Sunday, Oct. 15, 2006 | 7:26 a.m.
Question 8 on next month's ballot offers Nevadans a chance to save some money when they trade in used vehicles, with this catch: If voters don't approve the tax cut, some effectively will be hit with a tax increase.
That take-this-tax-cut-or-else angle to Question 8, which would create tax exemptions on trade-ins of used vehicles and for farm machinery and equipment, makes it one of more unusual issues on the ballot.
Two other questions to be decided by Nevadans, Nos. 10 and 11, are proposed amendments to the state Constitution that would allow the Nevada Legislature to call its own special sessions and that would increase legislators' pay.
All three measures were placed on the ballot by the 2005 Nevada Legislature. And though none has drawn as much attention as higher profile ballot measures dealing with public smoking bans, eminent domain and the legalization of marijuana, each potentially could impact taxpayers' pocketbooks.
The issue that could most immediately save or cost Nevadans money is Question 8.
If approved, Question 8 would exempt from the sales and use tax the value of any used vehicle taken in trade on the purchase of another vehicle.
In Clark County, where the tax is 7.75 percent, this exemption already applies to the portion of the tax distributed to local government - 5.75 percent - but not to the 2 percent that goes to the state. By also exempting the state portion of the tax, the measure would cost Nevada $18.8 million annually.
Now, if a Clark County resident trades in a used car valued at $10,000 while buying a new $20,000 car, he would pay $10,975 - the $20,000 price tag, plus the $1,550 sales tax, minus the $10,000 trade-in and the $575 local sales tax exemption.
If Question 8 passes, a consumer also could exempt the $200 in state sales taxes on the trade-in, reducing his total price to $10,775.
One of the peculiar features of Question 8, however, is that its defeat would not simply preserve the status quo, but rather also would change existing tax provisions.
If voters reject Question 8, the local portion of the exemption for vehicle trade-ins - the 5.75 percent in Clark County - would be eliminated. Under that scenario, someone who buys a $20,000 car with a $10,000 trade-in would end up paying $11,550, $575 more than now. That, in turn, would produce an annual windfall of $51 million for local governments throughout Nevada.
The ballot measure, if passed, also would extend the tax exemption to gross receipts from the sale, storage or use of farm machinery and equipment. That portion of the measure would cost the state $800,000 a year and local governments would lose $1.6 million annually.
If Question 8 has a direct tie to taxes, Questions 10 and 11 - which deal with legislative pay and sessions - have at least indirect connections to Nevadans' wallets, given that whenever legislators are in Carson City, money matters normally are at the top of the agenda.
Question 10 would allow the Legislature to call its own special sessions, a power enjoyed by 38 other state legislatures. Under current Nevada law, only the governor may call a special session.
If passed, the proposed constitutional amendment would allow the Legislature to call a special session if two-thirds of both the state Senate and Assembly sign a petition. The special session would be limited to 20 days and could consider only bills specified in the petition.
While the governor still could call a special session, the proposed amendment would give precedence to special sessions called by the Legislature.
The proposal, approved by the Legislature in both 2003 and 2005, was sponsored by Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, D-Las Vegas. Because it was passed in successive legislative sessions, the proposal would take effect if approved by voters Nov. 7.
"We're based on a system where there are three separate branches of state government," Mortenson said. "It makes no sense that for 20 months of every biennium that only the executive branch can call us into session."
The Legislature should have more power to control its actions, Mortenson said.
"The executive branch is supposed to be executing the laws but for 20 months of every biennium it is in control of the Legislature because we can't meet (in special session) unless the governor says so," he said. "If we're going to have separation of powers, should the executive branch rule over the legislative branch? It doesn't make sense to me."
Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, one of five senators who opposed the resolution when it passed the Legislature last year, said he was unaware of any formal opposition to Question 10. But he said he opposed the measure on philosophical grounds.
"I consider it a separation of powers that only the executive branch could call the legislative branch into special session," Beers said. "I like checks and balances. Call me a traditionalist."
Question 11, another proposed constitutional amendment approved by the Legislature in 2003 and 2005, could double legislators' pay by paying them for each day of a regular session instead of a maximum of 60 days as specified under current law. The Legislature meets in regular session during odd years.
At $130 a day, lawmakers currently receive $7,800 per session, one of the lowest rates in the nation. But with regular sessions lasting up to 120 days, their pay would increase to as much as $15,600, assuming the daily rate of $130 - established in 1985 - remains unchanged. That would translate to an additional cost of $491,400 per regular session. Lawmakers also would be paid the going daily rate for each day of a special session, rather than the maximum 20 days under existing law.
In addition, lawmakers would receive "reasonable allowances" to cover the cost of postage, newspapers, telecommunications and stationery related to a regular or special session. The state Constitution currently limits lawmakers to no more than $60 per regular or special session for such purposes, though separate laws already provide additional compensation for various expenses.
If Question 11 passes, another new law would have to be enacted to define "reasonable allowances."
Speaking in favor of the proposed amendment, Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, told a Senate committee last year that the pay adjustment was long overdue. The 60-day pay limit, he said, has been in the state Constitution since Nevada became a state in 1864.
"I do not know of many people in this 63-member body who desire to extend a legislative session merely because they might get another $130 per day," Raggio said. "Most of the legislators here give up remuneration from their outside interests in order to serve."
Raggio also told the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee that increasing legislative pay would encourage more candidates to run for the Legislature.
"When we know we are going to serve here at least 120 days and only get paid for 60 days ... there really is some disincentive for people to come forward as candidates," Raggio said. "This is simply recognition that the language which now exists in this Constitution is archaic."
But Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, one of five senators to oppose this measure last year, said that if Question 11 passes, Southern Nevada lawmakers would actually receive $8,230 in total compensation per month for the four months spent in Carson City every other year. That would include $3,900 in salary at $130 a day for 30 days, $3,000 in per diem allowances for miscellaneous expenses, $700 for telephone reimbursement, $615 for rent (for lawmakers whose homes are more than 50 miles from Carson City) and $15 for postage, stationery, newspapers and other expenses stipulated in the state Constitution.
"This would effectively double the pay of legislators, yet we did not pass an increase in the minimum wage," Care said. "I'm not going to ask voters to double my salary when we didn't vote to raise the minimum wage."
archive
