Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Day: April 12, 2006”

Sales tax Ted

Ted KulongoskiWhen in his Monday night debate with his Democratic challengers Governor Ted Kulongoski made reference to the state looking toward a "consumption tax" of some sort to help stabilize the state's tax system, a couple of reads on his meaning were possible.

One, which initially we were inclined to accept, relies on the formal view of the term "consumption tax." In its proper sense, a consumption tax is not the same thing as a sales tax; it is a larger category which can include the sales tax but also many other options. A reasonably definition from an economics web site:

A consumption tax—also known as an expenditures tax, consumed-income tax, or cash-flow tax—is a tax on what people spend instead of what they earn. A VAT does that in the same way that a sales tax does. But a true consumption-tax system would entail something much different from simply layering a VAT on top of the current income tax. One way to think of a consumption-tax system is simply as an income tax that allows unlimited deductions for savings and that taxes all withdrawals from savings, much like independent retirement accounts (IRAs) . . .

The theoretical case for a consumption tax actually is a case against the income tax. Champions of a consumption tax argue that the income tax does enormous long-term damage to the economy because it penalizes thrift by taxing away part of the return to saving. This tax wedge results in less saving, less investment, less innovation, and lower living standards than we would enjoy without a tax on saving. In other words, the income tax creates a bias in favor of current consumption at the expense of saving and future consumption.

There are value-added taxes. There are taxes on specific products. There are service taxes. All sorts of options, those and many more, in addition to the conventional sales tax, lie within the sphere of consumption taxes.

So what did Kulongoski mean? (more…)

A burst at the end

Call it a surprise burp, this conclusion to this year's Idaho legislative session. For most of this session, the legislature's mode seemed to run toward indecision or rejection; not a lot of really key stuff passed all the way througth the system. And a lot of important items (community colleges, for one) which got an initial hearing didn't get far. Though that's not necessarily an unusual thing; some subjects take a few years before a comfort level is reached.

Still. This session, which rolled to within two days of becoming the second-longest ever, greatly improved its productivity quotient at the very end. It finally did pass a residential property tax easer, an important component; the help it will provide is limited, but it will constitute help. Early phases of Medicaid rearrangement and of a reduced Connecting Idaho program cleared, though their real future is likely to be determined more in the next couple of sessions. A power plant moratorium bill was passed and signed. Public employees got something of a raise, for the first time in a while. Just off the legislative floor, a deal was struck between the state and Idaho Power Company on Snake River Plain aquifer recharge; that was no small item.

Quite a lot also was passed by; probably few sessions have seen so many ideas (some good, some bad) thumped in rapid sucession. The next session, with a new governor and a new speaker at the least, and some new key committee chairs, may see some fresh approaches.