U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2010, 10:30 AM
 
815 posts, read 1,955,494 times
Reputation: 399

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBoxing View Post
I didn't know that either unless you meant disabled, social security earnings etc. You got a link?

Here is a nice simplistic powerpoint that explains the earnings tax: http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/citym...earningtax.pdf
It was an article I saw on Google news yesterday and no, it isn't for SS or disability. It was about exemptions granted to two companies, mentioned by name, as cutting special deals with the city, one for locating in KC, the other for staying in KC.

I could possibly find it on my work computer's history, but I'm not at work today.

But!!! Do I get an exemption from the etax on a vacation day, a day in which I'm NOT using the KC streets, police, fire or any other thing, which is the whole justification for the etax?

NOT ON YOUR LIFE.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2010, 10:34 AM
 
29,984 posts, read 41,520,912 times
Reputation: 12817
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969 View Post
It could help KC and StL by creating a more friendly business environment but whether it helps or hurts is beside the point.

The point is, why do KC and StL need to tax people who do not live there, without their consent, to fund their city operations? No other city in Missouri has an etax, so why can't these two fund their operations in the same manner as every other Missouri city?
The tax is for anyone who lives or works in the cities. Why? Because those people use city services whether they live there or not. We have tourism taxes for non-residents at hotels, rental car, airports, resturants, etc... as well.

Without their consent? Well, if you don't actually live in KCMO then no one forces an individual to choose a job within KCMO do they? So yes, by choosing employment in an area where there is an earnings tax one actually does give consent.

Given the current economic climate, foreclosure rates, combined with falling home values, increased property taxes make less sense than the earnings tax. It spreads the burden among a greater number who actually use city services.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2010, 10:52 AM
 
815 posts, read 1,955,494 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I always thought that the only way to get out of the etax was when you didn't work in the city. For example, I traveled a lot while working in KCMO. Over the past 10 years, I could have filed for a refund every year for the days that I worked outside the city. It just never seemed worth the hassel though. Even if you worked outside of KCMO ten percent, it just didn't' amount to much.
That 'traveling exemption' is a bunch of pure BS. Why does a plaid-suit glad-hander get out of paying it? Does an airline pilot or OTR truck driver get out of it, too?

Quote:
KCMO has begun to use the etax as an incentive to compete with Kansas though which is what is going on with the crown center insurance company. MO won't give the incentives KS does, so the city is looking at ways to do it alone. So in that case, the city is proposing to let the company keep half the etax its employees normally would send to the city. That incentive still comes nowhere close to what KS offers, but it's something.

The city did this to keep H&R Block from going to JoCo as well.
How is this constitutional? Are H&R Blocks employees somehow more special than, say, Lathrop and Gage's? Doesn't the etax itself violate the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment by depriving people (those who cannot vote to institute or repeal the tax) of 'property', i.e., their money? Does the granting of exemptions from the etax to certain, 'preferred' groups of people violate the Equal Protection clause by applying the law differently to different groups of people?

Quote:
And what if KC didn't' have the etax? I'm telling you, companies don't care about the etax, especially when threatening to move to KS because the increase in state taxes is far more costly and most of the etax comes straight from employees, not the company itself.
You're right, except as a recruiting tool for new employees. The company is just a transfer agent.

Quote:
But if KCMO didn't have the etax, it would not even have that incentive to offer. As much as KCMO doesn't want to open that can of worms and have every company asking for the same privilege, at least they have it as a last resort now to attempt to fend off Kansas.

Plus the etax is one way KCMO gets revenue from all the millionaire athletes and entertainers that live or visit the city. Again, if they are paying, the average KCMO resident will pick up that tab as well.
So....it IS all about getting someone else to pay the bill. Would KCMO be better off if those millionaire athletes and entertainers did not live in the city? There's one sure way to drive them out, and that is to feel you have a right to the money they've earned.

Last edited by cp1969; 09-24-2010 at 11:02 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2010, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,063 posts, read 30,409,467 times
Reputation: 3789
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
most of the etax comes straight from employees, not the company itself.
This!

Will someone please explain how the e-tax is bad for business when the business isn't paying it? How will this entice business?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2010, 10:57 AM
 
815 posts, read 1,955,494 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
The tax is for anyone who lives or works in the cities. Why? Because those people use city services whether they live there or not. We have tourism taxes for non-residents at hotels, rental car, airports, resturants, etc... as well.
Yeah, I understand that argument. I do not accept it because it's false; the people you describe place no undue wear-and-tear on the city's infrastructure. I also don't believe people should have to PAY to use a rental car or restaurant.

Quote:
Without their consent? Well, if you don't actually live in KCMO then no one forces an individual to choose a job within KCMO do they? So yes, by choosing employment in an area where there is an earnings tax one actually does give consent.
And conversely, if the etax should disappear, there is nothing that says KCMO residents, who don't like paying their full share of their city's tax bill, can't move elsewhere, either.

Quote:
Given the current economic climate, foreclosure rates, combined with falling home values, increased property taxes make less sense than the earnings tax. It spreads the burden among a greater number who actually use city services.
How about the economic burden it places on people and other communities who pay not only their FULL tax burden, but part of KCMO's? Think that's helping them out financially in the current economic climate? I could use a 1% raise; I might actually spend some of it in KC.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2010, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,097 posts, read 22,616,493 times
Reputation: 6330
cp1969, do you own a business in the city or are you just an employee in the city? I thought you owned a business in KCMO for some reason.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2010, 11:12 AM
 
815 posts, read 1,955,494 times
Reputation: 399
Both. I am a virtually silent partner in a little rinky-dink commercial building slumlord operation and I also work in KCMO.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2010, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,097 posts, read 22,616,493 times
Reputation: 6330
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969 View Post
Both. I am a virtually silent partner in a little rinky-dink commercial building slumlord operation and I also work in KCMO.
I was just wondering how the etax works with business income. Do they tax you on gross or net income if you have income other than a w-9?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2010, 11:27 AM
 
815 posts, read 1,955,494 times
Reputation: 399
As I said, I'm a virtually silent partner in that business. I *think* the etax only applies to wages, and we have no employees, so there is none.

edit: Maybe I misunderstood your question. I do not draw a salary from that business. The whole idea behind it was to buy commercial properties, rent them, and sell when the property appreciated.

It was a flawed business plan from the start. I've got my hopes pinned on a tornado now.

In spite of being "on vacation" I have a lot of work to do, mostly mowing. At least it's a beautiful day for it. I will be back later to rant and rave some more.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2010, 03:01 PM
 
1,783 posts, read 3,731,936 times
Reputation: 1385
St. Louis and Kansas City carry an unfair burden that the earnings tax negates. The burden of having the region's largest poor population, the most homeless, old infrastructure, and being the largest regional centers for commerce and events. Neither St. Louis or Kansas City has the taxpayer base to take on this burden in addition to actually being a functioning city. Then again neither does (apparently) New York, LA, Portland, Las Vegas Philadelphia, among many others. The whole region benefits from the main cities carrying this burden.

If there was a serious constitutional argument to made against earnings tax, I would think it would've played out a long time ago, and it probably would have been brought forth by those poor people paying 4.54% in Philiadelphia and not 1% in St. Louis and KC.

How about this...we'll get rid of the earnings tax but raise property and sales tax rates so that the poor can no longer afford to live here and then they can move out to the suburbs. Agreed?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top