Only for the rich?
June 13, 2007 - 9:00 pm
Chancellor Jim Rogers has the tenacity of Sisyphus in calling for a state income tax. Like the cursed Corinthian king, the head of Nevada’s public university system is rolling a boulder up a steep hill again and again. No one will help him push.
Mr. Rogers, dissatisfied with the higher education funding increases passed by the 2007 Legislature, is adamant that Nevada government needs gobs more revenue. And he’s just as adamant that a state income tax, if it were ever to come to fruition, would be imposed only on our richest residents.
Mr. Rogers is not your everyday instigator of class warfare. The attorney-entreprenuer-philanthropist is one of the wealthiest people in Nevada. He hands out his fortune, not just to Nevada institutions, but to colleges and universities everywhere. But Nevada’s elite are not matching Mr. Rogers’ generosity, and that has stoked his legendary temper. He wants to make charity mandatory — but only for the rich, we’re assured.
Unfortunately for Mr. Rogers, history offers no support for his well-intended wish.
Recall that the federal income tax was created under the promise that only the country’s wealthiest citizens would feel the pinch. Approval of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution allowed the permanent imposition of the levy, which in 1913 amounted to 1 percent on net income greater than $3,000 for individuals, $4,000 for married couples. The top tax rate was 7 percent on incomes greater than $500,000.
We all know how that system evolved.
Taxation, like government itself, thrives on incremental growth. Once a new tax clears the hurdles to creation, the hardest battle is over. Gradually raising it and widening its reach requires much less effort.
Nevada voters can be sure that if they’re ever foolish enough to void the state’s constitutional prohibition on income taxes, any initial levy on the rich will eventually extend a suction hose into virtually every paycheck. Fortunately, no one is seriously entertaining the thought of putting such a question before voters.
That doesn’t appear likely to deter Mr. Rogers. When the 2009 Legislature rolls around, no doubt he’ll still be pushing that rock.