See if you can make sense of this language in SB #2322. Clue: It is somehow supposed to increase sales tax revenue for cities.
(c) (i) On or before August 15 of any fiscal year that follows a fiscal year in which the total sales tax revenue collected in such prior fiscal year exceeds by one percent (1%) or more the amount of sales tax revenue collected in the fiscal year immediately prior to that fiscal year (as certified by the Commissioner of Revenue), and each succeeding month thereafter through July 15 of a fiscal year in which subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph is implemented, an additional three-tenths of one percent (3/10 of 1%) of the total sales tax revenue collected during the preceding month under the provisions of this chapter, except that collected under the provisions of Sections 27-65-15, 27-65-19(3), 27-65-21 and 27-65-24, on business activities within a municipal corporation shall be allocated for distribution to the municipality and paid to the municipal corporation.
(ii) On or before August 15 of any fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which the diversion provided for in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph is implemented that follows a fiscal year in which the total sales tax revenue collected in such prior fiscal year exceeds by one percent (1%) or more the amount of sales tax revenue collected in the year prior to that fiscal year (as certified by the Commissioner of Revenue), and each succeeding month thereafter through July 15 of a fiscal year in which subparagraph (iii) of this paragraph is implemented, an additional six-tenths of one percent (6/10 of 1%) of the total sales tax revenue collected during the preceding month under the provisions of this chapter, except that collected under the provisions of Sections 27-65-15, 27-65-19(3), 27-65-21 and 27-65-24, on business activities within a municipal corporation shall be allocated for distribution to the municipality and paid to the municipal corporation.(iii) On or before August 15 of any fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which the diversion provided for in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph is implemented that follows a fiscal year in which the total sales tax revenue collected in such prior fiscal year exceeds by one percent (1%) or more the amount of sales tax revenue collected in the year prior to that fiscal year (as certified by the Commissioner of Revenue), and each succeeding month thereafter through July 15 of a fiscal year in which subparagraph (iv) of this paragraph is implemented, nine-tenths of one percent (9/10 of 1%) of the total sales tax revenue collected during the preceding month under the provisions of this chapter, except that collected under the provisions of Sections 27-65-15, 27-65-19(3), 27-65-21 and 27-65-24, on business activities within a municipal corporation shall be allocated for distribution to the municipality and paid to the municipal corporation.(iv) On or before August 15 of any fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which the diversion provided for in subparagraph (iii) of this paragraph is implemented that follows a fiscal year in which the total sales tax revenue collected in such prior fiscal year exceeds by one percent (1%) or more the amount of sales tax revenue collected in the year prior to that fiscal year (as certified by the Commissioner of Revenue), and each succeeding month thereafter through July 15 of a fiscal year in which subparagraph (v) of this paragraph is implemented, one and two-tenths percent (1-2/10%) of the total sales tax revenue collected during the preceding month under the provisions of this chapter, except that collected under the provisions of Sections 27-65-15, 27-65-19(3), 27-65-21 and 27-65-24, on business activities within a municipal corporation shall be allocated for distribution to the municipality and paid to the municipal corporation.(v) On or before August 15 of any fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which the diversion provided for in subparagraph (iv) of this paragraph is implemented that follows a fiscal year in which the total sales tax revenue collected in such prior fiscal year exceeds by one percent (1%) or more the amount of sales tax revenue collected in the year prior to that fiscal year (as certified by the Commissioner of Revenue), and each succeeding month thereafter, one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) of the total sales tax revenue collected during the preceding month under the provisions of this chapter, except that collected under the provisions of Sections 27-65-15, 27-65-19(3), 27-65-21 and 27-65-24, on business activities within a municipal corporation shall be allocated for distribution to the municipality and paid to the municipal corporation.(vi) The allocation of revenue for distribution to municipalities under this paragraph shall be designated as the Additional Sales Tax Revenue for Municipal Infrastructure Program. Revenue received by a municipality under this paragraph shall not be considered by a municipality as general fund revenue and may be expended by the municipality solely for water and sewer system projects and road, street and bridge repair, reconstruction and resurfacing projects.(vii) The Commissioner of Revenue shall, after the close of each fiscal year, certify to the Legislative Budget Office and the Governor as to whether sales tax revenue collections for that fiscal year increased by one percent (1%) or more over the prior fiscal year. If the certified increase is one percent (1%) or more the appropriate increase in the allocation of revenue for distribution to municipalities authorized under this paragraph (c) shall be implemented.
Are we confused? Copy of bill.
18 comments:
Legislature website says it died in committee.
Dems say pass it and then we'll read it.
Municipalities need to get a bill that allows them to install parking meters on the Walmart and dollar stores out on the bypass.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Homiday Inn express last night, but I still can't decipher the monkey pecking on a keyboard gibberish....
Dear Room Temperature IQ @ 4:26:
This bill was authored by a Republican and then co-authored by a whole list of Republicans. This is just another example of the bad leadership we have ruining our state. Tate's little bitches at work. All the while, he spends out of his $4.3 million campaign donations. Wake up Mississippi.
Mama's don't let your Yewts grow up to be legislative draft attorneys for hick leslatores... be they working for Mississippi. Doesn't matter if they Republican, Democrats or Indepebdahts.
Will check back later in the day to look for an intelligent post.
Oh , do tell who introduced this bill!
Also, please read Mississippi's Constitution and post the completely incomprehensible section. You'll know it when you try to read it though quite a few sections are poorly written.
Members take a concept to the Legislature's lawyers. The drafters (the lawyers) work with the current code to draft a bill that produces an outcome the member wants.
Sometimes that can be very complicated. Legislation can affect multiple code sections. And words matter - so it can be a challenge to draft legislation around what might be a stupid idea.
Sometimes you get gobbledygook like this. And it dies.
The point of the post was not to promote or kill the bill but to show this kind of crap. No one has yet to translate this into plain English or tell us what it means.
And you guys laughed at the video of the carjackers... Different dialect, same inability to communicate.
A quick web search shows this same bill was introduced in at least five other states. Love these ALEC copy 'n paste specials.
6:17 You'll never read anything on this website again. Sorry.
6:17 You'll never read anything on this website again. Sorry.
Least of all comments from non-thinkers like @8:24 PM.
Sen. David Parker of Olive Branch was the author, yet it had many co-sponsors.
Another revenue bill--HB 1126 died on the calendar. The purpose was to transfer the responsibility from the State Auditor to the Dept of Revenue for making a report of revenue collected by all the political subdivisions of the state. The state treasury needs the money more than municipalities. The HB 1126 would also track locally diverted revenue like SB 2322 would create.
This is a "phase-in." The purpose of the verbose language is to make sure the change in the diversion occurs gradually, and only when revenue rises. And no, I'm not a lawyer, but I have read a lot of bills.
Currently Municipalities receive 17 percent of the 7 percent collected. In the past they received 18 percent. this bill would bring that number back to 18 percent over a set number of years, but only if the state had a certain rate of growth, so as the increase would come from new revenues and not existing revenues so as not to cost the state any money out of its budget. All in all not a bad idea.
Currently Municipalities receive 17 percent of the 7 percent collected. In the past they received 18 percent
Incorrect.
Years ago cities and towns set their own municipal sales tax creating a hodgepodge of tax jurisdictions across the state. The state raised the state sales tax, abolished municipal sales taxes (of course there are special exceptions), and now returns 18.5 percent of the sales tax revenue collected in that jurisdiction back to the city or town. I haven't re-read the bill but as I recall this bill would phase in an increase of the return from 18.5 percent to 20 percent over a period of years. The increased revenue returned to the municipality would be restricted to infrastructure. The phase in would only occur if the state saw sales tax revenue increase. This doesn't raise taxes. It lets local government keep a larger share of current taxes.
Post a Comment