(Source: Adobe Stock)
Missouri lawmakers have reignited a push to eliminate sales tax on food items.
Lawmakers have submitted eight Senate and House proposals for the current legislative session of the Missouri General Assembly, all of which aim to remove the municipal sales and use taxes on food.
Senate Bill 57, introduced by Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R-District 22), would make retail sales of food exempt from state sales tax. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2026, it would also begin reducing local sales taxes imposed on food. This would be done annually in four equal increments over a period of four years.
Representative Ben Keathley (R-101) has sponsored House Bill 345, which would also eliminate state sales tax and phase out local sales on retail food sales over the span of four years.
“I also believe that the best way to generate revenue is by lowering the taxes on people and businesses so more economic activity can take place,” Keathley said.
This isn’t the first time state legislators have sought similar laws. Last year, Keathley filed a similar bill that fell short of passage due in part to fierce opposition from municipalities.
Manchester Mayor Mike Clement is one of several municipal leaders who have been sounding the alarm on what this bill could mean for local cities. If one of the food tax bills came into effect, Clement said Manchester could lose out on 35% of its revenue, around $4.6 million annually.
That would mean cutting staff and municipal services, Clement said.
Pat Kelly, executive director of the Municipal League of Metro St. Louis said if the legislation gets the green light, St. Louis County will miss out on $140 million annually.
“If you're eliminating 25% of that budget, there’s no way around that you're not laying off people, and reducing the services that the residents approve those taxes to provide,” Kelly said.
If sales tax on food was no longer a reality, municipalities would be forced to raise property taxes to recover lost revenue, Kelly said.
“[Saying] you're going to eliminate one tax so that we can implement another one is just poor tax policy. I mean, what's the purpose of that? They're still paying the tax then. It's just so that, in my opinion, the legislators can feel good because they say they did this, and they don't care about the ramifications,” Kelly said.
In an interview, Keathley rebuffed concerns of potential revenue loss, citing new tax revenue streams from dispensaries, online gambling, internet sales and more.
“So what they're [the municipalities] saying is, ‘look at all the revenue we generate from Schnucks and Dierbergs and Target and Walmart and Sam's Club,’” he said. “All the places that sell groceries are classified as grocers. They're saying this is the total impact, when the bill only impacts a small portion of goods that are sold at those places because [the bill is] limited to just grocery essentials.”
HB345 exempts tax on food products for which would qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
However, if sales tax on food items becomes a thing of the past, Kelly said that the Municipal League is prepared to take legal action.
“These are eligible taxes that the voters approved in our communities to provide the services that they require and they demand, and they're taking that revenue source away from us, so they need to replenish that,” Kelly said. “And so we would, we would challenge that in court because it would just have such a huge impact on the municipality.”