Latest news with #RichardBednarski
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democrats ignore Nevada's upside down, regressive, and unfair tax structure. Again.
The Nevada Legislature Building underwent a face lift prior to this year's session, but the Democratic legislative leadership's economic agenda, inasmuch as there is one, remained the same as it ever was. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Democrats nationwide are awash in conflicting opinions about how to stanch the loss of young and working class voters before the U.S. backslide into autocracy is irreversible, if it's not already. Some Democrats blame 'wokeness.' Some Democrats say the party needs to lean in on kitchen-table issues. Some think they should do nothing and just wait for Trump and Trumpism to collapse under the weight of its self-generated slagheap of corruption, lawlessness, malice, and counterproductive policies. Some Democrats, including at least half of those in Nevada's congressional delegation, seem to think the best way to inspire the electorate is to make sure every sentence they mutter includes a noun, a verb, and the word 'bipartisan.' And on and on. And then there are Nevada's Democratic state legislative leaders. They chose to meet this inflection point by yet again allowing generous public subsidies for deep-pocketed Californians to serve as the featured attraction of this year's recently concluded Nevada legislative session. Yes, ding dong, the film tax credit bill is dead. Praise be, etc. But Democratic legislative leadership — Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager — whether by design or neglect, allowed a government giveaway scheme to film corporations to become the one and only thing about the 2025 Legislature working class voters, especially young ones, most likely ever heard about. Assuming they heard about anything legislative at all. Ever since it was plopped onto the Nevada policy landscape more than a decade ago by then-Democratic state senator, now Democratic state Attorney General Aaron Ford, the film tax credit has always been a predominantly Democratic production. One of the chief legislative sponsors of this year's version was state Sen. Daniele Monroe-Mareno, who also currently serves as chair of the state Democratic Party. To reiterate, a critical mass of voters nationwide, including voters on which Democrats once relied, are marinading in nihilism and cynicism, and evidently don't grasp the goals, agenda, priorities — the point — of the Democratic Party, or just cold stopped caring. Against that backdrop, Democrats in Nevada put on a big show about a scheme to use nearly $2 billion of public money to enrich two of California's largest film corporations and one of the nation's most prominent corporate developers of master-planned communities. Weird. In Nevada, Democrats over the last ten years have been very successful at doing what(ever) it takes to win and maintain majorities in both houses of the state Legislature, an endeavor which, luckily for them, had more to do with voter registration numbers and redistricting power than policy positions. As a result, mean-spirited reactionary policies that are racist, poverty-shaming, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, anti-democracy, anti-immigrant, and anti-rights — policies designed first and foremost to feed the MAGAfolk — are (mostly) not enacted here. Keeping such pernicious policies (mostly) at bay in Nevada is no small consideration. Winning enough elections to block Republicans from enacting that stuff is arguably the crowning state-level achievement of contemporary Nevada Democrats. But when it comes to pro-active progress, specifically on economic policy, the Nevada Democratic legislative agenda, inasmuch as there is one, is tired (they're 'for' education), and worse than useless (inveterate footsie-playing with industries, mischaracterizing public giveaways to private corporations as 'economic development'). In the meantime, with only the occasional exception, they can rarely be bothered to acknowledge, let alone confront, the fact that the state has one of the country's most upside-down tax structures, in which the smaller your income, the higher the percentage of it you pay in taxes. Giving working families a break by lowering the state's aggressively high sales tax rate would leave a budget hole that would have to be filled by generating revenue elsewhere (evergreen suggestion: raising Nevada's lowest-in-the-nation gaming tax). Under Nevada's constitution, raising or creating taxes requires a two-thirds vote of both legislative houses, majorities Democrats have not had and would probably be afraid to use if they did. In Washington state, which is bluer than Nevada but whose residents have also suffered under a regressive tax structure, it took 15 years of advocacy from organizations and politicians to finally enact a tax on the ultra-wealthy (another good suggestion). Reforming Nevada's tax structure would likewise be a long process. That's assuming Democrats and, for that matter, their most powerful progressive organizational allies, would do something they so far haven't: get started on a public education campaign advocating tax fairness that would also enable the state to be a little less cheap and a little more responsible when it comes to funding public services, programs, and projects. If only the state's Democratic legislative brain trust had spent as much time advocating for an equitable tax system as they've spent advocating and/or rubber-stamping government handouts to corporations and billionaires. The first quarter of the 21st century has been economically harder on Nevada than any other state. It's perhaps a testament to the state Democratic Party's long-hailed organizational oomph that Nevada didn't go for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and only finally fell to Trump last year. It remains to be seen if and how Democrats nationally can generate enough trust and optimism to pull the country out of its degenerative spiral. If they do, there might be some Nevadans, including some state legislators, who will make a meaningful contribution to the effort. But if prior performance is any indication of future results, it's hard to imagine Nevada legislative and party leadership having much of a role in that. At least not in a good way. A version of this column originally appeared in the Daily Current newsletter, which is free and which you can subscribe to here.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers forge ahead with film tax credits bill, precarious economic outlook notwithstanding
'This has no impact on the current budget,' said Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui, noting the tax credits wouldn't kick in until 2028. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Lawmakers appear open to advancing a proposal that would greenlight $1.8 billion in tax breaks to the film industry over 15 years because the proposal would give nothing away in the upcoming two years. Assembly Bill 238 would massively expand Nevada's film tax credit program to support the build out and operation of a 31-acre film hub currently referred to as the Summerlin Production Studios Project after the Las Vegas neighborhood where it would be located. Sony Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, and Howard Hughes Holdings are attached to the project. Largest public subsidy in state history makes legislative debut The bill, which received a policy hearing in early February, was heard by the Assembly's finance committee on Friday. AB 238 would set aside $120 million in film tax credits annually for 15 years — $95 million for productions at the Summerlin studio and $25 million for productions not tied to the studio. That's a twelvefold increase over the state's current film tax credit program, which is capped at $10 million annually. But the increase wouldn't kick in until July 2028. That means the Legislature does not have to consider the $95 million in tax credits as part of the biennium budget it is currently working on Lawmakers would only have to consider a relatively small $206,000 fiscal note submitted by the Governor's Office of Economic Development, whose Nevada Film Office wants additional staff to administer the program. 'This has no impact on the current budget,' emphasized Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui, who is sponsoring the bill with Assemblymember Danielle Monroe-Moreno. But at least one lawmaker raised the possibility that economic uncertainties may linger beyond the upcoming biennium cycle. 'Let's say that we get yet another Economic Forum with a similar outlook that we had last week,' said Assemblymember Natha Anderson, referring to a $151 million reduction in Nevada's expected revenue forecast amid sharp economic volatility driven by Trump administration economic policies. 'Is this date set in stone? Or will there be discussion about possibly pushing it back again?' Jauregui responded that an amendment is currently being drafted proposing 'additional guardrails.' She did not elaborate, saying the language is still being finalized. Legislative staff noted that $110 million, the amount the $10 million program would expand by, represents about 1.8% of the state general fund after tax credits. As lawmakers mull massive expansion of program, WWE offers glimpse of how film tax credits work Lawmakers in the hearing discussed WrestleMania 41 and related events, which last month was approved to receive $4.2 million in transferable film tax credits. As the Nevada Current reported last month, Wrestlemania's application illuminates how the program currently operates. Assemblymember Shea Backus asked legislative staff what the WWE would have received under the provisions of AB 238. The bill, in addition to raising the annual cap, also changes the calculations used to determine the amount of transferable film tax credits each production can receive. Chief Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Michael Nakamoto calculated that Wrestlemania would have qualified for $8.3 million in transferable film tax credits, nearly double what it received under the program as it exists today. Backus noted that $8.3 million exceeds the amount WWE estimated it would spend on local labor and businesses. On its end, WWE estimates that its Wrestlemania events generate $200 million in economic activity for the host city. Jauregui pushed back on the narrative of the bill as a giveaway, saying it requires investment of private dollars into the state and is a job creation bill. 'The legislation will generate $3 billion in annual economic activity,' she claimed. 'That is Wrestlemania 15 times a year.' Added Monroe-Moreno, 'We have a responsibility to find ways to diversify our revenue streams in the state of Nevada. As the fiscal leader of this committee, I would have never put my name on a bill if I didn't believe it provided a pathway for us to do that.' AB 238 is one of two film tax credit expansion bills introduced this legislative session. The other is Senate Bill 220, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Roberta Lange. SB 220 received a policy hearing last month and was referred to the Senate Finance Committee where it has not been scheduled for a hearing. Lange could not be reached for comment on the status of her bill.
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Nevada should replace its gross receipts tax with something better but it won't
A group of people with no plan to ever fix a severely upside down state tax structure in which the less you make, the more of your income you pay in taxes. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) 'If I had my way, I'd take the tax out,' Republican Assemblymember P.K. O'Neill said last month about the state commerce tax paid by Nevada businesses. It's not a bad idea. The commerce tax was crafted by quasi-governmental fixture, consultant to the publicly subsidized stars, and lobbyist in denial Jeremy Aguero at the request of then-Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval for the 2015 Nevada legislative session. The measure, which was enacted with bipartisan support, applies small levies well south of 1% (between 0.051% and 0.331%, depending on the industry) on the gross receipts of businesses that collect an annual revenue of more than $4 million. O'Neill and Republican Assemblymember Jill Dickman are sponsoring a bill to have the $4 million exemption grow with inflation, effectively expanding the exemption a little more each year, and capturing a few less businesses in the process. It would have a negligible impact on state revenues and Nevada businesses alike in the short term, though the impact on state revenue would compound over time. Only seven states levy a tax on gross revenue. States name them differently — 'corporate activity tax' (Oregon), 'franchise tax' (Texas), 'commerce tax' (Nevada), etc. — but tax policy think tanks such as the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center categorize them collectively as a 'gross receipts' tax. And the center-right Tax Foundation, in particular, is not fond of gross receipts taxes at all. Among the many faults the group finds in 'this harmful tax,' perhaps the most pernicious is 'tax pyramiding' — a good or service gets taxed again and again by every business at every step in the market process. That 'continual forward shifting of the tax burden' ultimately results in consumers paying higher prices. Nevada consumers already pay higher sales tax rates than people in most of the rest of the country, which makes inflation hit households in Nevada harder than in other states (and is yet another reason Nevadans will also be hit harder by Trump's tariffs than people in most other states). Nevada's commerce tax exacerbates the problem. Price increases driven by commerce tax pyramiding also make the tax regressive — the lower a household's income, the higher the percentage of that income is paid as a tax. That's in keeping with Nevada's upside down tax structure in general, which is notorious for being one of the nation's most regressive. 'Nevada's Commerce Tax is a prime example of a state with a poorly structured and legally tenuous gross receipts tax,' the Tax Foundation wrote in a 2024 overview of taxes on gross receipts in the U.S. The group singled out the aforementioned $4 million exemption for 'eliminating many small and medium-sized businesses in Nevada from the Commerce Tax altogether.' (The 'legally tenuous' bit refers to an 'in-state payroll' quirk in the tax that could make it ripe for challenge under the U.S. Constitution clause granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states. But since Republicans who control Congress have relinquished power over everything and anything in deference to Trump's authority, that potential constitutional transgression is unlikely to be anyone's concern anytime soon.) 'Gross receipt taxes' such as Nevada's commerce tax 'can and should be left in the dustbin of history,' the Tax Foundation asserts. 'If states intend to levy a broad-based business tax,' the group's overview concludes, 'a properly corporate income tax that allows businesses to deduct the cost of goods sold, as well as qualifying business investments and inputs,' which would curb tax pyramiding, you see, 'is — while far from an ideal tax — demonstrably better than a tax on gross receipts.' When O'Neill, who previously has struggled to grasp the meaning of regressive taxation, says he'd like to 'take the tax out,' he assuredly doesn't mean he would like to replace it with a corporate income tax. But ridding the state of its commerce tax without replacing it with something smarter would leave a projected $760 million hole in state revenue over the next two years. The damage that Trump and Elon Musk have recklessly inflicted on federal programs and services is as yet still incalculable, and the prospect of repairing what they have broken is still unknown. What is known, however, is that states that stand the best chance of maintaining a semblance of vital public services will be those states with a history of at least trying to adequately fund and staff state and local government. Nevada isn't one of them. And barring a currently unthinkable outbreak of sense and sensibility among Trump and his congressional Republicans, Nevada will likely be facing intense budget challenges over the next two years, especially with diminished Medicaid funding, yet another thing that is projected to hit Nevada harder than most states. Nevada can't 'take the tax out.' And it can't replace it with a corporate income tax, for the same reason Sandoval and Aguero came up with gross receipts tax ten years ago. Sure, it was convoluted, unfamiliar, and wracked with bizarre industrial tax rate variations that were inexplicable from a policy standpoint but grossly obvious from a political one (oh hi mining). And, if memory serves, opponents at the time warned of the tax pyramiding problem. But the big attraction about the commerce tax is that as blunt and flawed and silly as it so obviously was/is, it wasn't that one tax that Nevada politicians of both parties are horrified to entertain, let alone make an argument or — perish the thought — vote for: It wasn't an income tax. Technically, it is true that Nevada can replace its gross receipts tax with a corporate income tax that would treat businesses and working households more fairly. While the state constitution prohibits establishment of a personal income tax, it also explicitly allows a business and/or corporate income tax. But replacing the commerce tax with a business income tax would require at least a few Republicans to vote for it, because of the state's daftly undemocratic requirement that any new or increased taxes must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature. And approving a business income tax — or any new or increased tax for that matter — would require Democrats to not only vote for it, but to make a public case for it. That's just not going to happen at any time in the foreseeable future, if ever. Instead, O'Neill's bill to make the commerce tax slightly more complicated and slightly less useful was passed out of a committee controlled by Democrats, and seems exactly the sort of thing that perhaps not most but enough legislative Democrats would vote to send to the desk of a Republican governor who would no doubt be delighted to sign it, Nevada legislative Democrats arguably being among the most business-compliant legislative Democrats in the nation. If that's what happens, a little bit more of the state's tax burden will be lifted from business, a little bit more of it will fall on the shoulders of working households, and Nevada's tax structure will be a little bit more upside down, fairness wise. In other words, yet again, the Nevada way will win the day.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Dozens of measures met their demise in Carson City last week
(Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Approximately a quarter of the 1,093 bills and resolutions introduced into the Nevada State Legislature's 2025 Session are now considered dead after failing to meet a key deadline last week. Bills and resolutions had to pass out of a committee by Friday, which marked day 68 of the 120-day session; 281 did not. The remainder of the bills either did advance or are exempt from the deadlines. Among the most high profile to die on Friday: a proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution to allow for a state lottery. Assembly Joint Resolution 5 was passed by the 2023 Legislature and needed to be passed by the 2025 Legislature in order to advance to the 2026 General Election ballot for final approval by voters. It was not given a hearing before Friday's deadline. The lottery proposal was pushed by Culinary Union, which on Monday issued a statement deriding Democratic leadership for not giving the resolution a hearing this session. 'With federal cuts looming, uncertainty around the state budget, and lack of funding for education and mental health, Nevadans need real solutions and we need it now,' Secretary-Treasurer Ted Pappageorge said in a statement. 'Politicians cannot complain about budget shortfalls while refusing to even consider a bill that would bring in new revenue.' A second bill being pushed by Culinary, Senate Bill 360, also died Friday. Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo had said he would veto the bill if it made it to his desk, and the bill would have faced significant resistance in the Legislature anyway. Dubbed the Hotel Safety Act, SB360 was sponsored by state Sen. Lori Rogich, a Republican who Culinary endorsed over a Democratic incumbent in last year's general election. Culinary had previously endorsed the incumbent, Dallas Harris, but withdrew support for her and other Democrats after they voted against a similar room cleaning proposal in 2023. (Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno, who sponsored the lottery resolution, was also 'unendorsed.') Another high-profile bill that died Friday was Senate Bill 415, which would have allowed local jurisdictions to use automated traffic enforcement cameras. The more sweeping of two red light camera bills introduced this session, SB415 was considered problematic by civil rights groups like the ACLU of Nevada. The second red light camera bill, Democratic Assemblymember Selena Torres-Fossett's Assembly Bill 402, is still alive. That bill is exempt from standard deadlines but cleared the Assembly Growth and Infrastructure Committee last week. It would authorize traffic monitoring cameras in construction work zones when workers are present. Opponents of automated red light cameras say they will continue monitoring bills to see if lawmakers attempt to amend parts of SB415 into other bills, including AB402. 'The deployment of red-light cameras is often framed as a matter of public safety, but in reality, most civil liberties abuses happen under the guise of public safety,' said ACLU of Nevada Executive Director Athar Haseebullah in a statement Monday. Two bills sponsored on behalf of the Nevada Highway Patrol also failed to advance. Assembly Bill 54 would have subjected a driver to a felony if they failed to move over for an emergency services provider and that resulted in the death of a first responder. The bill received a hearing but was not passed out of committee. A second Nevada Highway Patrol proposal, Senate Bill 37 would have criminalized road rage. It never received a hearing. Other bills and resolutions the Nevada Current has covered that are now dead: Assembly Joint Resolution 6, sponsored by 27 Democrats. The resolution, which passed in 2023 but needed to be passed once more by the Legislature and then by voters, would have had Nevada enter the National Popular Vote Compact, an interstate agreement wherein states commit to allocating their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. AJR6 was not given a hearing by the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. Assembly Bill 33, sponsored by Republican State Controller Andy Matthews. The bill would have established a Nevada Inspector General. Described by some as having 'DOGE vibes,' the bill was heard by the Assembly Government Affairs Committee but no action was taken. Assembly Bill 141, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Duy Nguyen. The bill would have required judicial candidates to have participated in at least 10 trials. The bill received a poor reception in the Assembly Judiciary Committee during its hearing and no action was taken. Senate Bill 242, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Edgar Flores. The bill would have prohibited investment companies from purchasing residential properties unless they have been listed on the market for at least 30 days. The bill never received a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but other attempts to rein in corporate ownership of single-family homes did move forward. Assembly Bill 129, sponsored by Republican Assemblymember Jill Dickman, and Senate Bill 221 and Senate Bill 222, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Carrie Ann Buck. This trio of homeowners association bills died without receiving hearings, but at least half a dozen other HOA-focused bills have advanced. Of course, nothing is ever truly dead in the Legislature. For proof of that, just look to Assembly Bill 381, dubbed Reba's Law, which mandates prison time for killing a domestic animal. Sponsored by Republican Assemblymember Melissa Hardy, the bill failed to advance out of committee by Friday's committee deadline only to be posthumously given a waiver and advanced on Monday.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill seeks administrative fix to avoid ‘manufactured crisis' in private school scholarship program
Democratic Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Two years ago, a first-come first-served process allowed one Florida group to hoover up every dollar of available funding for Nevada's private school scholarship program, which led to a perceived budget shortfall and a contentious 12-hour legislative meeting. Now, Democratic Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno is sponsoring a bill aimed at addressing the administrative issues that led to that hubbub. Assembly Bill 441 does not affect the total funding amount for the Nevada Educational Choice Scholarship program, better known as Opportunity Scholarships. The program and its funding have been a political battleground for Republicans and Democrats since being established in 2015. AB441 would create a 30-day application period during which the scholarship-granting organizations would submit to the Department of Taxation their applications for accessing funds. The Department of Taxation would then approve applications based on a mandated order of priority: Students already receiving a scholarship are first, then siblings of returning students, and then everyone else. What happened in 2023 was that one Florida-based organization, AAA Scholarship Foundation, claimed the entirety of the $6.66 million available, leaving nothing for the other organizations who had been counting on the money. That led Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo to ask the Democratic-controlled Interim Finance Committee for $3.2 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds for the scholarship program. When his request was denied, Lombardo accused the majority party of 'forcibly removing hundreds of low-income students from their schools.' Democrats at the time called it a 'manufactured crisis' fanned by a Republican governor who earlier that year had proposed a massive expansion of the scholarship program only to walk away from a contentious legislative session with enough funding to keep the program at its current level. According to the most recent annual report on Opportunity Scholarships, which covered scholarships for the 2023-24 academic year, AAA had given out $5.8 million to at least 957 students and was still awarding money in December 2023. Meanwhile, three organizations that had given out money the year prior gave out nothing. Monroe-Moreno last week told lawmakers on the Assembly Revenue Committee, which advanced the bill, that AAA publicly vowed to help affected students but did not follow through. She added that one organization told her that their students did not get funded by AAA. AAA Scholarship Foundation CEO Kim Dyson declined the Nevada Current's request for an interview but emailed press releases from after that 2023 meeting stating that the organization was opening a special application period for students who'd been affected. Dyson in a letter of opposition to AB441 said that the organization 'awarded scholarships to every eligible transferring student who applied with us.' The Nevada Independent reported in September 2023 that 283 students applied to AAA for a scholarship during that application period. That was less than half the amount of the number private school voucher advocates had said would be affected by the IFC decision the prior month. For the 2024 funds, the Department of Taxation considered all applications received on one set date (June 14, 2024) to be received at the same time. Then, the department prorated the available funds, resulting in each organization receiving 76% of what they requested. Dyson in an email said the organization is 'grateful' for that change. AB441 would also require scholarship-granting organizations to expend the money they receive within 18 months, with any unspent money after that time period going back to the state. Representatives from AAA testified to lawmakers in August 2023 that the organization had $13 million in reserves. AAA on Monday confirmed to the Current that the organization still has $13 million in reserves. It's unclear how much reserves funding the other scholarship-granting organizations have. In 2023, those organizations had about $5 million combined. Dyson in a letter of opposition to AB441 argued that reserves ensure financial stability and that the organization has followed the 2017 guidance from the Nevada Department of Education and Nevada Treasurer's Office. 'Unlike some other' scholarship-granting organizations, 'we have never had to cancel scholarships for eligible returning students,' she wrote. AB441 must be passed by the full Assembly by April 22 or it will be considered dead.
