|
The purpose of this amendment is to put
a ceiling on income taxes which the legis-
lature can levy to eight per cent. That gives
a leeway of one half of one per cent if it
reached an emergency and needed that tax.
Mr. President, with the enormous income
tax now imposed by the federal government
and with seven and a half per cent income
levied on the citizens of Maryland, includ-
ing capital gain, the tax burden in the
income tax field is tremendous and we can-
not, we cannot allow this to happen where
the federal government keeps increasing
and the State keeps increasing. We want
a little income left in the pocket of the tax
earners and taxpayers. The purpose of this
amendment is to place a ceiling. Now, there
is a second clause to this which gives some
leeway. If the federal government reduces,
then we can increase proportionately
through the reduction made by the federal
government. There are some who do not
want the second clause to this, and, Mr.
President, if I might, I would like to in-
troduce this amendment in its entirety and
if it fails that way, then I would like to
strike the second clause beginning with the
word "except" in line 9 and have a simple
limitation of nine per cent on the second
go. If I might be able to do that without
printing up another amendment, I would
like to take two flings at this amendment,
one in its entirety and one without the
second clause.
THE CHAIRMAN: My problem is only
the purely mechanical one. It would be in
order to offer the second amendment con-
sisting only of the first part of the first one.
If there is not any objection to not re-
printing it, it would be permitted.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: The sec-
ond clause has this concept. There has not
been much incentive from the states and
much urging to get the federal government
to reduce its tax structure and I feel that
if this is adopted as part of our new Con-
stitution, probably other states will see the
light of day and they will place tax limits
on income taxes in their constitution and
allow their legislatures to go up propor-
tionate to any federal reduction. Now, here
is how the thing would work. When the
president and the federal authorities have
programs which they wish the states to
initiate, if we and other states have this
program in our constitution, then our gov-
ernor is enabled to say, Mr. President, and
members of the federal government, if you
want us to go ahead with these programs,
we need more tax dollars and if you will
reduce the federal income tax under our
|
constitutional provisions, we can propor-
tionately raise the state income tax. The
tax burden on the taxpayer will be no
greater overall, but we in the State will
have more revenue and we can go on with
those programs on our own without asking
for federal aid and assistance. Mr. Presi-
dent, I think I have explained it as much
as it ought to be explained. I hope that this
amendment passes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman and
members of the Committee, Delegate Weide-
meyer brought this proposal before our
Committee and the Committee gave a great
deal of thought, serious and otherwise, and
the Committee decided not to recommend it
and its records show it. The principal rea-
sons why this proposal was turned down
by the Committee are, first, a definitional
reason: you will note that the amendment
speaks in terms of taxable income, exclud-
ing deductions and exemptions, and it is
very difficult for me and I have dealt in tax
matters for a long number of years to say
what that means because taxable incomes
usually exclude deductions and exemptions.
The use of the word "therefore" is confus-
ing. The more important reason, however,
for the action of the Committee was the in-
herent complexity of the proposal. You will
note that the tax, and this is what I think
Delegate Weidemeyer directed part of his
presentation to — the language beginning
after the word "exemptions" in line 9, al-
lowing for a mathematical adjustment, if
the federal tax goes down, which is hardly
likely to happen — it would, it seems, add
another element of complexity to our tax
laws which is not either necessary or de-
sirable. The third and most important rea-
son is, of course, that this is not a matter
for the constitution. It would be tragic,
in my judgment, if the State were hemmed
in or hamstrung by a definitional rate for
any tax. Much as I hate to say it, I think
the taxes will continue to increase as far
as the State is concerned, but to put a limit
of nine per cent or three per cent or six
per cent or any other per cent in the con-
stitution is just bad business and should be
avoided. For all of these reasons, therefore,
the Committee decided not to adopt Dele-
gate Weidemeyer's suggestion, good inten-
tioned though it may be, and I would cer-
tainly hope that the Committee of the
Whole would follow the advice of the Com-
mittee on this subject.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
|
