Senate has rival
plan for tax cuts House OKs Sanford's
across-the-board trim; senators urge limits HENRY EICHEL Columbia Bureau
COLUMBIA - For the second year in a row,
the S.C. Senate is balking at approving Gov. Mark Sanford's plan to
roll back the state income tax for everyone. Although Sanford's plan
has passed the House, all but 10 of the 46 senators have signed on
as co-sponsors of a much more limited tax cut.
A Senate Finance subcommittee is scheduled to take up the two
measures this afternoon.
Sen. Wes Hayes, R-Rock Hill, the subcommittee co-chairman, said
the panel might not reach a vote today on which bill to send
forward. "We have a number of people who we want to hear from, so it
may take us more than one meeting," he said.
Ever since his election campaign in 2002, Sanford, a Republican
serving his first term, has promoted the idea of cutting the top
state income tax rate from its current 7 percent to under 5 percent.
Traveling the state last fall to build support for his agenda, the
governor said a lower tax rate would encourage entrepreneurs and
wealthy retirees to move to South Carolina, thus bringing jobs and
capital.
"It's the number one thing we're going to be asking for; it goes
to the heart of how competitive we are as a state," Sanford said in
a speech at Orangeburg in November.
The House gave him what he asked for, approving by a 73-39 vote a
plan to cut the top income tax rate to 4.75 percent over 10
years.
Although anyone with a taxable income of at least $12,650 would
see some savings, the biggest benefits would go to higher-income
people. A family of four earning $40,000 a year would keep an extra
$9.60 a week. A family of four with an annual income of $100,000
would see a savings of $38 a week.
The state Board of Economic Advisors says Sanford's plan would
reduce state revenues by nearly $1 billion by 2015, when it would be
fully phased in. The cut would only come in years when total state
tax revenues grow by more than 2 percent.
Democratic lawmakers, who are a minority in both the House and
Senate, criticize the governor's plan as diverting money that should
be spent on education, health care and state employees. Seventeen
Democratic senators have joined 19 Republicans in backing an
alternative bill by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hugh
Leatherman, R-Florence.
Leatherman's bill would affect only small-business owners who are
required to file their taxes in certain categories, such as sole
proprietorships, some limited liability partnerships and some types
of smaller corporations. The bill would give them a maximum income
tax rate of 5 percent, compared with the 7 percent they now pay.
Corporations already pay a top rate of 5 percent. The cut would
be phased in over four years and cost the state about $100 million
-- one-tenth of the governor's plan. Sanford has said one goal of
his plan is to even out the tax inequity between small and large
businesses.
Hayes said Tuesday that before he makes up his mind on which bill
to support, he wants to hear from state revenue officials and
economic experts.
"I just want to make sure that a lot of what's going around is
based on fact as opposed to just people's feelings," he said.
How Each Plan Would Work
Gov. Sanford's plan: Anyone who earns a taxable income of
at least $12,650, including individuals and small businesses.
Sen. Leatherman's plan: Businesses registered as "S"
corporations, sole proprietors and some limited liability
companies.
WHAT WOULD EACH DO?
Gov. Sanford's plan: Lower income taxes over 10 years,
down to 4.75 percent from the current 7 percent.
Sen. Leatherman's plan: Lower taxes over four years on
company profits, down to 5 percent from the current 7 percent
HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST?
Gov. Sanford's plan: About $960 million a year once it
is fully in effect.
Sen. Leatherman's plan: About $100 million a year once it
is fully in effect.
WHO SUPPORTS IT?
Gov. Sanford's plan: The S.C. House passed it in
February by a 73-39 vote.
Sen. Leatherman's plan: All but 10 of the 46 Senate
members have signed on as co-sponsors.
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
contributed.
|