How will you vote on the April 5 Earnings Tax vote?

[KCMax]

VOTE OR DIE.

[pstokely]

Hasn't seen of the vote no signs in anyone's yard south of the river

[mean]

Not 100% sure how I will vote... my idealogical side hates the e-tax, but my practical side hates the alternatives. For the purposes of this poll, I voted no because that's my gut, but when it comes down to it I just don't know if I can do it.

[phuqueue]

Definitely voting to retain.  Didn't vote in this poll though because I'll be voting in St. Louis, not KCMO.

[NDTeve]

Voting Yes. Scary to think of our city without it.

[AllThingsKC]

I voted NO.  I do not believe that the city will die without it.  Plus, they have 10 years to try to make it up and phase it out.  It's not like it would hit all at once.

However, it doesn't make much different how I voted because I predict that the earnings tax will survive.  It don't think it will be close.  I think the YES vote will win with about 55% or 60% of the vote.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I can't possibly wrap my head around why a Kansas City resident would possibly vote no for this.

[WSPanic]

I voted yes. Number 188 at 3p at whatever church is at 600 E Armour.

I never heard a plan from the "no" side to replace whatever revenue is generated - so I chose to keep that revenue in the city's coffers. It's like the entire "No" campaign was some sort of "tough love" for the KCMO government from a bunch of outsiders. Screw 'em.

[warwickland]

I voted yes [on the other side of the state.] I hope sinquefields done with his campaign, maybe he could promote small business creation or something along those lines instead of attempting to starve the two major core cities of this state of revenue that they have been depending on for half a century.

[mean]

I can't possibly wrap my head around why a Kansas City resident would possibly vote no for this.

Fairness. If I want to live in the city, I should pay for it myself, not raid the pockets of outsiders. That said, the burden might force me to relocate to the suburbs. To me, from an ethical standpoint, the tax is like making my neighbor pay some of my bills because I let them come swimming in the summer. From a practical standpoint, it is hard to see how we'd do without it now that we rely on it.

[phuqueue]

Fairness. If I want to live in the city, I should pay for it myself, not raid the pockets of outsiders. That said, the burden might force me to relocate to the suburbs. To me, from an ethical standpoint, the tax is like making my neighbor pay some of my bills because I let them come swimming in the summer. From a practical standpoint, it is hard to see how we'd do without it now that we rely on it.

It's more like you're now responsible for maintaining a pool you can't afford because your neighbors who used to chip in on it bailed on you but still want to use the pool anyway.  Most of these "outsiders" (not necessarily this or that particular individual, but as a population -- also, I think it's disingenuous to call anybody who lives in the metro area an "outsider," which implies that they have no real connection to the city; tourists are "outsiders," suburbanites are merely suburbanites) were formerly "insiders" who were also responsible for maintaining the city.  Now they continue to piggyback on the benefits the city confers (both tangible ones, like police/fire/etc, roads, and so on, as well as intangible ones, like the fact that many of their jobs wouldn't exist in the first place if KCMO weren't anchoring a metro area of 2 million people) but expect not to have to contribute.  And it's not like this was some accident of history -- people consciously fled to the suburbs to avoid the problems of the city.  We're not talking about isolated, insulated pockets that don't interact at all with each other; this is a fully integrated region where municipal (and in KC's case, state) boundaries are essentially arbitrary lines on a map; if you're talking about "fairness," I don't see a lot of fairness in escaping regional obligations by merely jumping across the line, yet this is what people have been trying to do for decades.

If KCMO wants to reconfigure its budget to pay for certain things out of municipal tax revenue, and then the whole metro area can agree to tax itself collectively to pay for regional goods across all metro cities, then I say feel free to kill the e-tax.  There are hundreds of reasons that would never happen, though, "fair" though it may be.

[KCPowercat]

I voted yes but if it falls I'm actually not too freaked out about it....it might be good to see how the city reacts to it going down.....that's the optimistic side of me.....

[shinatoo]

Fairness. If I want to live in the city, I should pay for it myself, not raid the pockets of outsiders. That said, the burden might force me to relocate to the suburbs. To me, from an ethical standpoint, the tax is like making my neighbor pay some of my bills because I let them come swimming in the summer. From a practical standpoint, it is hard to see how we'd do without it now that we rely on it.

I would think of it moreasyour neighbor comes over everyday makes himself at home, rads the fridge, watches your cable because he doesn't have any, read your paper, works out on your gear and then complains that he doesn't feel safe and you made him park in the street.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I would think of it moreasyour neighbor comes over everyday makes himself at home, rads the fridge, watches your cable because he doesn't have any, read your paper, works out on your gear and then complains that he doesn't feel safe and you made him park in the street.

for NINE hours a day or more.

These "outsiders" spend at least 25% of their lives in Kansas City. If someone has an aversion to "taxation without representation" I get that but then you should be against all sales taxes, airport taxes, rental car taxes, etc.

[aknowledgeableperson]

What is funny about this discussion is how both sides of the issue are looking at the same thing but describing it quite differently.  To use an old example, one side is looking at an elephant but from the front and describes what it sees.  The other side is also looking at the same elephant but from the back end and describes what it sees.  Neither side sees the whole picture.

[FangKC]

My precinct worker said they had about 20 percent voter turnout there today.

People who work in Kansas City and live elsewhere should have to contribute something.

One example: I put less than 2,500 miles a year on my car--about 210 miles a month.  There are people working in KC, and living in Overland Park or Lee's Summit, that use the City's streets more on a monthly basis than I do, and I live here. Thousands of them come into the City to earn a living, and they create wear-and-tear on payment that needs repair.  Yet they expect not to have to pay anything for their use.

Even if they take the interstate to their job, most of them have to take City streets at one point to reach their job. The City pays for that maintenance--not the State or Feds.

[KCMax]

What is funny about this discussion is how both sides of the issue are looking at the same thing but describing it quite differently.  To use an old example, one side is looking at an elephant but from the front and describes what it sees.  The other side is also looking at the same elephant but from the back end and describes what it sees.  Neither side sees the whole picture.

Yep. Sounds exactly like every other contentious issue in America.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

76% Yes with 88% reporting.

[FangKC]

I guess that is a resounding F*** YOU to Mr. Sinquefield and the Show Me Institute.

Sorry you had to spend all those millions Rex.

[KCPowercat]

This 5 year renewal is annoying. We should work now for viable alternatives given this will probably eventually fail.