There are multiple enactments of 288.122
Effective - 16 Oct 2015, 3 histories
*288.122. If cash in fund exceeds certain amounts, contribution rate to decrease, amount — table. — On October first of each calendar year, if the average balance, less any federal advances, of the unemployment compensation trust fund of the four preceding quarters (September thirtieth, June thirtieth, March thirty-first and December thirty-first of the preceding calendar year) is more than seven hundred twenty million dollars, then each employer's contribution rate calculated for the four calendar quarters of the succeeding calendar year shall be decreased by the percentage determined from the following table:
| Balance in Trust Fund | ||
| Percentage | ||
| More Than | Equal to or Less Than | of Decrease |
| $720,000,000 | $870,000,000 | 7% |
| $870,000,000 | 12% | |
Notwithstanding the table in this section, if the balance in the unemployment insurance compensation trust fund as calculated in this section is more than eight hundred seventy million dollars, the percentage of decrease of the employer's contribution rate calculated for the four calendar quarters of the succeeding calendar year shall be no greater than ten percent for any employer whose calculated contribution rate under section 288.120 is six percent or greater.
--------
(L. 1982 H.B. 1521, A.L. 1984 H.B. 1251 & 1549, A.L. 1988 H.B. 1485, A.L. 1992 S.B. 626, A.L. 1994 S.B. 559, A.L. 2004 H.B. 1268 & 1211, A.L. 2006 H.B. 1456, A.L. 2015 H.B. 150)
*Effective 10-16-15, see § 21.250. H.B. 150 was vetoed on May 5, 2015. The veto was overridden by the House on May 12, 2015, and by the Senate on September 16, 2015.
*Revisor's Note: This section was declared unconstitutional in Pestka et al. v. State, see 2016 annotation below.
(2016) Only bills returned by the Governor on or after the fifth day before the end of the regular legislative session can be taken up during September veto session, thus Senate veto session vote to override the Governor's veto of HB 150 was untimely. Pestka et al. v. State, No. SC95369 (Mo.).