Hearing update
What the Senate Hearing on HJR 173/174 Confirmed
The Senate Economic and Workforce Development hearing on HJR 173/174 gave Missourians a much clearer picture of the fight over this proposal. It did not settle the biggest questions. In many ways, it confirmed them. Supporters again framed the resolution as a path to eliminating the income tax, but the hearing repeatedly showed that the real replacement-tax details, exemptions, rates, and burden-shifting questions are still being left to future legislation.
Listen to this article
Prefer audio? You can listen to the full article here.
Audio Version
Open audio in new tabBig takeaway: The core dispute is not whether eliminating the income tax is good or bad. We want that, the real question is whether Missourians should be asked to change the Constitution first and trust future lawmakers to write the real tax package later.
Listen / transparency
You can listen to the full Senate hearing here. And because the Senate still does not offer a public video feed of committee hearings, please also see our transparency page:
Full Hearing Audio
File: /audio/Economic and Workforce Development hearing on HJR 173-174.mp3
How to use this page
This article is written for both people who follow Missouri politics closely and people who are just trying to understand what happened. The main text tracks the hearing in detail. The callout boxes explain the practical meaning in plain language.
What happened at the hearing
Representative Davidson again presented the proposal as a two-part approach. He said Section 4(d) is the gradual, growth-trigger path to eliminating the income tax over time, while Section 26 exists for those who want to “go about that process faster” by opening a later conversation about replacement revenue through what he called a “narrowly tailored guardrailed consumption tax.”
That matters because it makes plain what critics have been saying all along: this is not just a formula for lowering income taxes. It is also a constitutional opening for later tax restructuring.
The hearing then alternated between supporters and opponents, and by the end the lines were clearer than ever. Supporters stressed growth, competitiveness, and letting the people vote. Opponents and informational witnesses kept coming back to the same unresolved issues: future service taxes, missing specifics, constitutional carve-outs, burden shifting, transportation funding, and whether the public is being shown the finished plan before being asked to vote.
What was new in this hearing
The sponsor was more explicit about the two-track structure
Davidson clearly separated the growth-trigger mechanism from the optional future tax-restructuring conversation. That makes it harder to say this is only about growth.
The “goods and services” language was put directly on the record
Senator Lewis had Davidson read the sentence allowing state and local sales and use taxes to be expanded by legislation to transactions involving any goods and services.
Business hesitation was more visible
AIM, the Greater Kansas City Chamber / Civic Council, and others did not simply say yes or no. They highlighted uncertainty, missing specifics, and the need for guardrails in the Constitution itself.
Transportation concerns were sharpened
Jeff Glenn of Missourians for Transportation Investment argued that the remaining Article IV, Sections 30(b), 30(c), and 30(d) language still creates exposure for transportation-related funds if this amendment passes.
What people said — and what the bill actually guarantees
Instead of just listing names, this section groups the hearing around the arguments that mattered most. Each issue below uses three layers:
- What supporters said
- What others at the hearing said
- What the legislation actually states
The first argument: “This is just about eliminating the income tax”
What supporters said
Representative Davidson described Section 4(d) as the gradual, growth-trigger path to eliminating the income tax over time.
“Section 4(d)” is the gradual path, and Section 26 exists if people want to “go about that process faster” through a “narrowly tailored guardrailed consumption tax.”
What others at the hearing said
The same hearing also made clear that Section 26 is where the real fight is. Informational and opposition witnesses kept focusing on that second track because it is where many of the most important details still remain unsettled.
Opposition and informational testimony kept returning to the same practical objection: the hearing was being asked to evaluate a constitutional framework while the finished replacement-tax plan was still not on the table.
What the legislation actually states
The bill does not only create a growth-based formula to reduce personalincome tax rates. Critically, it also creates constitutional room for later tax restructuring. That is why critics keep saying this is not just a simple growth-based tax-cut proposal.
The second argument: “This does not tax services”
What supporters said
Supporters emphasized that the resolution itself does not impose a tax on services right now.
Supporters repeatedly stressed that the HJR itself does not change the sales-tax code right now; it only creates the constitutional framework for later action.
What others at the hearing said
Senator Lewis had Davidson read the sentence that matters most.
“State and local sales and use taxes may be expanded by legislation to impose taxes on transactions involving any goods and services.”
What the legislation actually states
The bill does not tax services today. But it clearly creates future constitutional authority for lawmakers to expand taxes to goods and services later. Both parts of that statement matter.
The third argument: “It is revenue neutral”
What supporters said
Supporters again framed the proposal as revenue neutral and presented it as a responsible restructuring rather than a fiscal gamble.
Supporters repeatedly returned to the idea that the package could be structured in a way that does not increase total taxes overall.
What others at the hearing said
Business, informational, and opposition witnesses kept pressing the same point: the public still has not seen the actual replacement-tax package that would prove how this claim is supposed to work in practice.
The concern was not just the slogan “revenue neutral,” but the absence of the actual service list, exemptions, offsets, and rates that would make such a claim testable.
What the legislation actually states
The constitutional text does not give Missourians the finished replacement-tax plan. It leaves the service list, exemptions, rates, and offsets to later legislation. “Revenue neutral” remains more of a projected outcome than a fully specified public plan.
The fourth argument: “The people get to decide”
What supporters said
Supporters repeatedly argued that this is simply about giving the voters a chance to decide.
The pro side kept returning to the same theme: put it on the ballot and let the people decide.
What others at the hearing said
Opponents and informational witnesses kept coming back to the same practical problem: the public is not being shown the finished package.
The most important details are still missing, which means the vote would be on a framework rather than a fully known tax plan. The voters are being asked to give their approval without seeing the complete picture and will have no real recourse if they don't like the final implementation.
What the legislation actually states
The legislation guarantees a ballot measure. It does not guarantee that voters will have the actual later service-tax structure, exemption list, and replacement-tax details in front of them before they vote on the constitutional change itself.
The fifth argument: “We can trust future lawmakers to do this correctly”
What supporters said
Much of the supportive case relied on the idea that future lawmakers can build a careful package, protect certain groups, and structure the details responsibly.
The hearing repeatedly drifted toward what future lawmakers could do well rather than what HJR 173 itself requires them to do.
What others at the hearing said
Informational and opposition testimony repeatedly asked for those guardrails to be written into the Constitution itself instead of being left to later discretion.
That hesitation was especially clear from business and stakeholder witnesses who were not reflexively opposed to tax reform as a concept, but still wanted more specifics and stronger guardrails.
What the legislation actually states
The legislation leaves many of the fairness protections, exemptions, and implementation choices to future legislative action. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is one of the clearest themes that came out of the hearing itself.
The sixth argument: “The bill guarantees future tax changes will really go toward eliminating income tax”
What supporters implied
The supportive case often treated future tax changes under the amendment as part of a genuine and disciplined plan to reduce and eliminate the personal income tax.
The public pitch suggests future revenue changes under this amendment would be tightly tied to real income-tax relief.
What others at the hearing said
Lisa Pannett of Armorvine focused on the amendment’s definitions and pointed out that future legislation only has to be anticipated, directly or indirectly, to help reduce and eliminate the state individual income tax. Her point was that this is a very soft standard and does not require the same bill to produce a concrete income-tax cut.
Her core objection was that the definition section gives lawmakers too much room to claim a future tax increase is related to income-tax elimination without requiring a hard, immediate, measurable reduction in the same legislation.
What the legislation actually states
The amendment does not create a strict dollar-for-dollar lockbox or a same-bill requirement. It uses a softer legislative-finding framework, which is exactly why critics say the future legislature is being given too much room.
“For the purposes of this section, the phrase ‘for the purpose of reducing and eliminating the state individual income tax’, with respect to legislation enacted by the general assembly, means that the legislation expressly states the general assembly’s finding that such legislation is anticipated, directly or indirectly, to lead to the reduction and elimination of the state individual income tax and the reduction of local tax rates.” -Section 26(2) of HJR 173
The transportation issue was not imagined — it was raised directly
Yes, the transportation-money issue came up directly in the hearing.
Jeff Glenn, listed on the official witness sheet and identified in the hearing as speaking for transportation interests, testified in opposition to the line referring to Article IV, Sections 30(b), 30(c), and 30(d). He explained that Section 30(a), dealing with motor fuel tax, had already been removed from the House committee substitute, but said that did not go far enough. He warned that the remaining language still creates a problem because Section 30(b) deals with how transportation-related revenues are used, Section 30(c) deals primarily with transit, and Section 30(d) is the anti-diversion language that prevents transportation money from being moved to other parts of the budget.
That does not prove that diversion will absolutely happen. But it does prove the concern is grounded enough that transportation groups are taking it seriously and that at least one organized opponent believes the remaining language could expose transportation-related money to future non-transportation uses.
Why this matters: if this were only about eliminating income tax through growth, there would be no obvious reason for the bill to brush up against transportation-dedication language at all. The fact that it does is one more sign that this is a larger restructuring proposal than supporters often imply.
What confirmed our concerns
The real tax plan still comes later
The sponsor again said the HJR itself does not change the sales-tax code now, but authorizes the later conversation. That is the blank-check concern in plain terms.
Supporters still rely on future lawmakers
Again and again, the pro case depended on what future lawmakers could do well, not what the amendment itself guarantees.
Seniors and fixed-income Missourians remain exposed
Retiree and rural testimony reinforced that moving the burden toward goods and services can hit people who already pay little or no income tax now.
Vagueness is not just a grassroots complaint
Business and informational witnesses said the same thing in more polished language: they still do not know the actual plan, and that makes them nervous.
What supporters still could not answer from the bill itself
- Which services would be taxed later and which would be exempt?
- What actual rates would be needed if lawmakers broaden the base?
- What protections for seniors or fixed-income Missourians are actually written into the amendment itself?
- How would local governments and local tax rates be affected in practice?
- How would transportation-dedicated funds be protected if the Article IV carve-out remains?
- Why should voters approve the framework before seeing the finished implementation plan?
One sentence to remember: The Senate hearing did not remove the biggest concern. It confirmed it: supporters still want Missourians to approve the constitutional framework now, while many of the most important tax decisions remain for later.
Bottom line
Again, the debate is not about whether eliminating personal income tax is a good idea. Most everyone would love to see it eliminated. The real question is about whether Missouri voters should be asked to change constitutional protections first, while the actual replacement-tax package is still unsettled.
Supporters argued growth, competitiveness, and giving the people a chance to vote. Opponents and informational witnesses kept returning to the same problem: the actual service list, exemptions, rates, and burden shifts are still not in front of the public.
That is why this hearing was so important. It did not clear up the biggest concern. It confirmed it.