Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By J. Patrick Coolican (contact) 
Sunday, March 29, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Enlargeable graphic
Sun Blogs
Sun Archives
- Proposed bill would tax prostitution at $5 per session (3-23-2009)
- Room tax becomes law without governor's signature (3-18-2009)
- Titus to teachers: State needs long-term fix (2-19-2009)
- The hum of the Republican machine (2-15-2009)
- Democratic response: Legislature will overhaul tax structure (1-15-2009)
Search for Revenue, seg. 1
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
Should state lawmakers consider doubling Nevada's payroll tax to generate money for state services? Jon asks former State Sen. Matthew Callister and Nevada Policy Research Institute Vice President of Communications Andy Matthews about that and more.
Search for Revenue, seg. 2
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
Should state lawmakers consider doubling Nevada's payroll tax to generate money for state services? Jon asks former State Sen. Matthew Callister and Nevada Policy Research Institute Vice President of Communications Andy Matthews about that and more.
Search for Revenue, seg. 3
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
Should state lawmakers consider doubling Nevada's payroll tax to generate money for state services? Jon asks former State Sen. Matthew Callister and Nevada Policy Research Institute Vice President of Communications Andy Matthews about that and more.
A family of three making $25,000 a year in Las Vegas pays about 10 percent of its income in state and local taxes.
A family of three making $150,000 a year in Las Vegas pays about 4 percent of its income in taxes.
The disparity exists because Nevada has one of the most regressive tax systems in America, according to census data and independent studies. The less Nevadans make, the more they pay as a percentage of their income.
For Nevada’s working and middle classes, struggling with layoffs and foreclosures, the situation could get worse. The Legislature will likely raise taxes to close a $2.3 billion budget deficit, and a sales tax increase is at the top of most short lists of revenue sources under consideration.
The sales tax, now 7.75 percent in Clark County, is tough on poorer people because they spend nearly everything they make. They are taxed on most of their income, except for the few exempt items such as food. Also, without the aid of good public transit, the working people spend a significant amount of their income on the gasoline tax.
The more well-to-do, on the other hand, consume only a portion of what they make. In Nevada, the rest is mostly tax free.
“Without a personal or corporate income tax, you wind up with a very regressive tax system,” said Michael Mazerov, a senior fellow for state fiscal policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
This isn’t a just liberal issue, however.
Geoffrey Lawrence, a fiscal analyst for the libertarian Nevada Policy Research Institute, said he’s no fan of regressive taxation. He said he would like to see each income group pay a roughly equal percentage of its income in taxes.
“If you have concern about regressivity, your concern should be with doing away with some taxes on lower income people,” he said.
That does not appear likely at this point. A regressive sales tax increase is in the offing because the money would flow immediately. Plus, unlike businesses and wealthier Nevadans, poor and middle-class residents have little clout in Carson City.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, a Reno Democrat and vice chairwoman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, said the regressivity of the tax structure is a concern of hers, which is why she’s pushing a net profits tax on business. She is doing it “at my peril,” she said.
A net profits tax would be progressive because it would tax shareholders of corporations, most of whom are in middle and upper income brackets.
Some tax foes argue that a business profits tax is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. But advocates of a business profits tax, such as the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, note that the price of goods is almost identical in neighboring Arizona and Utah, which have corporate profits taxes.
Leslie said she’s finding little support for a net profits tax in the Legislature.
State Sen. Bob Coffin, D-Las Vegas, chairman of the Senate Taxation Committee, said: “Probably fairness will come into it, but in the end we’ll have to do what we can do.”
He then made an argument for regressive taxes: “The people who benefit the most are the people at the bottom of the ladder,” he said of government services, referring to programs such as Medicaid that have been cut and could face still more cuts without a tax increase.
Elliott Parker, an economist at the University of Nevada, Reno, said economists are in broad agreement about the best form of taxation. A tax system should be broad based and have low rates so as not to artificially alter economic behavior away from productive pursuits.
In other words, he said, a 1 percent tax on everyone is better than a 10 percent tax on 10 percent of businesses, which would have everyone scurrying to get out of that 10 percent category.
So, broad-based and low rates.
But as for tax fairness?
“Fairness is in the eye of the beholder,” Parker said.
Obama, Titus (Ms. Taxus), Reid......in the first actions of legislative session was to raise taxes including on the poor.
Obama broke his pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $250K in record time.
One of the first votes by Ms. Taxus (Titus) was to raise taxes.....big surprise there.
Ask the clerk at the gas station on how mad tobacco users are. In one store, they had a big sign about the new Obama tax on tobacco.
It is estimated that those making zero income will pay an additional $300 a year in tobacco due to the Obama/Reid/Titus tax increase.
If anyone, especially the demos and the "poor" are surprised... what did they expect. The democrats always spend spend spend and raise raise raise taxes. The democrats always tell you what you want to hear and then when they have fooled enough... 52% this time around and get elected, they spend and tax. Hasn't this ol' tune been played enough.
How about a legislature that only spends what they have? What a novel idea, don't raise taxes and don't borrow. Just spend what's there and prioritize what gets funded.
Living within your means may seem unAmerican at this point, but we actually used to do it.
Geoffrey Lawrence, a fiscal analyst for the libertarian Nevada Policy Research Institute. He said he would like to see each income group pay a roughly equal percentage of its income in taxes.
Makes sense to the Rich.
Given a person (A) with 1 million in income who pays 10% = $100,000 leaving $900,000; now a person (B) with $100.000 in income who pays 10% = $10,000 leaving $90,000; now a person (C) with $15,000 in income pays 10% = $1,500 leaving $12,500.
So tell me where the State or the Fed. will make up the difference; simply by raising the percentage, so now everbody must pay 40%, which by all accounts mean (A) pays $400,000, keeps $600,000; (B) pays $40,000 keeps $60,000; (C) pays $6,000 keeps $9,000.
Wow, I like those numbers, so if you are poor and no time to pay attention the rich will still be rich in the end, and the poor will just pay more. This is how me and the boys see it, but then we always run the percentages in this town.
Now lets see who is getting all the infusion of money from the Fed. is it the poor or the rich.
Elliott Parker, an economist at the University of Nevada, Reno, said economists are in broad agreement about the best form of taxation.
For heaven sakes the rich and the educated, or rather the educated rich are the ones stealing all the money in this country/town, more than any organized group ever did.
They just put names on the money like "job creation" "stimulus program", what it all comes down to is free money to the rich (A) 600,000 to employ the poor (C) $9,000, who in the end will pay the taxes with little to nothing left to spend unlike the rich (A) $600,000.
Flat heads keep you flat taxes to yourselves, and don't even go to the SSI issue, becuase had we done that most every elderly person would be in a bread line for sure.
Fact check - Yes, Congress and the new President enacted a bill to provide health coverage to low- and middle-income CHILDREN. Gasp. If this extension hadn't been done, no more federal money to Nevada Check Up and sick kids tossed off the rolls.
The tax provision refers to the bill's modest increase in the TOBACCO tax, and the last time I checked, rich people are allowed to smoke too. Shame on the above two for taking the side of tobacco, especially when the other side is sick KIDS.
Thanks Obama and fellow DEMS. As expected, you blew it.
By the way, don't forget that the newly enacted economic stimulus bill has tax cuts for 95% of working American families. And also $250 one-time payments for people on Social Security, most of whom need to spend it right away and thus stimulate the economy. How convenient that some have "forgotten" this.
I don't want to tax the rich...I am a republican.
I don't want to give more money to government agencies because when we do they just spend more than they get and then want more next year ... I am a republican
I don't want to tax companies who produce jobs ... I am a republican
I don't want to finance national health care ... I am a republican
But as a republican I want the very people who live in the lap of luxury by producing profits, on the backs of their workers to pay
to pay those employees a fair and livable wage
(which will increase the tax base as their pay is increased)
to pay for health care
(not a national or federal tax payer based plan)
to pay a real employer paid pension plan
(so the government does not have take care of them after retirement).
Why does a small business owner say they can't afford to pay health insurance for employees, but pays it for themselves?
Why does a small business owner say he can't afford to give employees a raise, while he heads off to his Utah vacation home?
Why does a small business owner (who averages over $150,000 a year in income) tell their employees he can't afford to pay any pension plan.
Fed Ex shows that a company can be successful and still offer great pay and great benefits.
Make business pay for these benefits and not government.
And for those who are asking if I am a union member... the answer is no ....I am a republican ......
But it doesn't mean that I don't care about the workers... both parties should support workers rights... a government of the people, by the people, and for God's sake FOR THE PEOPLE...
"The tax provision refers to the bill's modest increase in the TOBACCO tax"
Spoken by a true Taxocrat....I mean Democrat.
The "MODEST" tax increase pushed taxes on a pack of cigs from 62 cents to $1.01 a pack. That is a 162% percent increase in a tax. Democrats consider that to be a modest increase. Wow.....wonder what they would considered not to be modest a 10000% increase????
I give boingo $50 if he stands for one hour at a gas station and tell people who paying the new Obama/Democrat tobacco tax increase that is modest.
Beware!!!!! Hold on to your wallets!!!! Here come the Democrats!!!! They are not done yet!!! They are just starting!!!!
Obama broke his no tax increase pledge on those making less than $250k in record time...within 30 days of taking office.
One of the first bills Ms. Taxus (Titus) voted for was a TAX INCREASE!!!!
Reid just loves loves loves tax increases.
"For heaven sakes the rich and the educated, or rather the educated rich are the ones stealing all the money in this country/town"
The rich own education. Education is class warfare. Aristocrats have always used education as a means of keeping out those less well-heeled - no matter how brilliant.
We've come a long way to improving this, but still- how many people can afford 50K a year for a top college? And, no, there are not scholarships galore for everyone who needs them. Obama was lucky. Others just don't get to go to Harvard, no matter how they've proven themselves.
A family of three making 25 thousand dollars a year has either made a lifestyle choice to have a single wage earner in the family or they are victims of circumstance[self inflicted in all too many cases] .. they also do not pay federal income taxes and are eligible for several state and local assistance programs ... I would prefer to see programs that work to assure that the third member of this family gets the motivation and opportunity to avoid becoming another family of three making 25 thousand dollars a year.
One thing which has always bothered me about so called "progressive taxes" is that they seem to violate the Equal Protection clause in the Nevada constitution. That's why I believe that the sales tax is the egalitarian tax, where everybody pays the same rate of tax.
Nevada has existed, for more than 100 years, on a libertarian philosophy. People have to think carefully before they vote to change it. New Jersey used to be a no income tax state, but once a state income tax was enacted, it became the highest tax state in the nation and it continues to have ever increasing taxes.
To those who want Nevada to become a Democrat welfare state, I have one word: Move
There is no state income tax. Sorry dudes, no sympathy. Get a second job and stop being poor. That's what a normal person would do if they need more moolah.
The $15k/year worker doesn't pay more taxes if you consider the free stuff they get through government tax dollars.
Some states even have sales tax on food. You can't get too much more regressive, but, in England the 'value added' sales tax isa cool 15%.
"The less Nevadans make, the more they pay as a percentage of their income."
Good. We should adopt this for all Americans. Nevada leads the way!
The fact is, the poor use a large portion of the public services. They should pay for it.
"A family of three making $25,000 a year...pays about 10 percent of its income in...taxes. A family of three making $150,000 a year...pays about 4 percent of its income in taxes."
When I go to the movies, they don't charge me according to my income and charge the next guy a different amount according to his income.
A net profits tax would just make me move my business elsewhere. I moved it Nevada specifically because Nevada has no income tax. If Assemblywoman Leslie passes a "net profits tax" (a.k.a an income tax), I, along with many other business owners, will pick up and leave.
I wish lawmakers would work on other ideas other than thinking, "Raise taxes." Leave my money alone. I pay far too much in taxes as it is.
Clark County is attracting the kind of new resident it deserves from Socal and other the past few years, and this will continue until state leadership is not infected and diseased by the top .00001 percent of state citizenship. The fundamental problems for Southern Nevada, frankly the entire state, will get worse, not better, even with a return to a robust hospitality economy. The only demographic that will turn this around, apparently, is the one that marched down Las Vegas Boulevard in mass back in 2006 in a protest walk. They will have the vote, but will they have the right kind of leadership?
I think Appleslice is closest to what this is about. The purpose of this study is to lay the groundwork to establish a state income tax system in Nevada
"A state income tax system in Nevada" isn't a bad thing. Inequitable tax systems in Nevada are.
"A family of three making $25,000 a year in Las Vegas pays about 10 percent of its income in state and local taxes. A family of three making $150,000 a year in Las Vegas pays about 4 percent of its income in taxes."
Shouldn't such tax discrepancies merely be viewed as inherent incentives of capitalism, with "tax-fairness" an oxymoron and all mandated 'tax' payment schemes socially immoral?
It's called a progressive income tax. Those making 150,000 ought to pay more than those making 25,000. I don't know anyone who makes 25,000, that income group may be an urban myth.