Nevada Tax Package – A Glass Half Full
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
It would be easy to take stock of the $781 million tax bill passed by the 2009 Nevada Legislature and be upset over the burdens placed on the private sector to pay for increased spending in the 2010-2011 biennium. Although one might have wished that delivery of SB 429, containing the $781 million of tax increases, could have been avoided or delayed to the point that it could have been prevented from implementation – the reality of nixing the spending (in a rational or policy-driven fashion), provided in the earlier approved budget, would have been something less than likely.
The actual benefits of the approach taken to raise the $781 million should be noted and appreciated for their merits. Principles upheld and included as foundations in the agreement to create the legislation include:
The remaining days of the Nevada Legislature will play out the final scenes of the drama that was constructed as much by the outcome of the election process as the legislative session. The symbolism of the behind-closed-door agreements, which fashioned the arrangements for how much the budget would be as well as the construct for the tax package, demonstrates that the election is the last meaningful opportunity to give input.
As long as the majority of those elected to serve in the Nevada Legislature have the perspective that private sector has the obligation to support those who get from the general fund – the trend for growing the size of Nevada’s budget expenditures will continue.
Changing that outcome requires changes to not only those in office, but also the structural changes that must be formulated into specific proposed action steps to be implemented for a better Nevada future.
It would be easy to take stock of the $781 million tax bill passed by the 2009 Nevada Legislature and be upset over the burdens placed on the private sector to pay for increased spending in the 2010-2011 biennium. Although one might have wished that delivery of SB 429, containing the $781 million of tax increases, could have been avoided or delayed to the point that it could have been prevented from implementation – the reality of nixing the spending (in a rational or policy-driven fashion), provided in the earlier approved budget, would have been something less than likely.
The actual benefits of the approach taken to raise the $781 million should be noted and appreciated for their merits. Principles upheld and included as foundations in the agreement to create the legislation include:
- Increases on existing taxes/fees…The value of keeping creative champions of inventing new taxes from pursuing their agenda of the “broad-based” Holy Grail to solve the problem is the number one benefit achieved in how SB 429 came to be.
- A real “sun set”…The insistence by Senator Bill Raggio to have a date in time for the tax increases to expire is another beneficial element that should be recognized. Having the expiration date be January 1, 2011 would have assured the “sun” actually setting, but there will need to be a formal, active decision taken in the 2011 Legislature to deal with the current tax rates going away.
- An independent tax study…Majority Leader, Senator Steven Horsford wanted to use the interim period before the next legislative session to load the chambers in pursuit of the desired outcome for a variety of new anti-business taxes (especially a corporate income tax). The protection Senator Raggio was able to acquire as a concession is in the form of a more balanced, policy-driven approach to evaluating current as well as possible changes to the state’s tax structure.
- Reforms of public employee retirement and health benefits…In addition to the improved fiscal responsibilities to be achieved by the provisions of the agreed to reform provisions, the strategy of linking adoption of the reforms to support for “must pass” legislation (either a budget or taxes to pay for the budget) is worth consideration of a model for future reforms.
The remaining days of the Nevada Legislature will play out the final scenes of the drama that was constructed as much by the outcome of the election process as the legislative session. The symbolism of the behind-closed-door agreements, which fashioned the arrangements for how much the budget would be as well as the construct for the tax package, demonstrates that the election is the last meaningful opportunity to give input.
As long as the majority of those elected to serve in the Nevada Legislature have the perspective that private sector has the obligation to support those who get from the general fund – the trend for growing the size of Nevada’s budget expenditures will continue.
Changing that outcome requires changes to not only those in office, but also the structural changes that must be formulated into specific proposed action steps to be implemented for a better Nevada future.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 5/24/2009 2:20 PM 
Categories: Nevada Legislature
Tags: Government Reform Nevada Taxes Budget
Categories: Nevada Legislature
Tags: Government Reform Nevada Taxes Budget
Comments