Imposes a tax on certain income to provide disaster relief
Summary
SB 14 revises Missouri’s individual income tax structure by lowering the top marginal rate over time, while also creating a new high-income surcharge dedicated to disaster relief. Beginning in tax year 2023, the bill sets the top rate at 4.95 percent and directs the Department of Revenue to adjust the tax tables accordingly. It also preserves inflation indexing of the brackets and keeps the existing lower-bracket structure in place.
The bill adds a series of contingent tax cuts tied to state revenue growth. Starting in 2024, the top rate may be reduced by 0.15 percentage points if net general revenue growth meets specified thresholds, and additional 0.10 percentage point reductions may occur in later years if even higher revenue and inflation-adjusted benchmarks are met. These reductions are automatic only when the statutory revenue triggers are satisfied, and the rate schedule would be further adjusted by rule to reflect bracket changes as the top rate declines.
At the same time, SB 14 creates a 1 percent additional tax on Missouri taxable income above $1 million beginning in 2026. Revenue from that surcharge would be deposited into a newly created Disaster Relief Fund and used by the Department of Public Safety for disaster and emergency response. The bill earmarks 75 percent of the fund for emergencies in areas wholly or partly within a city not within a county, with the remaining 25 percent available statewide, and the surcharge provision expires at the end of 2028.
The bill would amend section 143.011, RSMo, which governs Missouri individual income tax rates and bracket adjustments, and would add new statutory language creating and governing the Disaster Relief Fund. It would affect resident taxpayers generally, with the surcharge targeting only taxpayers with income above $1 million. It also requires the Department of Revenue to update tax tables and bracket amounts to implement the rate changes and inflation adjustments.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and caption is policy-driven and revenue-focused: it combines tax relief for most taxpayers with a dedicated funding stream for disaster response. No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded public debate in the supplied materials. Based on the structure of the bill, the main likely points of contention are the balance between tax cuts and a new high-income tax, the revenue thresholds required to trigger future rate reductions, and the geographic earmark that reserves most disaster-relief money for cities not within a county.
Impact
SB 14 would amend Missouri’s income tax law by replacing section 143.011 and changing the state’s individual income tax rate schedule, including a new 4.95 percent top rate beginning in 2023 and inflation-adjusted bracket administration by the Department of Revenue. It would also create a new dedicated Disaster Relief Fund in the state treasury, funded by a 1 percent surtax on taxable income over $1 million beginning in 2026, and direct those revenues to the Department of Public Safety for disaster and emergency relief. The bill would affect resident taxpayers, high-income earners, the Department of Revenue, the state treasurer, and disaster-response funding allocations.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally supportive of tax reduction for most taxpayers while also endorsing a targeted revenue increase for disaster relief. Because no committee discussion or vote history was provided, there is no direct evidence of partisan or stakeholder reaction in the supplied record. The text suggests a compromise approach: phased tax cuts tied to revenue growth, paired with a temporary surcharge on very high incomes to finance emergency response.
Contention
Likely points of contention include whether the revenue triggers for future tax-rate reductions are realistic, whether the new 1 percent surtax on income above $1 million is appropriate, and whether dedicating 75 percent of disaster-relief funds to areas within a city not within a county is equitable. Opponents of the surcharge may view it as a tax increase on high earners, while supporters may argue it creates a stable funding source for emergencies. Another possible dispute is the complexity of the contingent rate-reduction mechanism and the Department of Revenue’s need to repeatedly adjust tax tables and brackets.