Special Session -- J2
The income tax bill that will be on the special session contains three elements: (1) an optional flat tax alternative, (2) stretching the brackets and reducing the top rate under the current system, and (3) a $70,000,000 tax cut.
I like all three items, and will vote “yes.” A bit of personal history to explain my enthusiasm: during the tax reform task force, some of us pushed for Utah to adopt a flat tax. Though the motion passed out of the income tax subcommittee, it quickly died thereafter.
At that point, I advocated that we cut taxes by simply stretching the brackets and reducing the top rate of the current system. But, in the swamp vapors of “reform,” the idea of sticking with our current system (which system makes sense and is quite simple once federal taxes are calculated) was not sexy enough. (Note: putting the word “reform” in the title of any working group suggests too strongly that policies thoughtfully formed over prior decades must be scrapped).
I was never convinced that the various iterations of income tax reform that surfaced out of the task force had very solid footing. The determining factor was the many calls I was receiving from senior citizens, saying they had calculated their prospective taxes on the calculator at the Governor’s website and were shocked to learn that they would receive huge increases. Though another representative and I told the Governor’s advisors that something was very wrong, those concerns were never adequately addressed. As it turned out, something was very wrong with the numbers.
So here we are: a flat tax (check), stretching brackets and reducing the top rate (check), and a tax reduction (check). Thank you, Gov. Jon Huntsman and Rep. John Dougall, for bringing us to this point. In honor of Governor Jon and Representative John, I’ll refer to this bill as J2.
I like all three items, and will vote “yes.” A bit of personal history to explain my enthusiasm: during the tax reform task force, some of us pushed for Utah to adopt a flat tax. Though the motion passed out of the income tax subcommittee, it quickly died thereafter.
At that point, I advocated that we cut taxes by simply stretching the brackets and reducing the top rate of the current system. But, in the swamp vapors of “reform,” the idea of sticking with our current system (which system makes sense and is quite simple once federal taxes are calculated) was not sexy enough. (Note: putting the word “reform” in the title of any working group suggests too strongly that policies thoughtfully formed over prior decades must be scrapped).
I was never convinced that the various iterations of income tax reform that surfaced out of the task force had very solid footing. The determining factor was the many calls I was receiving from senior citizens, saying they had calculated their prospective taxes on the calculator at the Governor’s website and were shocked to learn that they would receive huge increases. Though another representative and I told the Governor’s advisors that something was very wrong, those concerns were never adequately addressed. As it turned out, something was very wrong with the numbers.
So here we are: a flat tax (check), stretching brackets and reducing the top rate (check), and a tax reduction (check). Thank you, Gov. Jon Huntsman and Rep. John Dougall, for bringing us to this point. In honor of Governor Jon and Representative John, I’ll refer to this bill as J2.
posted by steve u. at 9/04/2006
Subscribe
4 Comments:
Does it appear hopeful that we will finally get this done? I hope so. What about your concerns about special sessions tending toward bad government?
I hope it happens, Steve. Thanks for all the work that you and the rest of the Legislature have put into this Tax reform.
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure what is meant by the "special sessions tending towards bad government". Is it the extra expense that a special session causes, or what?
As Reach Upward notes, I'm not big on special sessions. More correctly, I hate them. They don't provide the public enough opportunity to participate.
Here, though, I'm very comfortable with the amount of debate and public input on the income tax issue (ranging from the year-long Task Force to Tuesday's hearing).
The other issue -- the UTA issue -- is one of those crummy situations where we perceive a need to quickly react to something. That "something" is SLCounty's move to put a property tax increase on the ballot for transit. Because November is a hard deadline, we need to determine whether we should do something to improve options before then (i.e., allow SLCounty to put the tax on sales, rather than property).
I understand the reference to bad government now, thanks.
<< Home