Question 3 a cynical measure that’s wrong for Nevada
When voters go to the polls, they won’t find the Margins Tax or the Education Initiative on the ballot. Instead they’ll encounter Question 3.
That’s one of the milder confusions in one of this year’s loudest and most costly campaigns.
The measure is the brainchild of the state AFL-CIO and the state Education Association but when labor stopped to consider the measure’s true impact, it reversed course and now is among the many organizational voices opposing this ill-conceived initiative.
At its heart, Question 3 is a cynical bit of electoral gamesmanship. Teachers, frustrated with their inability to pry more money out of elected officials, are hoping that a low turnout and some them-or-us rhetoric will turn the tide in their favor.
What has resulted is a $5 million media duel over the initiative that would put a 2 percent tax on gross revenue of every business taking in more than $1 million. Never mind whether the business is profitable or not, they all would have to pay. Supporters want voters to believe that $1 million threshold means only ‘big business’ will pay and that 87 percent of business won’t be affected.
If voters take the time to think that through, they’ll quickly figure out we’ll all be affected. Businesses – from grocers to pharmacies, doctors to lawyers, restaurants to hospitals, banks and mom ’n pop shops — will feel the pinch. Their choices become to cut expenses — read jobs — or pass the cost along to the consumer. The ultimate effect would be akin to a huge hike in the sales tax.
Supporters make the point that Nevada’s per pupil spending is 49th in the nation, that the state took a significant bite out of education during the Great Recession and that Nevada has the lowest corporate tax rate in the country.
While all three are true, only two are even plausible arguments for Question 3. The third — the fact that the state’s corporate tax structure is low — gives us an edge in growing the economy. We can make a strong case to attract firms like Tesla. But if Question 3 passes, opponents calculate there would be a $750 million drag on the economy and would leave the state among the highest cost places for corporations to do business.
The best course to achieve more funding for education is to have a thriving economy. Question 3 would have the opposite effect.
Certainly we need to do a better job in educating the youngsters who will be Nevada’s future. Business is neither blind nor indifferent to that truth. Business needs an increasingly educated workforce and that comes at a price. But Question 3’s blunt-edged approach is the wrong way to go about the task.
We think there’s great hope in the dialogue taking place between the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance and the Clark County Education Association. We salute the groups’ leaders — Tom Skancke and Vikki Courtney — for starting the kind of dialogue that can lead to mutual understanding and ultimately a real solution.
In the interim, we urge defeat of Question 3. By any name, it’s the wrong answer for Nevada.
