STLPR0%

St. Louis earnings tax again up for a vote on April 7 35%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

3/30/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 17.1% saturation with 61 hits. Analysis detected 637 faulty-reasoning hits from 357 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.6% and a BS Rank of 35% (14,250 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.10% of the article peer group.

St. 
Louis residents will again decide whether they want to retain a tax that makes up one-third of the city’s general revenue. 
Proposition E is on the April ballot because of a state law that requires a vote on the earnings tax every five years. 
The 1% levy is paid by those who live or work in the city. 
A yes vote leaves the tax in place. 
If city residents vote no, the tax would phase out over 10 years. 
A kickoff rally earlier this month for the campaign to keep the tax in place brought together politicians and police and fire department representatives, as well as labor officials and members. 
It’s been one of the few points of agreement between Mayor Cara Spencer and the St. 
Louis Metropolitan Police Department as they spar over a $250 million budget request from the state board that oversees the department. 
"We are going to disagree about how we carve this pot up,” the mayor said. 
“But we all do emphatically agree that without the earnings tax, it would be catastrophic for the city of St. 
Louis.” 
Spencer said she knows the city needs to look for alternate sources of revenue. 
The tax has been under pressure recently as people who work from home claim refunds, though data from January show the pace of refunds is slowing. 
In addition, state lawmakers regularly introduce legislation that limits who would have to pay the earnings tax or makes other changes that would reduce the amount of revenue it generates. 
“We do have some work to do to make sure that we have a more robust stream of revenue going forward, and that's something that you'll be hearing from us as we move forward through the next few years,” Spencer said. 
She did not rule out an earnings tax increase or adopting new taxes but promised a “robust community-centered conversation” before advancing any proposals. 
Then-Mayor Tishaura Jones created a task force in 2024 to study the city’s revenue picture. 
The group met several times but did not release a required report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.9%This article: 7.3%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic7.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias11.5%This article: 11.8%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect11.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.5%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias11.5%This article: 5.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias5.6%This article: 9.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias7.3%This article: 4.5%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.6%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.8%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization11.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.7%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon8.7%This article: 17.1%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion17.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.4%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 6.4%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading6.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote4.2%This article: 4.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.2%This article: 4.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice4.2%This article: 11.5%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination11.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

357 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker32%attributed speech243writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 15 words • 100.0% coverageCara Spencer • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 1 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 41 words • 100.0% coverageCara Spencer • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cara Spencer

87%flagged-word coverage
114 attributed words100% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Indoctrination+36.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cara Spencer: 36.0%36.0%Unattributed Quote+13.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cara Spencer: 13.2%13.2%Quote-first Misdirection+13.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cara Spencer: 13.2%13.2%Biased Writer Voice+13.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cara Spencer: 13.2%13.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.