Who Should Be The “Broader” Part Of The Tax Base?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The discussions at the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group meeting this past Friday, broached the topic of the need for Nevada requiring a broader tax base. This theme will be a constant thread that will be loudly proclaimed between now and the end of the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session. We can expect the voices of mining and gaming advocating that other business enterprises join them in the effort to satisfy the majority party’s no-limit thirst for tax dollars.
Those who spend and those who receive their checks from government’s checkbook are convinced that the private sector exist in order to pay taxes and provide whatever is earned for the public good. Ultimately this is the reason that the Nevada Vision Stakeholders were created – come up with the need for greater levels of spending…then legislators will have the cover they seek as the excuse to pursue more taxes from more places. This of course is something that we’re not supposed to consider as a pre-determined outcome, let’s just be surprised if that’s how it turns out…
As was pointed out in this piece, Nevada legislators having more money to spend has only resulted in spending all of what was available and then needing to raise taxes to spend more. Our only real protection from this spend, spend – tax increase – spend, spend cycle is to put in place a solid prevention measure that causes state spending to be constrained by the vote of the people. If there would have been a spending limitation system in place, there would have been increases in spending as required to meet inflation and growth requirements. What would not have happened is allowing the spenders in charge of the Nevada Legislature from exceeding the ability of the private sector to produce enough tax revenue to meet their spending excesses. This policy paper not only emphasizes this reality, but also graphically demonstrates the way legislators have escalated their spending binge to ever new levels, regardless of the economic downturn that everyone else has had to endure.
The business community is the primary targets for the state’s Democrats, thinking that it’s always easier to portray that sector as being flush with cash that ought to be going to cover the costs deemed appropriate for government spending. This line of reasoning was clearly put on display during the 2010 Special Legislative Session where even a term-limited Republican Senator thought it acceptable to lecture on how business needs to be less inclined to seek keeping their resources for business operations and employment of their employees. The public sector is far more important than those who earn a living in the private sector…so pay up. “No” is not a viable option, according to our elected “leaders” – it shouldn’t be a point of view when it comes to tax increases and it shouldn’t be a perspective when it comes to spending increases. Just like the instructions on the shampoo bottle – spend, tax…repeat steps.
Would the same approach be acceptable if the taxes were being levied against individual citizens? Would the demands be as blatant if those writing out the checks were individual voters, paying in a personal way (instead of the somewhat hidden manner of sales tax assessments or the hidden income tax assessed on employee’s payrolls)? The same class warfare, populist appeal wouldn’t work if the target for the never-ending tax requirements were individuals.
That’s exactly the reason for the need to put in place a spending constraint measure to keep state government spending from increasing at the pace it has been sky-rocketing higher it also is the reason why the broader tax base being sought should come in the form of individuals paying for the costs of Nevada government. First, we would accomplish the fundamental requirement for keeping state spending within the boundaries of responsibility and because of individual voter taxpayers being engaged directly, accountability would also become reality.
The discussions at the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group meeting this past Friday, broached the topic of the need for Nevada requiring a broader tax base. This theme will be a constant thread that will be loudly proclaimed between now and the end of the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session. We can expect the voices of mining and gaming advocating that other business enterprises join them in the effort to satisfy the majority party’s no-limit thirst for tax dollars.
Those who spend and those who receive their checks from government’s checkbook are convinced that the private sector exist in order to pay taxes and provide whatever is earned for the public good. Ultimately this is the reason that the Nevada Vision Stakeholders were created – come up with the need for greater levels of spending…then legislators will have the cover they seek as the excuse to pursue more taxes from more places. This of course is something that we’re not supposed to consider as a pre-determined outcome, let’s just be surprised if that’s how it turns out…
As was pointed out in this piece, Nevada legislators having more money to spend has only resulted in spending all of what was available and then needing to raise taxes to spend more. Our only real protection from this spend, spend – tax increase – spend, spend cycle is to put in place a solid prevention measure that causes state spending to be constrained by the vote of the people. If there would have been a spending limitation system in place, there would have been increases in spending as required to meet inflation and growth requirements. What would not have happened is allowing the spenders in charge of the Nevada Legislature from exceeding the ability of the private sector to produce enough tax revenue to meet their spending excesses. This policy paper not only emphasizes this reality, but also graphically demonstrates the way legislators have escalated their spending binge to ever new levels, regardless of the economic downturn that everyone else has had to endure.
The business community is the primary targets for the state’s Democrats, thinking that it’s always easier to portray that sector as being flush with cash that ought to be going to cover the costs deemed appropriate for government spending. This line of reasoning was clearly put on display during the 2010 Special Legislative Session where even a term-limited Republican Senator thought it acceptable to lecture on how business needs to be less inclined to seek keeping their resources for business operations and employment of their employees. The public sector is far more important than those who earn a living in the private sector…so pay up. “No” is not a viable option, according to our elected “leaders” – it shouldn’t be a point of view when it comes to tax increases and it shouldn’t be a perspective when it comes to spending increases. Just like the instructions on the shampoo bottle – spend, tax…repeat steps.
Would the same approach be acceptable if the taxes were being levied against individual citizens? Would the demands be as blatant if those writing out the checks were individual voters, paying in a personal way (instead of the somewhat hidden manner of sales tax assessments or the hidden income tax assessed on employee’s payrolls)? The same class warfare, populist appeal wouldn’t work if the target for the never-ending tax requirements were individuals.
That’s exactly the reason for the need to put in place a spending constraint measure to keep state government spending from increasing at the pace it has been sky-rocketing higher it also is the reason why the broader tax base being sought should come in the form of individuals paying for the costs of Nevada government. First, we would accomplish the fundamental requirement for keeping state spending within the boundaries of responsibility and because of individual voter taxpayers being engaged directly, accountability would also become reality.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 3/14/2010 6:11 AM 
Categories: Nevada State Spending
Tags: Interim Finance Committee Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes Nevada Policy Research Institute
Categories: Nevada State Spending
Tags: Interim Finance Committee Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes Nevada Policy Research Institute
Comments