Real Life Examples of LA Amendment 3

if that amendment gets passed, the voting is surely rigged

I'm voting no on all of the amendments except for the tuition amendment.

#5 is the worst. I read it three times and still don't know what it said.

You would have to have a significantly different federal taxable income from LA taxable income (like because of use of NOLs or certain deductions).

quote:

---

#5 is the worst. I read it three times and still don't know what it said.

---

'
Number 5 creates a new constitutional dedication fund. Right now, mineral revenue over a certain amount goes into the rainy day fund. This amendment creates a lower amount, and the money that falls in between these two levels, would go into this new fund, which would be used to pay down the UAL and can be used for capital spending.

It also creates a threshold for corporate income tax revenue, and the amount over the level goes into the same fund.

If revenues were to be raised, it would force the state to save some of that money and/or pay down the UAL. However, it requires it to be spent in those ways. If there was a better way to spend the money, they would not be able to do so.

I generally favor giving the legislature more freedom over how to budget, as opposed to less.

quote:

---

I voted no for the tuition amendment..

---

I'm curious what your reasoning was.

Has anyone heard of any reason why this would be proposed as a constitutional amendment rather than a statute, other than the typical reason that the legislators don't want to risk taking a vote on anything? I'm not necessarily opposed to it in principle, but I really have a problem with setting the tax rate through a constitutional amendment.

quote:

---

Has anyone heard of any reason why this would be proposed as a constitutional amendment rather than a statute, other than the typical reason that the legislators don't want to risk taking a vote on anything? I'm not necessarily opposed to it in principle, but I really have a problem with setting the tax rate through a constitutional amendment.

---

Currently, the constitution allows the federal tax deduction. So the only way to remove it is to amend the constitution. See the actual language here LINK

However, the tax RATE is not and will not be part of the constitution... that will still be in the revised statues.

quote:

---

Well, maybe I misunderstood it then. Where is the 6.5% referenced in the PAR report coming from?

---

It's confusing as hell, but Act 8 of the First 2016 Special amended the RS to put in the flat rate, however, that Act had a trigger in it that the Act 8 only becomes operative if the related amendment (Act 31) to the constitution passes.

ETA: Here is Act 8 LINK

quote:

---

Why is that?

---

Simple...incompetent leadership at LA Universities.