Comments (41) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Job killers
Tools
As Nevada's political establishment dodges debate and tries to hide its plans for massive tax increases, the case for tax restraint is growing stronger.
On Tuesday, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation released an analysis that warns against two new taxes strongly supported by the Legislature's majority Democrats: a corporate income tax and a gross-receipts tax. Passing either of these levies in 2011 would have disastrous consequences for Nevada's already reeling economy, the tax research group reported.
Moreover, because California, Arizona, Oregon and Washington have raised taxes to protect government jobs and services, Nevada is better positioned for recovery by keeping its tax structure more favorable than those of its neighbors.
"Right now we are seeing a glimmer of a national economic recovery," said Joseph Henchman, the Tax Foundation's director of state projects and tax counsel. "State revenue increases will lag until people start investing and spending money. Nevada doesn't need to make it more unattractive to investors. ... As the economy improves, the state is well-positioned for capital investment and job creation."
The Tax Foundation analysis tracks very closely with a recent report from the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
Both studies found that a corporate income tax -- favored by state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, as a means of "stabilizing" Nevada's tax base -- is the most volatile levy administered by states and would therefore destabilize Nevada's tax base. Additionally, the studies say the corporate income tax and the gross-receipts tax are economically destructive because they discourage investment and job creation -- exactly what Nevada needs to get people the jobs that allow them to spend money.
Meanwhile, a tax study commissioned by the Legislature to provide cover for tax increases was due July 1, but its release has been delayed, perhaps until after November's elections.
For the next 3½ months, Democratic legislative candidates will be doing everything in their power to avoid detailed discussions of their tax policy goals. Their silence in this increasingly one-sided debate speaks volumes.
Tax increases are a losing proposition. They lose elections, they lose jobs and they lose opportunity.
Nevada has 14 percent unemployment and the vast majority of the state's homes and commercial properties are underwater. And politicians are seriously considering major tax increases? That's insanity.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Independent, you can't steal something if it belongs, in part, to you. That's why you can't steal stuff that you own in joint tenancy; theoretically both parties own undivided interest in 100%. That's how our world was intended. I might ask you if you are one of those who believe that this country and its laws, were drafted by the founding fathers out of their desire to establish a "Christian Nation"? And, the Bible gives me all the authority that I need to do what I suggested, check it out sometime.
Steven, would you steal from your brother and give it to somebody else? Would you take your borther's income at the point of a gun to subsidize your own livelihood? No, you would first take care of yourself, then help others yourself and encourage your brother to do the same. Government has nothing to do with this scenario. The virtue taught in the bible is not achieved by government mandate, but by personal conversion and charity. Good for you for wanting to take care of your brothers. There's nothing stopping YOU from doing it. And if government programs are your preferred method of being your brother's keeper, by all means send more of your money in to the IRS. But the Bible gives you no moral authority to force anyone else to do the same.
Green: Sounds like you're a proponent of "survival of the fittest"; at least you're honest about it. I don't know about you Green, but I was taught straight from the Bible that I am my brothers keeper, that God gave the earth to man (and at least 50% to woman with a prenup) and that morality requires that man treat his brother as he would be treated. Capitalism, and the ideal you expressed is contrary and my philosophy will not permit my government to operate in a way that is contrary. Apparently yours does.
The biggest problem with taxes isn't that they exist to power the running of the country. The biggest problem is where those funds are allocated by many of the highest paid "employees" in the country -- politicians. It seems that usually that money goes to friends or associates of the politicians.
An elected official should not receive public wages. The politicians should continue in their pre-election businesses and recuse themselves from any vote that affects them or their industries. But that presumes honesty and integrity, which is lacking in most of the elected officials. Don't even get me started on their retirement incomes and double dipping!
The problem is that whatever good intentions a person has when entering politics, by the time they have enough clout to have an effect on anything, they seem to owe too many 'tit for tat' favors to do an honest job.
Nobody wants to pay taxes. Get smart people: It doesn't have anything to do with Republicans and Democrats. They're all the same species under the fur. Stop sniping at each other snd really take a look at the government. You Obama haters must have short memories if you don't realize he inherited a terrible situation from the Village Idiot Bush and Igor Cheney. All the bailouts and "stimulus" stuff -- along with subprime loans that got us where we are -- happened during the Bush years. I'm not saying I'm in Obama's camp either, just saying you should put the blame where it belongs.
@steven.alexander-
In a world where we compete for resources for survival and to ensure propigation of our bloodlines, the stronger, smarter, and faster will always accumulate more at the expense of the weaker, dumber, and slower. It's called nature. Utopians such as youself wish for it to change. Realists do their best to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to COMPETE for as much as they can accumulate and let the better angels of man's nature compel him to look out for the less fortunate.
And, I didn't figure anyone would actually ANSWER the question I asked, at least in a rational way, but dang folks SOMEONE take a shot even at an UNREASONABLE answer. Thanks in advance!
Theoretically, the wealth of the world belongs to the people who inhabit it. Allow the strongest, or those with the biggest guns to keep for themselves what belongs to everyone seems, well...wrong. Or is it just me?
Theoretically, this nation's money belongs to the people, not the government. Therefore, the people should retain as much of the money as possible, and taxes should only be high enough to fund only the Constitutional functions of government, not illegal foreign wars, not wealth redistribution, whether through personal or corporate welfare, and certainly not foreign aid.
Why were Harry Reid and company so worried about the deficit when Bush was in office, but have since quadrupled it? Thanks in advance.
##"Right now we are seeing a glimmer of a national economic recovery" said Joseph Henchman##
Pass the Kool-Aid, Henchman.