OCR Text |
Show UTA opposes Constitutional amendments The Utah Taxpayers Association As-sociation Board ofDirectors has studied the November Ballot issues. In their September meeting they voted unanimously NOT to endorse any of the constitutional con-stitutional amendments: Proposition No. 1: Executive Ex-ecutive Article Revision. This revision of the Executive Article Involves changes dealing with the structure and functions of the Executive Branch of state government. - Proposition No. 2: Tax article Revision. The Tax Article revision deals with the authority of the legislature to grant tax relief re-lief and changes certain property tax exemptions. Proposition No. 3: Prisoner Work Release. This amendment would remove re-move from the constitution prohibitions on inmates and convicts working outside the prison grounds except in public works. Proposition No. 4: Legislative Leg-islative compensation. If passed this would increase in-crease state lawmaker daily compensation from $25 to $40 and daily expense money mon-ey from $14 to $40. The UTA Board voted unanimously to oppose Proposal Pro-posal 'A' - The Food Sales Tax Removal Initiative. 1. If passed, the proposition propo-sition would be a tax shift not a tax savings. State government will have to look to other taxes to replace approximately $60 million mil-lion annually. It is estimated that the revenue loss would be regained re-gained by either a 12 mil statewide property tax Increase; In-crease; a trebling of the corporation cor-poration franchise tax; a 20 to 25 increase in individual income taxes; or a one percent per-cent increase in the sales tax on non food items. 2. UTA estimates that 75 of the relief from the removal of this tax would accrue to middle and higher high-er income individuals - not to the poor. 3. If the initiative becomes law, Utah shoppers will be required to pay 3 to 1 sales tax on foods and a 4 34 to 4 tax on non foods. This will cause untold hardship hard-ship on certain businesses and many administrative and enforcement problems. 4. The proposal in untimely. un-timely. State government is now facing deficits of between be-tween $50 and $60 million-without million-without the revenue loss from the removal of this tax. 5. There are better mechanisms mech-anisms for pinpointing tax relief to those really in need. The Board voted uani-mously uani-mously to Oppose Proposal 'B 1. The proposal would destroy property tax uniformity unifor-mity and equity by requiring requir-ing that property sold or newly constructed pay more property taxes than Identical nonsold property. 2. The proposal would ultimately require homeowners home-owners to pay higher property prop-erty -taxes than businesses. 3. It is the opinion of the Legislative General Counsel that sections II, IV, V, and VI of the proposal are unconstitutional. 4. Proposal B would virtually vir-tually destroy local control of local government by transferring much of the financing fi-nancing of local government to state revenues sources. State financing would be accompanied ac-companied by greater state control. 5. If this passes, our future bonds will be subject to a one percent limitation of property taxes. According Accord-ing to Burrows, Smith and Co., bond investment quality will decline, ratings will be reduced, borrowing costs will be increased and all of us will pay a greater percentage per-centage of our taxes for debt service. 6. The proposal would increase property taxes on many residences. 7. Proposal B penalizes those who build or buy property prop-erty while shifting taxes away from corporations and toward homeowners. As local governments see their revenues restricted, they would be forced to look to the state and federal government govern-ment for funding which would be accompanied by greater state and federal controls. |