State Tax Reform

[ita]

Pillen backs off tax hike to ease Nebraska property taxes, says plan not 'spelled out' yet

Erin Bamer, Martha Stoddard
Gov. Jim Pillen stepped back Monday from a proposal to deliver property tax relief by raising the state sales tax rate to a nation-high 7.5 cents, while reiterating his vow to cut property taxes by 40% this year.

The governor said he is working with the Legislature to find a way to reduce the amount Nebraskans pay in property taxes by $2 billion. But at a press conference following the Legislature’s adjournment for the day, he acknowledged that he has not found the answer yet.

“Whatever the plan is to get there, I’m 100% behind it,” he said. “I’m working very, very hard to make sure that we’re unified and that we can come away with a solution that’s going to allow 33 votes. We don’t have that exactly spelled out.”

[almighty_tuna]

So hear me out ... You legalize marijuana and use the tax revenue from that to lower property taxes, BUT, only for properties where the owner lives on the actual land. Then fund public (only) schools and public transportation with the remaining marijuana tax revenue.

[Louie]

So hear me out ... You legalize marijuana and use the tax revenue from that to lower property taxes, BUT, only for properties where the owner lives on the actual land. Then fund public (only) schools and public transportation with the remaining marijuana tax revenue.

I like this a lot. But I must admit, I almost thought you were going to say "You legalize marijuana and use the tax revenue from that to lower property taxes, BUT, only for people who smoke weed" lol

[Athomsfere]

1. Lower property taxes
2. Increase progressive income taxes
3. Increase property taxes on vehicles, especially by weight.
4. Increase property taxes in land-inefficient uses: Vacant lots, parking lots, larger lots with detached SFH.
5. Increase the gas tax


Seems like a good start to me. Probably a terrible platform though.

[Dusty]

So hear me out ... You legalize marijuana and use the tax revenue from that to lower property taxes, BUT, only for properties where the owner lives on the actual land. Then fund public (only) schools and public transportation with the remaining marijuana tax revenue.

I have always said people who partake in marijuana and gambling will do so regardless of the legal status. So we might as well legalize it and collect some revenue from it.

I know some cities have increased sales tax by 1% for transit infrastructure upgrades. Nothing goes to operating expenses. This is a way to super charge the network at a faster rate. It's important the plan is transparent so people know what they are getting. For example, 50 new bus shelters over 2 years. Once built, the 1 % ends until the next infrastructure proposal.

This might fall under a city plan vs state plan, but still makes you think of the possibilities.

[Original]

1. Lower property taxes
2. Increase progressive income taxes
3. Increase property taxes on vehicles, especially by weight.
4. Increase property taxes in land-inefficient uses: Vacant lots, parking lots, larger lots with detached SFH.
5. Increase the gas tax


Seems like a good start to me. Probably a terrible platform though.

I definitely agree with #3. I'm not sure about #5 unless you have a good way to pair it with #3 and increase taxes on EV users.

[Louie]

I'm not sure about #5 unless you have a good way to pair it with #3 and increase taxes on EV users.

Why do EV drivers need to be lumped into #5? They'll pay their dues with the weight tax in #3.

[Athomsfere]

1. Lower property taxes
2. Increase progressive income taxes
3. Increase property taxes on vehicles, especially by weight.
4. Increase property taxes in land-inefficient uses: Vacant lots, parking lots, larger lots with detached SFH.
5. Increase the gas tax


Seems like a good start to me. Probably a terrible platform though.

I definitely agree with #3. I'm not sure about #5 unless you have a good way to pair it with #3 and increase taxes on EV users.

The weight tax would at least partially address it. Also, charging lots would get it on #4, which would likely go back to Tesla or whoever to help out ;)

[Omahomie]

So hear me out ... You legalize marijuana and use the tax revenue from that to lower property taxes, BUT, only for properties where the owner lives on the actual land. Then fund public (only) schools and public transportation with the remaining marijuana tax revenue.

I have always said people who partake in marijuana and gambling will do so regardless of the legal status. So we might as well legalize it and collect some revenue from it.

I know some cities have increased sales tax by 1% for transit infrastructure upgrades. Nothing goes to operating expenses. This is a way to super charge the network at a faster rate. It's important the plan is transparent so people know what they are getting. For example, 50 new bus shelters over 2 years. Once built, the 1 % ends until the next infrastructure proposal.

This might fall under a city plan vs state plan, but still makes you think of the possibilities.

Like this idea. It would be nice to concentrate the marijuana and gambling into a designated district and limit the amount of shops that could potentially open because they do increased crime and that burns tax $. Maybe even incorporating police infrastructure to aid but you are right people will do what they do regardless of legality.

Also having increased taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, sugar etc to promote healthy lifestyles and decrease the strain on healthcare. But transparency is the key because lots of these increases in taxes end up never going to infrastructure improvements

[Dusty]

So hear me out ... You legalize marijuana and use the tax revenue from that to lower property taxes, BUT, only for properties where the owner lives on the actual land. Then fund public (only) schools and public transportation with the remaining marijuana tax revenue.

I have always said people who partake in marijuana and gambling will do so regardless of the legal status. So we might as well legalize it and collect some revenue from it.

I know some cities have increased sales tax by 1% for transit infrastructure upgrades. Nothing goes to operating expenses. This is a way to super charge the network at a faster rate. It's important the plan is transparent so people know what they are getting. For example, 50 new bus shelters over 2 years. Once built, the 1 % ends until the next infrastructure proposal.

This might fall under a city plan vs state plan, but still makes you think of the possibilities.

Like this idea. It would be nice to concentrate the marijuana and gambling into a designated district and limit the amount of shops that could potentially open because they do increased crime and that burns tax $. Maybe even incorporating police infrastructure to aid but you are right people will do what they do regardless of legality.

Also having increased taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, sugar etc to promote healthy lifestyles and decrease the strain on healthcare. But transparency is the key because lots of these increases in taxes end up never going to infrastructure improvements

Funny twist....maybe use marijuana tax revenue to help pay for the police pensions/salaries. Instead of police giving you a ride to jail for smoking pot, they will a ride to the local pot shop to buy more. LOL!

[Athomsfere]

So hear me out ... You legalize marijuana and use the tax revenue from that to lower property taxes, BUT, only for properties where the owner lives on the actual land. Then fund public (only) schools and public transportation with the remaining marijuana tax revenue.

I have always said people who partake in marijuana and gambling will do so regardless of the legal status. So we might as well legalize it and collect some revenue from it.

I know some cities have increased sales tax by 1% for transit infrastructure upgrades. Nothing goes to operating expenses. This is a way to super charge the network at a faster rate. It's important the plan is transparent so people know what they are getting. For example, 50 new bus shelters over 2 years. Once built, the 1 % ends until the next infrastructure proposal.

This might fall under a city plan vs state plan, but still makes you think of the possibilities.

Like this idea. It would be nice to concentrate the marijuana and gambling into a designated district and limit the amount of shops that could potentially open because they do increased crime and that burns tax $. Maybe even incorporating police infrastructure to aid but you are right people will do what they do regardless of legality.

Also having increased taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, sugar etc to promote healthy lifestyles and decrease the strain on healthcare. But transparency is the key because lots of these increases in taxes end up never going to infrastructure improvements

Two random thoughts:

We could do what Amsterdam is doing: Just build a new red light district in a new building.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... gree-where

Second point: Are we actually sure in any way these things "increase crime" and not just concentrate existing crime or some other correlative effect?

Assume it is causative and not purely a correlation, or a side-effect of more strict policing; wouldn't the increased economic activity moved above-board not already offset the increased spending?

[Original]

1. Lower property taxes
2. Increase progressive income taxes
3. Increase property taxes on vehicles, especially by weight.
4. Increase property taxes in land-inefficient uses: Vacant lots, parking lots, larger lots with detached SFH.
5. Increase the gas tax


Seems like a good start to me. Probably a terrible platform though.

I definitely agree with #3. I'm not sure about #5 unless you have a good way to pair it with #3 and increase taxes on EV users.

The weight tax would at least partially address it. Also, charging lots would get it on #4, which would likely go back to Tesla or whoever to help out ;)

I left out the intended word 'commercial' before EV in the sentence above, as my guess is that increasingly commercial EV usage is going to be a considerable burden on our road system and those users (like Amazon, f.ex) should probably begin paying higher costs for their use of the road system. And yes, I am aware that taxes often trickle down to consumers, but even as someone who uses and enjoys Amazon, I am unconvinced that making impulse Amazon purchases more expensive would be a bad thing. I think taxes are a tricky thing to balance and I am of the opinion that they should probably be a little more volatile and change more frequently.

I am also of the opinion that long range EVs are perhaps just greenwashing, and not as ultimately helpful to the environment unless we get magic battery technology that doubles or triples energy density.

[Dusty]

3. Increase property taxes on vehicles, especially by weight.

I would not link property taxes and vehicles together. If you want to charge a higher registration fee or wheel tax on heavy vehicles, then fine.

Here in Florida, they offer a homestead exemption. They stress to you big time to make sure you fill it out by the deadline. If you miss it, you can pay double or triple the tax amount based on home value. Here is the kicker....in order to be eligible you must provide a valid driver's license and car insurance. So if you want to save on property taxes, car ownership is required.
If you are less fortunate to own a car, you can pay through the nose for taxes. Pretty unfair deal to me.

[Athomsfere]

3. Increase property taxes on vehicles, especially by weight.

I would not link property taxes and vehicles together. If you want to charge a higher registration fee or wheel tax on heavy vehicles, then fine.

Here in Florida, they offer a homestead exemption. They stress to you big time to make sure you fill it out by the deadline. If you miss it, you can pay double or triple the tax amount based on home value. Here is the kicker....in order to be eligible you must provide a valid driver's license and car insurance. So if you want to save on property taxes, car ownership is required.
If you are less fortunate to own a car, you can pay through the nose for taxes. Pretty unfair deal to me.

Specifically I was thinking the VMT, Vehicle Motor Tax.

[Dusty]

It almost seems like Pillen's plan is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Raising sales tax to lower property tax. Where is the savings?

Maybe they should go through the budget and see where they can streamline the spending. What about attracting new industries by offering them a friendly tax rate. New Mexico has become a hot place to film movies/shows because they offer competitive tax rates for the film industry. Lower tax rate =revenue for state. High tax rate= no revenue. I would rather have something than nothing.

[Stan]

1. Lower property taxes
2. Increase progressive income taxes
3. Increase property taxes on vehicles, especially by weight.
4. Increase property taxes in land-inefficient uses: Vacant lots, parking lots, larger lots with detached SFH.
5. Increase the gas tax


Seems like a good start to me. Probably a terrible platform though.

#3, don't we already pay an arm and a leg when buying vehicles? I bought a 5 year old vehicle for under 30k last year and had to pay nearly 3k just to register and tag it. Is this supposed to incentivize people taking more public transport?

[Athomsfere]

#3, don't we already pay an arm and a leg when buying vehicles?

No, no we do not. If actually affording street maintenance and not offsetting usage is a goal at least.

Is this supposed to incentivize people taking more public transport?

Yes, riding transit is in every way better for the health of our cities and people.

[Athomsfere]

It almost seems like Pillen's plan is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Raising sales tax to lower property tax. Where is the savings?

The big problem I have, is most of us are Peter. Paul is the likes of Pillen and Rickets.

[ita]

It almost seems like Pillen's plan is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Raising sales tax to lower property tax. Where is the savings?

Maybe they should go through the budget and see where they can streamline the spending. What about attracting new industries by offering them a friendly tax rate. New Mexico has become a hot place to film movies/shows because they offer competitive tax rates for the film industry. Lower tax rate =revenue for state. High tax rate= no revenue. I would rather have something than nothing.

State senator says sales tax increase is necessary to lower property taxes by 40%

Paul Hammel
To lower property taxes, Nebraskans will need to pay more in sales taxes, a key state senator said Wednesday.

State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan said a state sale tax increase of up to 1-cent — a tax hike that’s a non-starter for some conservatives and progressives — is necessary if Gov. Jim Pillen is to achieve his goal of reducing property taxes by 40%.

“I don’t know how we’re going to get there (otherwise),” Linehan said.

The senator, who heads the legislative committee that deals with tax issues, spoke as a package of bills were introduced Wednesday as part of Pillen’s stated goal of significant property tax relief.

The package drops the governor’s much-panned idea of raising sales taxes by 2 cents — which would give Nebraska the highest state sales tax in the nation at 7.5 cents.

Instead, a bill introduced by Linehan would increase the state sales tax rate — which excludes sales taxes charged by cities — from 5.5 cents to 6.5 cents.

Instead of being hung up on property taxes, any efforts to increase sales tax to lower some other tax rate should be to lower personal income tax, particularly for the lower and middle class. Lowering or eliminating personal income tax for those taxpayers would help a broader range of Nebraskans versus target property taxes. Additionally, I think the state should stay out of local control of control of property taxes. You don't appreciate well funded local services until you have lived in a state with underfunded local services.

[Louie]

Instead of being hung up on property taxes, any efforts to increase sales tax to lower some other tax rate should be to lower personal income tax, particularly for the lower and middle class. Lowering or eliminating personal income tax for those taxpayers would help a broader range of Nebraskans versus target property taxes.

And this, in turn, would increase sales tax revenue. The vast majority of the additional income that lower and middle class people get would get spent.

[ita]

Instead of being hung up on property taxes, any efforts to increase sales tax to lower some other tax rate should be to lower personal income tax, particularly for the lower and middle class. Lowering or eliminating personal income tax for those taxpayers would help a broader range of Nebraskans versus target property taxes.

And this, in turn, would increase sales tax revenue. The vast majority of the additional income that lower and middle class people get would get spent.

Bingo. Every legislative session I email Senator Linehan about focusing on personal income tax reduction. I think it's much more digestible for a broader set of Nebraskans if any sales tax increase is to lower income tax. If the state is concerned about retaining and recruiting young people, relieve the taxes that they see taken out of their paychecks. All of them are renters anyway, so they are not directly benefitted by property tax relief, or at worse not benefitted at all because landlords/property owners will take all the windfall.

[ita]

So, here's some numbers I was able to find.

Personal income tax by AGI:

https://revenue.nebraska.gov/sites/reve ... b_Pay.xlsx

Personal income tax by county:

https://revenue.nebraska.gov/sites/reve ... ounty.xlsx

State sales tax 2022/2021:

https://revenue.nebraska.gov/sites/reve ... 202022.xls

Here's some calculations on how increasing sales tax could go towards personal income tax reductions (I am not a professional and my calculations are rudimentary). State revenues largely come from state sales and income taxes. I will use the 2021 numbers since there are no 2022 state income taxes posted.

In 2021, the state collected $2,199,254,212.65 in sales tax. That does not include cigarette tax or gas tax. The state personal income taxes totaled $2,493,543,864 of withheld payments and $599,160,272 in estimated payments.

If the state increased the state sales tax by 1 cent (Linehan Plan) or 2 cents (Pillen Plan), the state could theoretically increase state sales tax revenues by $440,174,842.53 or $879,701,684.06, respectively. Not enough to eliminate personal income taxes.

However, such increased sales tax revenue could afford substantial personal income tax relief for low and middle income individuals and families. I chose the $60,000-74,999 line as a cutoff. That represents AGI, so I think it's a fair cutoff for middle income taxpayers. Those groups combined had a total withholding payments of $633,377,117 and estimated payments of $16,237,562.

We could increase sales tax by 2 cents for total elimination of personal income taxes for all of those taxpayers. Alternatively, even a 1 cent increase could result in being able to eliminate personal income taxes for all but the $60,000-74,999 group.

Latest census numbers showed the state losing both professional and non-professional young people. I think going this route could help in getting people to come and/or stay in the state because many would fall in these groups and get direct benefits of income tax relief. Just my personal thoughts.

P.S. Want to add some numbers to show how many Nebraskans get tax relief under this proposal. There were a total of 1,035,898 individual tax returns. If we could eliminate personal income tax for all those up to $74,999 AGI, it would affect 672,736 lower and middle income Nebraskans. If we could eliminate for everyone up to $59,999 AGI, we could eliminate personal income tax for 587,745 Nebraskans.

P.S.S. I want to clarify statements I have made that targeting personal income tax relief would be broader tax relief. Per the St. Louis Fed Reserve site, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NEHOWN, the Nebraska homeownership rate is about 69%. I think that is the percentage of total households in Nebraska. Current Census numbers report about 803k total households, so that would be about 554k households being homeowners. Presumably, all 554k of those households would benefit from property tax relief. However, I can't quantify how many individuals would benefit. As such, I can't definitively say that my plan would be broader tax relief.

[Athomsfere]

However, such increased sales tax revenue could afford substantial personal income tax relief for low and middle income individuals and families. I chose the $60,000-74,999 line as a cutoff. That represents AGI, so I think it's a fair cutoff for middle income taxpayers. Those groups combined had a total withholding payments of $633,377,117 and estimated payments of $16,237,562.

We could increase sales tax by 2 cents for total elimination of personal income taxes for all of those taxpayers. Alternatively, even a 1 cent increase could result in being able to eliminate personal income taxes for all but the $60,000-74,999 group.

Latest census numbers showed the state losing both professional and non-professional young people. I think going this route could help in getting people to come and/or stay in the state because many would fall in these groups and get direct benefits of income tax relief. Just my personal thoughts.

Some good thoughts in there.

I'd say, it wouldn't change anything for me but I won't get all bent out of shape.

I still have concerns though. At minimum wage ($12/ hour now) that's a little under $600 for state taxes on income. If 1/3 of their income goes to things with sales tax (+$.02, they are spending like 10x to fund the state. That's a very unfair burden on the bottom earners.

Whereas if you are a millionaire / billionaire: Your income taxes stay flat, and you likely aren't going to change your buying habits. Maybe buy more things out of state or duty free another way.

I'd argue more income taxes are still the better route, by far.

Do we really only have 4 brackets?

Add another bracket for anyone who could take a single years salary, and build a brand new average new build house. Slide the left brackets (1,2) down, maybe leave the middle alone, and raise the right to offset the deficit.

[ita]

However, such increased sales tax revenue could afford substantial personal income tax relief for low and middle income individuals and families. I chose the $60,000-74,999 line as a cutoff. That represents AGI, so I think it's a fair cutoff for middle income taxpayers. Those groups combined had a total withholding payments of $633,377,117 and estimated payments of $16,237,562.

We could increase sales tax by 2 cents for total elimination of personal income taxes for all of those taxpayers. Alternatively, even a 1 cent increase could result in being able to eliminate personal income taxes for all but the $60,000-74,999 group.

Latest census numbers showed the state losing both professional and non-professional young people. I think going this route could help in getting people to come and/or stay in the state because many would fall in these groups and get direct benefits of income tax relief. Just my personal thoughts.

Some good thoughts in there.

I'd say, it wouldn't change anything for me but I won't get all bent out of shape.

I still have concerns though. At minimum wage ($12/ hour now) that's a little under $600 for state taxes on income. If 1/3 of their income goes to things with sales tax (+$.02, they are spending like 10x to fund the state. That's a very unfair burden on the bottom earners.

Whereas if you are a millionaire / billionaire: Your income taxes stay flat, and you likely aren't going to change your buying habits. Maybe buy more things out of state or duty free another way.

I'd argue more income taxes are still the better route, by far.

Do we really only have 4 brackets?

Add another bracket for anyone who could take a single years salary, and build a brand new average new build house. Slide the left brackets (1,2) down, maybe leave the middle alone, and raise the right to offset the deficit.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Regarding your calculations of the tax burden on low wage earners, taking your $12 hourly wage, they make about $24000 a year. If 1/3 is used on taxable purchases, that would amount to $7920 a year. Under the current sales tax, they would pay $396 in sales tax for those goods. Under the higher 2 cent increase regime, their total sales tax would be $554. If they pay $600 to the state in yearly income tax and those get eliminated, they net $440 in tax relief.

For those higher wage earners, I guess they could go across state lines to save, but people do that now. Also, you jumped several AGI brackets to prove a point, but between the $75000+ and millionaires, those people are still going to shop in Nebraska.

Ultimately, my goal would be to make it more attractive to get people to stay and or move here. In my experience, people are more apt to check a state's income tax than property tax burden.

In addition, I think the conversation around property taxes needs to change. We are so focused on only the burden. What about the benefits? Sure, there will always be misuse or use of funds to projects that are not in everyone's personal interest or benefit, but if we turn property taxes to the state, either in how they are dolled to agencies/projects or how local budgets use the funds, I would be less confident it is used in a way that best serves local communities. I am just concerned that efforts at the state level to reduce property taxes, is a way to take away local control and funding to shift power (and money) to the state.

[Athomsfere]

However, such increased sales tax revenue could afford substantial personal income tax relief for low and middle income individuals and families. I chose the $60,000-74,999 line as a cutoff. That represents AGI, so I think it's a fair cutoff for middle income taxpayers. Those groups combined had a total withholding payments of $633,377,117 and estimated payments of $16,237,562.

We could increase sales tax by 2 cents for total elimination of personal income taxes for all of those taxpayers. Alternatively, even a 1 cent increase could result in being able to eliminate personal income taxes for all but the $60,000-74,999 group.

Latest census numbers showed the state losing both professional and non-professional young people. I think going this route could help in getting people to come and/or stay in the state because many would fall in these groups and get direct benefits of income tax relief. Just my personal thoughts.

Some good thoughts in there.

I'd say, it wouldn't change anything for me but I won't get all bent out of shape.

I still have concerns though. At minimum wage ($12/ hour now) that's a little under $600 for state taxes on income. If 1/3 of their income goes to things with sales tax (+$.02, they are spending like 10x to fund the state. That's a very unfair burden on the bottom earners.

Whereas if you are a millionaire / billionaire: Your income taxes stay flat, and you likely aren't going to change your buying habits. Maybe buy more things out of state or duty free another way.

I'd argue more income taxes are still the better route, by far.

Do we really only have 4 brackets?

Add another bracket for anyone who could take a single years salary, and build a brand new average new build house. Slide the left brackets (1,2) down, maybe leave the middle alone, and raise the right to offset the deficit.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Regarding your calculations of the tax burden on low wage earners, taking your $12 hourly wage, they make about $24000 a year. If 1/3 is used on taxable purchases, that would amount to $7920 a year. Under the current sales tax, they would pay $396 in sales tax for those goods. Under the higher 2 cent increase regime, their total sales tax would be $554. If they pay $600 to the state in yearly income tax and those get eliminated, they net $440 in tax relief.

For those higher wage earners, I guess they could go across state lines to save, but people do that now. Also, you jumped several AGI brackets to prove a point, but between the $75000+ and millionaires, those people are still going to shop in Nebraska.

Ultimately, my goal would be to make it more attractive to get people to stay and or move here. In my experience, people are more apt to check a state's income tax than property tax burden.

In addition, I think the conversation around property taxes needs to change. We are so focused on only the burden. What about the benefits? Sure, there will always be misuse or use of funds to projects that are not in everyone's personal interest or benefit, but if we turn property taxes to the state, either in how they are dolled to agencies/projects or how local budgets use the funds, I would be less confident it is used in a way that best serves local communities. I am just concerned that efforts at the state level to reduce property taxes, is a way to take away local control and funding to shift power (and money) to the state.

12*40*52 is 24,960. Overall, our math is close enough overall for the points discussed.

But, I get tax burden at the state level at as $582, and at a sales taxes: 5.5% at ~458, 7% in Omaha is 582.
The additional 2% would then bring it to 626 in state, and $790 in Omaha.

So I guess the take away, it would potentially hurt the city and the people living here.

And I use burden as it is the technical term: What we are responsible for. I do think most of it is beneficial to us all. Police, fire, infrastructure, schools etc. All vital.

We could argue for years on where best to spend it, where best to cut back, but we have a decent system overall.

And I didn't skip the middle brackets to prove a point, I skipped them because for the point I had they were irrelevant.

Table I get using the same math:




I did lie earlier though, I guess it would save us some good money.

I took the brackets from here:
https://revenue.nebraska.gov/sites/reve ... table1.pdf

And state taxes from here:
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-t ... a=0&k401=0

[ita]

Another rocky reception for proposals to reduce property taxes

Paul Hammel
Another day and another rocky reception at the State Capitol for proposals to reduce property taxes in Nebraska.

This time it was representatives of local governments that levy property taxes, such as school districts, counties and natural resources districts, who told state lawmakers Wednesday that harder caps on spending and property tax would cause reductions in service, difficulty in hiring or retaining staff and an inability to keep up with the growth in salaries.

“Freezing tax revenue at current levels would be catastrophic for school districts,” said Shane Rhian, chief financial officer for the Omaha Public Schools, who testified against one bill.

Tyler Newton, a member of the Heartland Community School Board in Henderson, said another bill might have blocked his district from hiring an additional elementary teacher this year to handle an increase in students.

“This takes away the ability of locally elected officials to make decisions in the best interest of their students,” Newton told the Legislature’s Revenue Committee.

Good article highlighting arguments from both the senators and opposition to legislation seeking hard caps on school district budgetary increases.

[ita]

Groups line up to oppose new sales taxes on business, agriculture, Omaha zoo and advertising

Paul Hammel
It was “deja vu all over again” at the State Capitol on Thursday.

Groups ranging from accountants to farmers, veterinarians to lawyers, owners of self-storage units and amusement game distributors, lined up to oppose attempts to remove long-running tax breaks for their industries.

It was a replay of full-court presses in past years against legislative attempts to relieve property taxes by “broadening” the sales tax base by eliminating exemptions. And it marked the third straight day of rocky receptions for Gov. Jim Pillen’s plan to reduce property taxes by 40%.

At one point on Thursday, chuckles erupted in the hearing room of the Legislature’s Revenue Committee after it was pointed out that one of the tax relief proposals drew letters from 115 opponents and only three supporters.
...
Several groups, including the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, said that while they recognize there’s a property tax problem in the state, a “tax shift” is not the answer.

“We must reject the nonsense that tax reform can only happen by raising taxes,” said John Gage of Americans for Prosperity, a leading conservative group. “Long term, prudent tax reform will only come through government limiting its spending on all levels of government….”

Another normally conservative ally, the Lincoln Independent Business Association, also testified against the tax shift proposals, saying they would hurt small businesses and hit heaviest on low-income Nebraskans, who can least afford it.
...
Carter Thiele of LIBA also asked “where is the data” that shows elderly Nebraskans are leaving their homes “in droves” due to high property taxes.

Stacy Watson, an Omaha certified public accountant, told senators that only three states tax business spending on professional services, such as those provided by accountants and lawyers.

The last point is one of the major issues with the Governor's plan and why there is an overwhelming amount of opposition; no specifics and no data.

[Louie]

Groups line up to oppose new sales taxes on business, agriculture, Omaha zoo and advertising

Paul Hammel
It was “deja vu all over again” at the State Capitol on Thursday.

Groups ranging from accountants to farmers, veterinarians to lawyers, owners of self-storage units and amusement game distributors, lined up to oppose attempts to remove long-running tax breaks for their industries.

It was a replay of full-court presses in past years against legislative attempts to relieve property taxes by “broadening” the sales tax base by eliminating exemptions. And it marked the third straight day of rocky receptions for Gov. Jim Pillen’s plan to reduce property taxes by 40%.

At one point on Thursday, chuckles erupted in the hearing room of the Legislature’s Revenue Committee after it was pointed out that one of the tax relief proposals drew letters from 115 opponents and only three supporters.
...
Several groups, including the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, said that while they recognize there’s a property tax problem in the state, a “tax shift” is not the answer.

“We must reject the nonsense that tax reform can only happen by raising taxes,” said John Gage of Americans for Prosperity, a leading conservative group. “Long term, prudent tax reform will only come through government limiting its spending on all levels of government….”

Another normally conservative ally, the Lincoln Independent Business Association, also testified against the tax shift proposals, saying they would hurt small businesses and hit heaviest on low-income Nebraskans, who can least afford it.
...
Carter Thiele of LIBA also asked “where is the data” that shows elderly Nebraskans are leaving their homes “in droves” due to high property taxes.

Stacy Watson, an Omaha certified public accountant, told senators that only three states tax business spending on professional services, such as those provided by accountants and lawyers.

The last point is one of the major issues with the Governor's plan and why there is an overwhelming amount of opposition; no specifics and no data.

You'd think there wouldn't be a housing shortage if the elderly were abandoning their homes in droves lol

[ita]

'Huge' Nebraska tax plan would cut school property taxes and raise sales tax

Martha Stoddard
School property taxes would drop by more than 45% statewide while state sales taxes could go up as much as 1 cent under a tax plan advanced Thursday by the Legislature’s Revenue Committee.
...
Under the Revenue Committee plan:

Tax rate. The sales tax could increase as much as 1 cent, but the amount of that one-time increase would depend on how this year’s state revenues turn out. The actual year-end revenues would be compared to the latest revenue forecast, issued at the end of February, to determine whether overall revenues are growing enough to forgo some or all of the rate hike.

Other taxes. Other revenue would come from applying sales taxes to pop and candy, lottery tickets, veterinary care and other pet services, moving and storage services, and dry cleaning. Games of skill would be taxed at 20%. Hemp and CBD products would be taxed at 100%. Excise taxes on vaping products would be doubled and cigarette taxes would increase from 64 cents a pack up to $1 a pack. Advertising by businesses with gross revenues more than $1 billion would be taxed at 7.5%, although newspapers and Nebraska broadcasters would be exempted.

In a move to help lower-income families, the package would create a new exemption from sales taxes for residential utility bills.

Income tax credits. Money allocated for income tax credits to offset school property taxes paid would be repurposed. Currently, about 30% of those credits go unclaimed. The new plan would direct that money instead to school districts to drive down their property taxes. Property owners who have claimed the credits previously should see the same benefit but with less time and trouble, while those who have not been claiming the credits will save money.

School funding. The new revenues would be distributed to schools through an increase in per-student aid. Current law provides $1,500 of foundation aid per student. The plan would increase the amount to $3,000 per student. The current equalization aid formula would remain to help schools with limited resources that also have large numbers of students in poverty or with limited English proficiency.

Revenue caps. Local governments like cities and counties would be subject to new caps that limit their ability to collect more property tax revenue. Under the caps, local governments could raise property tax revenues by 3% or the consumer price index, whichever is more. They also could increase revenues to cover a 6% boost in salary costs for law enforcement, firefighters or correctional officers, if those areas are understaffed.

[S.O.Boy]

Almost 55% of my property tax goes to OPS.

[ita]

Nebraska would fund private K-12 scholarships, regardless of ballot measure, under new proposal

Aaron Sanderford
The author of Nebraska’s new Opportunity Scholarships Act says she knows that the state tax credit for funding students attending private K-12 schools risks being rejected by voters in November.

That’s why State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan of Omaha and other supporters of the school choice law drafted several bills this year to preserve the heart of the program regardless of the election outcome. Each proposal would offset the cost of a private K-12 education with state tax dollars.

Recently, Linehan settled on Legislative Bill 1402 as this session’s vehicle for the changes. She originally designed the bill to shift the scholarship program created by the Opportunity Scholarships Act to the State Treasurer’s Office and away from nonprofit scholarship-granting groups.

Her latest amendment to LB 1402 — Amendment 3016 — clarifies that school choice supporters intend to directly allocate state funds for private school scholarships instead of steering them to outside scholarship organizations, essentially eliminating the middlemen.

If you're interested in the topic, please read the whole article.

[Louie]

After reading the article, I came away with the following opinion. This is an attempt to pull funding (paid for by all Nebraskans) from public schools to private schools in an effort that will no doubt improve the private school experience and worsen the public school experience. Which in turn will create more demand for private school scholarships and funding.

Nebraska would fund private K-12 scholarships, regardless of ballot measure, under new proposal

Her latest amendment to LB 1402 — Amendment 3016 — clarifies that school choice supporters intend to directly allocate state funds for private school scholarships instead of steering them to outside scholarship organizations, essentially eliminating the middlemen.

This line is the most dumbfounding to me. You are eliminating the middleman, but that middleman is someone who is offering scholarships to private schools through their funding (personal wealth or donation driven) and by their own choice. Now it's everyone else's responsibility to pony up for it?

[almighty_tuna]

Again, louder for those in the back, PUBLIC MONEY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Linehan is so desperate to end-around what the majority of Nebraskans don't want.

Linehan confirmed last week that her amendment would pull private money out of the process and would fund the private school scholarships with an appropriation of public money, like school voucher programs do in other states

[omaha79]

Groups line up to oppose new sales taxes on business, agriculture, Omaha zoo and advertising

Paul Hammel
It was “deja vu all over again” at the State Capitol on Thursday.

Groups ranging from accountants to farmers, veterinarians to lawyers, owners of self-storage units and amusement game distributors, lined up to oppose attempts to remove long-running tax breaks for their industries.

It was a replay of full-court presses in past years against legislative attempts to relieve property taxes by “broadening” the sales tax base by eliminating exemptions. And it marked the third straight day of rocky receptions for Gov. Jim Pillen’s plan to reduce property taxes by 40%.

At one point on Thursday, chuckles erupted in the hearing room of the Legislature’s Revenue Committee after it was pointed out that one of the tax relief proposals drew letters from 115 opponents and only three supporters.
...
Several groups, including the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, said that while they recognize there’s a property tax problem in the state, a “tax shift” is not the answer.

“We must reject the nonsense that tax reform can only happen by raising taxes,” said John Gage of Americans for Prosperity, a leading conservative group. “Long term, prudent tax reform will only come through government limiting its spending on all levels of government….”

Another normally conservative ally, the Lincoln Independent Business Association, also testified against the tax shift proposals, saying they would hurt small businesses and hit heaviest on low-income Nebraskans, who can least afford it.
...
Carter Thiele of LIBA also asked “where is the data” that shows elderly Nebraskans are leaving their homes “in droves” due to high property taxes.

Stacy Watson, an Omaha certified public accountant, told senators that only three states tax business spending on professional services, such as those provided by accountants and lawyers.

The last point is one of the major issues with the Governor's plan and why there is an overwhelming amount of opposition; no specifics and no data.

You'd think there wouldn't be a housing shortage if the elderly were abandoning their homes in droves lol

If the elderly are abandoning their houses in droves, wouldn't it be just as appropriate to re-examine the thresholds on the Homestead excemption? Wasn't that the reason the homestead exemption was put in place? Typically, the elderly don't get cost of living increases on pensions and social security. It becomes a true fixed income. So, they are unable to weather the costs associated with rising property tax. But, this can easily be mitigated to lowering the threshold for exemptions. It's a sliding scale based on annual household income and can drop your property taxes as low as $0.

If anything, we might be seeing some baby boomers downsizing and prioritizing lower cost of maintenance and upkeep by moving into apartments or senior villages. This always happens, but with the glut of boomers, it could happen more. But, it certainly isn't happening at the level that would alleviate the housing shortage, as you noted.

Same time, I think property tax reform for everyone else is needed. My house payment has gone up several hundred dollars in the last 3 years. And, my property tax went up a thousand last year due to so many carriers exiting the market in Nebraska due to claims fraud, bad building materials on roofs from builders like Celebrity, and weather events. It's become unsustainable for many carriers to insure homes in NE due to these reasons and most people are getting another unwelcome surprise this year. This isn't being talked about much yet. My carrier doubled me from $1500 to $3k. After shopping, the best I could do is $2400 with another carrier. This was an almost $100 a month hit as well. With the prices of everything going up, the viability of affording your mortgage is going down. So yes, some reform is absolutely needed. I'm not sure sales tax is the route though. Maybe if we could actually get our act together on marijuana and gambling....instead, we will probably just get lip service on property tax relief and nothing will happen.

Or, as the representative on the Bellevue city council said, "not our fault. blame your neighbors for selling for exorbitant prices. We just set the levy." Maybe the levies need to go down and these cities, and the state, need to tighten their belts a bit.

[omaha79]

Almost 55% of my property tax goes to OPS.

The school property tax credit brings a big piece of that back at tax time. But, they haven't publicized that well. I had to refile 2 years in a row because I didn't know it was an option. Was over $600 extra on my tax return the last two years. I wonder how many people that are filing themselves even know it exists? And, why do you need a credit? Can't they just lower the levy? Are they counting on the notion that you'll forget to file for it? It's all so convoluted.

[Brad]

Apparently Pillen wants to raise a tax on local distilleries in order to lower property taxes. Seems like quite the jump for small businesses.

Omaha area distilleries say proposed spirit tax hike could put them out of business, force move

https://www.ketv.com/article/omaha-area ... e/61693461

As it stands now, Triemert owes $3.75 for every gallon of spirits his companies make. But the governor's plan calls for increasing "sin" taxes, including the excise taxes for spirits.

The proposal nearly quadruples the tax. It would be $14.50.

Jeff Hadden, founder of Patriarch Distillers and Soldier Valley Spirits in La Vista, has similar concerns. He'd take a hard look at moving to Missouri, he told KETV. There, the spirits excise tax is $2 per gallon.

[Louie]

Almost 4x is certainly a big hike

[djc311]

I would have to say you know the proposal the governor has is bad when both sides of the floor are against it. Not sure what the "fix" is, but doesn't appear to be this.

If his plan is to tax a distillery at 4x their current rate, what's going to happen to pop and candy? Alcohol and tobacco have age restrictions in place due to the product types. However, are they going to start taxing a kid getting a 32oz. fountain soda at the gas station $3, too? They already collect sales tax on this. I'm assuming because you're buying the cup... but it's self serve and as far as I recall, prepared food items are what should be taxed (ie, McDonald's burger, etc). Also, why are they assessing the restaurant tax on a fountain soda from a gas station? Sales tax is 7% within the city limits yet we're paying 10% when getting a cup of pop at HyVee.

This state's taxes are jacked across the board.

[Garrett]

Don’t worry, Pillen would get a million dollar tax break off of this plan.

[ita]

I would have to say you know the proposal the governor has is bad when both sides of the floor are against it. Not sure what the "fix" is, but doesn't appear to be this.

If his plan is to tax a distillery at 4x their current rate, what's going to happen to pop and candy? Alcohol and tobacco have age restrictions in place due to the product types. However, are they going to start taxing a kid getting a 32oz. fountain soda at the gas station $3, too? They already collect sales tax on this. I'm assuming because you're buying the cup... but it's self serve and as far as I recall, prepared food items are what should be taxed (ie, McDonald's burger, etc). Also, why are they assessing the restaurant tax on a fountain soda from a gas station? Sales tax is 7% within the city limits yet we're paying 10% when getting a cup of pop at HyVee.

This state's taxes are jacked across the board.

If the State was serious about tackling property taxes, they should really be looking at managing/capping/limiting valuations. That is in direct control of the State. It's one thing to have high property taxes based on the tax rate, it's another to have your taxes increase annually due to valuations because that is what is required under state law.