If We Were To Talk Taxes
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Although some might question the sanity in having a public conversation about taxes in Nevada now, I would suggest that now would be the best time to discuss and evaluate the topic which can’t seem to be considered until the crisis has been properly positioned and there is only one apparent option – pass an increase. That was basically the strategy attempted during the 2011 Nevada Legislature, waiting until the last possible minute to bring forward a massive increase, and hoping that the stage had been set with enough of a bombardment and belittling of the Governor’s budget proposal to have the taxation schemes seem as reasonable solutions.
Overall the 2011 Nevada Legislative process was wrought with more than its fair share of Machiavellian plots, attempting to maneuver results to pre-destined conclusions, but nothing compared with the proposal for restructuring our tax system.
There was an actual bill put forward in the Assembly to provide for hearings and public interaction. AB 569 was identified as a “transaction tax”, basically looking to take our current sales tax system and sought to stretch it to cover services.
The bill, introduced on May 11th (94 days into a 120-day session) got a fair set of hearings before the Assembly Taxation Committee and an effort was made to evaluate the areas that needed fixing to make it more sound from a public policy perspective. There would be nothing wrong from picking that conversation up from where it left off and bringing the public debate forward.
If it were to be seriously considered, the ideas of a similar proposal covered in the 2010 effort by the Nevada Policy Research Institute in their “One Sound State Once Again”. When you read through the policy document that Geoffrey Lawrence put forward, including the expansion of the “sales tax” system to cover a broader spectrum of transactions, a key difference is the way that the NPRI proposal was offered as a revenue neutral idea. Sales taxes on the items now taxed would be reduced and an even, across the board approach would be taken to address the problems of a Nevada tax system supposedly too narrow in its collection abilities.
Other key points of what would be essential for adopting this new approach to taxation are highlighted in this post that served to highlight the overall reform program as an Executive Summary.
Although not covered in the policy white paper, but a big reason for why “now” would be the time to start the ball rolling again on specific taxation discussions – November 2012.
(I’m not talking about the highly likely ballot box tax initiative approach some special interests are speculated to be considering…)
I’m talking about those seeking our votes, asking to be elected to represent us in the 2013 Nevada Legislature, going on record and engaging in honest, “here’s how I stand on that issue” exchanges. From my experience, the talk of taxes doesn’t surface until after the election is over – and then as we saw with the 2011 tax proposals it was still about hiding the tax-hike agenda until the game was about over.
I probably wouldn’t vote for a candidate who went on the stump and told the world that they were planning, if elected, to support and seek to increase taxes, but I would respect their approach to honest government. If they were elected and in doing so claimed that they were fulfilling their campaign promises – good for them and they would very likely have a mandate to enact that kind of policy.
If the plan however, is not saying anything or trying to suggest that increasing taxes isn’t on your “things to do list” ... and then you bring it up as a necessity during a legislative session…we’ve seen enough and had enough of the way that game gets played.
Although some might question the sanity in having a public conversation about taxes in Nevada now, I would suggest that now would be the best time to discuss and evaluate the topic which can’t seem to be considered until the crisis has been properly positioned and there is only one apparent option – pass an increase. That was basically the strategy attempted during the 2011 Nevada Legislature, waiting until the last possible minute to bring forward a massive increase, and hoping that the stage had been set with enough of a bombardment and belittling of the Governor’s budget proposal to have the taxation schemes seem as reasonable solutions.
Overall the 2011 Nevada Legislative process was wrought with more than its fair share of Machiavellian plots, attempting to maneuver results to pre-destined conclusions, but nothing compared with the proposal for restructuring our tax system.
There was an actual bill put forward in the Assembly to provide for hearings and public interaction. AB 569 was identified as a “transaction tax”, basically looking to take our current sales tax system and sought to stretch it to cover services.
The bill, introduced on May 11th (94 days into a 120-day session) got a fair set of hearings before the Assembly Taxation Committee and an effort was made to evaluate the areas that needed fixing to make it more sound from a public policy perspective. There would be nothing wrong from picking that conversation up from where it left off and bringing the public debate forward.
If it were to be seriously considered, the ideas of a similar proposal covered in the 2010 effort by the Nevada Policy Research Institute in their “One Sound State Once Again”. When you read through the policy document that Geoffrey Lawrence put forward, including the expansion of the “sales tax” system to cover a broader spectrum of transactions, a key difference is the way that the NPRI proposal was offered as a revenue neutral idea. Sales taxes on the items now taxed would be reduced and an even, across the board approach would be taken to address the problems of a Nevada tax system supposedly too narrow in its collection abilities.
Other key points of what would be essential for adopting this new approach to taxation are highlighted in this post that served to highlight the overall reform program as an Executive Summary.
Although not covered in the policy white paper, but a big reason for why “now” would be the time to start the ball rolling again on specific taxation discussions – November 2012.
(I’m not talking about the highly likely ballot box tax initiative approach some special interests are speculated to be considering…)
I’m talking about those seeking our votes, asking to be elected to represent us in the 2013 Nevada Legislature, going on record and engaging in honest, “here’s how I stand on that issue” exchanges. From my experience, the talk of taxes doesn’t surface until after the election is over – and then as we saw with the 2011 tax proposals it was still about hiding the tax-hike agenda until the game was about over.
I probably wouldn’t vote for a candidate who went on the stump and told the world that they were planning, if elected, to support and seek to increase taxes, but I would respect their approach to honest government. If they were elected and in doing so claimed that they were fulfilling their campaign promises – good for them and they would very likely have a mandate to enact that kind of policy.
If the plan however, is not saying anything or trying to suggest that increasing taxes isn’t on your “things to do list” ... and then you bring it up as a necessity during a legislative session…we’ve seen enough and had enough of the way that game gets played.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 6/22/2011 12:50 PM 
Categories: Government
Tags: Nevada Budget and Taxes Nevada Legislature
Categories: Government
Tags: Nevada Budget and Taxes Nevada Legislature
Comments