with the idea in Proposition A that other cities in Missouri should not implement earnings taxes because none compare to Kansas City and St. Louis when it comes to their economic impact on the region. People come to Kansas City to work, live, and play. Therefore, they use city services in some form or another. Poor leadership, particularly in recent years, has seen a decline in services, but the idea that the earnings tax is bad for business pales in comparison to the alternatives since the thought that the city will purely cut its budget by $200 million is unrealistic. If anything, increased property taxes will result in a heavier burden for homeowners and businesses because those who lease space for their work or residence are almost always charged for increased taxes that are passed through in the form of higher rent.

While I believe keeping the earnings tax is important not just for Kansas City, but those municipalities surrounding it, I do hope the threat of losing it creates the sense of urgency needed to provide the region’s center of commerce functional and effective services to those who contribute to it.