Nevada lawmakers approve record $836 million tax plan, avert 'constitutional crisis'

Sac Bee ^ | 7/22/03 | AP - Carson City

[NormsRevenge]

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Democratic lawmakers declared victory after they managed to outmaneuver Republicans to cement a record $836 million tax increase that hits businesses, casinos and others to fund schools and the state's biannual budget.

The deadlock that gripped the Legislature for months ended just before midnight when at least two-thirds of both houses approved the tax plan - averting what one lawmaker called a potential "constitutional crisis." Senators voted 17-2 for SB8, and the Assembly gave final approval with a 28-14 vote less than an hour later.

[NormsRevenge]

Thar's gold in them thar taxpayers pockets, thar is!

[NormsRevenge]

FYI

[Henrietta]

"Ending a moment of suspense just before casting his vote, Marvel said he reluctantly approved SB8 to avert "a constitutional crisis."

"We must uphold the constitution," he said."

What a coward. This had absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. It had already been gutted by the Supremes, remember?

[TheBattman]

The size of the increase was unprecedented for traditionally low-tax Nevada, one of six states with no personal income tax.

There goes they myth that casinos keep taxes low. Just wait - look for this to be just the start now that the state has tasted blood from the taxpayer's pocketbooks.

[TheBattman]

Guinn had previously won a legal victory when the state Supreme Court nullified a part of Nevada's constitution that requires two-thirds of both houses to approve any tax increase.

This is an even far larger danger than the tax increase - courst nullifying portions of a CONSTITUTION to suit the whims and political goals of the court and politicians.

Excuse me, but aren't the courts suppose to interpret the law and determine if a law is constitutional. Where does the court get any authority whatsoever to nullify a part of a constitution?

[Chewbacca]

They just gave me reason to not look for a job in Nevada.

[AD from SpringBay]

Yet another state succumbs to the tyrrany of spending more instead of cutting programs. I wish I could do that indefinitely. Only problem, if I started robbing other people I would go to jail. When state legislatures do it, it's just another day at the office.

[joesnuffy]

There goes they myth that casinos keep taxes low.

It sure seems to be a myth in Wisconsin as well.......

[Zack Nguyen]

Wait! I don't understand - I thought that gambling was an instant panacea for government shortfalls. That's what the leftists always say. Something must be wrong here.

sarcasm/

[B Knotts]

THROW THE BUMS OUT!

[ZGuy]

“Monday night's votes in the GOP-controlled Senate. . . Senators voted 17-2 for SB8”

GOP - the tax and spend party. This stinks.

Is there some sort of magic dust that influences republicans to go liberal when they become a senator at any level?

[KarlInOhio]

Interesting. Now they have the supreme court ruling that they no longer need 2/3 vote to increase taxes, but they don't have to use it. That might (but I hope it won't) deflect voter anger and recall demands from the supreme court. Also, any federal appeals might be ignored because they don't have a tax which passed with less than 2/3, so no one will have standing to bring suit. And the supreme court ruling is still in the dems back pocket for the next time the republicans don't roll over for a 2/3 vote on a tax increase.

They needed a constitutional crisis in Nevada, but the republicans jumped when the dems told them to.

[KarlInOhio]

Is there some sort of magic dust that influences republicans to go liberal when they become a senator at any level?

For the feds it's called Potomac Fever. I don't know what the state version would be.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Can someone please explain how, in a state where an income tax is unconstitutional, they can enact a "payroll tax"?

I mean, the company accountant sends a check to the state, the amount based on the number of employees, and the amount of their earnings. If they reduce employment or wage rates, the check gets smaller, if they increase, the check gets bigger. The only difference is that the check says on the memo line "payroll tax" instead of "employee state income tax withholding."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Hmm!

calgov2002:

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[TheAngryClam]

What do you mean "myth?" They did, and did well, for a long time.

Casinos are huge tax generators for the locality. It's the same reason automalls are popular with places- high property tax value, massive sales taxes, etc.

[Carry_Okie]

Automobiles increase total wealth.

Casinos don't. Now that California has added Indian gaming, we'll see how long it takes before the revenues from gambling look like such a good deal. My guess is that it will be for the welfare state that gets to deal with the consequences.

Gambling decreases total wealth whether it's a good deal for the state or not. If people put the kind of energy into investing that they did into gambling, we'd all be better off for it.

[TheAngryClam]

That's an economically fallacious statement.

Any trade increases wealth for both participants- in this case, trading your money to the casino in return for the excitement/opportunity of playing the game.

Now, if you're saying that the cost to society of casinos is higher than the benefits, that's an empirical question. How much does a casino cost in terms of fire prevention, police, etc. vs. how much does it pump into the local economy through the significant number of low-wage jobs, taxes paid, and so forth. Don't forget that most casinos also are significant consumers of foodstuffs and other consumable items.

And don't confuse the relatively untouchable Indian casinos with the Nevada casinos- they're separate problems.

[Carry_Okie]

That's an economically fallacious statement.

Unless you majored in economics, you'll have a hard time defending that assertion.

Any trade increases wealth for both participants- in this case, trading your money to the casino in return for the excitement/opportunity of playing the game.

If you had read carefully what I wrote, you would have noted that I said TOTAL wealth. That isn't limited to the just participants in a particular transaction.

Now, if you're saying that the cost to society of casinos is higher than the benefits, that's an empirical question.

Duh. And your analysis sucks.

How much does a casino cost in terms of fire prevention, police, etc. vs. how much does it pump into the local economy through the significant number of low-wage jobs, taxes paid, and so forth.

Once again, you isolate the question to the lone transaction and not its downstream consequences: loan sharking, the criminal enforcement that comes with it, the psychologists and counselors, the battered and neglected kids, welfare bureaucrats, bankruptcy judges... the demand for all of those professions would be less without gambling. Those people would end up making other carreer choices that usually end up producing something instead of patching up destructive behavior.

A society does not get richer by gambling because the activity does less that increases the productivity of the transactants (as many forms of entertainment do) while it has many side effects that markedly lower productivity. Society ends up spending more than the taxes raised for social services the demand for which is abetted by gambling. It's a bad deal for society, but a great deal for bureaucrats, social service professionals, and those only capable of holding low paying service jobs.

Don't forget that most casinos also are significant consumers of foodstuffs and other consumable items.

Now that's a great point. How much more healthy food are people consuming because they are gambling?

And don't confuse the relatively untouchable Indian casinos with the Nevada casinos- they're separate problems.

At least now you are calling them problems.

Look, all I was saying is that, with increasing competition in the gambling market, Las Vegas will not be as profitable as it was. As with any service, rapidly increasing the supply of casinos will force the price they can charge to drop. Fewer Californians will be going Las Vegas to spend their money. That means less revenue for Nevada than there would otherwise have been.

Do you dispute that?

[TheAngryClam]

I'm disputing your characterization of gambling as a replacement for useful work. When you consider it a replacement for various other forms of recreation and entertainment, it's actually one of the most economically productive (in terms of employment and consumption) of any such recreational activity.