Lobbying groups have taken the debate to the various municipalities and local governments in an effort to keep the dialogue alive, warning that legislation they oppose may surface again.
One of the items that has drawn a significant amount of discussion is the proposed elimination of the automobile tag tax that was part of a tax reform package that eventually got an OK from the House, but died in the Senate. Local officials say they’re afraid such a proposal, if it resurfaces, will leave counties, cities and school boards looking for ways to make up for funds generated by the tag tax.
“You can always eliminate a tax; all it takes is a vote,” Dougherty County Commissioner Chuck Lingle, who is on the commission’s finance committee, said. “But you can’t eliminate a need. I’m concerned that citizens are being told the Legislature turned down an opportunity to offer tax reform when they didn’t approve this measure.
“Sure, the tax tag would have been eliminated (if the legislation had passed), but the question is where would the money to make up for it have come from? That revenue stream was going to be maintained; we were going to have to continue selling the tags. But there would have been no funds to make up for the lost revenue (from the tax).”
Dougherty Tax Director Denver Hooten said elimination of the automobile tag tax would have been devastating for the county.
“There would have been around $7 1/2 million — plus another $360,000 in fees — that the city, county and school board would have had to account for,” Hooten said. “My problem with that proposal was that it did not offer a means through which that money would have been replaced. The county would have faced the option of raising the millage rate or cutting services.
“The work (of distributing automobile tags) is an unfunded state mandate. We have no choice but to do it. With the elimination of that tax, the question would have been how are we going to pay for it.”
State District 152 Rep. Ed Rynders, R-Leesburg, said the bill had provided a means to replace the funds, but that he had a more basic concern.
“I just don’t see anything wrong with letting the people vote on how they want to be taxed,” he said.
The reform package would have required amending the state Constitution, which must ultimately be approved by Georgia’s voters.
Rynders went on to say that lobbying groups should be looking for ways to provide tax relief rather than focusing on failed legislation that attempted to lower the tax burden.
“There are a number of groups whose lobbyists have picked apart the legislation (presented during the session), but I haven’t heard any new ideas from them,” he said. “I certainly encourage all who have concerns (about the tax burden) to offer suggestions on how we’re going to provide relief.
“I find it interesting that some people who want to let the people decide on how they want to be governed — i.e., through consolidation — don’t want to let people vote on how they’re going to be taxed.”
Such discussion could be considered moot, given the legislative vote, but few believe that the issue is going away.
“We do need tax reform, but we don’t need such poorly thought-out legislation,” Lingle said. “The state doesn’t need to pass this type of legislation and then look to the counties, cities and school boards and say, ‘Y’all deal with it.’ They worked from crisis mode (during the session) and came up with a plan that just couldn’t work.”
Hooten said she expects the proposed legislation to resurface.
“That’s not going away; I expect we’ll see it again,” she said. “It’s a political thing, and that’s what’s driving it. We just need to make sure all the misconceptions are cleared up, that people know what they’re getting.
“(Tax officials across the state) are the ones who will have to deal with measures taken by the Legislature. If we’re going to change the system, it should be in a manner that provides an alternate means of collecting lost revenue.”