Getting Everybody Involved In Paying For The Spending Increases
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
I clearly want to make certain that these thoughts are NOT to be interpreted as an endorsement for funding the increases in spending that Nevada lawmakers will more than likely be considering when they start putting their stamp on the next biennium budget. Balancing the budget could be accomplished by spending the amount of money coming into Nevada’s treasury at the same rate that has been spent and it will probably come out fairly close to being balanced. (If you keep getting the amount of revenue that you’ve been getting and you spend at that same level – and things have been balanced – they will stay balanced.)
Of course there is a firmly held conviction that government spending can’t be at the same level as it has been…there has to be increases (perhaps because of the way things have been increased in the past is now the expectation of how it should always be).
In spite of the perspective of the PLAN tax report, which we wrote about yesterday, we suggest that possible revenue enhancement to fund the increases that are desired in spending levels.
What Kind Of Numbers Are We Talking About:
From our friends at the Nevada Taxpayer’s Association, a ½ percent would generate approximately $220 million and ¼ percent, $110 million.
The Taxpayers Association stress the importance of understanding in taking this approach that an increase in the sales tax would have to go on the local school support portion (LSST) as the state portion – 2 percent - could only be changed with a vote of the people.
But, given these parameters solutions could be crafted to put more priority into a perceived area of need, K-12 educational funding and an overall resolution of how to spend other funds could be used in financing other identified priorities.
Poor People Pay More Taxes:
The concept of the sales tax being a regressive tax fits into the same belief system that you’ve got to increase state spending each legislative session. It’s not to be questioned, even if common sense slips a bit when trying to figure out the logic of what our “experts” tell us.
We remind everyone that food, purchased at a grocery store is not included in sales tax assessments. So this essential human need, regardless of financial standing, is tax-free. Other purchases might take a greater percentage of the total amount available for those with lower means, but that’s as much a function of math as anything else. Whenever you divide a smaller total, the percentage is going to be higher. Our example from yesterday shows that $8.30 of tax from $100 is 8.3 percent and paying more actual taxes from a greater total would result in a smaller percentage. Again, referring back to yesterday’s example $4,000 taxes paid from a total of $200,000 is only 2 percent…but, $8.30 compared to $4,000 – tell me which number is higher…
The Advantages Of Everybody Being Part Of The Game:
When legislators are deciding how much of a spending increase would be appropriate having more of the “contributions” coming directly out of constituent pockets might help clarify priorities and the difference between “want” and “need”.
Much of the time, as presented in the PLAN proposal, business is considered as the appropriate source for increased funding to Nevada’s bank accounts. The political spin aimed at making us believe business can afford to pay whatever it will costs for our society to function properly. Corporate citizenship was a theme the last time legislators donned their tax increasing masks and pointed at business with the “hand it over” command.
Shouldn’t we all get to be involved in this “citizenship”?
Because they have less to spend, they don’t buy as much and their overall tax contribution is less.
I clearly want to make certain that these thoughts are NOT to be interpreted as an endorsement for funding the increases in spending that Nevada lawmakers will more than likely be considering when they start putting their stamp on the next biennium budget. Balancing the budget could be accomplished by spending the amount of money coming into Nevada’s treasury at the same rate that has been spent and it will probably come out fairly close to being balanced. (If you keep getting the amount of revenue that you’ve been getting and you spend at that same level – and things have been balanced – they will stay balanced.)
Of course there is a firmly held conviction that government spending can’t be at the same level as it has been…there has to be increases (perhaps because of the way things have been increased in the past is now the expectation of how it should always be).
In spite of the perspective of the PLAN tax report, which we wrote about yesterday, we suggest that possible revenue enhancement to fund the increases that are desired in spending levels.
What Kind Of Numbers Are We Talking About:
From our friends at the Nevada Taxpayer’s Association, a ½ percent would generate approximately $220 million and ¼ percent, $110 million.
The Taxpayers Association stress the importance of understanding in taking this approach that an increase in the sales tax would have to go on the local school support portion (LSST) as the state portion – 2 percent - could only be changed with a vote of the people.
But, given these parameters solutions could be crafted to put more priority into a perceived area of need, K-12 educational funding and an overall resolution of how to spend other funds could be used in financing other identified priorities.
Poor People Pay More Taxes:
The concept of the sales tax being a regressive tax fits into the same belief system that you’ve got to increase state spending each legislative session. It’s not to be questioned, even if common sense slips a bit when trying to figure out the logic of what our “experts” tell us.
We remind everyone that food, purchased at a grocery store is not included in sales tax assessments. So this essential human need, regardless of financial standing, is tax-free. Other purchases might take a greater percentage of the total amount available for those with lower means, but that’s as much a function of math as anything else. Whenever you divide a smaller total, the percentage is going to be higher. Our example from yesterday shows that $8.30 of tax from $100 is 8.3 percent and paying more actual taxes from a greater total would result in a smaller percentage. Again, referring back to yesterday’s example $4,000 taxes paid from a total of $200,000 is only 2 percent…but, $8.30 compared to $4,000 – tell me which number is higher…
The Advantages Of Everybody Being Part Of The Game:
When legislators are deciding how much of a spending increase would be appropriate having more of the “contributions” coming directly out of constituent pockets might help clarify priorities and the difference between “want” and “need”.
Much of the time, as presented in the PLAN proposal, business is considered as the appropriate source for increased funding to Nevada’s bank accounts. The political spin aimed at making us believe business can afford to pay whatever it will costs for our society to function properly. Corporate citizenship was a theme the last time legislators donned their tax increasing masks and pointed at business with the “hand it over” command.
Shouldn’t we all get to be involved in this “citizenship”?
Because they have less to spend, they don’t buy as much and their overall tax contribution is less.
Comments