Debate pm services tax heats up

The League of Women Voters has spoken! At least the president and treasurer have spoken in their recent letter to the Appeal responding to my March 9 column about sales tax on services being the least painful of all new taxes. Having observed the League in action for many years, I'm not surprised its officers missed the whole point of my column.

I do my level best to write plainly and conversationally. No one with an education beyond the ninth grade can fail to grasp what I'm talking about. The League women implied that I obscured the fact that a sales tax on services will be passed on to us consumers as would a business tax. Of course it will. All taxes, no matter what they are labeled, end up on the backs of us consumers. But it could be levied at a 4 1/2 percent rate as opposed to the 6 1/2 percent rate presently levied on goods, and goods could also be reduced to 4 1/2 percent if services were included. Moreover, the sales tax base would then be expanded by 60 percent, which is an enormous stabilizer during bad times, especially considering visitor contributions. League women also say that sales tax on services is regressive because it would apply to haircuts, beauty salons and dry cleaning. Are they saying that an increase of 4 1/2 percent will stop people from using those basic services? No way! You can't keep women out of hair salons for a measly dollar-fifteen cents in tax. Sales tax on services is progressive because when two people in a household work, or one is a professional, or they own their own business, they must hire outside services. Seniors and poor people rarely hire lawyers, accountants, architects, contractors, landscapers, painters and a host of other big ticket services, all of which are used by the more affluent.

What the league is angling for is a wealth or luxury tax like the British Socialists tried several years ago. Class envy. Or perhaps it would settle for property or personal income taxes to fund government, such as taxes being stable. But why should government enjoy the luxury of stable, predictable income when the rest of us -- the taxpayers -- have to roll with the ups and downs of the economy? Sadly, the League has again exposed itself as being a left-wing, big government tax-taker-and-spender group, and has lost whatever credibility it may have had to cut as a forum for aspiring office seekers. It doesn't care a whit about taxpayers, only tax-takers. Furthermore, the League women say that people are moving to Nevada in droves with school-age kids and they need more services. Tough! The jobs aren't here. People are retiring to Nevada because it is a no income tax state and doesn't tax its citizens for all of the freebies provided by California.

Now in my March 9 column I said that state government should eliminate unnecessary services. As a starter, I am recommending we get rid of the Nevada Manufactured Housing Division of the Department of Business and Industry. This division is redundant. It has outlived its usefulness. No longer are we dealing with house trailers. The NMHD isn't needed to process the installation of these homes nor their conversion to real property. Today, HUD inspects manufactured housing at the factories with standards often exceeding county building requirement. Once these units arrive on site, the only further inspection of the manufactured home itself is an electrical continuity check and a gas pressure check. When that is completed, a Certificate of Inspection has, in the past, been issued by the county after the county has approved the sewer, water, gas, power and set-up installations.

Last fall the NMHD notified Lyon County that it was taking over processing the C of I. When asked why it was doing this as the county had been doing it all along within the standard permitting process, the NMHD representative allegedly said they needed the money and they also needed to justify their existence to the upcoming legislature. Introducing the NMHD into the inspection/permit process has increased costs and delayed consumer occupancy without any health or safety benefits. Moreover, the NMHD charges by the hour and for the miles driven to and from Carson City merely to apply the sticker. And how much time does it take the NMHD to perform simple paperwork converting new installations to real property? More than 18 months. This can easily be done by the county building, assessor and recorder departments. So how about it, Governor Guinn? Are you sincere about cutting unnecessary services? Here is a great place to start.

Bob Thomas is a local businessman, past member of the Carson City School Board, the Nevada State Assembly and a former Nevada Appeal columnist.