Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSUN EDITORIAL:
No amnesty for deadbeats
Proposal to waive penalties for businesses delinquent on their taxes is unfair
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 | 2:06 a.m.
The Bush recession has led to a projected $900 million shortfall in Nevada’s tax revenue and has forced legislators and Gov. Jim Gibbons to make extensive cuts in state programs.
Now Gibbons is proposing another approach as a way of keeping his ill-advised election promise to not raise taxes.
He says that penalties and interest that have been accumulating against businesses delinquent on their state taxes and fees should be waived during an amnesty program that would begin July 1.
We disagree.
Gibbons reasons that this program would encourage at least some businesses to step forward and pay their past-due taxes.
But what message would be sent to the vast majority of business owners who have been diligent about paying what they owe, even if it meant hardship? That they’ve been fools for being conscientious?
Tax amnesty programs generally do not recover significant amounts of revenue, as proved by past experiences with them in Nevada. Our view is that delinquent taxpayers, be they business owners or individuals, should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, rather than be offered a blanket amnesty program that is unfair to taxpayers who paid on time.
People should not be led to believe that they can put off paying their taxes because a future amnesty program will save them from penalties and interest.
The Nevada Tax Commission should not go along with this proposal by Gibbons.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
First, there is NO recession. The editors of the Sun might WANT a recession, as bad news for the "people" is good news for the Democrat, but stop lying to the readership re: recession.
Learn what a recession is, then accurately comment.
Taxes must be paid, without favoritism.
For Gibbons to propose an amnesty like this is irresponsible and unfair to taxpayers who, under penalty of law, must pay on time and within the law.
NVMakz,
Yesterday you were saying that word meanings are not important. Today you're saying they are. Which is it?
I agree that by definition we are not in recession, recession being termed three consecutive quarters of negative growth. We don't ever really know that we've had a recession until after the numbers are in on that third quarter. So there is absolutely no way to say right now that we are in recession.
That being said, things are not very good economically right now.
Anyway, since you're such a stickler for the proper use of terminology, would you care to rethink your contention that what is going on in Iraq is a liberation?
JohnF:
My words are whatever I use to short-hand message boards on the Internet.
Each subject is different and each set of responses are whatever I wish them to be.
If you can't keep up, go back to sit on the porch.
I agree economic times are not good, but not as bad as the liberal media - pushing this FOR the Democrats in 2008, would sell. I and all I know are weathering this well. Read some Kudlow, or even watch some Kramer.
The Liberation of Iraq is going well. "We" are winning. Congressional Liberals - despite being able and talk as if they're willing - to cut funding at any time, yet refuse to do so. Why??
The only "stickling"(mq)) I'm doing is into the ribs of the paper I disagree with.
Do, try and keep up.
So in other words, you are right all the time and I should get used to it. It matters not whether you are consistent or logical, as long as I understand that you are correct. I think I can keep up with that. :-)
You are correct on the central topic of this editorial, by the way. This tax amnesty is a very bad idea.
To answer (again) your question about why Democrats continue to fund the Iraq war, the answer is they have no alternative. The President is the Commander in Chief and he will not remove the troops from Iraq. There is not one member - or group of members - of Congress who has the authority to overrule the President on that. So as far as funding is concerned, Congress has the choice of either continuing to fund the war or to withhold funding thereby leaving the troops out to hang. Congress is doing the only responsible thing they can in the face of this Preidential intransigence. As you know, I was opposed to this war from the start, but if I were in Congress I'd do exactly the same thing. The service men and women in Iraq are there because we told them to go there. Anything less than our full support for them would be dishonorable in the extreme (which is one of the reasons I have such low regard for this President, but that's another story). Of course, I would show my support for them by bringing them home, but we'll just have to disagree on that.
Sure, since you explain it so well, Bow Down....
Good to see your willingness to try and keep up. Good show...
the 2006 (D-Lib) Congressal Leadership has - with great fanfare - wanted the troops home, yet have - if memory serves - have never even given Bush that choice to make.
The 2006 Lib-led Congress is simply leaving our children out there to die; when they COULD bring them home by ramming home the "we're gonna cut the funding" effort.
"Bring it on", lol....
Our finest children, hanging out in danger in places we don't want them in == for political noise and harrangement (chew on THAT one!) and as a club by the DemocRAT party -who COULD fight for it....
I know we're winning over there, but this is a choice they can and could make - rather than just bitching about it. The 2006 Congressional Leadership is keeping them there for political "gain"
So, the liberal party is responsible for NOT "bringing the troops home", costing American lives and treasure for party politics.
Why wait for the election? If it's all that bad, and so unpopular = just get on with it. It seems a Dem-no-brainer (ouch, dude?)
"American liberal = murderer of our children........". On several levels, this fits. lol....
See if you can keep up with that.........
I know you say words mean whatever you want them to mean, but what do you want the word "harrangement" to mean? No dictionary I can find includes that "word."
Let's add up the numbers. There are 50 Democratic Senators. Including Joe Lieberman there are 51 who caucus with the Democrats. However, Lieberman backs Bush and McCain on the war. Therefore there is no way for the Democrats to force through any bill that would stop funding for the war. Even if they could muster 51 votes, they would never be able to gather the number necessary to override a certain veto. Pushing for such a bill would be a waste of time.
The best chance Democrats have for ending the war is to bring their case directly to the voters. That's where their effort is best spent, and that's what they're doing right now. If you thought the last midterm elections were a referendum on this war (and the economy with which it's saddled us), just wait until November.
There's only one person who's responsible for not bringing the troops home, and that's George W. Bush.
I'm an American liberal and I would never stoop to calling you a murderer of children. You are obviously a student of the Anne Coulter school of debate. Venting your spleen in that Coulter/O'Reilly fashion may make you feel better, but it certainly isn't going to convince anyone with an ounce of intelligence of the superiority of your position. If you'd like me to come over to your way of thinking, it's probably best not to call me a baby killer. I'm willing to be convinced; that's why I'm here, after all, but this ain't getting it done. I can keep up with that much.
In not pushing for their hugely outspoken beliefs about bringing the troops home = the Lib-Led 2006 110th Congress is an abject, unmitigated and pathetic failure. Polling 10+/- points under Bush is just icing. From 52+/-% in 2006 to 21+/-% today, just two years?? "You" proud of that??
Your GWB reference is laughable. Tell "your" fave Lib-poltico to get on with it and cut the funding. Grow a backbone. Give Bush the political choice == then blast away if he vetos the "Cut And Run From Iraq Act of 2008".
The impotent chatter otherwise (not just here) is just libdistortioning and soc-noise. Choke on those.....
Truth is, the liberal leaves our bravest and finest "over there" to die for their own political amusement in bashing Bush for this. "For a few seats more"(mq). Pathetic.
This IS done, as you're not helping either, by not acting on "your" highest beliefs. Bang down the door and say "NO MORE WAR, WE'RE BRING THE TROOPS HOME BY CUTTING FUNDING". Get on with it....
There 's nothing you're saying which advances this ideal of getting the troops home. You must be complicit in this as well.
Anyway, the last paragraph only brings to mind the personalities you mentioned -- and your lack of openness to new ideas. They make a living in a business which libs die quickly as well - talk radio and alternative commentary. Socialism doesn't sell unless crammed down indoctrinating throats.
All you have been doing is assaulting my communication style and trying to place restrictions thereupon (lol...). You're spending more energy on efforting controlling & silencing my free speech rights than debating any issue, really. "MISSION FAILED"!
There is nothing here today for which you're advancing the debate or even keeping me interested. Just being e-whiny about grammar, about dancing and avoiding the fact of lib-D complicity in the deaths of thousands of our finest = and trillions in the nation's treasure....
All "for a few seats more"(mq).
You're trying, but I hope the taste of dust is palatable for your politics and retortable effecttionationing.........
HEY, DEMOCRAT = CUT THE FUNDING. BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!!!!
"retortable effecttionationing"???
"harrangement"???
What the heck is that?
You can't even put together a coherent sentence, for cryin' out loud. Your communication style comes in for attack not because anyone is trying to trample on your free speech rights. Rather, your communication style comes in for attack because it's only semi-literate and makes it difficult for the reader to discern your intent. I'm trying to understand you, but you have to meet me halfway by using logically connected real words.
Best I can tell, your argument seems to be that,if the Democrats truly believed in bringing the troops home, they'd pass a bill ending funding for the war and let Bush veto it, knowing full well they couldn't override the veto. That because they fail to take part in this exercise in futility, they are complicit in all the deaths in Iraq.
So what you're saying is the blame for the waste of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars lies with the people who oppose this policy. That certainly makes sense. "I did it, but it's not my fault because you didn't stop me!"
I'm always open to new ideas. Let's look at some of yours.
"I agree economic times are not good, but not as bad as the liberal media - pushing this FOR the Democrats in 2008, would sell. I and all I know are weathering this well."
Wrong. That's called extrapolating your findings out past your data. Just because you and you friends are doing well is no reason to think everyone is doing well. The sample size is far too small.
"There's nothing you're saying which advances this ideal of getting the troops home. You must be complicit in this as well."
How do you know? How do you know about the letters I've written, the phone calls I've made, the money I've donated?
"All you have been doing is assaulting my communication style and ...spending more energy on efforting controlling & silencing my free speech rights than debating any issue"
I never once put restrictions on your free speech rights, quite the contrary. As for not addressing the issues, take a look at my previous posts:
Post 1: actually AGREES with a point you made.
Post 2: only the first two sentences address your usage; the rest concerns itself with the question you posed.
Post 3: paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 address your question while paragraph five takes you to task for calling me a baby killer, hardly a question of syntax