The First Specific Proposal for HJR 173 — and What It Would Cost You

A closer look at State Rep. Darin Chappell's published plan for how HJR 173 would actually work.

For weeks, supporters of HJR 173 have been asked a simple question: what specifically will be taxed, and at what rate? State Representative Darin Chappell has now answered, publishing a specific proposal on Facebook. This is the most substantive engagement we've seen from any supporter, and it deserves to be examined carefully.

What follows is an honest look at Rep. Chappell's proposal: the math, what would be newly taxed under his plan, how it compares to what other supporters have committed to, and what voters need to understand about how the actual implementing legislation will likely look different from any single legislator's vision.

The Proposal in His Own Words

Rep. Chappell published his proposal as part of a series answering questions about HJR 173. Here it is in his own words:

On the constraints: "The broad base x the rate of taxation = the time until the income tax is eliminated. If the tax remains narrow, either the tax rate must be high, or the elimination time will be longer. Broaden the base, and the rate may be low, and still achieve income tax elimination."

On the limits: "There are boundaries which may not be crossed in the consideration. The Missouri Constitution prohibits sales taxes on the sale of homes (Art X, Sec 25). The national government prohibits sales taxes on any services funded by Medicaid. The Governor has said that he will not accept any taxes on housing, or medical care."

On his proposal: "I would suggest a sales tax rate of 6% (or less), applied to all new goods and services. I would not tax used items (not even automobiles). The resulting revenue (and the increased economic activity) would allow for an immediate reduction of the income tax, and a complete elimination thereof shortly thereafter."

The original post on Facebook:

The core of his proposal:

• A sales tax rate of 6% or less
• Applied to all new goods and services
• No tax on used items (including used automobiles)
• No tax on the sale of homes (citing Article X, Section 25 of the Missouri Constitution)
• No tax on medical care (citing federal Medicaid restrictions and the Governor's stated position)
• Local government windfalls eliminated through the offset requirement, producing what he describes as "a VERY low increase of current combined rates at the cash register"

Before we examine the specifics, we want to acknowledge something important. Rep. Chappell did what we've been asking supporters to do for weeks — he put a specific proposal on the public record. That's substantive engagement, and it deserves a substantive response. The conversation Missouri voters need to be having is exactly this kind of specifics-versus-specifics comparison, not vague assurances against vague concerns.

The Math: What "6%" Actually Means

Rep. Chappell proposes a state sales tax rate of 6% or less. To understand what this means in practical terms, it helps to look at the current rate structure and what changes.

Most discussions of tax rate changes use the smaller-sounding "percentage point" framing. Raising the state sales tax from 4.225% to 6% sounds modest in that framing. But the proportional increase — how much more Missourians would pay in state sales tax on every taxable purchase — is 42%. That's a meaningful difference in how the change actually feels to voters.

There's an important question Rep. Chappell's proposal doesn't fully clarify: whether the 6% includes the existing constitutional earmarks for Education, Conservation, and Parks/Soils, or whether those would be added on top.

Missouri's current state sales tax of 4.225% is actually four separate constitutional taxes bundled together: 3.0% for General Revenue, 1.0% for Education, 0.125% for Conservation, and 0.1% for Parks/Soils. The Education, Conservation, and Parks portions are constitutionally dedicated — they go to those specific funds and can't be redirected to General Revenue. Section 26(4) of HJR 173 specifically requires these constitutional sales tax rates to be adjusted as the base expands, so they continue to generate substantially equal revenue but at adjusted rates.

This matters for the income tax offset math:

• If 6% is total state including earmarks: Only the General Revenue portion within that 6% is available to offset the income tax. If GR stays at 3% within a 6% envelope, the available offset revenue is much smaller than supporters imply — potentially half of what a "6% offset" framing would suggest. The earmarks must continue to receive their dedicated revenue from the expanded base.
• If 6% is GR-only (not including earmarks): The total state sales tax rate Missourians actually pay would be approximately 7.225% — the 6% GR plus the constitutionally-protected earmark rates. That's a larger total rate increase than the headline "6%" suggests.

Combined with average local sales tax of 4.22%, the total rate Missourians actually pay at the register would rise from approximately 8.4% today to somewhere between 10.2% (under the more favorable interpretation) and 11.4% (under the GR-only interpretation). In some Missouri jurisdictions with higher local rates, the combined total could approach or exceed 13%.

Either way, the constitutional earmarks have to be preserved. Voters considering Rep. Chappell's proposal — or any HJR 173 implementation — should understand that the "6%" headline rate is doing different work depending on how the earmarks are handled, and that the available income tax offset is smaller than a simple reading of the rate would suggest.

What Would Be Newly Taxed

Rep. Chappell's proposal applies the new rate to "all new goods and services" with the specific exclusions he names. This means a wide range of services Missourians currently use without paying sales tax would carry the new tax under his proposal.

The list below is representative, not exhaustive. Treatment of some categories under current law has nuances (some telecommunications services and commercial utilities already carry sales tax, for example), and the precise scope under implementing legislation would need to be specified. But the directional picture is clear: under "all new goods and services" with Rep. Chappell's stated exclusions, these are the kinds of things Missouri families would start paying sales tax on:

For a typical Missouri family, the new taxes on these services would add up. Even a modest pattern of household services use — daycare, regular haircuts, occasional veterinary visits, home maintenance, a few subscriptions — could easily generate hundreds of dollars in new annual sales tax under this proposal, on top of the increased rate applied to existing taxable purchases.

It's worth understanding that what we've shown here is what would likely be added under Rep. Chappell's specific proposal. Other supporters of HJR 173 have committed to different exemption lists, which leads us to the next issue.

What Other Supporters Have Promised — That Rep. Chappell Hasn't

Aaron Hedlund, chief economist at the Show-Me Institute and Chief Economist for Domestic Policy at the White House Council of Economic Advisors, has publicly committed to keeping rent, healthcare, childcare, and groceries exempt under HJR 173 implementation. Rep. Chappell's proposal addresses homes, medical care, and used items — but doesn't explicitly address childcare, groceries, professional services, real estate services connected to home sales, telecommunications expansions, or personal services.

This isn't a criticism of Rep. Chappell. He's putting his own proposal on the record, which is more than other supporters have done. But it surfaces a problem voters need to understand: same amendment, different supporters, different exemption sets, none in the constitutional text.

The Lobbyist Problem

Here's what supporters of HJR 173 haven't been discussing, but voters need to understand: if the amendment passes, every industry in Missouri will have a direct financial reason to lobby the legislature for their specific exemption.

This isn't speculation. It's already happening. Greg Rea of Rea Funeral Chapel and Cremation Services has posted publicly that the Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association will be requesting that funeral services be exempted from new sales taxes.

To be clear, the funeral services industry is doing what any well-run trade association would do under the same circumstances. They have a sympathetic argument: grieving families shouldn't face additional tax burdens during one of life's hardest moments. We're not criticizing them for protecting their customers and their business.

The problem isn't with the funeral industry. The problem is structural. The amendment authorizes the legislature to tax "any goods and services" — meaning every industry has the same incentive, the same motivation, and the same opportunity to lobby for exemption. Funeral services are simply the first publicly visible example of a dynamic that will define how implementing legislation actually gets written.

Consider what this looks like at scale. Childcare providers will lobby for exemption (children's costs). Veterinarians will lobby (people love their pets). Auto repair shops will lobby (essential service for working families). Plumbers, electricians, and HVAC technicians will lobby (home necessities). Hairdressers and barbers will lobby (small business, every Missourian uses them). Lawyers and accountants will lobby (sympathetic small-business clients). Real estate agents will lobby (housing market impact). Pet groomers will lobby. Funeral directors are lobbying. The list will be long.

Some of these industries will succeed. Some won't. The pattern is predictable: industries with strong existing relationships in Jefferson City, well-funded trade associations, and effective lobbyists will protect their customers from the new tax. Industries without those resources won't. The result is a sales tax base shaped by lobbying success rather than principled policy — the kind of swiss-cheese tax code that even supporters of HJR 173 acknowledge is bad policy.

But here's the mathematical reality voters need to understand about every exemption granted: the revenue has to come from somewhere.

This is the constraint that makes the lobbyist dynamic genuinely consequential. Every successful exemption shifts the burden onto whatever's left in the taxable base. Funeral services exempted? The rate has to go higher on other services to compensate, or some of Rep. Chappell's other proposed exemptions (homes, medical care, used items) get reconsidered. Childcare exempted as Hedlund has committed? More services have to carry the load, or the rate climbs. Each round of exemptions tightens the math on everything that remains.

This is why voters cannot evaluate any individual exemption promise in isolation. The right question isn't "will rent be taxed?" or "will medical care be taxed?" but "if these categories aren't taxed, what carries the burden instead, and at what rate?" That answer changes every time another industry successfully lobbies for exemption.

Rep. Chappell's proposal, however sincerely intended, cannot survive this process unchanged. Even taking him entirely at his word that his vision is "all new goods and services" with his specific exclusions, the implementing legislation will be the product of committee markup, floor amendments, lobbyist pressure from every affected industry, conference negotiations, and political dynamics that haven't played out yet. The Chappell who proposes specific exemptions today isn't the same as the legislative outcome that emerges from a process not yet underway.

What Voters Are Actually Approving

This is where the trust question becomes concrete. Voters approving HJR 173 are not approving Rep. Chappell's proposal, Hedlund's exemption list, or the Governor's stated positions. Those are all statements of intent from individuals who don't control the legislative process by themselves.

What voters are approving is the framework: the constitutional authority for the legislature to expand sales tax to any goods and services, with the requirement that new revenue be offset against income tax reduction. The specifics — which exemptions hold, at what rate, on what timeline, with which industries successfully lobbying for protection — all of that gets decided in implementing legislation that hasn't been written yet.

Implementing legislation can take up to five years to be enacted under HJR 173. During that window, the Hancock Amendment's voter-approval protections (Section 18(e)) are specifically suspended for qualifying legislation. That means the legislature can pass tax increases authorized by HJR 173 without the voter-approval requirement Missourians put in place to constrain exactly that kind of legislative action.

Five years is a long time in politics. Legislators change. Governors change. Lobbying alliances shift. Economic circumstances evolve. The legislature voters are trusting in 2026 may not be the same legislature making the operative decisions in 2029 or 2030.

Where We Stand

For Further Reading

This article is part of Act for Missouri's ongoing analysis of HJR 173. For more on the math behind the rate-and-base scenarios, see our methodology document. For our response to the "income tax is hidden, sales tax is transparent" argument, see "Which Tax Can You Actually Count?". For our response to the "income tax is already in the ham" argument, see "Following the Ham". For comprehensive analysis of HJR 173 and what it does, see our special coverage hub.

We appreciate Rep. Chappell putting a specific proposal on the public record. The conversation Missouri voters deserve is exactly this kind of specifics-versus-specifics engagement. We hope other supporters follow his example — and that voters take the time to read carefully what each supporter is actually committing to, what's in the constitutional text, and what depends on legislative dynamics that haven't played out yet.