Letter: Jindal will win, Legislature will lose

Back when we were first leaked information about Gov. Bobby Jindal’s tax reform “proposal,” it seemed to actually be a plan, and a relatively simple one, at that — eliminate income taxes and replace them with increased sales taxes. It was hard to see how an increase of only 3 cents in sales tax could replace the lost income tax revenue, but that could be managed by taxing things we don’t currently tax.

Even minimizing the effect on the poor seemed possible. Many people, including me, did not think it was a good proposal for many reasons, but it was something that could be deliberated and given a thumbs up or down by the Legislature.

With each subsequent report, the first half of the “plan” remains firm while the second half (replacing the revenue loss) becomes less and less settled. Now we hear of a variety of other options being worked out in meetings with legislators and in consideration of the multitude of studies that have been, and are being done on the subject of tax reform.

Some ideas have been “leaked” to the media, but with assurances nothing is cast in stone. If the options have become limitless, there is actually no self-reconciling plan, and this proposal is essentially the same as the heavily criticized bills in recent legislative sessions to simply eliminate income taxes with no replacement of the lost revenue. Gov. Jindal has already achieved a major goal — getting extensive national media coverage for making a bold proposal to fix Louisiana’s budget and economic development problems.

No matter what happens here, he is likely to be a winner. Elimination of income and franchise taxes should be fairly easy to get through the Legislature, and he can claim full credit for it. Making up the difference will be the hard part, and the Legislature will clearly be held accountable for that. Since nothing they do is going to be popular, they will be the losers in the court of public opinion.

Stephen Winham

retired state budget officer

St. Francisville


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (7)


1) Comment by wherearewegoing - 18/02/2013

Why not tax people based on where they live? They would pay the same sales tax rate that is attached to their current address on all online/out of state purchases that are sales tax exempt. This would not only get more tax dollars out of all these Amazon purchases, but MIGHT even take enough of the online shopping advantage away from companies like Amazon that people start putting more money back into their local communities and brick/mortar storefronts.

2) Comment by wherearewegoing - 18/02/2013

I think Mygulfbleedsforu touched on a solution in his/her post. Why isn't this state (or the other 49, for that matter) doing something about online purchases escaping sales tax? How many billions of dollars are lost across the nation to this massive loophole? "But you have to claim that on your income tax return" Yeah.....I have a golden bridge I'd like to sell you. Even if EVERY person accurately/honestly accounted for what they bought online the local governments would still lose all that tax money, which then has to be taken out of the state government. For the record, I love the idea of keeping my income taxes every year, even if my sales tax does go up, but I agree it'll be tough to bridge that gap. If only there was a simple way to get more of our citizens tax dollars to stay in the state. Wait a minute!....

3) Comment by Reb - 17/02/2013

Once again Mr Winham demonstrates in his letter exactly why he is retired.... I don't know why the Advocate continues to print his diatribe.... I will agree with him though, that Bobby Jindal is a winner and the legislature is a bunch of losers... Liberals will always oppose conservatives with the guts to do the right thing concerning the budget....

4) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 16/02/2013

Exactly. He has no intention of replacing the lost revenue. Welfare for the Wealthy will keep on unabated and at least half of Wingnut Nation, if not more, will cheer it all on, while making their own sales taxable purchases online or under the table. This is an unmitigated disaster, and sadly, I expect the majority of the legislature to roll over for it.

5) Comment by DMJ - 15/02/2013

I'll say it again....Jindal has no intention of replacing the lost revenue. Jindal and Co. always act like the budget shortfalls are a big surprise. Either he's stupid...or he's lying. Jindal's a lot of things, but he isn't stupid.

6) Comment by crazycajun - 15/02/2013

Stephan, I believe u would be more accurate saying the people will lose and the legislature will allow it to happen.

7) Comment by postscript56 - 15/02/2013

Before voting on anything the legislature should debate whether "flatter" is, in fact, "fairer." Broading the tax base sounds like a good thing, but what supporters really mean is collecting more money from poor people who don't contribute "enough." Revenue neutral is a matter of perspective. If I pay more in sales taxes than I would have in income tax so that some guy making a six figure income can escape the burden of his taxes, then that's not neutral at all. Why does no one challenge Jindal on these things?