A proposal to eliminate Missouri's income tax and replace it with an expanded sales tax is moving through the state legislature. This site compiles independent research on what the proposal does, who benefits, who pays, and what happened when Kansas tried it.
Missouri's governor and legislature want to eliminate the state income tax — the tax deducted from your paycheck — and replace it with a much higher sales tax on things you buy. This is not a tax cut. The state still needs the same amount of money to run. What changes is who pays it.
When most people imagine "higher sales tax," they picture paying a little more on groceries or a new appliance. That picture misses something critical: the proposal would give the legislature authority to add sales tax to things you pay for today that currently have zero Missouri sales tax.
The only way the revenue math gets close to working is if the state taxes a much wider range of transactions than it does now. Here are common monthly expenses currently carrying no Missouri sales tax — all within scope of what the legislature could tax under this proposal:
Every item above has zero sales tax in Missouri today. Every item above is within scope of what the legislature would have the authority to tax under this proposal. The bill does not specify which ones will be taxed. That decision is left to future lawmakers after voters approve the change.
Four data visualizations illustrating the math problem, senior impact, pressure on services, and the state comparison.
Sales tax collections must nearly quadruple to replace income tax revenue — and the rate needed climbs even higher under a broad service expansion.
Most Missouri seniors pay zero state income tax. Social Security is fully exempt. For them, this proposal is not a trade — it is a straight addition with nothing on the other side.
| Monthly Expense | ✓ Tax Today | ✗ Under Sales Tax Replacement |
|---|---|---|
| Social Security income ($2,200/mo) | $0 — fully exempt | N/A (no income tax, but see below) |
| Groceries ($400/mo) | $0 income tax | ~$64–68 in new sales tax |
| Utilities ($180/mo) | $0 | ~$29–31 |
| Home & auto repairs ($150/mo) | $0 | ~$24–26 |
| Streaming, phone, internet ($80/mo) | $0 | ~$13–14 |
| Clothing & household goods ($200/mo) | $0 | ~$32–34 |
| Estimated Monthly Tax Increase | $0 (already exempt) | +$162–172/month |
Estimates are illustrative, applying a projected 16–17% combined rate (current ~8% state + local, plus an additional ~8.5 percentage points per Missouri Budget Project April 2026 testimony) to typical retiree spending categories. Higher in high-local-tax areas like St. Louis and Kansas City. Actual amounts depend on which services the legislature ultimately chooses to tax. The direction of impact is consistent across analyses from across the political spectrum.
Disability and social services aren't facing one threat. They are facing three simultaneous pressures — each serious on its own.
Proponents cite Florida, Texas, and Tennessee. But those states had structural revenue advantages before they eliminated income taxes. Missouri doesn't. The state whose profile most closely matches Missouri's is Kansas — and Kansas reversed its experiment as a failure.
Income taxes scale with ability to pay. Sales taxes do not. Shifting from one to the other produces a predictable result, confirmed by independent data across the political spectrum.
Missouri's top 1% currently pay 5.7% of their income in state and local taxes. The same group in Florida pays 2.7%. For a household earning $1.9 million — the average top 1% Missouri income — that 3 percentage point gap equals approximately $57,000 per year in additional taxes under the current system. That is the financial interest at stake.
Missouri's 2025 capital gains tax elimination — the step before this proposal — offers a documented preview. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that over 66% of the savings went to the top 1%. The average millionaire saved $43,000 annually. The average non-millionaire saved $80. That is 529 times more benefit for the highest earners. The income tax repeal is the next and larger step in the same framework.
The group that loses most is not the very poorest — households at the absolute bottom sometimes receive enough in benefits to partially offset. The hardest hit are households earning roughly $35,000 to $80,000: they currently pay some income tax but spend nearly all their income on taxable goods and services. They lose the income tax benefit without the wealth to absorb higher consumption costs.
ITEP data on comparable no-income-tax states confirms the pattern: people in the lowest 20% of income pay about one third more of their income in sales and other taxes in Tennessee, Texas, and Florida than the same group in Missouri under the current system.
The workers most exposed to AI-driven job displacement in the near term are white-collar working-class employees: administrative workers, entry-level professionals, paralegals, data analysts, customer service workers. These are precisely the workers who currently pay Missouri income tax at meaningful rates, whose incomes would shrink under displacement, and who would face the highest effective burden under a consumption tax. This proposal shifts their tax burden upward at the exact moment their earning capacity is most at risk.
Both chamber votes were nearly party-line (House 98–54 in March; Senate 18–11 in April). The primary sponsors and leaders who designed and championed this proposal are listed below, along with the seven Republicans across both chambers who voted no — four in the House, three in the Senate.
Seven Republicans across both chambers voted against the proposal — citing concerns about seniors, rural families, agriculture, long-term fiscal stability, and the bill's unresolved drafting issues. Their opposition is a signal that the concerns documented on this site are not partisan.
This proposal has not become law. As of April 17, 2026, the Senate has passed an amended version and sent it back to the House. The House must adopt the Senate version for it to reach voters. If it reaches the ballot, Missourians still have to approve it. You have real leverage at every step.
This research compiles and synthesizes reporting and analysis from the following organizations. All findings are attributed to their original sources throughout. This site presents no original reporting — only synthesis of publicly available research and journalism.
Core research compiled March 2026; site is continuously updated as the legislation moves. Last update: April 17, 2026 — see full update log near top of page. This site is independent and not affiliated with any political campaign, party, or advocacy organization. Rate projections are from cited sources (left- and right-leaning) and are illustrative; the $4.2B / $6.2B / $8.5B figures are from the state's official fiscal note on the Senate-amended version.