Legislature sends governor bill imposing tax on nonprofit lab contractor
By Steve Terrell, Santa Fe New Mexican
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/805455/legislature-sends-governor-bill-imposing-tax-on-nonprofit-lab-contractor/
Gov. Susana Martinez will have to decide whether to sign a bill designed to prevent the state government, as well as local governments in Northern New Mexico, from losing tax revenue if a nonprofit university takes over management of Los Alamos National Laboratory later this year.
Rep. Jason Harper, R-Rio Rancho, who has pushed for a comprehensive overhaul of the state’s tax structure, argued against the bill saying, “Tax policy should be uniform, broad and neutral. … It shouldn’t pick winners and losers.”
Harper said he recently received a call from a member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee who was concerned about the bill. The congressman told him, “It looks like the state is telling the labs how to run the labs,” Harper said, adding, “I’m worried this sends a message to some folks that we’re ungrateful.”
10 comments:
“Tax policy should be uniform, broad and neutral. … It shouldn’t pick winners and losers.”
Well maybe in the United States but not in New Mexico.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. In so many ways. The GRT law
1) Violates equal protection by singling out national labs.
2) Sets up a legal battle between the new contractor and the state.
3) Interferes with an ongoing prime contract competition.
4) Helps for-profit bidders and hurts nonprofit bidders.
5) Costs the lab roughly $10,000 per regular employee.
6) Increases the extreme cost of doing work at LANL.
7) Deteriorates work conditions at the lab.
8) Makes LANL less competitive.
9) Encourages other states to set up tax incentives to attract NNSA work now at Los Alamos.
10) Encourages NNSA to move work elsewhere.
11) Puts LANL’s future at risk.
12) Paves the way to taxing all NM nonprfits.
Wow, you have provided long term thinking and what the consequences would be. Not the New Mexican way so I am afraid your points invalid.
>1) Violates equal protection by singling out national labs.
I thought that was the whole point. Some places are more equal than others.
>2) Sets up a legal battle between the new contractor and the state.
We will get to that battle when it comes. Besides all the lab have to do is stay for profit and it will not have to get to this.
>3) Interferes with an ongoing prime contract competition.
Yes that is the goal. Kinda of obvious.
> 4) Helps for-profit bidders and hurts nonprofit bidders.
Again if the lab just stays for profit than none of this is a problem. See where I am going with this?
>5) Costs the lab roughly $10,000 per regular employee.
So what, price of doing business .
>6) Increases the extreme cost of doing work at LANL.
Who cares, not our problem.
>7) Deteriorates work conditions at the lab.
Why is this even a relevant point? As the say in court "Objection you honor, irrelevant"
>8) Makes LANL less competitive.
See above
>9) Encourages other states to set up tax incentives to attract NNSA work now at Los Alamos.
What are these other states you speak of? Besides that would happen in the far off future of two or three years, so who cares.
>10) Encourages NNSA to move work elsewhere.
We simply will not consider this, beside it would occur on 3-5 year timeline which far beyond what anyone cares about.
>11) Puts LANL’s future at risk.
LANL has always been, always will be, so money from the LANL will always be. We do not deal in hypotheticals we deal in facts and LANL has been for profit for the last 12 years and NM did just fine thank you.
>12) Paves the way to taxing all NM nonprfits.
This will be done on case by case and will depend on how much money could be made, political expediency ect. But thanks for the great idea, if we can push this through it opens up all kinds of opportunities for new tax revenue in NM.
Article I, Section 10 of the US constitution bans "bills of attainder" under state laws. This seems to apply here. Removing rights for specific people or organizations without trial under the law.
Article I, Section 10 of the US constitution bans "bills of attainder" under state laws. This seems to apply here. Removing rights for specific people or organizations without trial under the law.
February 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM
Excuse me but this applies to the United States not to New Mexico.
Read Section 10, not Section 9. It starts: "No State shall..." Yes it applies to NM.
Read Section 10, not Section 9. It starts: "No State shall..." Yes it applies to NM.
February 17, 2018 at 4:18 PM
I completely agree, I think New Mexico knows this is not even legal but just want to try to influence process any way the can to keep it for profit.
Hard to face it, but the state of NM, the county of LA and the city of LA only view LANL as a cash cow to supply an unending, and ever increasing revenue stream for the use of the locals. Look at how greed has come out in the contract recompete and at each level the government tax authority is already yelling for a larger slice of the money. Any hope of LANL being focused on a National service mission has lost in this scramble for more and more local money from the operation.
"Hard to face it, but the state of NM, the county of LA and the city of LA only view LANL as a cash cow to supply an unending, and ever increasing revenue stream for the use of the locals. Look at how greed has come out in the contract recompete and at each level the government tax authority is already yelling for a larger slice of the money. Any hope of LANL being focused on a National service mission has lost in this scramble for more and more local money from the operation."
February 20, 2018 at 8:42 AM
This is because the vast majority no longer believes the deterrent is a "national service" anymore.... Sad and short sighted.
Hard to face it, but the state of NM, the county of LA and the city of LA only view LANL as a cash cow...
February 20, 2018 at 8:42 AM
You don't live in Los Alamos, or you'd realize that the "county" and the "city" are the same governmental entity, the only "class H" county in NM. Outsider with no real basis for an opinion.
Post a Comment