WMTA SAFETY DIRECTOR DENNIS TERPIN ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY FOR CEU APPROVED SEMINARS February 15, 2022 – Honolulu, Live and Zoom
Defining the Role of the Chemical Hygiene Officer March 16, 2022 – Honolulu, Live and Zoom Advanced Laboratory Safety Please Register at – https://lawsonassociatesinc.thundertix.com/
0 Comments
Tax Hikes Still on the Table
Our Legislature is now in full swing. Politicians are busily preparing and debating bills that would affect our future. One thing different this year, or that is supposed to be different this year, is that because we have just had a U.S. census and the representative and senatorial districts have been reapportioned, each of the elected inhabitants in the big square building on Beretania Street will face the voters this November. But you wouldn’t think so by looking at some of the measures being proposed. Last year, when our economy was in the toilet, legislators put forward an omnibus tax increase bill, Senate Bill 56. I called it the “Enola Gay” bill. It proposed hefty increases in individual income tax, raising the top bracket from 11% to 13% and hoisting the capital gains maximum rate from 7.25% to 11%. Corporate tax rates were raised from three brackets with a top rate of 6.4% to one bracket with a rate of 9.6%. The bill attracted national attention for the magnitude of hikes being considered, as the bill would give us the second highest marginal tax rate in the nation but that highest rate would kick in far earlier than it would in any other state. When the bill crossed over to the House, many top lawmakers including the Speaker of the House panned it. The Speaker gave the bill a rare quadruple referral, and not a single House committee touched it. This year, Senate Bill 2242, “Relating to Taxation,” proposes the exact same individual and corporate income tax rate hikes. The preamble in the bill recites that state government needs to “increase revenue for essential public services and uplift Hawaii's most vulnerable workers.” The bill also seeks to end state income taxation of unemployment compensation benefits. Maybe the Senate doesn’t care about how this bill is going to be reacted to nationally, or if it is going to meet the same fate in the House as last year’s Senate Bill 56. The bill is a single referral bill, which means it only needs to be considered by one committee, and it is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Ways and Means Committee on February 2nd. If the bill passes, it goes to the House. If it fails there, there is always the possibility that a friendly Senate committee could create a Frankenbill with its contents, like how House Bill 58 was operated on last year. In the meantime, the House is also attracting national attention. House Bill 1815 seeks to create an “Online Sports Wagering Corporation” that would regulate and administer sports betting in the State over the Internet. That might not be so remarkable, but the bill also proposes a sports wagering tax on all winnings paid out to any person by a sports wagering provider. The tax rate is 55% of winnings. No, there is no missing decimal point. According to multiple national specialty news networks, the 55% rate would put us ahead of New York’s and Hawaii’s 51% rate to make Hawaii wagering the most heavily taxed in the country. “Hawaii Five-Five,” the networks call it. Hey, we don’t fool around here in Hawaii. So far, House Bill 1815 has not been scheduled for a hearing in the House. The bill is considered a long shot even by the betting industry networks. The Governor, after all, was given a bill by his Department of Hawaiian Home Lands seeking to establish a casino in Kapolei last year. The Governor did not include the bill in his legislative package. Other friendly legislators introduced the bill in both houses instead, and the bill was killed by both House and Senate committees. Hold on to your wallet, folks, because our Legislature is in session! The Future of Blankety Blank
Now that our Legislature is in session again and pondering several bills including some tax increases, we wanted to re-examine a tactic that has surfaced in recent years that has been applied to appropriation and tax bills – or could be applied to any bill with important numbers in them. The tactic? Blank out all of the important numbers. So a bill could give someone a credit of blank percent, or change the tax rate on a tax to a blank rate. Three years ago, we wrote about this tactic and pointed to a bill that changed the income tax to: “If the taxable income is: The tax shall be: Over $6,600 but not over $9,600 ___% of excess over $6,600 Over $9,600 but not over $28,800 $___ plus ___% of excess over $9,600 Over $28,800 but not over $38,400 $___ plus ___% of excess over $28,800….” And so on. That bill, HB 1190 SD1 (2019), had fifty-seven blanks in it. We’ve seen that bills, even tax increase bills, usually don’t have blanks in them when they are introduced, but committee chairs amend the bills to add the blanks at some time between the bill’s second and third reading. The blanks tend to stick around during subsequent hearings, and finally get filled in Conference Committee – when no public input is allowed. In 2019, when our previous article was written, we pointed out that the Hawaii Constitution requires that bills pass three readings in each house on separate days, and that the intent behind that provision was “the opportunity for full debate in the open before committees and in each House, during the course of which the purposes of the measures, and their meaning, scope, and probable effect, and the validity of the alleged facts and arguments given in their support can be fully examined, and if false or unsound, can be exposed, before any action of consequence is taken thereon.” Late last year, our supreme court dealt a blow to the then-commonly used legislative tactic that we called “gut and replace.” The court held that when a bill is amended in a way that is not germane to its original form, then the count for hearings has to start over; if it doesn’t, the resulting law can be struck down. We were wondering in 2019, and are still wondering now, whether the same reasoning can apply to a Blankety Blank. The Legislature sometimes uses “short form” bills, bills that have all of the constitutionally required elements but contain no substance. When they do, the committee hearing the bill amends the bill to fill in the substance and recommits it to the same committee so it can hold a hearing on the bill now that there is material in it that the public can comment on. We think that the same should be required of Blankety Blanks. A bill that has more holes than a Swiss cheese may be legally sufficient but it’s impossible for the public to make any intelligent comments about it if it’s full of blanks. Without knowing the numbers, for example, the bill we quoted above could be a tax hike or a tax cut. Wouldn’t the public’s comments be different depending on which it was? Maybe, just maybe, somebody needs to take a Blankety Blank bill that happens to become law and vigorously challenge it in court. Now that our supreme court has the League of Women Voters decision on the books, that kind of challenge can’t be laughed off as easily as it might have been. Okay, lawmakers. Want to pass one of these bills? Go ahead, make my day! |
If you wish to further discuss blog posts, please contat our office directly or contact us via Contact page.
Categories
All
|