Q&A session on Amendment 5 held at Joplin City Hall

Missouri's Amendment 5 is getting a lot of attention and area residents had the chance to ask questions at Joplin's City Hall Monday evening.

The proposed constitutional amendment would eventually eliminate the state's individual income tax by allowing lawmakers to replace that revenue with expanded sales and use taxes.

If approved by voters, Amendment 5 would require the Missouri General Assembly to phase out the state's individual income tax as revenue growth allows.

The amendment would also authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes, ease constitutional restrictions on taxing goods and services, and require local governments to reduce tax rates if higher sales tax collections generate additional revenue, without reducing funding for public schools.

Joplin State Rep. Lane Roberts supports it but understands the cautious opinions of area citizens.

"It's not a simple piece of legislation and it's truly transformative. I mean, we're talking about changing the way the state receives its funding. It's a big change and we shouldn't do it lightly," he added. "This is something everybody's passionate about as they should be. It has that kind of monumental change in how we do business."

Other Republicans are also onboard.

"What Amendment 5 essentially says is that for the purposes of eliminating the income tax, the General Assembly will be able to replace income tax revenue with sales tax revenue," State Sen. Curtis Trent said.

Trent said the amendment includes "guardrails" requiring the transition to remain revenue neutral for both the state and local governments. He said any increase in local sales tax revenue would have to be offset by reducing either sales tax rates or property taxes.

Supporters say the amendment simply gives lawmakers the constitutional authority to begin eliminating the income tax while requiring any changes to remain revenue neutral.

Americans for Prosperity Missouri is all for it. Camelia Peterson, legislative director for Americans for Prosperity Missouri, said the organization has advocated for ending Missouri's income tax for years and has spent the past year and a half holding town halls across the state to educate voters about the proposal.

"We have been looking to eliminate the income tax for a very long time," Peterson said. "This is a big change, and it's easier to answer people's questions in person and have those conversations."

Peterson said the group continued its outreach after lawmakers revised the legislation this year and expressed satisfaction that the measure ultimately reached the statewide ballot.

Opponents of Amendment 5 have argued the proposal would primarily benefit wealthy Missourians and have described it as a "bait and switch." Peterson disagreed, saying those criticisms are based on misunderstandings about Missouri's current tax structure.

She argued Missouri's sales tax system contains more than 200 exemptions and loopholes that favor select industries and businesses while placing a disproportionate burden on lower-income residents, who spend a greater share of their income on taxable goods.

"The idea is that we broaden the tax base and make how we tax people more fair," Peterson said.

Peterson said higher-income residents generally spend more on services, which she noted are largely exempt from Missouri's sales tax because of a voter-approved constitutional provision adopted a decade ago.

She also contended that existing income tax provisions already provide greater benefits to wealthier taxpayers through deductions and other tax preference.

Others who came to the town hall were simply wanting more information.

Much of the concern centers on the possibility that sales tax revenue currently dedicated to local programs approved by voters could instead be redirected to help replace state income tax revenue. Critics argue that could create uncertainty for programs that rely on those funds and undermine commitments made directly to taxpayers through previous ballot measures.

Participants in recent discussions said they remain skeptical because key details about how the tax transition would work have not been fully explained. Several emphasized that lawmakers should provide more transparency about the proposal's long-term financial effects before major changes are implemented.

Opposition to the proposal has come from across the political spectrum, with both Republican- and Democratic-affiliated groups expressing reservations. Those concerns reflect broader questions about the amendment's potential impact on state finances, local governments and taxpayer-funded services.

Critics say additional information is needed to determine which programs could be affected, how revenue would be replaced and whether existing voter-approved funding would remain protected if the amendment is approved.

Residents also pointed to Missouri's existing tax burden, with one attendee citing a recent retail receipt showing combined city, county, state and special district sales taxes totaling roughly 10% to 11%.

The amendment's official ballot language states there is no direct fiscal impact on state or local governments, though any implementing legislation could have an unknown effect on future tax revenue.

State agencies estimate implementation would reduce income tax check-off donations by about $57,000 annually and cost at least $100,000 to implement.

Opponents, like "Protect MO Taxpayers" says "Amendment 5 is a bait-and-switch power grab by politicians. It promises to cut your income tax — but lets politicians triple your sales tax without your vote."

Following opening remarks from lawmakers, residents asked questions about how the proposal would affect retirees, local governments, schools and everyday taxpayers.