Vendors fret service taxes

In a struggling economy, Baton Rouge salon owner Cheryl Landry said her customers scrimp on beauty services.

Demand for highlights and massages shrinks when money is tight.

Landry is concerned that demand will dip even further with the governor’s push to expand the state’s sales tax base to include hair cuts, zoo tickets, cable television and other services.

“Business is already slow,” she said. “They will cut back if they have to start paying taxes on it. Money is so tight now.”

Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to eliminate the state’s personal income and corporate taxes that currently account for nearly $3 billion in revenue for state government.

The governor also wants to set aside money to pay for economic development incentive programs, a business inventory tax break, rebates and a child care expense tax credit.

Legislators — and service providers like Landry — want to see the legislation designed to sweep Jindal’s plan into law. The session is less than a month away. The governor pitched his plan to legislators last week. But he handed them a two-page outline instead of a drafted bill. The legislation itself apparently still is a work in progress.

“The Baton Rouge Zoo always tries to keep our prices low and affordable for all guests. At this time we do not have all the details on the proposed tax that are necessary to determine how it might affect our operation and impact our attendance, said the zoo’s director, Phil Frost.

All total, $3.6 billion needs to be generated to account for the taxes that would go off the books and the expenses that still must be met. Under the new tax plan:

  • State sales tax would increase from 4 percent to 5.88 percent.
  • Certain tax exemptions would disappear.
  • The tax on cigarettes would go up.
  • A new swath of services would be taxed.

The new taxable services would include cable television, internet service, hair cuts, tanning, pet grooming, movie tickets and a buggy ride around the French Quarter. Annual pet shots would be subject to a 5.88 percent state sales tax. Zoo admission now would be taxed at the state level. Cabbies would have to compute state taxes along with the fare for a trip from the airport to a hotel.

The Jindal administration outlined the new taxable base in broad categories such as “cable and other subscription services.” The generalities do not detail what other monthly expenses, such as a cellphone bill, would be included.

The package’s sponsor, state Rep. Joel Robideaux, said he still is getting a handle on the specifics. The proposal will be considered in the legislative session that starts in April.

“A lot of that stuff, I don’t even know,” he said.

Robideaux, R-Lafayette, chairs the House Ways and Means Committee that is scheduled to meet Tuesday at the State Capitol. The only business item listed on the agenda for the committee to tackle is “tax reform.”

He said he will hand out the pages of the proposal that are ready for discussion, withholding other parts that still need fine tuning. The focus, he said, will be on mastering the calculations in a complicated tax package that likely will require hundreds of pages of legislation.

One of the calculations is the $1.4 billion that the administration plans to collect by taxing photographic, travel arrangement, investigation, waste management, data processing, personal care and other services.

Tim Barfield, executive counsel for the state Department of Revenue, told legislators that thousands of hours of research went into the administration’s tax proposal.

“The vast majority of Louisianans will see a significant benefit,” said Barfield, who is handling the proposals for the administration. “The average household will put $455 a year in their pocket under this plan, $455 more than they’re putting in their pocket today.”

Barfield characterized broadening the base of taxation as an economic trend.

Texas already taxes debt collection, Ancestry.com subscriptions, insurance appraisals, dog grooming, massages, carpet cleaning, home alarm installation, locksmith services, pest control, lawn maintenance and a visit to a fortune teller.

Exactly how much revenue that generates is unclear since Texas does not separate out services in its reporting.

Former Texas state Rep. Talmadge Heflin, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for Fiscal Policy, said his organization crunched the numbers on expanding taxable services even further and raising the state sales tax rate in order to eliminate property taxes.

He said the state sales tax rate would have to go to 11 cents on the dollar to make the numbers work.

“At 9 cents, most people were pretty favorable. Eleven cents, it’s a harder sale. It’s not in the mix,” he said.

In Louisiana, Jindal’s tax plan would create one of the highest combined state and local sales tax rates in the nation. The average combined rate now would surpass 10 percent.

State Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain said he had brief conversations with the administration before the broad concepts of the proposal were unveiled.

He said he came away from those conversations with the understanding that the agricultural sector would not be taxed. Agriculture and forestry support services are included in the administration’s new taxable services base.

“What does that mean?” Strain questioned. “Is that fertilizer delivery? Is that repair and mechanics? I don’t know what that means yet.”

He added: “I was never told they were going to tax services” in the agricultural industry.

The administration is making a concession for service providers with annual revenue under $10,000. They will be excluded.

State Rep. Eddie Lambert, R-Prairieville, said the concession creates a whole slate of problems in his mind.

He wonders what will happen if a service provider collects taxes and then only takes in $9,999 in revenue or if the provider has an unexpectedly good year and exceeds $10,000 but didn’t collect sales taxes.

State Rep. Ted James, D-Baton Rouge, said he craves details.

“I’m upset, No. 1, that we didn’t get a bill and I don’t see us getting a bill until very close to the start of session,” James said.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (21)


1) Comment by brguy - 17/03/2013

My litmus test for any proposal has become: If it's endorsed or supported by Jindal, it can't be of benefit to me or my family.

2) Comment by beabea - 17/03/2013

Any time you see the words "broadening the base" mentioned in connection with tax policy, I think you can pretty much take that as code for "asking those with less to pay more, so those with more can pay less." Of course anyone who has the nerve to point this out or --heaven forbid-- to criticize this approach, is predictably accused of engaging in 'class warfare.'

3) Comment by BRLA1982 - 17/03/2013

Postscript56, your comment is so accurate! There is an entire industry of snake oil salesmen (Hannity, Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, etc) out there selling garbage supply-side theory to the masses, and the poor idiots eat it up with a spoon. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is the only result. The rich spend millions lobbying for ways to kick the ladder out from under the average worker.

4) Comment by BRLA1982 - 17/03/2013

Our governor loves to raise taxes on the poor and middle class and lower taxes for the rich. Why? Because so many gullible economically poor Louisiana voters would rather believe themselves to be temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than face the reality of what is happening to them.

5) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 17/03/2013

Strain is incredulous that an elected official wasn't in on the details.

6) Comment by beabea - 17/03/2013

Question: as a legislator, should you sponsor something about which, when asked for details, you have to reply: “A lot of that stuff, I don’t even know."

7) Comment by SaintTammany - 17/03/2013

Bob, How much lipstick are you try and put on this pig.

8) Comment by beabea - 17/03/2013

Assuming for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that the $455/year figure is legitimate--the fact that Barfield characterizes this as a "significant benefit" is really pretty insulting when you think about it: "I bet the rubes will jump at an extra $38 a month!" Meanwhile, the people for whom $455 is mere pocket change, will have the last laugh...all the way to the bank.

9) Comment by postscript56 - 17/03/2013

Jeff Sadow, I read your blog. I'm neither a political scientist nor an economist, but I don't need to be to recognize a supply-side theory believer. Everything is dependent on increased economic activity which true believers claim is a natural result of low tax/low regulation policies. Well it sounds good but in reality it doesn't work. Didn't work when Reagan cut taxes. Didn't work when W. Bush cut taxes. Even now, despite the socialist takeover of government and out of control spending, we have achieved nearly the same goals. Wall Street is setting records. Corporations are flush with cash. We have regained all the losses of the recession. The Bush tax cuts only recently expired on only the wealthiest Americans. So where is the booming economy? See, in the real world the economy is not tied at the hip to taxes. In the real world the economy is much bigger than tax rates. Businesses don't hire just because they have cash. Nope, businesses hire when they have work for employees to do. And business never, ever pays as much as it can to its employees. It always pay as little as it can. It's called managing your payroll. Maybe you've heard of that? Nor will there be an economic boom in LA with a tax swap. It's all pie in the sky dreaming. It sounds so perfect, I know. But it's just a delusion, a fantasy, a dream. In the real world profit seekers keep the money they save on taxes. That's so obvious it stuns me so many people are blind to it.

10) Comment by Woody - 17/03/2013

i have to charge tax for goods and services i sell. why is anyone exempt from this?

11) Comment by Duckyluve - 17/03/2013

If they take less out of your check wouldn't you have more to spend?

12) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 17/03/2013

Wouldn't it be easier and less expensive if Jindal and his supporters just moved to Texas?

13) Comment by jeffsadow - 17/03/2013

"it is impossible for everyone to save money and the revenue to remain at the same level." No it ain't; see http://jeffsadow.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-tax-plan-economically-faces-tough.html.

14) Comment by Grannee - 17/03/2013

I'm so excited that my family will get an extra $38 dollars a month, that is if we are an "average" family...

15) Comment by beabea - 17/03/2013

Why doesn't Barfield just say, "We don't need a lot of details because we believe the tax fairy will magically put an extra $455 in everyone's pocket." It would be just as truthful, but would save a lot of time and paper.

16) Comment by whodat70816 - 17/03/2013

How can it be revenue neutral and then they claim this? “The vast majority of Louisianans will see a significant benefit,” said Barfield, who is handling the proposals for the administration. “The average household will put $455 a year in their pocket under this plan, $455 more than they’re putting in their pocket today.”

17) Comment by phil - 17/03/2013

Looks like we would be looking at over a 10 percent sales tax when you include local sales taxes which is way too high. Heck, that does not even include property taxes and federal taxes and other FEES that are already levied. I am beginning to wonder if the $455 figure is the total amount we all will have in our pockets after all of the taxes and fees are taken out of our paychecks. I recommend that the income tax be eliminated in steps over a few years or more while the government gets rid of all of the waste and possibly corruption and just leave sales taxes exactly like they are. Also what happens to TIF areas in this plan? WIll some rich companies in TIF areas get to not pay income tax while still getting to keep the sales taxes in the TIF district?

18) Comment by SuzanneMS - 17/03/2013

But watch for the Jindal zombies to start spreading those numbers around. As postscript56 so rightly states, it is impossible for everyone to save money and the revenue to remain at the same level. I suspect, Grannee, that they worked out how much this will save those at the highest income level, then divided that by the number in the state. They are counting on the majority not working that out for themselves, and sadly, I think they are right. Most will simply see that their paycheck is bigger, because state taxes are no longer coming out. They will not bother to calculate the additional sales tax that they are paying, and see that it is, in fact, more than their income tax was. They will, however, be confused as to why their dollar doesn't seem to go as far as it used to -- and blame Obama. It reminds me of a vendor my father knew who would report his "profit" as the amount of money he had taken in that day. He did not subtract the cost of the goods from that first, and never could figure out why his income at the end of the year was so much less than he had expected.

19) Comment by Grannee - 17/03/2013

The average household will put $455 a year in their pockets? How did they come up with this figure and WHO determined the criteria of the average household? I pay almost $170 a month for cable service and this does not include premium channels. Taxing to get my sweet Kasi groomed is a joke. We will learn how to do it ourselves. I can't afford this. My salary has been stagnant since Jindal took office. Also, comparing Louisiana to Texas is like comparing apples to oranges.....

20) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 17/03/2013

Sounds as if Cheryl Landry should be shouting the loudest for radical spending cuts.

21) Comment by postscript56 - 17/03/2013

"The average household will put $455 a year in their pocket..." It is impossible for everybody to save $455 a year and still come up with the same amout of money. Only a fool would believe anything that comes from the Jindal adminstration. The hair on the heads of wealthy people doesn't grow faster than mine. The tires on their car don't wear out faster than mine. And I bet I go to the movies more often than wealthy folks because all I can afford is cheap entertainment. Every word that comes out of Jindal's and Barfield's mouthes over taxes is a deliberate deception.