You’ve probably heard the rallying cry: “Keep more of your money.” It sounds like freedom. It feels like a win. But if you live in Missouri — or anywhere else watching this play out — there’s a hidden cost in that promise, and it’s about to land squarely on your grocery bill, your sales tax, and your kids’ school funding.
Missouri is now the latest state to vote on abolishing its income tax. The pitch is simple: no more state income tax means more money in your pocket. But what the glossy ads don’t tell you is that lost revenue has to come from somewhere. And when it does, it won’t be from the people who can afford it.
Income tax abolition isn’t a tax cut — it’s a burden shift, and the rich are the ones doing the shifting.
Here’s the brutal math: Missouri’s income tax is progressive — higher earners pay a larger percentage. If you eliminate it, you lose billions in revenue. The state has to replace that money. And the most politically convenient replacement? Sales taxes, fees, and consumption-based levies that hit everyone equally, regardless of income. That means a family earning $30,000 a year will pay the same sales tax rate on a loaf of bread as a family earning $300,000. But that $30,000 family feels it far more.
This isn’t a hypothetical. Look at states that have already gone down this path. Texas, Florida, Tennessee — they all lack state income taxes. And they all have some of the most regressive tax systems in the country. A 2022 study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that the poorest 20% of Texans pay nearly 13% of their income in state and local taxes, while the richest 1% pay just 3.2%. That’s not freedom. That’s a transfer.
I remember talking to a waitress in Nashville a few years ago. She was proud that Tennessee had no income tax. “We keep what we earn,” she said. Then she told me she worked two jobs and still couldn’t afford to fix her car. She paid more in sales tax on her weekly groceries than her boss paid in taxes on his investment income. She didn’t realize she was subsidizing his freedom.
And here’s the twist that makes this story truly dangerous: Missouri’s vote isn’t just about Missouri. If this passes, it becomes a template. Other Republican-led states will follow. Soon, the entire Midwest could be a race to the bottom — cut income taxes, starve public services, and let the poor foot the bill. The 16th Amendment, which created the federal income tax in 1913, was itself a response to the regressive tax systems of the Gilded Age, where the poor bore the brunt of government costs. We fought that battle once. And we’re about to lose it again.
So let’s be clear: this isn’t about efficiency. It’s not about growth. It’s about who pays. The people pushing this know exactly what they’re doing. They’re betting that the emotional appeal of “keep more of your money” will drown out the fiscal reality. And they’re counting on you not doing the math.
If you’re middle class or working class, this is a tax increase in disguise. And the disguise is getting harder to see through.
What can you do? Watch your state legislature. If someone proposes an income tax cut, ask the follow-up question: “What will replace it?” If the answer is “sales tax” or “we’ll grow our way out of it,” you’re being sold a lie. Demand transparency. Demand a study on who benefits and who loses. Because the people who lose will be the ones who can least afford to.
This isn’t about left vs. right. It’s about rich vs. poor. And the poor are about to get a lot poorer.
FAQ
Q: Doesn't eliminating income tax actually boost the economy?
A: The evidence is mixed. Some states with no income tax have grown faster, but they also have higher poverty rates and worse public services. The real question is: who pays for the lost revenue? In most cases, it's low-income consumers through higher sales taxes and fees.
Q: If Missouri eliminates income tax, won't people and businesses move there?
A: Maybe, but that's a zero-sum game. One state's gain is another's loss. Meanwhile, the residents who stay — especially the poor and middle class — end up with a heavier tax burden and fewer public services. It's a race to the bottom, not a rising tide.
Q: Isn't this just a matter of personal freedom — keeping more of what you earn?
A: Freedom for one person can mean a hidden cost for another. If you're wealthy, you save a lot. If you're poor, you lose proportionally more because your consumption is taxed at the same rate. That's not freedom; it's a transfer of burden from the haves to the have-nots.