Tags

, , ,

Because of the environment post Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [pdf], it ain’t a Democracy, it’s a plutocracy. And Rex Sinquefield appears determined to prove that.

Yesterday we spotted this Internets ad on a progressive web site. We kid you not.

“…on local earnings taxes…” Really? So this is a local issue? Then why would a billionaire spend millions to get it on a statewide ballot? Just asking. We should label this as some form of cognitive dissonance, at least on the part of the bankroller and the right wingnut initiative industrial complex. And for the latter that would include being recipients of wingnut welfare.

From the Turner Report:

Friday, October 01, 2010

Sinquefield contributes $3.9 million to Let Voters Decide

Let Voters Decide appears to be a somewhat misleading name.

Considering that he has already poured more than $10.6 million into the earnings tax issue, it appears retired billionaire Rex Sinquefield is planning to make the decision on his own.

Sinquefield passed the $10 million mark today when he contributed $3.9 million, which looks to be the largest amount donated in one chunk to any Missouri candidate or cause, according to Missouri Ethics Commission documents. Let Voters Decide, a Sinquefield initiative is pushing for repeal of earnings taxes in St. Louis and Kansas City.

[emphasis added]

The effect of proposition A on Kansas City and St. Louis – from Amy Blouin of the non-profit Missouri Budget Project:

Proposition A could harm all Missourians

….Proposition A threatens to eliminate as much as 32 percent of St. Louis’ general revenue and 38 percent of Kansas City’s. To put it in perspective, that would be almost the exact amount each city spends on its police department.

The options for replacing that missing revenue are limited. Cities would be forced to choose between eliminating services, instituting fees on everything from fire and police protection to charging for admission to cultural attractions like museums and the zoo, or would have to significantly increase their local sales taxes, property taxes or both. None of these are great options, particularly during an economic recession.

St. Louis, for example, would have to more than triple its current local general revenue sales tax rate, increasing the rate from 1.375 percent to 5.3 percent. This amount would be in addition to dedicated local sales taxes and the state sales tax rate, increasing St. Louis’ effective state and local sales tax to as much as 12.201 percent.

In Kansas City, the current local sales tax rate of 2.375 percent is already dedicated to specific funding needs. To provide funding needed to replace the earnings tax, Kansas City would need to more than double that rate to 5.4 percent. Added to the state rate and the Jackson County levy, Kansas City’s state and local sales tax rate would become 10.75 percent.

But this size of increase could act to significantly deter shopping within the cities. As some shoppers may seek to avoid the higher sales tax rate, not only would local business be harmed, but state and local tax revenue would be affected as well. Both cities could instead enhance the local property tax rates. However, property tax would need to increase nearly 400 percent to fill the gap….

You don’t hear that from the ads run by Let Voters a Billionaire Decide, do you?

Previously:

The definition of obscenity (October 1, 2010)

Let’s tell you ’bout their best friends (June 23, 2010)

Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (r): the base reaches out and opens up their wallets (June 22, 2010)

Even more millions here and even more millions there… (June 21, 2010)

A million here and a million there… (June 4, 2010)