Wednesday, June 2, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.
Those zany taxers and spenders at the Nevada Policy Research Institute have proposed a $5 billion solution to the state’s revenue crisis after years of lampooning anyone who suggested broadening the tax base was necessary.
Hallelujah! NPRI has seen the light. Is it an intellectual conversion or a drinking binge?
The serious answer is that the conservative think tank has produced an argument for a revenue-neutral plan that includes a broad-based business tax — a sales tax expansion producing that $5 billion — that unquestionably has some policy merit, yet will be assailed by the left despite its potential to provide a springboard for a real discussion. By excising the modified business tax and the insurance premium tax, NPRI achieves a net budget increase of zero.
For too many years, talk of a more sane tax base has emanated from liberals who want to expand services and bulk up infrastructure. But to have the first real tax proposal come not from those stakeholders trying on their vision spectacles but from their most fervent critics is a real breakthrough, despite any charges (probably true) that NPRI is trying to short-circuit any discussion of a direct tax on business through corporate income or gross receipts.
I care little about NPRI’s real agenda, which is as transparent as the Democratic lawmakers emboldening the Vision Stakeholders Group, which is a déjà vu exercise into discovering the already discovered. Indiana Jones’ services are not required on that quest, folks. This is Raiders of the State Treasury, by whatever means necessary.
Wait, am I starting to sound like NPRI? Forgive me.
I only hope that visceral opponents to NPRI will give the think tank’s latest offering more courtesy than the think tank’s eggheads usually give any proposal from the left, which is slathered with scorn and derision. (Read the new NPRI study here: tinyurl.com/2djh5ww.
There is much whining that can be quickly dismissed in the NPRI manifesto, dramatically dubbed, “One Sound State, Once Again.” The author, Geoffrey Lawrence, mewls about the vision stakeholders and how they were funded and how Democratic legislative leaders have given it a tendentious purpose. Fine.
Stipulation: Yes, it was designed to provide cover for a tax increase, just as those that preceded it. Legislators have a spending reflex. We get it. Next case.
But after that throat-clearing, Lawrence writes what amounts to an admission of reasonableness from NPRI: “Notwithstanding the problematic processes and doubtful constitutionality of IFC actions described above, volatility of tax revenue is a genuine problem for all states and entirely worthy of study.”
So study it Lawrence does, as many before him, reaching his conclusion after the expected lambasting of corporate income and gross receipts taxes:
“Broadening the base of the sales and use tax to include all consumption expenditures could conform with all four of the objectives for revenue reform,” which are revenue volatility, minimal economic distortions, minimal compliance costs and tax equity. Before my friends on the left start bleating about repressiveness, let’s hearken back to the last tax study, helmed by the inestimable Guy Hobbs. Hobbs has always made the point that not only is the Nevada tax base narrow, but one of its crucial components, sales taxes, is also thinly based.
I remember when conservative icon Ann O’Connell, the state senator, and her mind-melded roommate, taxpayers association boss Carole Vilardo, used to rail about tax exemptions. Expanding the sales tax is a conservative idea, folks.
And here’s what some don’t want to remember: In Hobbs’ tax study, an expansion of the sales tax scored the highest when many factors, including equity and transparency, were considered. Indeed, it was rated significantly higher than the gross receipts tax, which the panel ultimately recommended.
(That study also is online here: tinyurl.com/27wxuc5. Go to Section 6 to see the tax proposal comparisons.)
The gross receipts tax was proposed in 2003 as much for political reasons as policy reasons — a desire for gamers and others to directly tax a business community that generally has had a free ride, and still does. But does a sales tax on services necessarily preclude a discussion, too, of a business income or gross receipts tax?
Of course not.
So why not let NPRI’s legacy, its ultimate contribution to Nevada’s tax policy, be the beginning of a substantive debate on a real, long-term solution? The discussion has always started from the left and gone nowhere. If Democratic lawmakers and their leftist allies would at least give credit to NPRI for agreeing to an expanded tax base, maybe the discussion finally will go somewhere. Come on, liberals:
The right is not always wrong.







While I do not favor the increased dependency on sales taxes--they fluctuate too much and put a greater burden on the lower tax bracket citizen--it is great to see a conservative group even acknowledge the idea that taxes cannot be cut to zero. The "No Tax Pledge" has been a disaster for the country because it institutionalizes something for nothing. We need and want government services, so we must pay for them. How we pay is what we have to determine, not if. Having one side refuse to negotiate taxes has led to the current crisis of partisanship which has caused all of us great hardships. Nice to see someone on the right begin the dialog.
It seems that Conservative means everybody except business has to pay higher taxes, according to NPRI. Like the Bush Administration stood for Conservatism. Spend like there is no tomorrow and let the public bear the burden of their crazy spending.
The real problem is the Republicant's have made so many tax loopholes for business that with low employment there is not sufficient tax income because no one is paying taxes.
NPRI wants to decrease sales tax and give business additional tax breaks, Our legislature will take that tax reduction and raise it back as soon as possible while not removing tax beaks for business.
The problem will have to be solved by removing some of the tax loopholes that our legislators have been so generous with. The Legislature will have to tap the mining and gaming industries taxes, the give aways will have to be removed. It is way past time for the Legislature change the way they tax those businesses, This would mean increasing their taxes and you can hear the whining already.
npri is bunch of clowns...
their arguments are tired, old, and wrong...
this sales tax proposal is nothing more than these clowns getting out in front of the on coming tsunami...
listen up boys and girls...
these inevitable taxes must be progressive...
not flat...
and a sales tax is flat...
besides...
isn't the sales tax in this state already OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Pat & his bro's think they are sooooo clever!!!
WRONG!!!
Pretty lipstick on a big fat pig.
"But we're ACADEMICIANS! How DARE you challenge our ultra- right-wing subterfuge, er... our brilliant public policy proposal?"
pri1ncess wrote:
"It seems that Conservative means everybody except business has to pay higher taxes, according to NPRI."
Princess, I do not agree . . . a business tax is simply passed on to the consumer, thus a busisness tax is regressive. What we need is a fair progressive tax to support the legitimate purpose of Government. And when I say legitimate purpose of Government, I do mean limited government where the Public Sector is forbidden to be involvolved in Politics . . . as per the intent of Seperation of Powers requirement of our State Constitution. And when I say limited, I do mean that government should only function in areas that are explicitly enumerated in the State Constitution.
If we desire a progressive tax it would need to be an income tax on the individual or corporations gross earnings. That tax should be flat to eliminate any loop holes, and should recognise a single set deduction for all individules and Corporations. Any amount of money above that deduction would be taxable at a flat rate, lets say at a maximum of ten percent. Any and all transactions must be valued at a fair market price to eliminate bartering at the corporate level and level the playing feild. Multi state and multinational corporations would need to report on the financial activity in the State of Nevada for doing business in the State.
A side benefit of this type of tax on corporations would be to have the effect of giving a small corporation a tax advantage over the large corporation. Thus the small business from a tax pointof view would have a slight advantage over a large corporation.
gmag..
Pretty Lipstick On A Big Fat Pig!
Polititicans and Unions ..We Need MORE..roads, health care, educations..TAXES
OK...
Define ROAD..
ROADS:
Mission Statement..to provide jobs especially to minorities and union members, to ensure necessary health care coverage and pension benefits..
Budget:
1) Administrative Cost 89 cents of every road tax dollar..
2) Studies of effect of Nevada road on
grasshoppers in Mongolia
3) Bicycle paths, mass transit, hiking trails..
4) Pave every cow path in the state in order to spend state money to receive matching Federal Funds
5) Maintain roads to every developer's development ..at least the developers who contribute to campaigns ..these are priority for street lighting, quality of workmanship...
NOW...
How about spending the money on the ROADS..the main arteries necessary for commerce..Farm to Market which is what Harry Trumans said..
How about a Trust Fund for gas tax..and that is to be spent on the roads...not one dime to any other project..and every dime to the road..
NO MORE TAXES
NPRI is Wrong....Until we address issues 1-5..taxes are Not the issue..
Next That Sacred Cow..Education..
Mission Statement
Me thinks NPRI has a hidden agenda. Considering NPRI's past conduct, I just cannot buy their proposal. Are they trying to set a trap?
VidiVertitas
The trap is.."we need more money to pay for this that and the other" "we require an increase of x% over last year"
And the real looney tune..."how are you going to pay?"
Argue about the payment plan..but the real discussion is...What is in that bill? Why is it increasing x% each and every year..How long before that bill is 100% + of income?
Take it out to the Federal Level...and it is 100%of GDP..
LOOK AT THE BILL..because you can't afford it..not by any increase in taxation..There must be a decrease in the bill.
AZ has sales tax on food at store, but it is exempt for food stamp buyers.
This is not surprising, they want to aid segregated lunch counters by lowering sales tax on restaurant food.
Oregon raised taxes on rich and corporations, their unemployment went from 12.5% to about 10%. They also have a healthcare plan that helps small business and sole proprietors. The Northeast is also doing better than Nevada. The low tax crap has not worked for Nevada. We have the second lowest tax next to Alaska according taxfoundation.org.
How come Sen. John Ensign only goes on The Alan Stock "News" Show, and does not go on the Statewide John Ralston In Your Face TV Show??
Why does KXNT only have right wing opinion if they are a "News Station" ...I hear Hannity, Limbaugh ET Al, why not a moderate opinion segment from a Progressive group or person. if the station is trying to market itself as a NEWS station??
If it wasn't for people like the late Mrs. Greenspun we would be the "Haiti of the West" and "The Mississippi of the West combined" RIP
mred...
that would be dire.
"Princess, I do not agree . . . a business tax is simply passed on to the consumer, thus a busisness tax is regressive."
---lemajh
While the sentiment may be nice and pat, it is in reality another urban myth of the right. Simple example--compare the price of a Big Mac in Nevada where there is no corporate tax, low UI tax, lower everything to the price of the same product in, say, California. Oh wait, the price is the same. While certainly one can argue that a small, wholly intrastate business might respond differently, you can cure that difference with proposed large small business exemption.
Well, the NPRI certainly has an excellent understanding and grasp of the OBVIOUS!! Now if we can just get the legislature and governor (dare we hope the LUV GUV goes away) to grow up and actually work together like mature public servants...
Gotta go and drop a few dollars in the Mega Bucks machine. I'm more likely to win a few million than this scenario is likely to happen.
hss46 wrote:
"While the sentiment may be nice and pat, it is in reality another urban myth of the right."
I would argue that your commet is in reality just another urban myth of the left.
A McDonald franchise has it's prices set at a national level, for marketing reasons. Very poor example . . . hss46.