|
New
Taxpayer Bill of Rights gets first hearing in Carson
Five state senators are sponsors
Comprehensive
protection for Silver State taxpayers on all
tax fronts, not just property, was the subject of a
hearing in the Nevada Senate this morning.
It was the Nevada Legislature's first hearing on Senate Joint Resolutions
5 and 6, which propose to add to the Nevada Constitution
several provisions similar to some in the State of
Colorado's Article 10, Section 20.
Widely known as TABOR,
an acronym for Taxpayer Bill of Rights,
Colorado's Article 10, Section 20 is the nation's
strictest limitation on the tax-and-spend approach to
government.
While Nevada's SJR 5 and
6 are being described as a 'Nevada TABOR,' they do not
exactly duplicate the Colorado approach. To read or
download SJR 5, click
here, SJR 6, click
here; and to read Colorado's TABOR, click
here. (This link goes to the website of the
Independence Institute, probably the pre-eminent
authority on
Tax &
Expenditure Limitation measures.)
Primary sponsors of the
Nevada proposals are state senators Bob Beers, Barbara
Cegavske, Warren Hardy, Sandra Tiffany and Maurice
Washington.
A PowerPoint presentation
on the proposals was given Wednesday morning by Sen.
Beers. That same presentation is available on the Web at
www.nvtabor.com and
can be downloaded. The website itself, still under
development, is sponsored by Sen. Beers.
According to SJR 6's
official summary, it "Proposes to amend Nevada
Constitution to impose certain limitations on amount
that Legislature or governing body of governmental
entity may appropriate and authorize for expenditure."
In what is sure to catch the eye of both proponents and
opponents of larger government, the Legislative Counsel
Bureau reports, under Fiscal Notes, that the measure
would have "No Effect" on local government and "No
Effect" on state government.
Another hearing on SJR 5
and SJR 6 is currently scheduled for Friday, April 15.
Also scheduled is SJR 9, sponsored by Beers alone. It
proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution by
establishing new restrictions on the state legislature's
ability to spend. To read or down load it, click
here.
Have Nevada's wink-at-the law political operators
out-smarted themselves?
By Steven Miller
An attorney
pointed out to BusinessNevada this week
that AB 489, the Nevada Legislature's April Fool's Day
'solution' to out-of-control property taxes, "continues
the dangerous precedent of ignoring the Nevada
Constitution when it is convenient."
He also noted that the
legislation was politically crafted "to
take the wind out of the sails of needed tax and
spending reform initiatives and to drive a wedge between
individual homeowners and businesses in their common
cause of limiting taxes and controlling government
spending."
But what happens if one
puts the two insights together, and then links up both
of them with the history of the Nevada property tax
issue? It yields lots of evidence that Nevada taxpayers
can be sure of two things: While they can't trust the
politicians who go to Carson City to obey the law, and
can't trust them to keep their tax-restraint promises
(see table, below), taxpayers can trust the
state's ruling political class to always, incessantly,
press for ever-larger shares of private Nevadans'
earnings and wealth.
Will voters add up the
evidence that way? If they do, it will be big, big
trouble for the tax-and-spenders, who'll soon find
heavy-duty new tax and expenditure limits on them in the
Nevada constitution. Yet it's the strategically clever
political operatives themselves who have placed the
issues right in front of the public. They did it by
consciously choosing legislation widely acknowledged, by
candid observers of both left and right, to flout the
state's basic charter. To quote State Senator Dina
Titus, speaking about AB 489, "I think it's totally
unconstitutional."
|
Increases in Nevada's property tax rate,
notwithstanding State's 1981 pledge |
|
County, City average |
1981-82 rate |
2004-05 rate |
Percent change |
|
Carson City |
1.26 |
2.70 |
114% |
|
Clark |
2.03 |
3.08 |
52% |
|
Las Vegas |
2.20 |
3.30 |
50% |
|
N. Las Vegas |
2.17 |
3.43 |
58% |
|
Henderson |
1.81 |
2.95 |
63% |
|
Douglas |
1.51 |
2.42 |
60% |
|
Elko |
1.29 |
2.93 |
127% |
|
Washoe |
1.51 |
3.54 |
134% |
|
Reno |
1.36 |
3.62 |
166% |
|
Sparks |
1.71 |
3.66 |
114% |
Data: Nevada Tax Dept, local government 'Red
Books'
|
In short, obsessed with
keeping as much
of the current sky-high property taxes as politically
possible in government hands, legislative leaders in
Carson required rank and file lawmakers to join them in
casually abandoning one of the indispensable
requirement of a free society: the rule of law.
The very source of the
Nevada Legislature's own authority to make laws at all is
the text of Nevada's fundamental law, the state
constitution. Yet, lawmakers in Carson City
chose to ignore the limited and conditional source of
their own authority and insisted on a "law" that only by
strained thimble-rigging can be
deemed consistent with the explicit wording of the
state's basic charter.
Article 10, Section 1 of
the Nevada Constitution mandates explicitly that, “The
Legislature shall provide by law for a uniform and equal
rate of assessment and taxation.” This requirement -- in
many state constitutions beside Nevada's -- reflects the
original recognition by America's founders that their
new country would not last long if a predatory and
short-sighted majority could get together and impose
higher taxes on a small, outvoted minority. But that, of
course, is precisely what legislative leaders seek to do
with AB 489: In counsel's words cited earlier, they seek
"to
drive a wedge between individual homeowners and
businesses," the latter nominated for the role of the
small, outvoted minority. But
What the
laugh-at-the-law crowd has been relying on, many have
explicitly acknowledged, is the supposedly hated status
awaiting anyone who chooses to legally challenge their
unlawful and morally corrupt handiwork. But note what
that point, itself, makes clear: All that matters to
these people is whether or not they can get away with
it.
That is a remarkable
confession to place before law-abiding average citizens.
And it is powerful evidence that none of us -- even if
in owner-occupied housing -- are safe from these people.
Foes of taxpayer rights
paint false picture of
Colorado's
protections
By Chris Atkins
Staff attorney
The Tax Foundation
The state of
Colorado is under assault. Opponents of
Colorado’s Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) are waging
a well-coordinated but misleading attack on Colorado’s
reputation.
This attack takes the form of a number of rankings and
statistics that purport to show that the Taxpayer's Bill
of Rights has decimated Colorado. These rankings and
statistics are based on the assumption that if Colorado
ranks poorly on things like the adequacy of prenatal
care and education spending, then Colorado is failing to
adequately care for and educate its citizens, and that
the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights must be to blame.
A closer look at the attacks shows that they fail to
prove that the amount a state spends on health care and
education determines quality, and they also fail to tell
the whole truth about the rankings and statistics of the
state of Colorado. [to read or down load the full
Fiscal Facts report, click
here]
Permanent Death
Tax
Repeal Passes the House
Margin increases by nine votes
Washington, DC – The Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act
today passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a
crushing 110 vote majority – nine votes larger than its
margin last year. Voting in favor of the bill were
272
representatives, including 42 Democrats.
“Momentum for death tax repeal is growing,” said Dick
Patten, executive director of the American Family
Business Institute (AFBI). “More Democrats than ever
voted to kill the death tax permanently.”
AFBI runs the No Death
Tax website, at
http://www.nodeathtax.org .
With passage complete in the House, the fight over
permanent repeal of the death tax moves to the Senate.
There, only seven Democratic votes are needed to insure
passage. Ten Democratic Senators have voted to repeal
the death tax in the past but a number of them have
switched their positions back and forth.
“We’re going to be pushing the Democrats hard on this,”
said Patten. “They’ll either vote for repeal of the
death tax or feel the pain back home.”
Ninety-two
percent of Americans feel it is unfair for government to
tax a person’s income while it is being earned and then
tax it again after death.
LVBusinessPress
Ancient proverbs hold lessons for tax reform
By
Jack Faris
President, NFIB
The Chinese
proverb, "Make your plans for the year in the
spring, and your plans for the day early in the
morning," rings of optimism and hope. But for a majority
of American small business owners, spring, with its
inevitable April 15 tax deadline, is less a season for
planning the future. Rather, it's more of a time of
dread.
For two decades, taxes
and related issues have been top problems for small
firms. According to the NFIB Research Foundation's Small
Business Problems and Priorities, taxes and the hassles
affiliated with them claimed 13 of the 75 issues deemed
problematic. Three of the top 10 rankings included
federal taxes on business income, just ahead of property
taxes and only three notches above state levies. [more]
Subscribe
to
BUSINESSNevada
Know a colleague who’d be interested? Forward
BUSINESSNevada!
|