feed icon

McMillan Blames Past Income Tax Support On Geography

By Kleinheider Posted on April 29, 2008 at 8:49 am

Exploratory Gubernatorial candidate Kim McMillan explains that her support for a state income tax in the past was based on the location of her district and that she would not support one today because we have the “type of tax revenue system that doesn’t need that particular type of environment’:

McMillan, who filed papers Monday creating an exploratory committee to seek the Democratic nomination for governor in 2010, said she supported the income tax because she was following the will of her constituents, who live on the border with Kentucky, which has no sales tax on food.

“When I had to choose between a plan that would allow us to remove the sales tax on food and make us competitive with Kentucky or increase the overall sales tax with no benefit to anybody, I think that was the choice that I took at that time in line with what the constituents of the 67th District told me that they thought was more appropriate,” McMillan said.

McMillan’s entrance into the Democratic race for governor will provide the first test of how Tennesseans react to a statewide candidate who openly pushed for a state income tax.

Since the great fight over a state income tax from 1999 to 2002, no candidate has run for statewide office who openly advocated for the income tax.

permalink

Tags: , , ,  

Comments

7 Responses to “McMillan Blames Past Income Tax Support On Geography”

  1. Mickey writes
    April 29th, 2008 9:27 am

    she would not support one today because she is runing for US Senate. can we say 2 face

  2. Bill Hobbs writes
    April 29th, 2008 9:50 am

    McMillan wasn’t asked to vote on an income tax for her district, she was asked to vote on an income tax FOR THE WHOLE STATE, and she cast a vote in favor of an income tax FOR THE WHOLE STATE, which means one of two things.

    Either she believed back then that an income tax was the best thing for the whole state, and is lying now about her motivation.

    Or she still believes an income tax is the best thing for the state but can’t say so if she wants to win so she cooked up this cockamamie “my district made me do it” excuse for her vote.

    Either way, she’s lying.

  3. D writes
    April 29th, 2008 9:58 am

    So Representatives aren’t supposed to represent their districts? That seems totally out of whack.

    There is nothing illogical about multiple jurisdictional duties in elective capactities. You are a novice if you think a statewide candidate performs in the same capacity as a representative. McMillan would operate in accordance with the state’s interests in the same way she operated in accordance with her district.

  4. Bill Hobbs writes
    April 29th, 2008 10:02 am

    It’s a good thing that McMillan’s income tax didn’t become law back in 2002, else Tennessee state government’s current fiscal crises would be a lot worse today than it already is.

    That’s because, historically, states that rely on income taxes see bigger revenue declines during econommic slowdowns than do states that rely on sales taxes.

    And, to make matters worse, states that rely on income taxes generally see stronger revenue growth during economic booms than do states that rely on sales taxes - and, as Gov. Bredesen showed last year, no revenue surplus is too large to spend it all.

    Spending all of last year’s $1.5 billion surplus bloated state government and made it harder for revenues to keep up during this year’s economic slowdown - exacerbating the fiscal crisis.

    The state now faces a revenue shortfall in the current fiscal year that may reach $500 million, but the state budget as signed into law by Gov. Bredesen was $723 million over the state constitution’s “Copeland Cap,” which is supposed to limit the annual budget growth to the rate of growth of personal income in the state. The theory behind the Copeland Cap is that if spending doesn’t grow faster than the average Tennessean’s income, tax increases won’t be needed to support rising spending.

    It works, too, except when the legislature and governor agree to exploit a loophole and bust the cap.

    In fact, if you trace the fiscal path that led to the push for an income tax back in 1999-2002, you’ll find that the extra $1 billion in revenue that would have come from the income tax McMillan voted for (and did come from the sales tax rate increase) was only necessary because the Democratic controlled legislature had approved busting the Copeland Cap by hundreds of millions of dollars in the previous decade. When the recession hit in 2000-2001, sluggish revenue growth simply couldn’t sustain all that overspending.

    McMillan’s income tax would have been a fiscal disaster for the state of Tennessee.

    - Bill Hobbs

  5. Thank You, Mr. Helper : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee writes
    April 29th, 2008 10:26 am

    [...] Braisted translates Kim McMillan’s explanation as to why she supported a state income tax for Tennessee in 2002, but doesn’t now: What I [...]

  6. d writes
    April 29th, 2008 12:58 pm

    Hobbs, you refer to it as “McMillan’s income tax.” Wasn’t it also Don Sundquist’s income tax? And I forget which party he was the head of.

  7. Bill Hobbs writes
    April 29th, 2008 2:30 pm

    The funny thing about the legislature, d, is that governors don’t sponsor legislation - legislators do. Imagine that.

    The income tax was sponsored in the state Senate by Bob Rochelle, Democrat, and in the state House by Tommy Head, Democrat. McMillan, Naifeh and a lot of other legislators - mostly Democrats - voted for it. Sundquist would never have thought he could get an income tax passed if the legislature had not been under the control of Democrats. After all, the Tennessee Democratic Party endorsed the income tax, and has never rescinded that endorsement.

Leave a Reply




Partly Cloudy

Recent Comments

The Collective

The Latest from NashvillePost.com

Archives