Dec 05
2010 Tax Policy…Steady As She Goes
2009 at 1:02 am | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 4 comments
The House Conservative Caucus and the Patrick Henry Caucus, in a joint meeting last month, voted to support the position during the 2010 General Session of “no net tax increase.” In these difficult financial times, while the state’s rate of unemployment has been slowly but steadily raising, it would be difficult to ask the taxpayers of the State of Utah to increase their household tax burden. As many find themselves living paycheck to paycheck during the current economic recession, the legislature can’t possibly expect its citizens to dig deeper into their pockets for “spare change” earmarked for the basic necessities of life.
Senator Steve Urquhart has committed 13 others (plus himself) in the “Upper Chamber” to hold a similar position. With 14 senators willing to consider other methods of addressing the projected $850 million revenue shortfall, the senate is just one vote shy of holding the line…steady as she goes.
These positions by the Urquhart group and the HCC/PHC give some latitude for “tax shifts,” however. A proposal by Senator Howard Stephenson to reinstate the state sales tax component on non-prepared foods is revenue neutral, requiring an adjustment to the tax base somewhere else. And, according to Representative Craig Frank, his proposal to remove the 1% Restaurant Tax and allow Counties to re-impose a .1% tax on general sales, is also revenue neutral.
Read about this issue in Robert Gehrke’s Salt Lake Tribune article HERE.
4 Responses to “2010 Tax Policy…Steady As She Goes”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 5th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Any plans on how the State is going to handle the end of the ARRA stimulus in 2011, or the shortfall in the state employee pension fund?
Boy the 2011 budget otta be real fun……
December 5th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Unfortunately, Ron, both of those items are above my “pay grade” and final decisions on them will be made by the Executive Appropriations Committee members (I’m assigned to an appropriations sub-committee). The FY11 budget (crafted during the 2010 General Session) will require some cutting of non-essential programs and services. I’m willing to start with another cut to legislator salaries/benefits, then, I’d like ideas on where we go next…
December 5th, 2009 at 11:19 am
There are many Utahns making $100,000 or more per year who are not “living from paycheck to paycheck”. Utah’s flat 5% tax is lower than the top rate for 30 of the 41 states that have a state income tax. In addition most of those states have a progressive tiered system in which those at the higher end of the income scale pay more than those at the bottom. In Utah everyone making over $0 pays the same rate on income over allowed exemptions and deductions.
Since state income tax is earmarked for education everything done by the Republican led legislature to lower or cap state income taxes hurts an education system already funded at the lowest level in the nation.
The business owners and others at the higher end of the income scale benefit the most from a well educated population. Therefore it is not unreasonable to ask them to pay a greater share of the cost to educate our young.
The ideology of those on the right concerning tax increases needs to be tempered with the reality that there is virtually no more that can be cut from the bare bones budgets of education and human services without hurting real people who need help the most. It is irresponsible for those who hold power in the legislature to draw a line in the sand before the projected figures are even known. In recent years with surpluses the legislature has made tax cuts to give back the extra revenue. In years where there is a deficit of funds to adequately fund needed state services, that door needs to swing both ways.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Shifting taxes is not always the same thing as protecting families from higher taxes. Doubling the food tax would cost a typical Utah family about $240. None of the proposals to “offset” this tax hike would give that same family anything close to $240.
Will legislators pledge to not shift taxes onto middle class and working families to pay for tax cuts for the more wealthy residents of our state?