Permanently eliminating Missouri's income tax moves forward with Senate approval 55%

By Sarah Kellogg38%

4/16/2026, 7:00:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 18.9% saturation with 185 hits. Analysis detected 781 faulty-reasoning hits from 978 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.6% and a BS Rank of 55% (10,031 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.20% of the article peer group.

A proposed constitutional amendment that authorizes Missouri lawmakers to modify sales and use taxes  including raising them  in order to eliminate the state income tax is possibly one step away from going on the ballot. 
Senators in the early hours of Thursday voted 18-11 to pass the House resolution. 
Because the Senate made changes to the resolution, it now goes back to the House. 
If the House adopts the Senate version of the resolution and passes it, it then will go on the ballot. 
If the House doesn't like the changes, it can request a conference committee to reach a compromise. 
The passage of the resolution by the Senate comes with four weeks remaining in the legislation session. 
The resolution is likely to pass the House without it needing more work. 
The proposed amendment is also a priority for Gov. 
Mike Kehoe. 
Proponents of eliminating Missouri's individual income tax say it will make the state more competitive and appealing for businesses and people looking to move to the state. 
Opponents say large hikes on sales and use taxes would be necessary to make up for the billions the state will lose by eliminating the tax. 
Additionally, some organizations like AARP say that since most seniors do not pay income taxes in the state, this change would impose more taxes on them. 
Three Republicans joined Senate Democrats in voting against the bill. 
However, Democrats did not lead a lengthy filibuster to obstruct the legislation. 
Before the vote, Sen. 
Curtis Trent, R-Battlefield, spoke to Stephen Webber, D-Columbia, about the changes. 
“I would characterize it a Senate-wide effort. 
There's a lot of folks that were involved in the negotiation, the discussion surrounding this, and I think that the process worked very well,” Trent said. 
Webber agreed on the process but voted against the bill. 
Speaking later on Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Doug Beck, D-Affton, said the proposed amendment paves the way for the largest tax increase in Missouri history. 
“Replacing the income tax with higher sales tax will mean more taxes for most Missourians and the people hit the hardest are retirees, senior citizens and disabled veterans who pay no income tax now, but will pay higher sales tax on doctors visits and prescription medicines,” Beck said. 
According to the legislation, the General Assembly would eliminate the income tax by requiring reductions to the top rate of the individual income tax based on revenue growth. 
Higher sales and use taxes would likely be necessary to make up for that eventual loss of state revenue. 
One of the major changes the Senate made to the proposed amendment is the elimination of the mechanism that would have automatically lowered the state income tax. 
Instead, to eliminate the income tax, lawmakers would have to enact policy changes themselves. 
While they could have done that in the House version, it's now the only way they can lower it. 
Beck said it was a priority for Senate Democrats to get that automatic reduction mechanism off the bill. 
“In a lot of ways, it wasn't fiscally responsible,” Beck said. 
Meanwhile, Trent said the automatic reduction would have eliminated the income tax but taken a much longer time. 
“While it still would be great policy to eliminate the income tax 30 years from now, or 50 years from now, much of the benefit that we're going to derive from this policy economically would not occur on a timeframe that would be meaningful to the public,” Trent said. 
Lawmakers would have a five-year window to expand transaction-based taxes, like sales taxes, to make up for revenue lost by eliminating the income tax. 
Asked whether lawmakers could simply decide not to change the tax policy in those five years, Trent says the amendment does require lawmakers to take action. 
“The enforceability of that, I think, is not absolute. 
So, there's probably an avenue in which that could happen,” Trent said. 
“But I think that if the people of Missouri vote to authorize this proposal, to move forward, I think that the pressure to do something and to do something in line with this proposal is going to be very high.” 
The resolution also requires that once the income tax was eliminated, lawmakers would be prohibited from reenacting any state individual income tax. 
Most Senate Republicans voted for the resolution, including Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville. 
“It's time to be bold. 
It's time to be courageous. 
It's time to step out of faith and it's not blind faith. 
We see the states that are doing it, and it's the ones with no income tax, it's the ones with this exact same system,” Brattin said. 
Sen. 
Joe Nicola, R-Grain Valley, said income tax isn't the only factor businesses look at when choosing where to settle. 
“They look at the cost of living. 
They look at schools, property taxes, home values, not just an income tax,” Nicola said. 
Nicola, who voted no on the bill, also expressed frustration that the Senate has yet to pass legislation on reducing property taxes. 
He said later on Thursday that he has not had one person from his district speak to him about the need to eliminate the income tax. 
“I have no constituents, and I'm honest about this, not one that is talking about income tax to phase it out, but I've got hundreds that want property tax reform,” Nicola said. 
If the resolution does make it through the legislature, it still must pass muster with Missouri voters to take effect. 
“It's incredibly frustrating to see it continue moving through the process, and I genuinely hope that if it does clear the House and, you know, make it across the finish line that Missourians vote it down whenever it comes to their ballot,” House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, D-Kansas City, said. 
The legislation is HJR 173. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic2.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 7.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.8%Sarah Kellogg: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias15.8%This article: 13.4%Sarah Kellogg: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias13.4%This article: 7.6%Sarah Kellogg: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias7.6%This article: 3.3%Sarah Kellogg: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.4%Sarah Kellogg: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization5.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.7%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon2.7%This article: 18.9%Sarah Kellogg: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion18.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.9%Sarah Kellogg: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal5.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

978 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers52%attributed speech466writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAARP • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Trent • 7 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Trent • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Beck • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Beck • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Beck • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Beck • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Trent • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Trent • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Trent • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Trent • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Trent • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCurtis Trent • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRick Brattin • 5 words • 0.0% coverageRick Brattin • 5 words • 0.0% coverageRick Brattin • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRick Brattin • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Nicola • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Nicola • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Nicola • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Nicola • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Nicola • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAshley Aune • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rick Brattin

100%flagged-word coverage
48 attributed words9.4% of attributed speech18% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.