SJR 101 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would substantially restructure Missouri’s tax system beginning in 2029 and 2031. It would repeal existing constitutional provisions governing state sales and use taxes and individual income taxes, replace them with new limits and exemptions, and require the General Assembly to create a broad-based state sales-and-services tax. The resolution also sets future deadlines for phasing out state income taxes, caps certain tax rates, and directs how state and local tax bases and rates would be recalculated.
The measure would prohibit the state from imposing an individual income tax for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2031, and would also bar counties and other political subdivisions from imposing income-based taxes, with a narrow exception for certain city taxes already lawfully in place before January 1, 2028. It would repeal most existing state sales and use tax laws effective January 1, 2029, then require a new state tax on sales and services, with numerous exemptions for items and services such as professional services, utilities, health care, child care, education, agriculture, manufacturing inputs, financial instruments, insurance, and many government or nonprofit transactions. The proposal also changes how certain existing constitutional taxes are calculated and limits the combined state and local sales tax burden.
A separate section would replace the current homestead-tax language with a mandatory property tax relief credit for eligible seniors. Under that provision, homeowners age 65 or older with income at or below $75,000 and homes below a specified value threshold could receive a credit equal to 50% of the property tax increase above certain annual growth limits. The state would reimburse local governments for 75% of the credit, and the General Assembly would be required to enact a mechanism to continue related property tax relief for seniors and disabled individuals.
Because this is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, it would not change state law unless approved by Missouri voters. If adopted, it would amend Article X of the Missouri Constitution and require extensive follow-up legislation to implement the new tax structure, recalculate rates, and administer exemptions and credits. It would affect state revenue, local taxing authority, school funding flows, and taxpayers across a wide range of industries and consumer transactions.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal legislative debate or roll-call sentiment is available. Based on the text alone, the proposal appears designed to appeal to taxpayers through income-tax elimination and senior property-tax relief, but it would also represent a major shift in how Missouri funds state and local government. Likely points of contention include the loss of income-tax revenue, the breadth of the new sales-and-services tax, the treatment of local taxing authority, and the complexity of the transition and rate recalculations.
If approved by voters, SJR 101 would amend Article X of the Missouri Constitution, repeal or replace existing constitutional and statutory tax provisions, and require the General Assembly to enact implementing laws for a new statewide sales-and-services tax regime and related rate recalculations. It would phase out state income taxation by 2031, restrict local income taxes, repeal most existing state sales and use tax laws in 2029, and impose new constitutional limits on combined state and local sales tax rates. It would also create a mandatory senior property tax relief credit and require state reimbursement to local governments for most of that credit, affecting state revenues, local budgets, school funding, and taxpayer liabilities across multiple sectors.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll calls. From the bill text, the measure reflects a pro-tax-cut, tax-restructuring approach that would likely be viewed favorably by supporters of income-tax elimination and property-tax relief, especially for seniors. At the same time, the breadth of the changes suggests significant concern from those focused on revenue stability, local government finance, and administrative complexity.
The main points of contention are likely to be the elimination of the state income tax, the replacement of existing sales and use taxes with a broader sales-and-services tax, and the impact on local governments and school funding. Opponents may object to the loss of revenue, the complexity of recalculating tax rates, and the potential burden on consumers and service providers, while supporters may emphasize tax relief, simplification, and protections for seniors. The carveouts and exemptions for many categories of sales and services, along with the limits on local taxing authority, could also draw debate from affected industries and political subdivisions.