State Sen. Buddy Carter On Constitutional Amendments and the Ballot Measure

Georgians will not just be voting for political candidates this November. In fact, the people of Georgia will also have a say in three significant questions on the ballot. Two of these three ballot questions are constitutional measures, and one is a referendum involving a tax exemption. All three measures require a simple majority of voters voting YES to successfully pass.

State Senator Buddy Carter of Pooler, the Republican nominee for Georgia’s 1st Congressional District, recently sent out a newsletter with the three questions and brief descriptions of what passage would mean:

– A –

To prohibit an increase in the state income tax rate in effect January 1, 2015 (Senate Resolution 415). Act No. 592

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to prohibit the General Assembly from increasing the maximum state income tax rate?”

Currently, the top income tax rate in our state is 6 percent.  Although we don’t always set the rate at this level, 6 percent is the highest we can currently set it at.  If passed, this would amend our constitution capping the top income tax rate at 6 percent.

Although somewhat symbolic, capping the rate at this level would improve Georgia’s competiveness while bringing certainty to businesses contemplating expansion decisions in our state.

While Georgia’s total tax liabilities (income taxes, corporate taxes and sales taxes) are very competitive, we have one of the highest income tax liabilities of any of our southeastern neighbors.  In fact, our 6 percent rate is the highest in the southeast when compared to the 5.8 percent in North Carolina and 5 percent in Alabama.  Tennessee only taxes dividend and interest income and Florida has no state income tax.

By passing this amendment, Georgia would become the first state to cap the income tax in its constitution and would prevent any future income tax increases above 6 percent.

– B –

Adding reckless driving penalties or fees to the brain and spinal injury trust fund (House Resolution 1183). Act No. 589

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow additional reckless driving penalties or fees to be added to the Brain and Spinal Injury Trust Fund to pay for care and rehabilitative services for Georgia citizens who have survived neurotrauma with head or spinal cord injuries?”

Currently our constitution allows additional fines for DUI offenses to go to the Brain and Spinal Injury Trust Fund, a fund set up to assist victims of head and spinal cord injuries.  However, because many DUI offenses are now being reduced to reckless driving charges, the solvency of the fund is being threatened.  In fact, testimony during the last legislative session indicated that, while demands on the fund have increased, the fund’s assets have decreased by almost 25 percent since 2008.

If passed, the constitution will be amended to allow the courts to assess an additional 10 percent of the fine imposed under the reckless driving offense to go toward the Brain and Spinal Injury Trust Fund.

PROPOSED STATEWIDE REFERENDUM

– 1 –

Allows property owned by the University System of Georgia and operated by providers of student housing and other facilities to remain exempt from taxation.

House Bill No. 788, Act No. 613

“Shall property owned by the University System of Georgia and utilized by providers of college and university student housing and other facilities continue to be exempt from taxation to keep costs affordable?”

Currently, student housing and other facilities owned by the University System of Georgia are exempt from ad valorem taxes.  If passed, this would allow the tax exempt status to be passed on to a private party who is contractually obligated to operate the property.

The purpose behind this proposal is to control the amount of debt that the University System has accumulated.  As a result of building projects on University campuses undertaken in the past few years, the University System has accumulated over $3.6 billion in debt.  By allowing private companies to benefit from the ad valorem tax exemption, they can build the buildings and incur the debt obligation.

Agreements between the University System and private companies would be from a competitive procurement process, would include measures to prohibit the costs of rents being raised and passed on to students and could be terminated if breached.

Allowing these agreements would help the University System maintain their favorable bond ratings by containing debt while continuing to provide world-class facilities on University campuses.

Kudos to State Senator Buddy Carter for going the extra mile to inform his current and potentially future constituents on the statewide ballot amendments and measures they will be voting on this November.

11 comments

  1. WeymanCWannamakerJr says:

    No, No, and Hell No.

    The first two are pandering that doesn’t belong in a constitution. The 3rd one is a bailout of overspending Regents. I survived a freshman year in Techwood Dorm where I got sandbagged in the quarterly roach pool.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      If we cap the state income tax doesn’t that mean other consumption taxes might need to rise to make up for inflation or other rising costs? Is .2-1% really affecting “competitiveness” with other states in this arena?

      Somehow I miss the logic that University owned properties, already exempt from this property tax, should also allow private management companies to get the exemption on properties they do not own? Isn’t there some double dipping exemption happening here? If so, isn’t this a sneaky wording of the referendum?

  2. blakeage80 says:

    I can see A being an amendment. B, not so much. C, NO. I have an idea about how to control University System Debt. Quit building a ton of big expensive buildings that aren’t within your budget. Maybe a better amendment would be a balanced budget amendment for all University System of Georgia entities.

  3. Dave Bearse says:

    C: Another special interest tax exemption, cluttering the tax code, that will largely be made up by general taxpayers thus leading to nominally higher other taxes.

    The GaGOP: They’re for simplifying and flattening taxes, except when they’re not.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      Or when it benefits well connected, private companies already getting cushy state building contracts.

  4. Dave Bearse says:

    B: I’ll wager a detailed audit would be critical of localities concerning the state’s system of collecting various amounts for various causes is performing poorly as determined by the proper determination of special assessments and their being remitted.

    The state should appropriate proper funds to line items of this type as a yearly, instead of a complex system of various assessments that in this case requires a Constitutional to change.

  5. Dave Bearse says:

    A: A Constitutional amendment that imposes wholly unnecessary limitations. It’s been argued it will damage the state’s creditworthiness. Not to worry, the GaGOP stands to the ready to raise taxes disproportionately on the middle class and poor as needed!

  6. objective says:

    the wording on the 3rd one is quite suspect- it makes it sounds as if contracted housing providers already get the tax break, but they don’t, correct?
    and doesn’t the tax break essentially wipe out the purported cost savings of contracting out to begin with?

    • Dave Bearse says:

      It’s my understanding they aren’t getting the tax break, but I’m not well-informed. (The wording demonstrates why, unless I’m well-informed, I vote against whatever the measure’s wording is intended to guide me to do.)

      Notice likewise how Carter implies the exemption is for buildings to be constructed by private parties receiving the tax break, when it will be going overwhelmingly to operators of buildings constructed at state expense. Carter will be a real straight shooter in Congress, no doubt.

      The implication is that after taking profit into account, private operators aren’t going to provide hosing any more affordable than what is already present, unless they get special tax exemptions.

      Sure is a great way to support the free market and reduce state involvement in the student residence business since this makes private property builders and property managers chomp at the want to provide build and operate more private student housing (snark).

Comments are closed.