SJR95 proposes a constitutional amendment to create the “Show-Me Prosperity Fund,” a permanent public endowment housed in the state treasury. The fund would be capitalized by legislative appropriations and could also accept gifts, donations, grants, and bequests. The stated purpose is to provide long-term fiscal stability and, ultimately, to eliminate state-imposed taxes without reducing the real value of the fund’s principal.
Under the proposal, the state treasurer would invest the fund in exchange-traded funds tracking the S&P 500, or a comparable successor index, subject to fiduciary standards. No money could be withdrawn until the treasurer notifies the General Assembly that the fund’s prior-year net investment earnings are sufficient to replace revenue from the taxes listed in the resolution, and that notification must then be approved by concurrent resolution. Annual withdrawals would be capped at 3% of the fund’s five-year average market value, and the principal could not be appropriated, pledged, or borrowed against. The resolution also requires periodic audits and public reporting of the fund’s balance and performance.
If the fund becomes large enough, the resolution directs appropriations from it to eliminate the individual income tax, state sales and use tax, state corporate income tax, and other state-imposed taxes in a priority order set by law. After those taxes are eliminated, the General Assembly could use net investment earnings to replace federal funds, issue dividend payments to residents, or both. The measure also defines key terms such as “individual income tax” and “net investment earnings,” and it would be submitted to voters for approval as a constitutional amendment.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it would amend the Missouri Constitution to create a new permanent fiscal structure and constrain future tax policy. It would affect the state treasury, the state treasurer’s investment authority, the General Assembly’s budgeting and taxing powers, and the state auditor’s oversight duties. It also contemplates future statutory action to set the priority order for eliminating other state taxes and to implement the fund’s operation.
The general sentiment reflected in the votes suggests substantial support but not unanimity. The Senate passed the measure 22-7, and the House votes shown were 95-48 and 85-56, indicating a divided but favorable reception. The main point of contention is the bill’s ambitious premise: supporters appear to favor a long-term endowment that could replace tax revenue, while opponents likely question the feasibility, risk, and fiscal consequences of relying on investment returns to fund core state services and eliminate major taxes.
This resolution would amend Article IV of the Missouri Constitution to create the Show-Me Prosperity Fund and establish new constitutional limits on how the fund may be used. It would direct the state treasurer to invest the fund in broad equity index funds, require audits and public reporting, and prohibit use of principal. It would also condition future appropriations and tax elimination on investment performance and legislative approval, thereby affecting the state treasury, tax structure, and the General Assembly’s fiscal authority.
The voting history indicates generally favorable sentiment toward the resolution, but with meaningful opposition. The Senate approved it 22-7, and the House approved it on third reading by 95-48 and 85-56, showing that the proposal advanced with bipartisan support but not consensus. The overall tone suggests interest in long-term tax relief and fiscal innovation, tempered by concern about the practicality of the fund’s goals.
The central controversy is whether a state-run sovereign wealth fund can realistically generate enough investment earnings to replace major tax revenues while preserving principal. Supporters are effectively betting on long-term market returns and a disciplined endowment model, while opponents are likely concerned about volatility, the risk of underperformance, and the possibility that the state could be left without reliable revenue for essential services. Another point of tension is the constitutional restriction on future taxation, which would significantly limit legislative flexibility if the fund underperforms or if fiscal conditions change.