Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
05/13/2021 11:30 AM House WAYS & MEANS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB202 | |
| HB37 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
May 13, 2021
12:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Chair
Representative Adam Wool, Vice Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Andi Story
Representative Mike Prax
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Sara Rasmussen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 202
"An Act relating to the Alaska permanent fund; relating to
dividends for state residents; relating to the use of certain
state income; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to deposits into the dividend fund; relating to
income of and appropriations from the earnings reserve account;
relating to the taxation of income of individuals, partners,
shareholders in S corporations, trusts, and estates; relating to
a payment against the individual income tax from the permanent
fund dividend disbursement; repealing tax credits applied
against the tax on individuals under the Alaska Net Income Tax
Act; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 202
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND; ROYALTIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MERRICK
05/05/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/05/21 (H) W&M, FIN
05/07/21 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
05/07/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/11/21 (H) W&M AT 11:30 AM DAVIS 106
05/11/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (H) W&M AT 11:30 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE: INCOME TAX; PERMANENT FUND; EARNINGS RES.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WOOL
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) CRA, STA, FIN
04/28/21 (H) W&M REPLACES CRA REFERRAL
04/28/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
05/11/21 (H) W&M AT 11:30 AM DAVIS 106
05/11/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (H) W&M AT 11:30 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MERRICK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 202, as the prime sponsor.
TALLY TEAL, Staff
Representative Kelly Merrick
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis of HB 202 on
behalf of Representative Merrick, prime sponsor.
PAULYN SWANSON, Communications Manager
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
202.
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director
Legislative Legal Services
Juneau, Alaska
Legislative Affairs Agency
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
202.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 37, as the prime sponsor.
KEN ALPER, Staff
Representative Adam Wool
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"House Bill 37," dated 5/13/21, on behalf of Representative
Wool, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
12:03:01 PM
CHAIR IVY SPOHNHOLZ called the House Special Committee on Ways
and Means meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. Representatives Wool,
Josephson, Schrage, Story, Eastman, and Spohnholz were present
at the call to order. Representative Prax arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Also present was Representative Ortiz
and Rasmussen.
HB 202-PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND; ROYALTIES
12:03:50 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 202, "An Act relating to the Alaska permanent
fund; relating to dividends for state residents; relating to the
use of certain state income; and providing for an effective
date."
12:04:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MERRICK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 202. She read the following prepared
statement:
Since the decline in oil prices caused a huge revenue
shortfall in fiscal year 2015, the state has struggled
to pay the permanent fund dividend according to the
43-year-old statute. After former Governor Walker
reduced the FY 17 PFD, the dividend has been
determined by available funds after meeting our
requirements to fund services. In recognition of our
new fiscal reality, the 2016 legislature restructured
out budget around a percent of market value (POMV)
structure that meets our constitutional obligations
for services and serves as kind of a spending cap. We
must reconsider our PFD formula within the POMV
framework, and let's recognize when we protect the
POMV, we maintain fiscal stability and a low-tax
environment for both families and businesses.
When people think of the PFD, they think of oil money,
and while that's the foundation of the permanent fund,
the dividend that people receive is no longer based on
resource development, but instead on various
investments that are managed by the Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation. HB 202 ties the dividend directly
to resource development in the state by setting aside
a portion of the royalties received by the state for
dividends. Specifically, it sets aside 30 percent of
the royalties with another third going to the
permanent fund, per existing statute and the
constitution, and the remainder going to the General
Fund to pay for public services.
There's been a growing recognition over the past few
years that paying a dividend according to the 1982
statute is unsustainable and would require violating
the POMV spending cap. HB 202 addresses both of these
problems by repealing the current formula and
replacing it with one that's simpler, more
sustainable, and provides a stable fiscal environment
for our state.
12:07:14 PM
TALLY TEAL, Staff, Representative Kelly Merrick, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Merrick, prime sponsor,
presented a sectional analysis of HB 202 [included in the
committee packet], which read [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: amends AS 37.13.140(a) to remove language
relating to the income available for distribution of
the permanent fund dividend.
Section 2: amends AS 37.13.145(c) to make conforming
changes due to the repeal of 37.13.145(b) and updates
language to conform to the decision in Wielechowski v.
State.
Section 3: amends AS 37.13.145(d) to make conforming
changes due to the repeal of 37.13.145(b) and updates
language to conform to the decision in Wielechowski v.
State.
Section 4: amends AS 37.13.145(e) to reaffirm the
prohibition on overdrawing the percent of market value
(POMV). This is necessary due to the repeal of
37.13.145(f).
Section 5: amends 43.23.025(a) to make conforming
changes as a result of sections 1 and 7.
Section 6: amends AS 43.23.028(a) to make conforming
changes as a result of from section 1.
Section 7: adds a new subsection to AS 43.23.045 to
designate 30% of all mineral lease rentals, royalties,
royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing
payments, and bonuses received by the state during
that fiscal year for distribution of dividends.
Section 8: repeals AS 37.13.145(b) and AS
37.13.145(f).
Section 9: provides an effective date of July 1, 2021.
12:09:57 PM
MS. TEAL directed attention to the HB 202 flow chart [included
in the committee packet], explaining that the 30-35 percent of
all royalty income going into the Alaska Permanent Fund would
remain unchanged by the proposed legislation. She noted that
the remaining 60-65 percent currently goes to the General Fund;
however, under HB 202, 30 percent would go to dividends and the
remainder would be allocated to the General Fund.
12:11:00 PM
MS. TEAL turned attention to the fiscal model from Legislative
Finance Division (LFD) [included in the committee packet],
highlighting that HB 202 would not deplete reserves and that the
value of the Alaska Permanent Fund would grow over time. She
further noted that the value of the Permanent Fund Dividend
would be significantly lower than it is under the current
formula. Finally, she indicated that the proposed legislation
would result in a balanced budget, providing a reasonable,
sustainable, and stable solution to the fiscal crisis.
12:12:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that under HB 202, the
PFD would no longer be tied to investment income.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why the money going to Alaskans
would be called a dividend if it had no relation to investment
income.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK responded that the name could be changed
if that would be more appealing. Nonetheless, Alaskans would
still be receiving their share of the oil money.
12:13:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he liked the idea of tying the
divided to oil revenues; however, he found it curious that the
permanent fund, as well as a portion of the oil royalties, would
go into the General Fund. He asked the bill sponsor to comment
on the intent of that structure.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK explained that she had considered paying
the dividend with the entirety of the remaining 60-65 percent of
royalties that currently goes to the General Fund; however, it
would require an overdraw of the POMV. She stated that her
intention was to propose a solution that would not require an
overdraw. She reiterated that under HB 202, the remaining 60-65
percent of royalties would be split 50/50 between the dividend
and the General Fund.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether this proposal would avoid
the necessity of broad-based new revenues.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK answered yes, which was one of the key
elements when designing this plan. She conveyed that her
constituents opposed the implementation of a revenue tax.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he appreciated the rationale of the
structure; however, he expressed concern that the proposal is
regressive and would affect lower-income families that are
already being impacted by the PFD reduction.
12:15:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY applauded the concept of a solution that
maintains the POMV structure and balances the budget. However,
she asked whether the bill would preclude the legislature from
appropriating a dividend from the permanent fund instead of
natural resource income.
MS. TEAL deferred to Legislative Legal Services. She shared her
understanding that because Section 1 of the bill removes the
current statutory dividend formula, the legislature might not
have the statutory authority to pay a dividend directly from the
permanent fund. Nonetheless, she stated her belief that nothing
in the bill would preclude the legislature from over
appropriating to the dividend and therefore increasing the
payout.
12:17:08 PM
PAULYN SWANSON, Communications Manager, Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation (APFC), confirmed that the proposed legislation
would delete the statutory dividend formula as currently
written. She shared her understanding that the bill would not
preclude an additional appropriation from the POMV to the
General Fund or an ad hoc draw from Earnings Reserve Account
(ERA) account.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the bill sponsor conducted
any modeling of the proposed dividend calculation based on the
past five years.
12:19:18 PM
MS. TEAL offered to follow up with the requested information.
12:19:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he likes the concept of linking the
dividend to the performance of oil, noting that he proposed a
similar bill in recent years that combined a percentage of oil
with a percentage of the POMV. He believed it would connect the
PFD to oil, as opposed to the stock market performance. He
asked whether the proposed legislation would impact federal
royalties, which are expected to grow.
MS. TEAL said she's not familiar with the nuances of mineral
resource development. She noted that federal mineral revenue
sharing payments are included the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Ms. Nauman whether the bill would
impact the structure of federal royalties.
12:22:07 PM
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director, Legislative Legal Services,
Juneau, Alaska, replied that the bill would not change
underlying statutory structure related to allocation or use of
federal royalties. She added that the amount of federal
royalties is largely determined in federal law. She recalled
that the under HB 202, the money for the dividend would be
pulled from the General Fund; therefore, to the extent that all
that money is "mixing together," it's possible that some of the
money from federal royalties could be used for the dividend due
to its inherent fungible nature. However, that is not
explicitly specified in the bill.
12:23:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the bill would prohibit the
legislature from offering an individual assistance payment or
some other appropriation from the POMV.
MS. NAUMAN said nothing would preclude the legislature from
providing a supplemental dividend amount from the General Fund,
which would include money that had been deposited into the fund
from the POMV draw.
12:24:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE questioned what would happen to the
dividend if in the future, royalties started to decline. He
wondered whether the dividend would decline to the point of
nonexistence.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK indicated that the dividend would be
nonexistent if there were no royalties.
MS. TEAL added that LFD had modeled a projection into FY 50,
which forecasted a "modest" dividend coming from royalties under
HB 202.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ believed that the likelihood of running out of
oil in the next thirty years is low.
12:25:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON sought to confirm that if oil
production were to scale up or prices were to increase
significantly, that the formula in HB 202 would track those
returns and grow the dividend accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK answered yes.
12:26:19 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ expressed concern that a dividend of $500, as
proposed in the bill, is roughly half of the historical average
without adjusting for inflation. Further, she highlighted the
bill language "may appropriate," as opposed to "shall
appropriate," noting that some legislators who feel strongly
about the dividend may be concerned about that.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK recounted that the permanent fund was
originally created for the purpose of paying for state services
when oil production declined and to make a nonrenewable resource
renewable. She cited AS 43.23, indicating that the purpose of
the PFD was to distribute to the people of Alaska a portion of
the state's energy wealth derived from the development and
production of the natural resources belonging to them as
Alaskans. She emphasized that HB 202 would satisfy that by
tying the dividend to natural resource income.
12:28:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how much of the money from the
permanent fund would go towards state government versus other
uses if the bill were to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK asked whether Representative Eastman was
referring to the POMV draw.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked, "any money coming from the
permanent fund."
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK responded that the POMV draw would be
available for the legislature to appropriate at their
discretion.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that the legislature has the power
of appropriation, as determined by Wielechowski v. Alaska, and
could therefore fund a larger PFD if desired.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked which sections of the bill address
changing the statutory dividend formula.
MS. TEAL stated that Section 1 removes the statutory dividend
formula.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how this year's dividend would have
been impacted had the bill already been implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK clarified that the bill would take effect
in July 2021; therefore, it would not affect the 2021 dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how that amount would have changed
under HB 202.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK said HB 202 would provide a dividend of
$463.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Merrick to contrast
that the current statutory amount.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK shared her understanding that currently,
the statutory dividend would be set at $3,400.
12:30:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE pointed out that the legislature had not
paid out anything close to that in recent years.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK confirmed. She explained that the
dividend in recent years had been based on ad hoc draw, or in
other words, an arbitrary amount as determined by the
legislature.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that the dividend amount has fluctuated
between $1,000 and $1,600 in recent years.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE advocated for implementing honest
expectations in regard to the dividend amount, as opposed to
ignoring the statutory calculation and setting an arbitrary
amount during the budgeting process.
REPRESENTATIVE MERRICK noted that the dividend in HB 202 would
be based on expected royalties. She added that the amount would
correlate to oil production. She believed it would provide an
incentive to develop state resources; further, that the dividend
would no longer be competing with state services in terms of
funding. She emphasized that the proposed legislation would pay
a dividend first and provide a solution for those that say,
"follow the law or change the law."
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ appreciated the effort to redefine the dividend
formula. She believed that if the state cannot afford to fund a
statutory dividend, the legislature should be honest about that.
12:33:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY noted that the dividend would cease to
exist if a statutory dividend were to be paid out continually.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 202 was held over.
HB 37-INCOME TAX; PERMANENT FUND; EARNINGS RES.
12:34:18 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 37, "An Act relating to deposits into the
dividend fund; relating to income of and appropriations from the
earnings reserve account; relating to the taxation of income of
individuals, partners, shareholders in S corporations, trusts,
and estates; relating to a payment against the individual income
tax from the permanent fund dividend disbursement; repealing tax
credits applied against the tax on individuals under the Alaska
Net Income Tax Act; and providing for an effective date."
12:34:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 37. He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read in its entirety
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 37 resolves Alaska's fiscal challenges and
balances the budget.
For six years, facing severely declining revenues and
massive budget shortfalls, Alaska has managed to delay
a permanent fiscal solution through budget cuts and
drawing down over $16 billion in savings. Now, these
savings are gone and there is limited room for
additional major cuts without substantially harming
core state functions.
Alaska is the only state without a broad-based tax on
its residents and Alaskans pay the lowest overall
state and local taxes in the U.S. Forty-five states
have a state sales tax, and forty-three have some form
of an income tax. Since 1980 we have been uniquely
fortunate, with ample oil and gas revenues able to
fund ongoing government operations, endow various
savings funds, and build the Permanent Fund so that it
can now play a substantial role in our state's
revenue.
Since its recent peak in 2012, oil revenue is down
90%. Even with major new projects our revenue
forecasts are not encouraging. Current petroleum
revenue is as low as it has been since 1978. Nobody
wants to implement a tax on Alaskans, but we are out
of time and out of options.
As we take this step towards new revenue, it is
essential to also resolve the issue of the dividend.
For the Alaskan people to trust and accept a new tax,
we must ensure that any new revenues are used for
essential services and are not used to simply transfer
these funds to others through increased PFDs. HB37
does both things.
HB37 adds a flat rate 2.5% income tax based on federal
Adjusted Gross Income. There is a "standard deduction"
of non-taxable income, of $10,000 for individuals and
$20,000 for joint filers, which reduces the burden on
the lowest income Alaskans. The tax will raise about
$600 million per year, with nonresident workers paying
about 10% of the total. The bill also establishes an
80/20 split of the annual "Percent of Market Value"
draw from the Permanent Fund, with 20% of each year's
funding designated for the PFD. That would provide,
initially, a dividend of about $1,000 that would
steadily grow in years to come. Alaskans, as part of
the PFD application process, would be able to assign
some or all of their dividend towards the tax.
This would mean, in practice, that most Alaskans would
not pay any tax out of pocket. For example, a family
of 4 making $100,000/ year would retain about $2,000
in PFDs after paying the tax. If the same family made
$200,000 their tax and dividends would balance each
other and they would pay nothing.
It is time to have an honest conversation about how
Alaska will fund its operations into the future. HB37
can be the key component to get us there. Thank you
for your consideration.
12:38:11 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
12:38:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL resumed his introductory statement. He
reiterated that the dividend was created to share the wealth of
the oil economy; however, he believed its purpose has morphed
into fulfilling "other functions," such as providing cash to
individuals in cash-strapped economies. He stated that the
proposed legislation would establish a dividend that is 20
percent of the POMV draw, equating to approximately $1,000 per
person. He explained that the bill would institute a small flat
income tax of 2.5 percent; further, it would allow for a
standard deduction of non-taxable income - $10,000 for
individuals and $20,000 for joint filers, which would reduce the
burden on the lowest-income Alaskans. He shared, for example,
that if someone only incurred $10,000, he/she would be exempt
and entitled to a full PFD. He noted that as income level
increases, more is taken out of the PFD, and the higher earners
would have to pay to the State of Alaska. He referenced a chart
in the presentation (slide 24), indicating that a single person
making $50,000 would receive a $960 dividend and owe a tax of
$975, thus owing a total of $15 [he/she would not receive a
dividend, as it would go towards the tax owed]. He continued to
explain that a married couple making $100,000 would receive a
dividend of $1,920 and pay 1,950 in tax, thus owing $30 to the
state. A married couple with two children would receive a
dividend of $3,840 and pay $1,900 in tax, thus retaining $1,940,
which essentially equates to two PFD checks.
12:42:56 PM
KEN ALPER, Staff, Representative Adam Wool, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced a PowerPoint presentation, titled "House
Bill 37" [hard copy included in the committee packet], on behalf
of Representative Wool, prime sponsor. He began on slide 2,
explaining that HB 37 consists of two core components, which
together, would balance the budget for the foreseeable future.
The first key component is an individual income tax of 2.5
percent of federal Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). The first
$10,000 of income ($20,000 for joint filer) would be exempted
from the tax. The PFD income would also be tax exempt. The
second component is a restructuring of the annual POMV draw from
the permanent fund, so that 20 percent of the draw would be
designated to pay PFDs. He continued to slide 3, which recapped
process of events that lead up to the present scenario. Slide 3
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Revenue declines, beginning in 2014
• Budget cuts
• Introduction of POMV as a central revenue feature
• Ongoing structural deficits
• Lack of resolution of the Dividend question
• Alaskans pay the lowest state and local taxes
among the 50 states
Once a consensus is reached that we need additional
revenue, new questions emerge:
• Pros and Cons of Income Tax vs. Sales Tax vs.
Other
• How much revenue to raise / how large should the
dividend be?
• Structural technical details of the bill
12:45:40 PM
MR. ALPER turned to slide 4, which featured a model of UGF
spending and revenue since statehood in nominal dollars. Slide
5 displayed the same model per capita and adjusted for
inflation. The graph indicated that the current budget has
decreased to approximately 1970's levels, which was before the
oil boom. Slide 5 provided a focused look at the last 10 years,
showing the dramatic drop in revenue that coincided with the
crash in oil prices, which was partially compensated by POMV
draws. He noted that agency spending has maintained flat while
statewide spending is down dramatically with the reduction in
payments to the pension system. The capital budget has dropped
by over 90 percent and the dividend has fluctuated.
12:48:41 PM
MR. ALPER advanced to slide 7, emphasizing that permanent fund
earnings would make up to roughly two-thirds of Unrestricted
General Fund (UGF) revenue in the foreseeable future. Slide 8
indicated that even with higher oil revenue in the spring
forecast, the governor's 10-year plan shows large ongoing
shortfalls of approximately $300-400 million. Slide 9
highlighted the three main assumptions in the 10-year plan that,
if not met, would impact these future-year shortfalls: oil
prices steadily increasing towards $71/bbl in 2030; three more
years of likely unobtainable operating budget cuts and ongoing
minimal capital budgets; the governor's proposed change to a
50/50 POMV split beginning in FY 23, yielding dividends of
around $2,400.
12:50:57 PM
MR. ALPER continued to slide 10, which illustrated that Alaska's
current revenue structure hasn't kept pace with its changing
economy. He opined that some form of broad-based tax would be
the most efficient way to fund the state based on its growing
economy. Slide 11 provided a model from LFD that showed a lack
of new revenue depleting the ERA by FY 29. Slide 12 weighed the
pros and cons of a sales tax versus an income tax, indicating
that a sales tax tends to disproportionately impact lower income
households, while the effective tax rates are much higher at the
top 20 percent of income rates for an income tax. Slide 13
relayed that the great majority (81.5 percent) pay less with an
income tax versus a sales tax. He noted that only those making
more than $100,000 would pay more under an income tax versus a
sales tax.
12:57:04 PM
MR. ALPER turned to slide 14, which listed several reasons an
income tax might be preferable in Alaska. Slide 14 read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
• A sales tax tends to be regressive; as incomes
increase people use more of their earnings for
savings, investment and out-of-state travel. A
flat rate tax on income might be a better
counterbalance to dividend cuts which has the
most impact on low-income Alaskans and children.
• Sales taxes are relied on by ~105 municipalities
each with different rules. Adding a state tax
introduces a lot of questions: Does the state
take over statewide collection? Do we force caps
on local rates, unified, exemption rules,
transaction caps, etc.
• Regional price disparities, which are a
relatively unique Alaska phenomenon, would
disproportionately hurt rural residents.
• Our history with sales tax legislation included
aggressive exemption seeking by various interest
groups.
12:57:38 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 37 was held over.
12:58:28 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting was adjourned at
12:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 202 Sponsor Statement 5.5.2021.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Sectional Analysis 5.5.2021.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Flowchart.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Fiscal Note OMB-PFD 5.9.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Fiscal Model Output REVISED.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Testimony - Opposition as of 5.11.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 37 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX - Updated 5.11.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Fiscal Note DOA-OAH 5.7.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 ITEP Flat Tax Report 12.2020.pdf |
HW&M 5/11/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Presentation 5.13.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |
| HB 37 Fiscal Model.pdf |
HW&M 5/13/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/15/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/18/2021 11:30:00 AM |
HB 37 |