So, this is the proposal the article claims is the most challenging:
A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to establish the “Show-Me Prosperity Fund,” a permanent public endowment fund to support state government with the goal of eliminating state-imposed taxes without impairing the real value of the fund’s principal; prohibit the General Assembly from appropriating or diverting monies from the fund until notification is given by the State Treasurer that the net investment earnings of the fund are sufficient to eliminate state-imposed taxes; cap the total amount of moneys that may be appropriated from the fund in a fiscal year to three percent of the average market value of the fund over the preceding five fiscal years; and prohibit the General Assembly from enacting the eliminated state-imposed taxes, provided, however, that in the event the fund is unable to meet its obligations due to insolvency, revenue shortfall, or program failure, the General Assembly shall retain full authority to appropriate funds from any lawful source and to enact legislation establishing or increasing taxes or other revenues as necessary.
A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to establish a permanent public endowment fund to support state government with the goal of eliminating state-imposed taxes.
If passed, this measure will have no immediate impact on taxes but could lead to the elimination of state-imposed taxes if the net investment earnings of the fund become sufficient to support that outcome.
This seems pretty straightforward (basically a pension fund to offset taxes, if I’m reading it correctly), but I could picture maybe 50+% of the population having difficulty exactly grasping what they’re going for.
From what I can tell, there isn’t necessarily a limit on what can be made a ballot initiative, but it makes me feel wonder if there is a certain point where the public should or shouldn’t have a say on specific issues. If the US would enter a significant depression, and this tax program was in place, all of a sudden, Missourians would either get hit by a surprise sales tax or have to pay state tax out of pocket unexpectedly. The people that would have a hard time understanding the text of this ballot question would probably be hot disproportionately harder. I feel enough ballot questions are misleading to begin with (I typically vote against open space preservation in my area because it sounds like it pays wealthy landowners to just hold onto their property rather than sell to developers or to build sports parks for private leagues rather than preserving specific ecosystems of need), but voting on a significant structure of the tax system kinda feels like something that might be better left to experts than the average joe.
I don’t remember if I had a specific point or am just thinking out loud, but I don’t like ballot questions. It feels like the government just passing the responsibility back to us. If they do something that is stupid, they blame the people, and if an initiative is passed, I don’t believe they are compelled to act on it if I remember correctly.
Checking a few summaries, I’m not sure how I’m off on this.
A “yes” vote supports creating a permanent public endowment fund managed by the state to generate revenue, and using the earnings to eliminate state-imposed taxes when sufficient to replace them.
The Show-Me Prosperity Investment Fund would receive funds appropriated by the legislature, as well as grants and donations, and the state treasurer would be required to invest it in exchange-traded funds tied to the S&P 500. Under the amendment, no money could be appropriated from the fund until its annual investment earnings are sufficient to replace revenue generated by state taxes. It would require that the money in the fund be used solely to eliminate state taxes, including the individual income tax, the state sales and use tax, the state corporate income tax, and all other state-imposed taxes. After these taxes are eliminated, the amendment would prohibit reenacting them, unless the fund is unable to meet its obligations. (Ballotopedia)
An investment fund to theoretically eliminate state taxes for taxpayers, should the legally allowed 3% withdrawal limit cover it. If that 3% doesn’t cover it, they can institute any legal method to collect the balance. What am I missing?
So, this is the proposal the article claims is the most challenging:
This seems pretty straightforward (basically a pension fund to offset taxes, if I’m reading it correctly), but I could picture maybe 50+% of the population having difficulty exactly grasping what they’re going for.
From what I can tell, there isn’t necessarily a limit on what can be made a ballot initiative, but it makes me feel wonder if there is a certain point where the public should or shouldn’t have a say on specific issues. If the US would enter a significant depression, and this tax program was in place, all of a sudden, Missourians would either get hit by a surprise sales tax or have to pay state tax out of pocket unexpectedly. The people that would have a hard time understanding the text of this ballot question would probably be hot disproportionately harder. I feel enough ballot questions are misleading to begin with (I typically vote against open space preservation in my area because it sounds like it pays wealthy landowners to just hold onto their property rather than sell to developers or to build sports parks for private leagues rather than preserving specific ecosystems of need), but voting on a significant structure of the tax system kinda feels like something that might be better left to experts than the average joe.
I don’t remember if I had a specific point or am just thinking out loud, but I don’t like ballot questions. It feels like the government just passing the responsibility back to us. If they do something that is stupid, they blame the people, and if an initiative is passed, I don’t believe they are compelled to act on it if I remember correctly.
No, you’re absolutely fucking not reading it correctly. Good try though.
Thanks for proving the article’s point.
Care to state what you feel they read incorrectly?
I didn’t find it difficult to read, but I guess if the point is it being a college sophmore level, I’m over educated with a masters
My biggest issue with it is that I have so many unanswered questions about it. Chiefly, where is this money coming from?
Checking a few summaries, I’m not sure how I’m off on this.
An investment fund to theoretically eliminate state taxes for taxpayers, should the legally allowed 3% withdrawal limit cover it. If that 3% doesn’t cover it, they can institute any legal method to collect the balance. What am I missing?