Arizona Free Enterprise Club Explains Support for HB2015

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has issued a press release explaining its support for the recent budget package that cleared the State House and remains blocked in the State Senate.

The release reads, in part:

“While the Arizona Free Enterprise Club does not support raising taxes to balance the budget, the AZFEC supports HB 2015 because the size and permanency of the tax cuts outweigh the possibility of the tax increase.”

“The permanent repeal of the state equalization rate is a significant tax reform given the current tatters of the Arizona economy. This provision effectively stops a major tax increase in its tracks.”

“Critics of the repeal argue that this tax predominately benefits businesses. Leaving aside the fact that businesses are run by people, more than half – 57 percent – of the $250 million tax would be borne by residential (owner‐occupied and rental) property owners, while 41 percent would be shouldered by commercial, industrial, utilities, mines and agricultural interests. Furthermore, if critics believe that businesses disproportionately benefit by not having the tax, then businesses must
disproportionately suffer if the tax were to return. Since we’re all relying on business activity to pick up, it makes little sense to raise this tax. The passage of HB 2015 would drive a stake through this tax.”

“HB 2015 includes permanent tax rate reductions with an estimated tax savings of $400 million a year. These marginal rate cuts take effect January 1, 2011. The corporate income tax rate would drop 30 percent, from 6.968% to 4.86%. The individual income tax rates would decline by 6.6 percent.”

“Arizona’s current corporate income tax rate is the third‐highest among ten western states (only California and New Mexico’s are higher). This tax change would drop Arizona to the fourth‐lowest among those states including three states that don’t tax corporate income (Nevada, Washington, and Wyoming).”

“The HB 2015 corporate income tax cut would do more for long‐term economic development and job creation than any of the tax credits and industrial policies passed in recent years because it would immediately signal to corporations both in and out of Arizona that a more business friendly and competitive tax structure is imminent.”

“HB 2015 achieves lasting pro‐growth tax cuts and prevents property taxes from increasing this year. According to JLBC, the marginal rate cuts will exceed the value of the sales tax increase (should the voters pass it) by fiscal year 2015. For lawmakers who have signed the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge, the president of ATR recently concluded that because the permanent tax cuts exceed the possible tax increase by $600 million, a vote for HB 2015 does not violate the pledge. For these reasons, we encourage lawmakers to support HB 2015.”

The entire release can be read here.


Comments

  1. kralmajales says

    Of course they support it. They like the benefits govt provides them but dont want to pay for it.

    To cut taxes when our projected revenue losses are now even HIGHER than expected is plain irresponsible.

    The republican party cannot govern…AND…is irresponsible fiscally.

  2. New Handle says

    If you stop looking at government as a distributor of benefits, then it’s easy to see the logic of tax cuts, and the reluctance to have one’s wealth not only confiscated, but distributed to someone else. It’s that one-two punch that keeps conservatives so angry.

  3. kralmajales says

    But that is what govt is about New Handle. It is what the founders put this nation forth to do. If they believed in what you believed then they wouldn’t have created a nation at all. Seriously.

    Benefits include:

    transportation
    health
    regulation for the public good including public safety, food and drug, etc etc etc.

    Confiscate? Our Framer’s believed in taxes…they paid them…they enacted them.

    The type of rhetoric you are espousing…at its core…is simply unAmerican.

  4. Rosco P Coltrane says

    Hmmm. I don’t remember coming across any Founding Father Documents that espoused collecting taxes to pay for health. I don’t remember any documents that recommended regulating food and drugs or public safety.

    Transportation? Well, the Constitution says that Congress has the power to establish Post Offices and post Roads. But that’s as much as I’ve been able to discover in Founding Father documents.

    Speaking of HR2015…. All this sounds good to me except that I don’t see the corresponding cuts in government that should go along with cuts in taxes. If we’re only cutting taxes because we believe lower taxes will actually increase revenue in the future, we’re only solving half of the problem.

    We’re just at the beginning of a depression which our federal government is trying very hard to prolong for many years (I believe on purpose). If/When there is no economic rebound to increase the tax revenue despite the cuts, we don’t want to have billions of dollars of extra programs we still have to pay for.

    At least state-level tax cuts will help the working citizens of AZ survive.

  5. Brewer is a disgrace to the Republican Party for insisting on tax increases.

    Send the measure to the ballot. What’s to stop Diebold from making sure it passes, even if every Republican Senator and Representative actively campaign AGAINST the increase?

  6. Not all Republicans are antitax increases. I am against the federal government giving away money to banks, auto companies amd a running debt through the roof. I am not against education, roads and state services. I have seen the revenue projections for the next three years. The state can solve the budget this year with cuts but without some additional revenue tuition will be out of reach for most college students, there will be 40-50 students in a class and we will have to release inmates and close the courts like they are doing in CA no company will relocate to a state with education and services not being delivered.

  7. kralmajales says

    Finally a responsible and sensible comment. Thanks Craig.

  8. New Handle says

    Espousing and “using rhetoric” are the same thing. One doesn’t “espouse rhetoric.” That’s nonsense.

    Speaking of unamerican, the founders did not create a nation. They were delegates from states, who proposed a constitution, and the states voted on it.

  9. James Davidson says

    New Handle:

    I’m with you in cutting the size of government and opposing tax increases.

    You’re wrong about the states voting on the proposed constitution. The people of the states elected delegates to conventions that ratified the constitution on behalf of the people of the states. If it were the states, the constitution would have gone to the state legislatures for ratification.

    If you read the records of the Virginia ratifying convention, you will see that the federalists and the anti-constitutionalists knew fully well what the stakes were and that the constitution would create a national government independent of, and in the delegated powers, superior to the state governments. They knew it was not a confederacy of states but a national government deriving its powers from the sovereign people that was in the making.

    The anti-constitutionalists made all the objections about the Philadelphia convention exceeding the scope of the charge from the articles-of-confederation congress. They fought and they lost.

    The preamble starts, “We the people of the United States . . . .” There’s a reason for it.

  10. New Handle says

    Yes, we’ve lost the subtle difference between a union and a nation. And whether a state legislature or a state convention is “the state.” And what it means to “promote the general welfare.” Any maybe even why Hamilton, Madison and Jay published all those anonymous op-eds to try to sway public opinion in New York to favor New York ratifying the Constitution.

    In any case, discussions about the “benefits” of government back then often meant putting down rebellions, not redistributing wealth and nationalizing health care.

Leave a Reply