“Yes” means “No” and “No” means “Yes” or ” How much additional authority do you want to give the city of Branson to tax you and your property?”

Missouri voters going to the polls in the November election will have to vote “Yes” for “No” and “No for “Yes” on two important issues relating to their pocket books. Remember always the Ole Seagull’s warning, “We promise that if you vote for this we will do that.” “What the heck does that mean?” “By itself nothing, but when you add up the total number of times you have voted for ‘this’ and they actually did ‘that,’ or a variation involving less than what was promised the significance of the warning becomes clear.”

The first is “Proposition A the Missouri Earnings Tax Initiative.” The “Fair Ballot Language” reads “A ‘yes’ vote will amend Missouri law to repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets. The amendment further requires voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax, St. Louis and Kansas City, to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every five years or to phase out the tax over a period of ten years.  A ‘no’ vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding earnings taxes. If passed, this measure will impact taxes by removing the ability of cities to fund their budgets through earnings taxes. The only exception is that voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax may vote to continue such taxes.”

If a voter doesn’t want the possibility of a city authorizing an additional tax on the earnings they make in that city they would vote “Yes.” If they want a city to have the possibility of authorizing an additional tax on the earnings they make in that city they would vote “No.” “Now Seagull let me get this straight, If I did not want the city of Branson to be able to authorize an additional tax on the earnings and wages I make within the city of Branson I would vote “Yes?” “Yes.”

The second is “Amendment 3 – Missouri Real Estate Taxation. The “Fair Ballot Language” reads “A ‘yes’ vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate. A ‘no’ vote will not change the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing a new tax on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate. If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.”

If a voter doesn’t want the possibility of the state, county or city imposing a sales tax on the sale or transfer of their home or other real estate they would vote “Yes.” If they want the state, county or city to have the possibility of imposing a sales tax on the sale or transfer of their home or other real estate they would vote “No.” “Now Seagull let me get this straight, if I did not want the state of Missouri, Taney County or the city of Branson to be able to impose a sales tax on the sale or transfer of my home or other real estate I would vote “Yes?” “Yes.”

“Come on Seagull, can you really see the possibility of the city of Branson authorizing a city tax on earnings or a sales tax on the sale of homes and real estate even if they had the authority to do so?” “Let an Ole Seagull start his answer to the question with a questions, “Could any voter see the possibility that the city of Branson would actually raise the water and sewer rates in an effort not to subsidize them from the very tax they told voters they would when they voted for it, not once, but twice? Could anyone see the possibility of the city of Branson paying up to $2 Million per year to subsidize a private airport…pay millions for a fountain…pay a million dollars a year on TIF bonds they were told that they would have no responsibility for etc?”

The Ole Seagull’s answer to the question is “Yes.” In his lifetime he has found that in the vast majority of cases government will use any authority it is given to its full limits and then some. The result is not only less freedom, but less money in the pockets of those granting the authority; that is if they had any for the government to get in the first place.

Leave a Comment