Director of Research Geoffrey Lawrence and Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan op-ed in the Reno Gazette Journal about short term rental regulations.
Director of Research Geoffrey Lawrence and Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan op-ed in the Reno Gazette Journal about short term rental regulations.
Nevada Policy’s Anahit Baghshetsyan’s informative commentary in the Las Vegas Review-Journal
The Las Vegas Review-Journal published an op-ed letter by Nevada Policy’s Policy Analyst, Anahit Baghshetsyan, about the future of film tax credits in Nevada.
Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan’s op-ed for the Las Vegas Review Journal about the New York City Mayor’s race and what it could mean for Nevada.
Read the op-ed here.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote an article based on Policy Fellow Cameron Belt’s piece about a need for changing regulations in Nevada. Read the article here.
The Reno Gazette interviewed Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan about the changes to Nevada’s home insurance law. Read the full story here.
The Las Vegas Review Journal cited Nevada Policy’s research in its article about Governor Lombardo’s vetoes this legislative session.
The Review-Journal’s editorial quotes Research Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan.
Article written based on Nevada Policy’s 200 Boards report
Please put “Media” in the subject line and include your questions, deadline, and contact information, and we will respond as soon as possible.
Email: pr@nevadapolicy.org
For Immediate Release
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
January 21, 2016
LAS VEGAS — Thousands of students, parents, and teachers are expected to gather in Las Vegas on Tuesday, January 26 to show support for National School Choice Week.
The rally, which will be the largest of its kind in Southern Nevada, will take place at 10:00 a.m. at the Las Vegas Cashman Center. The celebration is timed to coincide with National School Choice Week (January 24-30, 2016), which will be America’s largest-ever celebration of opportunity in education with more than 16,000 events being planned nationwide.
Speakers at the event will include public officials, educators and even parents who are trying to take advantage of Nevada’s various school choice options.
“My daughter was struggling in her public school, and we were just looking for an alternative we could afford,” said Rita Colon, a single mother who applied for an Education Savings Account and a Tax Scholarship.
“You should always have a choice in your child’s education,” she told the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
The goal of the event is to show the overwhelming support for educational reform and school choice in the Silver State.
A diverse group of Nevada individuals and organizations have worked together to plan this event, including: RISE Resource Center, Nevada Homeschool Network, Nevada Policy Research Institute, NevadaESA.com, Academica Nevada, and The LIBRE Initiative.
Held every January, National School Choice Week is an independent public awareness effort designed to shine a positive spotlight on effective education options for every child.
###
Important update: The CCSD and CCEA agreed to a revised version of this contract, which excluded this worrisome section. While NPRI applauds the fact that the revised contract no longer rewards teachers for unconstitutional behavior, the fact that such behavior is still allowed is troubling. Also troubling is the fact that both CCSD and CCEA have been unable to adequately explain how, or why, the provision was included in the original draft contract.
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — The draft union contract between the Clark County School District and the Clark County Education Association includes a provision (17-1-1-4) that would endorse government-salary double dipping on the part of teachers.
The section states that any teacher who currently serves in the legislature could be given paid leave by the district while that teacher serves on legislative committee hearings which occur outside of the regular session.
As Nevada Policy Research Institute Communication Director Michael Schaus explains, this provision within the union contract essentially subsidizes and encourages violations of the state constitution’s separation of powers clause:
Legislators who remain employed with government agencies are already in violation of both the spirit, and the text, of Nevada’s constitution. Deciding then to give that government employee “paid leave” while they are conducting legislative business is nothing short of rewarding them for unconstitutional behavior at the expense of taxpayers.
The few active teachers who currently serve in the legislature are already in violation of the spirit of the law. The contract proposed by CCEA would further encourage, and reward, such unconstitutional behavior.
If approved, the contract would not only ignore this constitutional violation, but actually use taxpayer dollars to pay an employee who is directly influencing policy as a member of the legislative branch — which on its most basic level is a clear conflict of interest.
The proposed contract demonstrates that such constitutional and ethical conflicts are not only tolerated, but are often encouraged by the political class running government-funded education.
###
LAS VEGAS — Responding to news that Gov. Sandoval and lawmakers approved a series of tax breaks and subsidies for Faraday Future during a special session late last week, Nevada Policy Research Institute Communications Director Michael Schaus released the following statement:
The approval of more than $300 million of transferable tax credits, abatements and handouts to Faraday Futures is just the latest example of state politicians trying to pick winners and losers.
Just months ago, Nevada lawmakers imposed the largest tax increase in state history. Then, last week, they went out of their way to give hefty handouts to a politically connected electric-car company with no real-world record.
Yes, low taxes and “incentives” can attract new businesses to a state — but what message is being given to job creators, entrepreneurs and small businesses already operating in Nevada? Where are their tax incentives? In contrast to Faraday, Nevada’s job creators will be laboring under a slew of burdensome new taxes.
The 4,500 new jobs Faraday promises to create — a number less than one-third of what Nevada’s small businesses create every year, according to the Small Business Administration — sounds impressive in a news conference, but such projections are far from guaranteed.
Recall the similar rose-colored projections from the Sandoval administration when Tesla promised to create 700 jobs in 2015 as part of their new Gigafactory. So far, only a paltry 24 positions have been created, despite the substantial tax breaks provided to the new facility.
Politicians promising jobs and entrepreneurs actually creating jobs are obviously two very different things.
Genuine across-the-board incentives, such as lower taxes on current Nevada taxpayers and job creators, would do much more to spark economic growth than channeling hundreds of millions of dollars to secretive, unproven electric-car companies.
As we’ve seen too many times already, it’s the average taxpayer who loses when politicians in government attempt to play God with the economy.
###
Michael Schaus is communications director of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, a nonpartisan, free-market think tank. For more visit http://npri.org.
|
For Immediate Release |
|
|
|
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642 |
|
|
NPRI: Faraday deal shows low taxes matter
LAS VEGAS — In response to the news that Gov. Brian Sandoval is calling a special session to try and pass tax breaks and subsidies for Faraday Future, Nevada Policy Research Institute executive vice president Victor Joecks released the following comments.
Today’s announcement of abatements and handouts for Faraday demonstrate that low taxes matter to businesses, despite the rhetoric coming from the last legislative session.
That’s when Gov. Sandoval and legislators passed a $1.5 billion tax increase, the largest in state history that included hiking the modified business tax and the creation of a new gross receipts tax.
Sandoval and his economic development chief Steve Hill told lawmakers that Nevada needed higher taxes to increase education spending in order to attract businesses to Nevada and diversify its tax base.
Just six months later, Sandoval is calling a special session to provide over $200 million in tax breaks for Faraday, including $38 million in indirect subsidies.
You can’t have it both ways. If lower taxes are good for out-of-state billionaires, they’re also important for Nevada’s small, medium and large businesses and the hundreds of thousands of Nevadans they currently employee.
Lawmakers shouldn’t pick winners and losers in the economy. Instead of considering special handouts for the politically connected, lawmakers should remove the excessive tax burden on Nevada businesses and families.
Joecks noted that previously approved transferable tax credits caused the May Economic Forum projection to reduce state revenue projections by over $150 million. To fill that gap, Sen. Majority Leader Michael Roberson and Sandoval supported a higher cigarette tax. If transferable tax credits are approved for Faraday, they will decrease projected tax revenue in future budgets and create pressure to raise taxes on Nevada businesses and individuals that aren’t as politically connected.
“There is going to be enormous pressure from Sandoval to pass these handouts by the end of next week, despite their impact on existing Nevada businesses and the state’s long-term liability,” concluded Joecks. “Citizens will be grateful to lawmakers who ensure that any potential legislation doesn’t include direct or indirect subsidies, like tax-increment financing or transferable tax credits, and that any deal doesn’t set them up for future tax hikes.
“Low taxes are good not only for Faraday, but for the rest of Nevada’s economy too.”
###
Nevada Policy Research Institute ∙ 7130 Placid St., Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-222-0642 ∙ Fax: 702-227-0927 ∙ Web site: http://npri.org
For immediate release
Contact Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS — Lawmakers on the local, state and federal level almost always brag about the benefits of “free” money from the federal government, but it turns out that every dollar Nevada got from the federal government in 2012 resulted in more than a half dollar in new state and local tax increases.
The Nevada Policy Research Institute’s comprehensive study, The Impact of Federal Transfers on State and Local Spending, demonstrates the “ratcheting” effect of federal spending on state budgets. As federal funds pour in to state and local programs through the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and stimulus projects, state and local governments find themselves stuck with unexpectedly skyrocketing costs.
NPRI’s adjunct scholar Eric Fruits Ph.D., president of Economics International Corp., used data collected over the last four decades to hone in on the impact federal money has had on state and local governments throughout the country. The results point to a disturbing pattern as the federal government expands transfers to the states.
Every dollar Nevada received from the federal government in 2012 resulted in a state and local tax hike of $0.56. A hypothetical 10 percent increase in the amount of federal transfers would mean approximately $200 million more in spending from state and local own sources — translating to an additional $70 per person in new state and local taxes and charges.
And with Nevada’s governor and legislature embracing the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansions, such tax increases are almost certainly in Nevada’s future, according to Dr. Fruits.
“Importantly, our results suggest that the increases in federal grants to state and local governments associated with [the Affordable Care Act’s] Medicaid expansion will have significant future tax implications at the state and local level,” Dr. Fruits explained.
As the study demonstrates, there’s “no such thing as a free lunch.” It’s something taxpayers should keep in mind next time politicians talk about “free” federal money.
Read more:
• The Impact of Federal Transfers on State and Local Spending
LAS VEGAS — A constitutional amendment filed to increase Nevada’s minimum wage over the next eight years would actually hurt most of the workers it is supposed to benefit, warns Victor Joecks, executive vice president of the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
“The reason, as most small business owners know,” said Joecks, “is that, if enacted, the proposed minimum wage increase would kill jobs for teenagers, inexperienced workers and people who are re-entering the workforce.
“That’s the conclusion of the vast majority of economists of all political stripes and even federal government studies.”
Joecks continued:
Ultimately, it is the workers who get paid the least that will suffer the most from hikes in the minimum wage — with many of them losing their jobs as businesses close or turn to automation to replace entry-level jobs.
The primary value of entry-level jobs is that they allow workers to gain basic employment skills, which in turn allows them to earn higher wages in the future. Raising the minimum wage, however, makes it harder for low skill workers to get those first jobs. Having that first job is crucial, because two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn a raise within a year.
Currently, workers under 18 are exempt from Nevada’s inflated minimum wage requirements. This allows new workers to gain the experience and skills needed to increase their productivity and earn higher wages over time. This constitutional amendment, though, would remove that exemption and increase Nevada’s teenage unemployment, which currently sits at 23.6 percent.
A minimum wage increase would disproportionately hurt Nevada workers who hope to use low-paying jobs as stepping stones to better careers. Setting the minimum wage at $13 per hour is not only anti-business, but anti-worker as well.
###
Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.