Taking A Different Approach To Nevada’s Tax System
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The spenders are in charge of how Nevada’s Legislative process is carried out. This goes beyond the political party in control and also includes the involvement of the interests cashing the checks written from the state’s treasury. Part of the reason for Nevada’s escalating spending binge is the philosophy of legislative leaders that each regular session should start with the spending from the past budgets and add to that amount by a percentage perceived to be appropriate to cover the supposed increased costs.
Throughout the legislative session the various elements of the state’s budgets are examined, discussed and eventually (more likely than not from behind closed doors) a decision is made on how much spending will be for the coming two fiscal years. Depending on the expected revenue from taxes there may or may not be enough to cover the spending that was deemed to be necessary. In 2009, the spending increases (although promoted as being “cuts”) required a Billion dollar tax increase to make it appear that the approved budget spending was covered by necessary income.
The fact that the state’s taxes are not generating the revenue to cover the increased spending desires of legislators and recipients of government spending brings us to the current $900 Million budget hole the special legislative session (starting Feb. 23) will take up.
Considering the failure of the current system and the desire to make changes envisioned as requiring a broader tax base, I would like to suggest an idea borrowed from my emerging understanding of the philosophies of acclaimed economist F.A. Hayek. As a strong proponent of maximum personal and market freedom, Hayek seems to have considered limitations on the scope of government as essential to make economies work properly.
The idea for pondering is starting at the opposite point of the spending/tax equation. From what I understand, Hayek suggested that the starting point would be determining how much tax revenue should be generated from an all-inclusive group of taxpayers. Instead of targeting sectors of the state’s economy who are perceived to warrant turning their resources over for the public’s good – all Nevadans should be given the opportunity to own the level of spending approved as the right amount of money the state’s payout pot should contain.
The broadest base possible would be each citizen paying into the state’s tax coffers. It would seem that the best system would be an equal level of tax, perhaps the tax should be called “step up to pay your fair share tax” since that concept is so warmly embraced by the champions of state spending. Perhaps each person above the age of 18 should be required to pay $8,000 per year, making payments on equal quarterly installments.
Once this level of taxation was established, the grand total of the payments from each citizen would be established as the amount of money available for legislators to distribute through state spending. Based on priority of public importance, the spending would flow to meet the identified purposes, but would do so on the basis of what is affordable for Nevada taxpayers as opposed to the never-ceasing wishes of those coveting to spend other people’s money. In the event that the greed of the current tax spenders couldn’t be satisfied from the wallets of citizens paying in the $8,000 tax burden, expanding competitive, market-oriented alternatives (such as private sector teaching services which would also likely provide higher quality results) would greatly assist in reducing the reasons for needing greater resources.
The spenders are in charge of how Nevada’s Legislative process is carried out. This goes beyond the political party in control and also includes the involvement of the interests cashing the checks written from the state’s treasury. Part of the reason for Nevada’s escalating spending binge is the philosophy of legislative leaders that each regular session should start with the spending from the past budgets and add to that amount by a percentage perceived to be appropriate to cover the supposed increased costs.
Throughout the legislative session the various elements of the state’s budgets are examined, discussed and eventually (more likely than not from behind closed doors) a decision is made on how much spending will be for the coming two fiscal years. Depending on the expected revenue from taxes there may or may not be enough to cover the spending that was deemed to be necessary. In 2009, the spending increases (although promoted as being “cuts”) required a Billion dollar tax increase to make it appear that the approved budget spending was covered by necessary income.
The fact that the state’s taxes are not generating the revenue to cover the increased spending desires of legislators and recipients of government spending brings us to the current $900 Million budget hole the special legislative session (starting Feb. 23) will take up.
Considering the failure of the current system and the desire to make changes envisioned as requiring a broader tax base, I would like to suggest an idea borrowed from my emerging understanding of the philosophies of acclaimed economist F.A. Hayek. As a strong proponent of maximum personal and market freedom, Hayek seems to have considered limitations on the scope of government as essential to make economies work properly.
The idea for pondering is starting at the opposite point of the spending/tax equation. From what I understand, Hayek suggested that the starting point would be determining how much tax revenue should be generated from an all-inclusive group of taxpayers. Instead of targeting sectors of the state’s economy who are perceived to warrant turning their resources over for the public’s good – all Nevadans should be given the opportunity to own the level of spending approved as the right amount of money the state’s payout pot should contain.
The broadest base possible would be each citizen paying into the state’s tax coffers. It would seem that the best system would be an equal level of tax, perhaps the tax should be called “step up to pay your fair share tax” since that concept is so warmly embraced by the champions of state spending. Perhaps each person above the age of 18 should be required to pay $8,000 per year, making payments on equal quarterly installments.
Once this level of taxation was established, the grand total of the payments from each citizen would be established as the amount of money available for legislators to distribute through state spending. Based on priority of public importance, the spending would flow to meet the identified purposes, but would do so on the basis of what is affordable for Nevada taxpayers as opposed to the never-ceasing wishes of those coveting to spend other people’s money. In the event that the greed of the current tax spenders couldn’t be satisfied from the wallets of citizens paying in the $8,000 tax burden, expanding competitive, market-oriented alternatives (such as private sector teaching services which would also likely provide higher quality results) would greatly assist in reducing the reasons for needing greater resources.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 2/20/2010 9:12 PM 
Categories: Nevada
Tags: Nevada Legislative Special Session Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes
Categories: Nevada
Tags: Nevada Legislative Special Session Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes
Comments