Amendment 1 would require county assessor to be an elected position in all counties with a charter form of government, except counties with a population between 600,001-699,999.
I'm sorry, maybe there's some good reason for the language, but it sounds too inconsistent for a constitutional amendment. "OK, everyone does this, unless you have between 600K & 700K inhabitants non-inclusive. Hope a future census doesn't mess you up, Jackson County!"
Amendment 2 would require that all land used as a homestead by Missouri citizens who are former prisoners of war and have a total service-connected disability be exempt from property taxes.
I don’t object to laws exempting former POW's from property tax, or giving retired schoolteachers chocolates on Valentine's Day, or paying the rent of retired police officers, or what have you. But does anyone else think this is too goofy for a constitutional amendment?
Amendment 3 would prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of real estate.
It's not a vote on a tax, it's a vote against having a vote on a tax, & completely unnecessary due to the Hancock Amendments. It’s unworthy of being in the constitution. Also, the double taxation argument is hogwash. We pay personal property tax & sales/transfer tax on other items (like vehicles) all the time.
Proposition A would: repeal the authority of most cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets; require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax every 5 years thereafter; … and prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax.
No way. Fewer kinds of taxes are not the same as less tax. If Springfield can never have an earnings tax, that doesn't mean its taxes won't go up. It means sales & property taxes can't be cut by going to a broader-based system including earnings taxes.
Proposition B would: require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles; prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.
Yes. At present, puppy mills are overseen by the state department of agriculture, & local law enforcement can't seize animals. Proposition B would allow law enforcement—sheriffs & city police—to step in & remove animals. It also mandates at least yearly veterinary visits & mandates exercise areas, whereas present law does not require these things.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
as sent to newspaper
Date: 2010-10-29 05:32 am (UTC)Amendment 1 would require county assessor to be an elected position in all counties with a charter form of government, except counties with a population between 600,001-699,999.
I'm sorry, maybe there's some good reason for the language, but it sounds too inconsistent for a constitutional amendment. "OK, everyone does this, unless you have between 600K & 700K inhabitants non-inclusive. Hope a future census doesn't mess you up, Jackson County!"
Amendment 2 would require that all land used as a homestead by Missouri citizens who are former prisoners of war and have a total service-connected disability be exempt from property taxes.
I don’t object to laws exempting former POW's from property tax, or giving retired schoolteachers chocolates on Valentine's Day, or paying the rent of retired police officers, or what have you. But does anyone else think this is too goofy for a constitutional amendment?
Amendment 3 would prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of real estate.
It's not a vote on a tax, it's a vote against having a vote on a tax, & completely unnecessary due to the Hancock Amendments. It’s unworthy of being in the constitution. Also, the double taxation argument is hogwash. We pay personal property tax & sales/transfer tax on other items (like vehicles) all the time.
Proposition A would:
repeal the authority of most cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets;
require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax every 5 years thereafter;
… and prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax.
No way. Fewer kinds of taxes are not the same as less tax. If Springfield can never have an earnings tax, that doesn't mean its taxes won't go up. It means sales & property taxes can't be cut by going to a broader-based system including earnings taxes.
Proposition B would:
require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;
prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and
create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.
Yes. At present, puppy mills are overseen by the state department of agriculture, & local law enforcement can't seize animals. Proposition B would allow law enforcement—sheriffs & city police—to step in & remove animals. It also mandates at least yearly veterinary visits & mandates exercise areas, whereas present law does not require these things.