Archive for the ‘Taxes’ category

2018 Hawaii Legislative Watch: Taxes

February 27, 2018

Opening Day for the Hawaii State Legislature was on January 17 – the same day, 125 years ago, that the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown.

Slightly less outrageous is the sheer number of bills that are active in the 2018 Hawaii Legislature, which seems to multiply over the years. There are 4,948 current 2017 and 2018 Bills (2,621 House and 2,327 Senate). There are just 60 legislative days to effectively read, discuss, re-write, absorb testimony, and vote on these bills.

For the past few years, I’ve read through the bill summaries to find out about the bills being proposed that affect our money, education, and rights. I rely on these summaries to accurately reflect the legislators’ intentions. This year, instead of compiling an overview, I decided to narrow it down to the bills that I think need the most consideration and debate.

 Here are three significant tax bills to watch in the 2018 Legislative Session. If I’ve missed any tax bills that you think we need to keep our eyes on, please let me know!

1. Would you pay higher taxes for public education? There are a number of tax proposals that want to raise money for public education by adding a surcharge on residential investment properties and visitor accommodations (HB180 HD2, HB182 HD2) or by increasing the general excise tax (GET) by 0.5% (SB1132). As a public good, everyone pays for public education through state income taxes and the GET. Even with strong, fundraising parent-teacher groups, the schools are always in need of more money. Is it fair to require homeowners, including non-residents, to pay higher taxes for a service that is unrelated to their home or property? Is it effective to create a dedicated funding source that has little oversight by Hawaii legislators and taxpayers?

2. Tax over-reach on out-of-state businesses. In an effort to raise more tax revenue, the Legislature is looking to tax retailers or vendors that are not Hawaii businesses – but who may have customers in Hawaii. I think this is a blatant tax overreach. Some bills would require retailers or vendors to submit an annual report to Hawaii (HB398 HD2) or even collect GET (HB345, HB2417, SB161, SB620 SD2 HD2), or create a “marketplace provider” designation for businesses with sales over $100,000 from Hawaii residents (SB2871, SB2890). I think that these bills are a tax over-reach because they tax interstate commerce and attempt to impose taxes on businesses without representation in Hawaii. It places an unfair burden on businesses to be in compliance with Hawaii tax laws.

I hope that if other states attempt to tax Hawaii businesses that do business in their state, but do not have a business presence, our Hawaii legislators will protect us from their tax over-reach.

3. General excise tax (GET) vs. sales tax debate: Some people support the GET, because it has a wide tax base and spreads the burden of taxes to everyone. For just this reason, I think that the GET is unfair – it taxes every level of production, from wholesale to retail, and forces businesses to pay taxes on the taxes it collects! Instead, I support a reasonable sales tax, one that only taxes goods and services sold to the end-user, and affects taxpayers according to how much they consume. So I hope that HB2615, which would require the Tax Review Commission to conduct a feasibility study on whether the general excise and use tax laws should be replaced with a sales tax, gets some support from the Legislature this year.

The 2018 Hawaii Legislature adjourns on May 3. Please think about these issues and how they may affect you, everyone around you, and future generations. Whether you have concerns or feel strongly about an issue, speak up, talk about it, and be part of the discussion!

Advertisements

Two-minute rail testimony

August 29, 2017

For many students, August means back to school to continue their education. For the Honolulu Rail Transit Project, August means back to the legislature to ask for more money.

Hawaii legislatures have responded to Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s call for more rail funding with revisions to SB No. 4. Public testimony for SB4 was held on yesterday on August 28, 2017 at the State Capitol Auditorium. The 3 pm start time suggests that Ways and Means Committee doesn’t really want to hear from the public; if allowed, I think that public testimony could go on for days.

I didn’t go to the hearing, but I wanted to share my two-minute testimony about the six parts to the funding proposal:

First, $1.32 billion would be raised by increasing the Hawaii Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) by 1%. In theory, it sounds good to tax someone who doesn’t live or vote in Hawaii. In reality, I think we have reached a point where the TAT is excessive and may deter tourism – unless, of course, we really do want to limit tourism.

Second, $1.04 billion would raised by extending the 0.5%* rail surcharge on the Oahu General Excise Tax (GET) for three years until 2030. While I don’t usually support tax increases or extensions, the GET surcharge is the fairest way to raise funds because it taxes consumption (the goods and services you buy). It lets everyone feel the impact of the tax, keeping the tax front-of-mind.

Third, rail surcharge funds would be deposited into a mass transit special fund. I don’t think we should create another special fund, which could involve more paperwork and more staff to oversee the fund. If lawmakers don’t trust the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit (HART), they shouldn’t fund it at all.  

Fourth, the State Department of Taxation would reduce is administrative fee from 10% to 1% of the gross proceeds. This increases the surcharge revenue allocated to rail transit. This is long over-due. The 10% administrative fee is exorbitant; it appears to be a bribe to ensure the State’s support for rail.

Fifth, the rail surcharge can no longer be used to fund operating, maintenance, administration, or marketing costs, which was not prohibited before. SB4 could have gone a step further and required a financing plan for operations and maintenance by 2018 or 2019.

Sixth, the HART would be subject to an annual review by the state auditor; and a certification statement would be issued by the state comptroller before disbursing funds. Hawaii’s largest public works project should be audited periodically. I think we would all like to know how the GET surcharge has been spent, and who is responsible for rising costs and missed projections.

Did you submit testimony to the public hearing on August 28? Do you think legislators came up with a good funding plan? Who is responsible if rail transit is under-funded?

 

* Corrected: the surcharge is 0.5%, not 0.05%. Mahalo to a diligent reader who caught my typo!

We’re growing the wrong tax tree

April 11, 2017

I published this post in 2010 and again in 2013. For those of you who are new to Better Hawaii, and for all of us who could use a reminder, I think it’s worth repeating.

Let’s ignore, for the moment, the fact that the IRS tax code is over 44,000 pages, is so complicated that even tax experts don’t understand it, and desperately needs simplification. Let’s ignore the benefits of a national sales tax or a flat income tax.

Think about this: like a tree struggling to shade us from harm, our tax system needs more sunshine, more pruning, and a lot less graft.

In fact, we are growing the wrong tax tree entirely.

Our current tax system is an overgrown banyan tree, with roots extending down and spreading over the whole economy. The federal government has higher income tax rates, ranging from 0% to 35%. The states have lower income tax rates, ranging from 0% to 11% – with Hawaii at the top – but are dependent on federal funds and must comply with unfunded mandates.

It makes more sense to have a tax system like a strong pine tree, simple and orderly. The federal government, which has national responsibilities and a larger tax base, should have lower tax rates. The states, which directly care for citizens but have smaller tax bases, should have higher tax rates and not rely on the federal government for funding.

The only rational explanation for this upside-down, overgrown tax code is that the federal government wants the power to redistribute taxes among the states. They want to create welfare states and ensure that states are dependent on the federal government.

Does this make non-sense? Do you have another explanation – or better yet, solution? Does anyone have ideas about how states can reclaim their power and independence from the federal government?

2017 Hawaii Legislative Watch: Taxes

February 28, 2017

Hawaii Legislature 2017

The 2017 Hawaii Legislative Session started on January 18 with prayers, speeches, and music. Hawaii residents definitely need the prayers – our lawmakers have been busy, introducing 1,601 bills in the House of Representatives and 1,317 bills in the Senate. It’s a mountain of paperwork, negotiation, tax dollars, and details.

Every year, I do a legislative round-up that spotlights bills that could have a big impact on Hawaii. I will focus on taxes, education, individual rights vs. government powers, controversial issues, and (in my opinion) unnecessary and wasteful spending. With over 2,900 bills being proposed in 2017 and less time than ever to read through them, I rely as always on bill summaries to accurately reflect the bills’ intentions.

Here is an overview of the significant tax bills being proposed in the 2017 Legislative Session. I’ve organized the bills into two sections: 9 tax increases to watch out for and 7 bills that could save us time and money. If I’ve missed any important bills, please let me know!

9 tax increases to watch out for:

  1. Taxes on Internet purchases. HB398 and SB161 would require out-of-state businesses to collect general excise (GE) taxes. HB1413 creates a “voluntary” program. This is taxation without representation for out-of-state businesses, and it would be a burden on Hawaii residents who already pay higher shipping costs.
  2. Higher general excise (GE) taxes. HB1319, SB1132 and SB1132 would increase the general excise tax by 0.5% to fund education. HB924 would increase the GE tax by 1% to fund agricultural land purchases. Any GE tax increases should be looked at with suspicion, because they tax transactions from wholesale to distribution to retail.
  3. Higher property taxes. HB180, HB182, HB1254, and SB686 add an education surcharge on residential investment properties and visitor accommodations. Real estate and property taxes are high enough – this could be a small step towards adding an education surcharge for everyone.
  4. Permanent county surcharges on GE taxes. HB349, HB1442, HB1565, SB432, and SB1183 would make county surcharges permanent. SB576 and SB1176 would extend the county surcharge on mass transit beyond 2027 and allow the surcharge to be used for operation and maintenance of mass transit, as well as public transportation and road maintenance. SB1278 would extend the county surcharge on mass transit to 2047 and allow the surcharge to be used for affordable housing and transit-oriented development. Apparently, there is no such thing as a “temporary” tax.
  5. New family leave insurance tax. SB408 would create a family leave insurance program and require employees to make contributions into a trust fund. No new payroll taxes!
  6. Higher costs to own and operate a car. HB1144 and SB1010 would increase the state motor vehicle weight tax. HB1145 and SB1011 would increase the state motor vehicle registration fee. HB1146, SB1009 and SB1012 would increases the State Fuel Tax. HB1259 and SB1187 would add a clean transportation fee. Higher taxes won’t necessarily make our roads better-maintained.
  7. New tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. HB1210, SB375 and SB837 would add a fee on sugar-sweetened beverages.
  8. Higher taxes on cell phones and cell phone plans. HB206, HB1021, and SB887 would add a 2.64% surcharge on prepaid wireless services for Enhanced 911 services.
  9. Discouraging visitors from coming to Hawaii. HB401 would increase the rental motor vehicle customer facility charge from $4.50 to $9.00. HB546 would increase the transient accommodations tax (TAT) to fund workforce housing development. HB1453 and SB1143 would add a $20 visitor tax to fund conservation. Why penalize visitors for spending their time and money in Hawaii?

7 bills that could save us time and money:

  1. Repealing the county rail surcharge. HB970 would end the 0.5% county surcharge for Honolulu mass transit.
  2. Repealing the estate tax. HB364 would end the inheritance and estate taxes. We shouldn’t have to pay taxes on money that was already taxed.
  3. Lower income taxes for lower-income taxpayers. HB362 and HB690 would decreases income taxes by twenty-five per cent for all but top income earners.
  4. More county surcharge taxes benefiting the county. HB719 would reduce the amount of the county surcharge that goes to the State from 10% to 5%. HB1072, SB431, SB938, SB1242, and SB1276 do not specify the lower reimbursement rate. HB1002 would reimburse the State 0.5% and use 9.5% for infrastructure improvements along the rail corridor.
  5. A new earned income tax credit. HB209, HB212, HB352, HB670, SB508, SB648, and SB707 would create an earned income tax credit.
  6. Extending the food/excise tax credit. HB209, HB210, HB932, SB256, and SB648 would extend the food/excise tax credit.
  7. Quarterly withholding tax filings. HB1141 and SB1007 would allow withholding taxes to be paid quarterly instead of monthly. We could save time, paperwork, and record-keeping.

The 2017 Hawaii Legislature adjourns on May 4. Please think about these issues and how they may affect you, everyone around you, our children, and our grandchildren. Whether you have concerns or feel strongly about an issue, speak up, talk about it, and be part of the discussion!

 

A 1-2 punch of tax proposals

February 7, 2017

1-2 Punch of Taxes

So far, 2017 has delivered a one-two punch for Hawaii residents.

In January, as we were still reeling from holiday celebrations and new year’s resolutions, the Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) proposed a constitutional amendment to add a property tax surcharge on residential investment properties as well as a visitor accommodations surcharge (Honolulu Star-Advertiser, “HSTA pitches property tax, hotel surcharge to hire, retain teachers,” 1/24/17). The surcharges could raise $500 million a year for hiring and retaining teachers.

A week later, Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell proposed offering the State of Hawaii a larger share of the of the 0.5% general excise tax surcharge that was intended to fully fund the rail project, in exchange for extending the surcharge in perpetuity. The State’s “share” is currently 10% (Honolulu Star-Advertiser, “Mayor proposes larger share of rail tax for state,” 2/1/17).

Is it reasonable to require homeowners to pay higher taxes for a service that is unrelated to their home or property? Is it reasonable to require non-residents to pay a dedicated tax for Hawaii public education? Is it effective to create a dedicated funding source that has little oversight by Hawaii legislators and taxpayers?

Public education is funded by state income taxes and the general excise tax. Hawaii’s property taxes can barely pay for the current level of city services; and the transient accommodations tax (TAT) has already jumped to 9.25% in 2017. It’s disingenuous to compare Hawaii’s real property taxes and TAT to other U.S. cities – Hawaii residents have higher costs of living and lower availability of land and affordable housing than other mainland cities; and visitors face higher transportation costs and time commitments just to travel to Hawaii. In greater numbers, homeowners could be forced out of their homes and visitors will choose to vacation elsewhere.

Is it reasonable and effective for the City and County of Honolulu to claim that they need to make the rail surcharge permanent, while simultaneously claiming that they don’t need the full amount of the surcharge?

The Honolulu rail is funded by the general excise tax surcharge. Without another extension, or making the surcharge permanent, Honolulu rail may not be built. But offering the State of Hawaii an even higher percentage of the general excise tax surcharge seems like a bribe to Hawaii legislators in exchange for their support.

For some perspective, in Fiscal Year 2016, collections of Honolulu’s county surcharge totaled $259.2 million, according to the “Hawaii Department of Taxation Annual Report 2015-2016” (page 30). The State kept 10% of the surcharge collected or $25.92 million – which is more than the Department of Taxation’s entire Fiscal Year 2016 operating budget of $24 million (page 37).

Do you think these tax proposals are good ideas? How do you rank public education and Honolulu rail on your list of priorities for Hawaii?

Making property taxes less taxing

January 24, 2017

Property Taxes

A few weeks ago, Hawaii homeowners received their 2017 property tax assessments. It was not a pleasant way to end the holidays or start the new year.

I understand why there are property taxes. Government needs tax revenue to pay for city services such as roads, trash pickup, and utilities, and it can’t pay for those services through excise taxes and user fees alone. With land in Hawaii valued at over $335 billion, the Hawaii collected $1.7 billion through property taxes in fiscal year 2016-2017 alone, according to the Real Property Assessment Division.

What I don’t understand is why property taxes need to be so taxing or – or so arbitrary. We have a property tax system that is based on the property values (sales) of our neighbors. It’s based on what other people buy, and that is neither fair nor reasonable.

Here is a three-fold proposal to make property taxes less taxing:

  1. Arrange monthly tax payments. Instead of two hefty tax payments in February and August, Hawaii counties could allow homeowners to make monthly property tax payments. This would let homeowners spread out the payments over 12 months (as many homeowners already do by combining property taxes with their mortgages), and give county governments a steady stream of tax revenue. To reduce billing costs, government could offer this option only for automatic payments from a bank account or credit card.
  1. Create a flat property tax fee based on lot type and building square footage. Instead of basing property taxes on property valuation (and sometimes “speculation”), we could create flat property taxes based on lot type (residential, commercial, industrial, hotel, agricultural, conservation, and unimproved) and building square footage. With a flat property tax, anyone could calculate and budget for their taxes once the property tax rates are announced. There would be no valuations, no need for an appeals process, and no worries if a neighboring property is sold for an inflated price.
  1. Require reasonable limits on property taxes. Instead of property values and tax rates rising without constraints, require reasonable limits to tax increases. For example, county governments could limit increases to the rate of inflation each year or to a dollar amount, such as 35 cents per year. This would allow property owners to more easily budget tax increases and require government to operate within a budget, instead of arbitrarily raising taxes to meet increased spending.

 How do you think we can make property taxes affordable while still providing basic city services? If you are a homeowner or landlord, how affordable are your property taxes?

 

 Clipart by cgvector.

Taxes and tracking your odometer

September 20, 2016

Hawaii Road Usage Charge Demo

The Hawaii State Highway Fund is funded by fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, vehicle weight tax, and rental motor vehicle and tour vehicle surcharge taxes. Drivers pay 17¢ to the State of Hawaii, plus up to 17¢ to county governments per gallon of gasoline. The fuel tax currently funds 33% of the State Highway Fund.

Recently, the Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT) revealed that it is considering a mileage-based user fee for highway maintenance, which would potentially replace the fuel tax. The DOT is planning a statewide pilot “road usage charge” (RUC) test in early 2017.

On the surface, this seems like a good idea. It seems fair. Like fuel taxes, the more you drive, the more taxes you pay. It taxes all vehicles equally, though it does not reward or encourage fuel-efficient vehicles.

But first, there are 5 critical questions that need to be answered:

  1. Do we need it? In fiscal year 2015, the State Highway Fund collected $86.8 million in fuel taxes, $76 million in vehicle weight taxes, $49 million in vehicle registration fees, and $51.9 million in rental/tour vehicle surcharge taxes, according to the Fiscal Year 2017 State Receipt and Revenue Plans (page 21). The DOT’s budget was $316 million to build and maintain highways, according to the Fiscal Year 2017 Executive Supplemental Budget (page 116). How much additional revenue does the Department of Transportation project to raise from mileage-based user fees?
  1. Can we afford it? The three-year pilot project is estimated to cost $19 million, which will be paid by Hawaii taxpayers (at least $12.5 million) and federal funds (approx. $6.5 million). Will the additional revenue collected from usage fees cover the cost to administer the program and increase revenues for the State Highway Fund?
  1. How will mileage-based use taxes affect tax collection? The DOT currently requires annual safety checks, in which odometer readings are collected. Would the mileage-based usage fee be collected at the time of the safety check? Will the DOT need to step-up enforcement of safety checks? How will an annual fee affect tax collection, compared with fuel taxes, which are collected at the time fuel is purchased? What kind of burden would this place on taxpayers, who would pay a lump-sum tax once a year? How would tax collection be affected if the proposal to create bi-annual safety checks (due to improved car manufacturing and safety standards) gains support in the legislature?
  1. How will odometer readings be used? Odometer readers are already collected during annual safety inspections, but will the DOT share this data with other agencies – such as insurance companies or employers? How will the DOT protect drivers’ privacy?
  1. Will the usage fee truly replace fuel taxes? This is the most significant concern. There is no guarantee that a mileage-based fee will replace the fuel tax, or add another level of fees. A new administration, new Congress-members, new department heads, and economic downturns are all opportunities to “extend” fees and taxes indefinitely.

I usually support user-based fees, because it places more of the burden for maintenance on those who make the most use of a service or facility. But when it comes to government, I am concerned that replacement taxes, like “temporary” taxes, never go away.

To review the grant proposal, visit http://hidot.hawaii.gov/administration/library/publications/.

How many miles to you drive in an average year? Do you support a mileage-based user fee? Would it make you change your driving habits?