Political Update – July 3, 2018
COMMENTARY: High-tax Connecticut offers a cautionary tale for Nevada
By Mark Anderson
As a retired Connecticut resident who resettled in Las Vegas in November 2009, it was with considerable interest that I read your June 23 editorial “Everywhere a sign.” The editorial accurately describes the disastrous effects high taxes — especially state income taxes — have on middle-class families, individuals and retirees. It leaves them virtually no alternative but to pack up and leave. The Connecticut Legislature passed the law that established a state income tax after a protracted battle in 1991 with then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., who was elected as a third-party candidate and had promised not to support an income tax. He broke that pledge a few months after being sworn in. The tax passed because the majority Democrats in the state House and state Senate overwhelmingly supported it in an unholy alliance with the governor. Since the tax took effect, it has gone from a flat 4.5 percent to a progressive rate structure with seven brackets and a top rate of 6.99 percent — a 55 percent increase from the original. I knew it was the beginning of the end for Connecticut’s middle class and resolved to move to Nevada as soon as possible after I retired. I knew Las Vegas well, because I had been vacationing here since 1982. Because the state’s constitution prohibits the imposition of an income tax, I was relatively confident that it would be difficult to ram one down the throats of Nevada taxpayers. I have never regretted my decision to leave Connecticut, even though many of my family and friends still live there. The only people who now can afford to live in that state are upper-income taxpayers who can write off their state income taxes as a deduction on their federal income tax forms and low-income residents who live in subsidized housing and qualify for a panoply of social services paid for by Connecticut’s struggling — and dwindling — middle class. Those who have yet to leave have seen their property values plummet and watched helplessly as many of Connecticut’s major employers have departed for more business-friendly states.
Quote of the week
Quote: "I still believe Mr. Sisolak would sign into law any tax increase that comes to his desk should he be elected. If so, it is a decision we will live to regret." – Mark Anderson
Let's learn from Seattle's 'head tax' debacle: Randi Thompson
By Randi Thompson
Last month, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a “head tax” ordinance that would have levied a $275 per employee tax on Seattle businesses making more than $20 million a year. The same council voted to repeal that tax last week. The tax was intended to help the city fund affordable housing and deal with their growing homeless issue. Council members say they changed their minds in the face of a well-funded and vicious campaign that sought to put a referendum on the November ballot to repeal the head tax. That campaign was led by two companies that would be most impacted by the tax: Starbucks and Amazon. Now if you know anything about these companies, they are run by pretty progressive CEOs. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. Starbucks’ Howard Schultz closed every store one day last month to conduct “sensitivity training.” You’d think these CEOs wouldn’t mind paying $275 per employee to help Seattle’s homeless.
Keystone's Mission: To recruit, support and advocate for candidates for public office who support private sector job creation, low taxation, a responsible regulatory environment, and effective delivery of essential state services.
Keystone's Mission: • To focus on candidate support on state legislative races and the governor's office.
P.O. Box 93596 | Las Vegas, NV 89193-3596 To ensure that you continue receiving email updates, please add Info@KeystoneNevada.com to your address book or safe list.
|
