Jindal says end income tax

Show caption
Patrick Dennis /
Advocate staff file photo by Patrick Dennis -- Gov. Bobby Jindal, shown here in October 2011.

Gov. Bobby Jindal said Thursday that he wants to eliminate the state’s personal income and corporate taxes.

However, there will be a tradeoff. Consumers are likely to pay more at the cash register, if the proposal succeeds. Smokers also might pay more for their habit.

Jindal declined an interview request to discuss the proposal, which he is floating ahead of the start of the April 8 legislative session.

“Eliminating personal income taxes will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families and will change a complex tax code into a more simple system that will make Louisiana more attractive to companies who want to invest here and create jobs,” Jindal said in a prepared statement without providing further details.

The governor’s announcement sparked concerns about how the lost revenue would be offset, with an increase in the state’s 4 percent sales tax pegged as the likely generator. Proponents of the eliminations said the move could put Louisiana on the same economic development playing field as Texas and Florida, which do not have state income taxes.

“The devil is in the details,” state Senate President John Alario said Thursday. Alario, R-Westwego, said Jindal administration officials discussed a 1.6 percent increase in state sales tax during a meeting with legislative leaders this week.

Tim Barfield, the state revenue department’s executive counsel, confirmed during a late Thursday conference call with reporters that a sales tax increase is on the table. Other considerations, he said, include “broadening” the sales tax base, eliminating some sales tax exemptions and increasing so-called “sin” taxes such as the tax on cigarettes.

“There’s a tradeoff,” said Barfield, adding that the size of the sales tax increase will be determined in discussions with legislators.

Louisiana currently exempts groceries, medicine, household utilities and gasoline from state sales tax. Barfield said none of those exemptions would disappear.

In the state budget year that ended June 30, the state collected $2.5 billion in personal income and $374 million in corporate franchise and income taxes. Sales tax collections stood at $2.6 billion. The money helps pay for hospitals, colleges and other public services.

The governor said income taxes will be eliminated in a “revenue neutral manner.”

State Rep. Joel Robideaux, R-Lafayette and chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means that would first hear any legislation, said there are only so many options for replacing nearly $3 billion in income tax collections.

The options include increasing property taxes, which he said the governor opposes, raising sales taxes, getting rid of tax breaks and implementing sin taxes, he said.

State Sen. Neil Riser, R-Columbia and chairman of the Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs, said he wants to see how high the state sales tax would have to go in order to make the proposal work.

“That’s always been the issue in Louisiana of how you would pay for it,” he said.

State Rep. Patricia Smith, D-Baton Rouge, said she is concerned that a sales tax increase would negatively affect the poor, especially those living in areas with higher local sales taxes. “That’s a hardship on people, in my opinion,” she said.

Robideaux, who is an accountant, said the Jindal administration shares Smith’s concern.

He said he thought about it and came up with a couple of ideas, including rebates, grant packages and pre-loaded debit cards.

Jan Moller with the Louisiana Budget Project said he fears a financial blow to the state’s most vulnerable citizens.

“At a bare minimum, a tax overhaul should not be an excuse to make the state’s poorest citizens pay more, and they would suffer the most from the governor’s proposal to raise sales taxes,” Moller said in a prepared statement.

Barfield said something will be proposed to offset any increase for low- and lower-middle-classes.

“They would be in no worse position than they are today,” Barfield said.

Barfield said the administration wants to encourage job creation and economic growth, which help elevate the poor.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (87)


1) Comment by Thurston_Howell_III - 27/02/2013

I wonder if Jindal thought this was a good idea before he applied lubricant just before he screwed Louisiana once again.

2) Comment by bettergovt - 11/01/2013

There are only 2 decisions related to government programs. What programs will be in place and how do you want to pay for those programs. If you create a program, you have to fund it. If you want to cut taxes, you have to cut programs. Once you understand that, you can determine that taxes are a necessity. Some taxes hit the poor more like sales taxes and some taxes hit the rich like property taxes. We currently have high sales tax, low property tax, and medium individual and corporate income taxes. The middle class is hit by all of these. If they do away with the corporate and individual income taxes and increase the sales tax, most middle class will not benefit much if any. Upper middle might benefit a little but lower middle will be hurt more. I am tired of everyone worrying about the poor and the rich. Everybody says they are concerned with the middle class, but they aren't. Just like the school voucher program, the poor gets taken care of but the middle class above the $55,000 but cant afford the private school tuition will have there kids still stuck in failing public schools with more money taken away every year. They say they are worried about the kids, but in reality they are only worried about poor kids. There is a reason Louisiana does everything differently. It is the same reason we are the poorest most uneducated state in the union. Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter. 8 years of Foster, 4 years of Blanco, and now in the 5th year of Jindal. To blame it on one party or the other is wrong. Its the voters. If you want to do away with income tax, fine. But to put it all on sales tax increases when we already have the highest sales taxes in the country is stupid. Think of all the in state commerce we will lose. Remember that theory that the lower the tax rate the higher the revenue. It also works the opposite way too. The higher the rate the more people will avoid the tax. It is especially true with state income tax for sure. To make up the revenue lost total sales taxes will be higher than 13% to 14%, especially if we keep all of the food exemptions and give rebates to the poor. There will be stores opening up all along the borders of the state on the wrong side.

3) Comment by phil - 11/01/2013

What we need is a volunteer tax system for those who want things that are not feasible but will benefit from those things Seriously, I would like to see how much other types of taxes are in the states that now do not have an income tax.

4) Comment by DMJ - 11/01/2013

"The highest standard of living ever known to man was built in this country by free people with limited government and minimal taxes." Actually... I'd probably give that title to Germany, which has higher taxes than us, lower income inequality, universal healthcare and a more tightly regulated financial system. They also beat us in several quality of life factors including education, social mobility, infrastructure, life expectancy. The Netherlands beats us as well....as does Sweden. Look...I love the U.S. It's my favorite country. But until we realize we're not the best at everything, we'll never improve ourselves. Regressive taxation is not the way to go.

5) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/01/2013

@ Dawson, clearly we do not and will not agree on what has value and makes life worth living. But to question a couple of your points, what does "based on the amount of revenue" mean? That there is an ordained level of government revenue? The amount of revenue could be zero, or it could just as well be triple what it is today. To the contrary, you decide what should be/ will be funded (the hard part) and match the revenue to that. In the same vein, what does "the money you earn" mean? That your work effort draws a pre-ordained amount of pay that will stand no matter what your tax burden is? (PS to Christine, I hear you about the use of "burden" but that's a word used in taxation, not an indictment of the system, and I'm not readily coming up with a replacement word.)

6) Comment by RODEO CLOWN - 11/01/2013

Let's not forget, the states without state income(last time I checked there were 7 such states) taxes have "extremely" high property taxes at the local, i.,e, county, levels. We all know how popular property taxes are in Louisiana now don't we. In addition, sales taxes are far more burdensome/onerous/ on those members of a state with lower than average incomes. Sales taxes take a larger bite out of the lower income segments of society than those making above average incomes. That is why sales taxes are characterized as "regressive" in nature. Another point of interest is SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, will they continue to be granted to businesses? Many citizens are not aware of the fact that the state can/does grant sales tax exemptions to business operating in Louisiana. When such an exemption is granted at the state level, the exemption exempt businesses from local sales taxes as well. Will such exemptions continue to be granted by the state? Will the state tax exemptions granted, currently in effect be allowed to continue? Another question is what level of sales tax increase would be required to cover the of revenue lost from abandonment of the state income tax? My own cursory calculations indicate a minimum increase of 5-7 cents, or a total state sales tax of 9-11 cents, would be required to simply break even with the current depressed levels of revenue. When combined with local sales taxes, citizens could be required to pay as much as 14-17 cents on every dollar of a purchase. In a select number of parishes, Orleans in particular, the level of sales tax could be even higher. But, typical of Jindal, his answer is to throw the baby out with the bath water. This is/has been Jindal's approach to just about everything he confronts. It makes one wonder-at least this one-if Jindal is really concerned with change from the standpoint of improvement, or, if he is so out of touch with reality because he is more concerned with his own political aspirations than the betterment of Louisiana. I'm leaning toward the latter.

7) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 11/01/2013

Dawson nailed it. Thank you.

8) Comment by Dawson - 11/01/2013

Hello gulfbleedsforu..Why am I selfish? I want to keep more of the money I earn. I want the government to work within a budget that is established based on the amount of revenue not on a unlimited budget that allows them to tax to meet the ends. If wanting government to stop wasting money and wanting to keep more of my own money is selfish, then I am selfish 100% of the time. Cut spending, cut pandering programs and make people responsible for themselves. Can you show me one single progressive/liberal/left leaning model that creates wealth and prosperity at the levels the capitalist free market system have created in this country? The highest standard of living ever known to man was built in this country by free people with limited government and minimal taxes. Don't be a historical revisionist, just look at what the policies the left espouses has done every single time they have been implemented.

9) Comment by Christine - 11/01/2013

Don is right. This is just income redistribution for the well-off, who benefit as much from public institutions as the poor (roads, law enforcement, etc). But now the well-off will pay a disproportionately lower share of taxes (which are not a "burden" but the price we all pay for civilization, however minimal it might be in this state).

10) Comment by don_w - 11/01/2013

I haven't read too closely every comment posted so far, so forgive me if I repeat what's already been said. It seems to me that the states that are in the best financial shape these days are the ones that have a wide variety of revenue sources. These sources come from a well thought out and well balanced tax code. If you do away with the income tax, then you've got to make up the revenue from someplace else. If I recall correctly, isn't there a cap in place that says our total sales tax can't exceed 10% (state, parish, and local combined)? Since most area sales taxes already approach that limit, raising the state share from 4% to 7% will force parishes and municipalities to lower their tax rates, thereby putting more strain on their budgets. In response, they will have to increase other forms of taxes and fees. Bobby is trying to rob Bourdreaux to pay Thibodeaux. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Next, do you really think our legislature is up to the task of completely revamping our tax code? Given their track record, I doubt it. Unfortunately, a completely new and balanced tax code is the only thing that will get our state back into some sort of fiscal stability.

11) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/01/2013

On the federal income tax return, you either deduct income taxes paid to your state or local govt or you deduct sales taxes paid to state or local govt. (You deduct your state withholding then report any refund as income the next year.)

12) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/01/2013

I just don't believe business people who collect the sales tax and send it in are by nature more honest than business people who hide income from income taxation. They can collect from you and me but not send it in, or they can sell to their friends without collecting. Failure to report all transactions can occur in either taxation scheme. Why would there be so much more honesty in sales tax than in income tax?

13) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/01/2013

There is one reason for revenue-neutral tax changes, and that is to shift the burden of tax from one or more groups to others. Okay, another reason could be because you expect a different growth rate in one type of taxation from another. There is no doubt this is a burden shift. If indeed the PTB plan to shelter the poor, and I hope they do, this is a screwing of the middle class for the benefit of the wealthy. Again.

14) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/01/2013

There is one reason for revenue-neutral tax changes, and that is to shift the burden of tax from one or more groups to others. Okay, another reason could be because you expect a different growth rate in one type of taxation from another. There is no doubt this is a burden shift. If indeed the PTB plan to shelter the poor, and I hope they do, this is a screwing of the middle class for the benefit of the wealthy. Again.

15) Comment by DMJ - 11/01/2013

Also....if it's going to be "revenue neutral" meaning sales taxes and property taxes will replace income taxes, then why even do it?

16) Comment by Attila - 11/01/2013

@foldgers: I guess in your haste to gleefully support more taxes on the "rich" you have forgotten the unintended consequences of a foolish attempt at a "luxury" tax several years ago. Sales of high end products plummeted to the point that the makers of those items started going out of business due to lack of sales.People became unemployed. Businesses that sold those items closed. Be careful what you wish for...you may not know what to do with it when you get it. There ain't no free lunch...except for the 47% who pay no income taxes, and those who will get "rebates" on the extra sales taxes they will pay under Jindal's boondoggle.

17) Comment by Attila - 11/01/2013

You people who endorse this cockamamie idea have drank so much of the Kool Aid that you make Jonestown look like a practice run. Do you actually believe that you will be better off by paying more sales taxes? Lets talk again next time you go to purchase a vehicle, or have to start paying sales taxes on "services" such as medical expenses, attorney fees, accountant fees, and other services that are now not subject to sales taxes....and just what do we do when revenues still fall short because of uncontrolled spendingf?? Reinstate the income tax I'll betcha. Revenue neutral is political speak for "your taxes are going up". Yes, the middle class will being paying God knows what percentage in higher sales taxes while the so called "poor" will get rebates to cover any additional taxes that they happen to incur...I think it is waaayyyy past time for a flat tax...EVERYBODY PAYS, including the so called poor at a lower rate. EVERYBODY uses our infrasturctures...roads, schools, libraries, police and fire protections, garbage service, subsidized bus service to some extent, and other services both social and physical. EVERYBODY should pay something even if it is mostly symbolic....Democrats who wrap their arms around symbolism over substance (gun control for example) would should love that.

18) Comment by foldgers - 11/01/2013

@Christine: Am I wrong here? I have always deducted my federal tax I paid when filing my state taxes. Maybe I am forgetting, but we can also deduct state taxes on our federal form? Just seems weird to me. About local governments, I do not think the state will take away the sales taxes that cities impose and collect. I think the state will just make the state sales tax go up 4%, right? And what are people missing here? Everyone's paychecks will go UP. Sure you may be spending more at the register when you buy your $1000 rims or $800 purse, but you will be bringing more money home. Not to mention, AGAIN, how many people do all of you know get paid cash under the table and never pay taxes. Or people who sell drugs that pay no income tax. Or just how many people do you all know do not pay the proper state income tax as of today? The thing is, that will make this plan be almost revenue neutral is the fact ALL of those people...bartenders, carpenters, electricians that all get paid cash and never report it will NOW be paying their taxes like they should always have. It will NOT hurt the lower classes because it does not apply towards NECESSITIES! Why does someone on welfare need an iPhone for themselves or everyone in their family? They do NOT. A phone is good enough. And once again, more appealing to corporations to relocate here...more jobs for those that want some and more than likely an increase in population...hence more revenue from sales taxes... and once again a HUGE cut in state payroll when they reduce the staff at the dept of revenue. I am not saying this is perfect, but at least this way...EVERYONE that should be paying, is paying.

19) Comment by Christine - 11/01/2013

Last year I paid $1600 in state income taxes on a income of $66K. Roughly calculated, my tax obligation would go up by about $500 if a sales-tax only system were introduced (assuming EBR sales tax would go up by 3%). Plus my federal income tax bill would go up because I would no longer have a state income tax to deduct. For most middle class folks like myself, Jindal's plan will increase the total amount of taxes we pay. Don't delude yourselves; this is more snake oil from the Jindal administration.

20) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 11/01/2013

Cut the spending, radically, end of discussion

21) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/01/2013

whats funny is that 8.6 never actually contributes to the conversation. Just bombs the thread with "hussein" or "progressive" friends...oh well, like I stated earlier, what should I expect from the TP crowd.

22) Comment by 8point6 - 11/01/2013

I had a good laugh after reading all of these comments from my "progressive" friends about lil booby, Jindal is an idiot, pakistani boy, etc,etc. And they call me a "casual racist" for calling hussein, "hussein". Too funny! My "progressive" friends have outdid themselves today with their whining about Jindal. Thanks for the entertainment.

23) Comment by DMJ - 11/01/2013

Also...isn't a tax supposed to be a disincentive? Or a punishment? Isn't that what conservatives always say? Wouldn't raising sales taxes disincentive consumer spending? Wouldn't raising property taxes disincentivize home ownership? You can't ever disincentivize making the most money possible; are people going to not want to be rich if they are 5% less rich?

24) Comment by DMJ - 11/01/2013

Anyone who thinks this will be "revenue neutral" is fooling themselves. Low taxes should be a means, not an end, in my opinion.

25) Comment by goodgovernance - 11/01/2013

As I mentioned previously, a key element of what's really going on here is a camouflaged attempt to reduce the extent to which the state finances local governments. Although not spelled out explicitly by the Jindal administration, the only way its proposal can realistically work is by redirecting the local portion of the existing sales tax to the state's coffers, leaving local governments with the task of finding other ways to finance their operations. This could potentially be revenue neutral for the state, but not necessarily for local governments. If local governments are forced to raise property tax rates, then the regressive nature of the state's reliance on sales taxes could be offset by the more progressive nature of higher local property taxes, resulting in a net neutral effect on the distribution of the overall tax burden among taxpayers.

26) Comment by DMJ - 11/01/2013

Additional sales tax revenues are going to replace $3 billion/year? Call me skeptical. Of course, the whole point is not to increase gov't revenue, but to decrease it, to further cut funding to education and health care. Anyone who disagrees with me hasn't been paying attention since Jindal was elected. Cutting funding for education and health care is this guy's purpose in life. It's what he's done throughout his whole professional career. And Dawson, plenty of countries are doing just fine with a progressive tax system, so to say that it's never worked in the history of the world is just flat out wrong. Do google searches on the countries that outrank us on education, health care, income equality and you'll see what I mean. Go ahead... We'll wait.

27) Comment by foldgers - 11/01/2013

First off, I dig the fact that I would not have to file a state tax return. Second, to the one that said it will hurt the middle and lower classes more because they HAVE to buy "stuff." What stuff? The NECESSITIES are NOT and will NOT be taxed. The "rich" buy a lot more "stuff" than you think. More expensive cars, expensive cars for their kids, jets, diamond jewelry, stupidly priced makeup, $500 purses and so on. The extra revenue there alone would make up most of it. Third, to the one who mentioned basically that the less than wealthy people will no longer get a tax refund and basically said that is a BAD thing since not getting that money buy having to spend more on "stuff" will be harmful. Are you people not thinking this out??? Of course there will no longer be tax refunds each year for the less than wealthy!!! DUH!! How can this not hurt them?? Think about it......................still thinking????????? Think harder.............Give up? OK here is how: THERE WILL BE NO STATE TAXES TAKEN OUT OF PAYCHECKS...HENCE MORE MONEY TO SPEND OR SAVE DURING THE YEAR! Not to mention the time and money saved on not having to file a return...not to mention the money the state will save by being able to reduce the Dept of Revenue staff by at LEAST half... Not to mention the companies that would set up shop here and the "poor" who can not find a job, if they want one that is, will have more opportunities to get one. The ONLY people this will really hurt are those that work illegally or get paid cash under the table and NEVER have filed a return nor did they ever plan to...now, they will be paying, if the drug dealers, strippers, pimps and prostitutes do not like the fact they will now HAVE to pay taxes on their cash income...they can MOVE! Good riddance. :)

28) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/01/2013

The idea that left-leaning people are left-leaning because of what they can get for free from the right is such a wrong and self-serving idea. Dawson et. al., find another way to try to absolve yourself of your own selfishness.

29) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/01/2013

The idea that left-leaning people are left-leaning because of what they can get for free from the right is such a wrong and self-serving idea. Dawson et. al., find another way to try to absolve yourself of your own selfishness.

30) Comment by Dawson - 11/01/2013

A family of 4 making $40,000 or a family of 4 making $400,000, let me see, if the state income tax rate is 5% then the family at $40k pays $2,000 and the family making $400,000 pays $20,000. Why should it be any other way? Fair is fair, right? If you want to have progressive tax rates, then call them something besides paying a "fair share" because they are anything but that. Socialist/liberal/progressive/emotional economics have never worked in the history of the world and they will not work this time either. If you ever want to see a great republic fail all you have to do is institute the policies of the left. Works every single time.

31) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/01/2013

If the reason those online sales taxes are not collected by the businesses and sent in, is because the businesses don't do enough in the state for the state to have authority over them, then how would Louisiana police it better? Spy on everyone's computer activities? Spy on everyone's bank accounts and credit cards? I guess they can ask the companies to pretty-please let them know who made purchases and for how much? If Louisiana could make the companies report the sales it could make the companies collect and pay in teh sales tax. So ... Louisiana has to collect it from the citizen purchaser. And I think that'll go real well like it already does because people are just so basically honest when it comes to their love of money.

32) Comment by DMJ - 11/01/2013

Dawson says, "Everyone wants everyone else to pay the fair share, they just don't want to pay it themselves. Oh the hypocrisy of the progressive/liberal." I would get a tax cut from this deal (ostensibly, at least) but it would be bad for the state, which is why I'm against this plan. I'm more than willing to pay my fair share, which is also why I'm against this. Plus, we already have a 9+% sales tax, which EVERYONE pays. You don't get a sales tax rebate if you're poor. Care to re-think you're gross mischaracterization? Flat taxes (like sales taxes) are regressive. They hit poorer folks harder. Progressive taxes are the only type of taxes that are fair. Those with the most pay the most...and they'll still have the most after that. Why is this hard to understand?

33) Comment by DMJ - 11/01/2013

"once the process is policed better..." Now who's advocating for more government?

34) Comment by agagent - 11/01/2013

Revenue is down but the increasing cost of Medicaid is the biggest contributor to the state's budget problems.

35) Comment by agagent - 11/01/2013

Odd to hear an elected official wanting to grow the economy instead of growing government. This is not new. We can check out the states which do not have income taxes to see how it works for them. As for on line sales, once the process is policed better people will pay the sales taxes rather than go to jail.

36) Comment by Lannonmac - 11/01/2013

While I am not opposed to a sales tax based tax system, Louisiana Residents need to realize that switching from an income tax system to a sale tax system to raise revenue WILL NOT save the average Louisiana citizen any money, it will merely change how it is collected and impose a greater tax burden on the middle class and poor. Basically the State needs around $8.25 billion a year to operate in 2013, so the tax structure has no alternative but to raise at least that much in revenues, regardless of how it is raised. Right now State revenues are not sufficient to meet the cost of operating the State because of billions of dollars in sweetheart tax exemptions and exclusions granted by the State Legislature and the fact that the USA is going through the worst economic slump since 1929. So it is obvious that something does need to be done about increasing the State’s ability to raise revenue, but I am not so sure that a total restructure of the revenue system is the answer. Income tax is a progressive system, intended to spread the tax burden over the population proportionally (everyone pays their fair share), but sales tax is inherently regressive, impacting the middle class and poor people more than the wealthy. Why? Because middle class and poor people tend to live paycheck to paycheck, spending virtually all income on buying stuff, while wealthy people tend to spend only a portion of their income buying stuff and invest the rest, simply because their income is greater than their cost of living. So the vast majority of Louisiana citizens will end up paying MORE in state tax per year in a sales tax than they did in income tax. Another weakness of a sales tax based revenue system is that revenues inevitably drop off during an economic down turn (like now), because the average person have less money to spend and buy less stuff. Also, you guys that think that you will simply avoid paying sales tax by buying everything on-line will be in for a rude surprise, because you still owe sales/use tax on internet purchases and a shift from an income tax system to a sales tax system will require the Department of Revenue to strictly enforce taxes on internet purchases. I would rather see a revision of the State personal and corporate income, but a sales tax revenue system, if done right, would be fine. Unfortunately I have ZERO faith in the Governor and the State Legislature to get it right, so this will probably be a disaster.

37) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/01/2013

more nonsense from Dawson...this is the problem when you try to have a meaningful discussion with a TPer. I guess i set the bar too high

38) Comment by crazycajun - 11/01/2013

Most in La. get a lot of our state income taxes back in refunds. Make a list of EVERYTHING spend money on each month. Then figure how much extra you'll have to pay extra in this EXTRA sales tax. Don't forget now that you'll already be paying your local sales taxes too. Not a pretty sight is it And you will get NOTHING back at the end of the year. On top of all this, other states that have no income tax pay much higher property taxes. No income tax sounds real good to the masses. But in reality it's a trap.

39) Comment by Duckyluve - 11/01/2013

Quick grab your aluminum foil hat. The nuts are all over this story

40) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/01/2013

"shouldn't everyone pay their fair share?" What is a fair share for a family of 4 making $40K?

41) Comment by Dawson - 11/01/2013

So Slayer.. why don't you just pay more? You can write the government a check if you would like to give them more money, you know, be patriotic like Biden says. Why would anyone believe that taking money from the private sector and giving it to the government is a good thing? Who can spend your money better, you or the government?

42) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/01/2013

"Everyone wants everyone else to pay the fair share, they just don't want to pay it themselves." oh, the lies of the neocon teaparty. My husband and I make over 250K and we would have paid more if the Republicans hadn't negotiated a higher cutoff. That being said, i wouldn't have cried about getting taxed more. So this lie that all liberal/progressives are poor and want the rich to pay their way is total ***** If you believe it, well then, you obviously can't think for yourself.

43) Comment by foldgers - 11/01/2013

I have always had the idea that if income taxes were eliminated and sales taxes raised, then EVERYONE would be paying into the system that should. If there are NO taxes on groceries/necessities and there still will be none, then what is the problem? I say that this way, all those people who have income that do NOT report as they should will now be paying into the system and most likely increasing the states revenues. Drug dealers, strippers, gamblers, pimps, prostitutes, servers, all those little cafes and restaurants that do not really ring up cash transactions...and so on. This is all income that is NEVER reported nor is it ever taxed as it should be. I have many friends in the restaurant industry that do not report tips, but not because they NEED it for bills, 90% of them spend much on alcohol, cigarettes, pot and other recreational items that are NOT needed to live. I see this as a way to get those who cheat the system to finally pay. ALSO, it will attract MANY new companies to the state, hence MORE JOBS, hence more spending hence MORE money for the state and all these cuts in education and healthcare could easily be removed! The ONLY way this will hurt the "little guy" is if the little guy buys iPads, iPhones, brand new cars. gold chains, $200 shoes and so on. If the "little guy" stuck to the necessities, it will not hurt one bit.

44) Comment by Dawson - 11/01/2013

But DMJ, shouldn't everyone pay their fair share? The only way to have this happen is to have equal tax on all, right? Everyone wants everyone else to pay the fair share, they just don't want to pay it themselves. Oh the hypocrisy of the progressive/liberal.

45) Comment by Dawson - 11/01/2013

More money in the private sector is always good. More money in the hands of government is not a good. Everybody wants the government to have more money they just don't want to give their money to the government. It's always someone else's money. All hail government and the liberal utopia.

46) Comment by RSigler59 - 11/01/2013

As usual with Jindal plans, the real terms of this tax idea is sketchy at this point, but what is clear - matter what plan his Administration pushes is this: State income taxes are fully deductible straight off the Federal Income taxes every filer pays. When I pay roughly 2% in State Income tax, its 2% less I am paying on Federal Income tax. Sales tax is not deductible on FIT. Since Bobby has no control over FIT, it is clear that any LA resident who pays FIT will ultimately MORE taxes overall if this shift takes place. No benefit to LA taxpayers, but better for Bobby's State Government, and better for the Obama's Federal government. Its unclear just how disasterous it would be more Parish and local government just yet. Beware the gifts of those with higher political ambitions.

47) Comment by Dawson - 11/01/2013

Ok Scrooge, show me reality if I fantasize. Do higher tax rates automatically guarantee increased revenue? Do lower tax rates automatically guarantee decreased revenue? The answer to both questions is NO which means their is no correlation smart guy. But why do you need facts, right?

48) Comment by crabby - 11/01/2013

This is political grandstanding for headlines. Boobie doesn't have the economic brainpower to make this work.

49) Comment by ladyanderson - 11/01/2013

@rockynoggin, I will be retiring next year and Texas will be my new home. Born and raised in Baton Rouge, LA and now it time to say goodbye.

50) Comment by DMJ - 11/01/2013

Gee, a Republican who wants to end progressive taxes and raise regressive taxes. A real shocker. Still, this might pass. There are a bunch of rubes out there who will think to themselves, "Me like money. Me want keep more money" and won't bother to think past that...because they never do. This is a terrible idea.

51) Comment by Being_Stupid - 11/01/2013

Democrat Party = Communist Socialist Party = Long Live Stalin Party

52) Comment by Mr. T - 11/01/2013

This sounds like it would save me money, especially if I bought everything online.

53) Comment by bettergovt - 11/01/2013

@ myoches. And everything that this administration does always works just like they said it would.

54) Comment by myoches - 11/01/2013

"Louisiana currently exempts groceries, medicine, household utilities and gasoline from state sales tax. Barfield said none of those exemptions would disappear." How is that going to hurt the poorest people unless they are spending money on those things they don't need to live.

55) Comment by rockynoggin - 11/01/2013

Eliminate the income tax, eliminate or reduce homestead exemption and increase property tax overall. Leave sales tax alone. If you think that's a bad idea, why are so many former Louisiana citizens now Texas citizens?

56) Comment by goodgovernance - 11/01/2013

What's not being disclosed by the Jindal administration at this time is that the only way state personal and corporate income taxes can be replaced by increased sales taxes is if the portion of sales tax revenues dedicated to local governments is instead redirected to the state. This is politically very sensitive, because local governments naturally will be very opposed to the loss of those revenues (forcing them to find other ways of replacing them, such as increased property tax rates). The math behind this is very simple. Sales tax rates currently paid by Louisianians are a combination of a state sales tax (4%) and local sales taxes (between 5%-7%). The amount of tax revenues to be lost by the state from the elimination of income taxes is roughly equal to the amount of sales taxes collected by local governments. This is the only way that sales taxes can be used to plug the state's budget hole left by the loss of income tax revenues, because any increase in the existing combined (state + local) sales tax rates would push the sales tax rates paid by consumers well over the highest-in-the-nation 11% paid by many Louisianians and up into the range where it adversely affects consumers purchase decisions (either by (a) shifting their purchases to lower tax states, such as MS, TX, AR or online, (b) reducing consumer demand for some purchases, or (c) creating greater incentives for consumers and retailers to cheat on sales tax payments/collections through accounting fraud or smuggling). As sales tax rates increase, the revenues generated by the tax will not come close to meeting expectations, because of the incentives it creates to avoid the tax. Thus, the only way to make it work is to keep sales tax rates the same, but redirect the local portion to the state. This would have the added benefit of greatly simplifying the sales tax code, because there are more than 300 different local jurisdictions in Louisiana that each have their own tax rates and different exemptions and exclusions from the tax base. The complexity and compliance burden on businesses created by the 300+ different sales taxes in the state is a significant deterrent to investment here. Louisiana is the only state in the nation with such a complex sales tax system. Although I'm a little skeptical about the move away from income taxes, due to the effect it likely will have on increasing the vulnerability of the state's budget to economic swings, I believe that sales tax reform to eliminate the complexity in the sales tax system would be a good thing, as long as other revenue streams can be found for local governments to replace their sales taxes. I'm not very enthusiastic about the less than transparent way in which the Jindal administration is introducing its tax reforms.

57) Comment by gtinla - 11/01/2013

Another great idea from the guy who cut taxes on wealthier citizens and then had to gut health care and higher education to pay for them. No thanks, Bobby.

58) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 11/01/2013

Or, we can radically slash the size and scope of government, end of problem.

59) Comment by Scrooge - 11/01/2013

There already is state tax on online purchases, only voluntary. Doesn't appear to work so good.

60) Comment by Scrooge - 11/01/2013

Dawson fantasizes: "No correlation exist between tax rates and revenue generated to the treasury" no correlation exists between fantasy and reality either

61) Comment by zealer99 - 11/01/2013

This the answer at the State level to the people who want to eliminate the Federal Income tax and impose a national sales tax. The total State sales tax would be at least 17 percent and if ever enacted, a National Sales tax of maybe 23 percent, at least. With a sales tax of 40 percent, the Black Market would be the fastest growing economy in the nation. You cannot put all of the taxes in basket, there would be too much pressure to avoid them.

62) Comment by gary - 11/01/2013

Yes, Texas does not have personal income taxes - but they do have property taxes - a lot higher than Louisiana - everyone who thinks this is a great idea - better get the whole story.

63) Comment by tradewinns - 11/01/2013

SuzanneMS: i can not comment on the other states but i just left fl for here and i know something about fl. sales taxes are higher on somethings but here there are two sales taxes 4% & 9% ain't that nice? in jacksonville fl the sales tax is 7% (maybe 7.5%) and only one sales tax (Florida sales tax rate is 6%). that 7%-7.5% represents all sales taxes state and local. property taxes seem to be higher here than jax. i owned property approximately the same value (both had/have homestead exemption) and i pay more here than i paid there. taxes for state roads are included in gas price. local roads taxes in sales tax already. Florida Corporate Income Tax rate is 5.5%. of course there is a mess of taxes on almost all your bills, both here and there. i'm also tired of worrying about the "poor". they are poor for a reason whether it is their lack of education, skills, poor judgement in their behavior limiting their future employment opportuities. the poorer you are the less you have to live on. need more money? upgrade your skills or get a 2nd, 3rd or 4th job. i didn't volunteer to take you to raise. find out who did and go ask them personally for "your" money.

64) Comment by ScotB - 11/01/2013

Charging sales tax on online purchases would net $500M. I heard we refine about 3M barrels of oil a day. A tax of 20 cents per barrel would raise the rest of the money.

65) Comment by zakeeus - 10/01/2013

He wants to create jobs???? Sounds like he wants me to shop out of state and on sites that don't charge sales tax.

66) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 10/01/2013

maybe now we'll see an exodus from the Banana Republic known as Louisiana

67) Comment by bettergovt - 10/01/2013

Looks like I will be doing all my shopping out of state... I guess I will buy in state if they still have those tax free weekends. At 13% total sales tax we will have the highest sales tax in the nation. I wonder how Bass Pro and Cabelas will feel about this?

68) Comment by Dawson - 10/01/2013

Let me think about this...should I give more of the money i earn to government or should I keep more of the money I earn in my pocket? Tough choice. No correlation exist between tax rates and revenue generated to the treasury. The way to increase revenue is to get more people paying tax, not less.

69) Comment by danielf - 10/01/2013

The idea isnt bad, but you have to wonder why the Jindal administration is so terrible at math. Currently, a 4% sales tax = $2.6b. The corporate and personal income tax = $2.5b yet, somehow an extra 3% sales tax will = $2.5b? Plus, rebates for the poor? How does that math work? Texas has much higher property taxes, which is how they do it. Oh, and how does it add up when that means EBR sales taxes would be 13%?

70) Comment by Warp7 - 10/01/2013

Jindal has finally gone over board. With a lack of stae revenue this ultra conservative wants to do away with personal and corporate income taxes. So, how much more will he cut schools and universities, employees to fill his over inflated ego! As usual, our major Newspaper can't get an interview. When will the Advocate and other media outlets start questioning this guy??

71) Comment by Warp7 - 10/01/2013

Jindal has finally gone over board. With a lack of stae revenue this ultra conservative wants to do away with personal and corporate income taxes. So, how much more will he cut schools and universities, employees to fill his over inflated ego! As usual, our major Newspaper can't get an interview. When will the Advocate and other media outlets start questioning this guy??

72) Comment by squiggly - 10/01/2013

Jindal is an idiot! None of these ideas will be thought out and the entire state will suffer for years because his stupidity. He goes to these right wing meetings, which are led by people who are severely out of touch and is trying to implement these nutty plans that there is no proof that they work. The states that have no income taxes, usually have a major industry or something that generates revenue. For instance, Florida has massive tourism income. Louisiana does not have anything that generates enough revenue. According to the article, it looks like the state corporate taxes are already very low and I don't see many companies beating down the doors to locate here. Can we survive another 3 years with this guy as governor? Lord help us!

73) Comment by crazycajun - 10/01/2013

See how easy it is for booby to fool the populace and he knows it. Just look at the very first comment.

74) Comment by 1ryben - 10/01/2013

What makes anyone think they'd end up keeping more of their money?!? Yes, you may see an increase in your paycheck due to less income tax being taken out but you'd pay higher property and sales taxes. This is not about helping you and me, it's a way for Jindal to eliminate the corporate income tax. We, you and me will have to overcome that loss of state revenue too. I'm not sure that in the long run we may end up actually paying more in taxes. I'd like to see more information on how revenue neutral this plan actually is and how much the individual citizens of this state will end up paying in certain taxes to maintain this neutrality. I'm also confused how we constantly hear about budget shortfalls yet Jindal is always pandering by using tax cuts. Is it surprising that when Jindal's local approval ratings are pretty low he steps out with eliminating the state income tax?

75) Comment by Woody - 10/01/2013

i kind of like the idea of keeping more of the money i have earned.

76) Comment by LSUinVail - 10/01/2013

The main stream media and it's faithful viewing/listening audience has been using doom and gloom scare tactics to advocate against fiscal reform for decades; always pining for more and more tax revenue or they will cut essential programs (always healthcare & education). Fiscal responsibility notwithstanding, the bigger problem is as BRm alludes to; the LA constitution needs to be amended to open all agencies to reform/cuts in hard times, not just the sacred cows. Hellooooo...

77) Comment by SuzanneMS - 10/01/2013

The only thing more jaw-droppingly stupid than this proposal is that a sizeable number of Louisiana citizens will think that it will be good for them. Jindal takes Mencken seriously -- he never underestimates the stupidity of the American people. Those 9 states without personal income tax? Only 2 of them don't have corporate income taxes -- Nevada, which brings in enormous amounts of money from gambling and has a high sales tax rate, and Wyoming. Both of those states also bring in huge amounts of federal dollars. And how do those 9 states function? How do they provide for roads, bridges, schools, etc? Primarily through high property taxes -- say good-bye to your homestead exemption, Being_Stupid and phil -- and high sales taxes on everything, including food. The idea that corporations will locate here, when we would have among the highest personal property tax and sales tax rates in the nation is utterly ludicrous. Educated workers will refuse to move here, especially those with kids -- they already do -- and there will be even fewer natives in Louisiana who will be qualified to fill the jobs. The brain drain will increase geometrically. Louisiana is already one step away from a third world country; this would be the final push needed to move it over that line.

78) Comment by crazycajun - 10/01/2013

Robideaux, we never had these problems until your fearless leader, Lil booby, started creating these deficits on purpose to further his hidden agenda on healthcare, education and the privatizing of state services. None of these he was above board on before being elected. When you hide the truth ur lying. You can better believe he's lying again.

79) Comment by Christine - 10/01/2013

Despite the governor's spin, this will amount to a tax increase on most Louisiana families if sale taxes go up.

80) Comment by zealer99 - 10/01/2013

Somebody needs to add the cost of maintaining the roads, streets, highways, parkways, drives, lanes, byways and bridges into the equation. I am not certain if the current funding mechanisms have hit bottom yet so this might be a bad time to reduce revenues even further. As more bridges fall below minimum standards and weights are mandated, doing business in Louisiana is certain to rise. The governor and Co. really should establish a business plan for State Government that defines the major expense items and revenue generation mechanisms.

81) Comment by BRmoderate - 10/01/2013

I love this idea! We just need to rewrite our constitution before implementing. Too many state agencies are exempt from cuts right now. In lean economic years, all agencies will need to withstand cutbacks

82) Comment by phil - 10/01/2013

Without hearing how the taxes will be replaced it is hard for me to have an opinion. However, there are apparently 7 states with no income tax already, so this is not such a far out idea or a new one.

83) Comment by spqr - 10/01/2013

Jindal would not comment because he refuses to be as accountable as he expects of everyone else. A real hypocrite.

84) Comment by 8point6 - 10/01/2013

"Jindal declined an interview request to discuss the proposal." Why would he grant an interview with this medium? Look at all the negative articles/comments from this medium. I'm all for eliminating the personal income tax. That would help the majority of middle class tax payers.

85) Comment by Cathy Newman - 10/01/2013

Oh, that's just genius. Eliminate progressive taxes and increase regressive taxes. Way to care about the little guy, Bobby. Are we surprised? Nope.

86) Comment by DMJ - 10/01/2013

And how will we replace $3 billion annually? Off the top of my head, I'm going to guess cut health care, especially for the poor, cut higher education even further, cut public education, massive layoffs for public sector workers, no more infrastructure projects. Sounds great.

87) Comment by Being_Stupid - 10/01/2013

This is a real leader. God Bless Louisiana.