The Hayseeds blog, No. 241 for the week starting January 20, 2008.
Albany to Get 115% AIM Increase.
Don't Get Caught with the Baggy
NYS Board of Elections Says No to DREs
Boondocks is about farms, rural life, and power toys.
Energy looks at high energy prices and our future.
Enviroman looks at man and the environment.
Individual looks at myself and how I'm changing
Outblog is all about my outdoor experiences.
Transit looks at the changing ways we get around.
Truck gives you stories and trips in my Ford Ranger.
Spitzer has a great accessable website with all the details.
Here are some interesting tidbits.
The State's AIM program that gives muncipalities from 3 to 13.5% increase in aid gave Albany an increase of 1.5 million for a total of 14.5 million in AIM funds this year.
This money should help the city out nicely balance it books. It was calculated by a relatively consistant formula:
The continuation of a four-year, $200 million commitment of annual increases in State aid targeted to distressed municipalities: AIM increases ranging from 3 to 9 percent will again be provided to municipalities based on their level of fiscal distress. Fiscal distress is measured using indicators that include:
- Full valuation of taxable real property per capita less than 50 percent of the statewide average.
- More than 60 percent of the Constitutional property tax limit exhausted.
- Population loss greater than 10 percent since 1970.
- Poverty rate greater than 150 percent of the statewide average.
Over the four-year period from 2007-08 to 2010-11, annual increases are awarded to eligible cities, large towns and large villages with per capita taxable property wealth below the statewide average as follows:
- 9 percent if all four distress indicators are met.
- 7 percent if three distress indicators are met.
- 5 percent if one or two distress indicators are met.
- 4.5 percent maximum additional increase if these municipalities receive significantly less aid than their peers on a per capita basis.
A 5 percent increase in aid is provided to small towns (population less than 15,000) and small villages (population less than 10,000) that meet at least one of the distress criteria and have per capita taxable property wealth below the statewide average.
Municipalities that do not meet the above criteria receive a 3 percent inflationary increase.
More about it Local Government Assistance Little Book Page and actual funding numbers.
Or plan to pay taxes to New York State. I'm not making this up in Part G of the Revenue Bill:
Part G– Require a tax stamp on illegal drugs.
Purpose:
This bill improves the enforcement and tracking of illegal drug trafficking by requiring all marihuana and controlled substances to have a tax stamp.
Summary of Provisions, Existing Law, Prior Legislative History, and Statement in Support:
This bill would amend the Tax Law to add a new Article 17-A, requiring a tax stamp on all marihuana and controlled substances acquired or possessed by a dealer in this state. Marihuana and controlled substance are defined in the bill to parallel existing definitions in the Penal Law and Public Health Law. Under the bill, “dealer” encompasses every person who manufactures, produces, acquires, possesses, ships, sells, distributes, transfers or transports in this state, or imports or causes to be imported into the state, marihuana or a controlled substance.
The bill sets a tax stamp rate for marihuana of $3.50 per gram, and of a controlled substance at $200.00 per gram or fraction thereof, whether pure or dilute. The tax is paid by the dealer, in advance of his or her receipt of the marihuana or controlled substance, through the purchase of tax stamps from the Department of Taxation and Finance (“Department”). Upon receipt of the product, the dealer must affix enough stamps to the packages of marihuana or the controlled substance in order to show the tax has been fully paid.
All marihuana and controlled substances within the State are presumed subject to the tax. The bill exempts from the tax, however, all marihuana and controlled substances acquired or possessed by the United States, by the State of New York and its legal subdivisions, or by an employee of a state, local or federal government who legally acquires or possess the product as part of his official duties. In addition, anyone lawfully acquiring or possessing marihuana or a controlled substance, e.g. pursuant to Article 33 of the Public Health Law, is exempt from tax.
The bill requires prompt notification of the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (“Commissioner”) by all law enforcement agencies and district attorneys who obtain any information that indicates that a dealer has failed to pay the tax due under Article 17-A. This requirement does not apply, however, if providing the information would violate a legal prohibition or would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution.The bill contains a unique and strict secrecy requirement, preserving the confidentiality of any information obtained from a dealer under Article 17-A. Disclosure of this information is generally prohibited, although it may be disclosed for purposes of a criminal or civil proceeding involving taxes under Article 17-A. However, the bill specifically provides that none of the information may be used against the dealer in any criminal proceeding (other than a tax crime) unless it has been obtained independently.
The bill provides that all moneys received under Article 17-A are to be deposited into the general fund of the state.
A wide array of enforcement provisions is set out in the bill to ensure proper collection of the tax. These provisions include a civil penalty for failure to pay the tax, an authorization of jeopardy tax assessments, and criminal sanctions for various offenses.
Twenty-nine states– Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have passed tax liability legislation for controlled substances.
Budget Implications:
Enactment of this bill is necessary to implement the 2008-09 Executive Budget because it would increase revenues by $13 million in 2008-09 and $17 million thereafter.
Effective Date:
This bill will take effect 90 days after it becomes law and will apply to marihuana and controlled substances possessed in the state on or after that date.
I guess that really gets a few snickers out of people who believe New York is trying to tax everything that isn't tied down.
So if your selling illicit drugs, make sure to report them to the Division of Taxation and Finance. Your confidentiality will be protected. And if your caught, don't be surprised to be required to pay taxes on your drugs.
If you drink Mike's Hard Lemonade or Schminoff's Ice, then you probably quite interested in Part C of the revenue bill that if passed means you will be paying significantly more for this if the state starts to consider it liquor rather then regularly taxed beer:
Part C– Apply the tax on flavored malt beverages at the low liquor tax rate.
Purpose:
This bill would place flavored malt beverages in a new, separate category of alcoholic beverages for purposes of the alcoholic beverage excise tax and impose the excise tax on this category at the low liquor tax rate.
Summary of Provisions, Existing Law, Prior Legislative History, and Statement in Support:
Sections 1 through 6 of the bill would amend the definition and imposition provisions of the alcoholic beverage excise tax in Article 18 of the Tax Law to impose a separate tax on flavored malt beverages. Flavored malt beverages would consist of both malt and liquor with an alcohol content of more than one half percent and no more than twenty-four percent by volume of alcohol. Other definitions in the excise tax would be conformed. Flavored malt beverages would be taxed at the rate of $2.54 per gallon, the equivalent rate in gallons of the low liquor rate of 67 cents per liter.
Section 7 of the bill would amend the opening paragraph of Tax Law § 424(g)(1) to include references to volume of flavored malt beverages and wine where there is a reference to the gallonage of beer. Section 8 of the bill would make conforming amendments to that same opening paragraph for when its provisions revert back to the default version.
Sections 9 through 12 of the bill would conform various provisions of Article 18 to the addition of the new flavored malt beverages category and would make clear that flavored malt beverages are to be administered under the excise tax like beer and wine, rather than liquor. As a technical matter, references to wine also would be added whenever gallons are the measuring unit since wine is currently taxed on a per gallon basis.
Section 13 of the bill would give a city of a million or more the option to impose a tax on flavored malt beverages. The City tax rate on flavored malt beverages could be imposed at a rate of 39 cents per gallon.
Section 14 of the bill would provide for a state floor tax to be imposed at a rate of $2.43 per gallon on any flavored malt beverages in the possession or control on June 3, 2008 of any manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer, as defined in the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, including any distributor, as defined in Article 18 of the Tax Law. This floor tax would be imposed on amounts in excess of 50 gallons and generally would be payable in two payments before the end of 2008. If a city imposes a tax on flavored malt beverages to be effective on June 3, 2008, the bill also provides for a city floor tax, identical in operation to the state floor tax, at a rate of 27 cents per gallon at the same time as the floor tax for the state. However, if the city does not exercise this option for June 3, 2008, Tax Law § 445(2) will not apply and there will not be a city floor tax.
Section 15 of the bill provides that the bill would take effect on June 3, 2008, and explains the effect on amendments to provisions that are scheduled to revert or expire under current law. Further, section 8 of the bill, amending the opening paragraph of Tax Law § 424(g), would take effect on the same date that the provisions of that opening paragraph revert as set forth in section 16 of Chapter 508 of the Laws of 1993, as amended.
Currently, flavored malt beverages are classified and taxed as beer at a rate of eleven cents per gallon under Article 18 of the Tax Law and at a rate of twelve cents per gallon under Title 11 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Flavored malt beverages are also distributed and regulated like beer.
This bill would create an alcoholic beverage category of flavored malt beverages for tax purposes under Article 18 of the Tax Law and would tax them at the low liquor rate for New York State. This bill would not, however, change how flavored malt beverages are distributed and regulated.
This bill would also give a city of a million or more the option to tax this new category of flavored malt beverages at a higher rate than beer. If a city does not exercise this option, it will no longer be able to tax these products at all, even as beer. The products currently are taxed as beer, yet their flavor predominantly comes from and is intended to resemble that of liquor.
Budget Implications:
This bill would generate approximately $15 million and its enactment is necessary to implement the 2008-2009 Executive Budget.
Effective Date:
This bill would take effect on June 3, 2008 and sets forth certain qualifications pertaining to the effective date of the bill.
Updated: Newsday says this would be the cost of the bill:
Alcohol was also targeted in the budget proposal. One bill would place flavored malt beverages, such as hard lemonade, in a new, separate category of alcoholic beverages for taxing purposes. They would be taxed at the rate of $2.54 per gallon or 67 cents per liter. Beer is taxed at 11 cents per gallon.
This is interesting even though none of the media (until later today) has mentioned this at all. Liquor and wine is so over priced in our state, especially compared to New Hampshire as all the liquor stores are privately owned and highly taxed on top.
At least it will still be available at grocery stores, but just at a higher price.
Maybe this is just another excuse to go to New Hampshire.
For those with a little time on your hands and want to look up the state budget bills on LRS here are the numbers for the bills for your reference:
| Appropriation (Article IX) Bill No. | 2008-2009 Budget Name | Language Bill No. |
| Public Protection and General Government Budget |
|
| Legislature and Judiciary Budget
| Not Applicable | |
|
| State Debt Budget | Not Applicable |
| Education, Labor, and Family Assistance Budget |
| |
Health and Mental Hygiene Budget | ||
| Transportation, Economic Development and Environmental Conservation Budget |
|
| Not Applicable | Revenue Bill
|
Not all of the bills and memos are online, but you can read them on the Division of Budget Website.
While I was not as worried as some activists about the possibility of fraud with voting machines, I am quite happy with the news that the board of elections choose ballot marking devices for disabled people compatible with optical scan machines that work a lot like scantron standardized tests.
I believe this system is much simpler, and more reliable. Hopefully now they will continue on and buy the ballot scanners, and we will ultimately have a cheap, simple, and reliable system for counting the votes in New York State, and move forward from what seemed like an endless battle over election machines.
From New Yorkers for Verified Voting's Bo Lipari blog:
I'm pleased to announce that after five years of hard work on the part of voting integrity advocates, New York State has rejected DREs and approved only the Automark and the Sequoia ImageCast scanner/marker for use in 2008 polling places. This momentous decision by the State Board of Elections virtually guarantees that New York State will vote on paper ballots and ballot scanners when it finally replaces lever machines in 2009.
Those of you who were with us at the beginning five years ago know what an enormous victory this is. When I first started traveling, presenting and advocating in New York, election officials, political parties, and machnne vendors assumed that New York State was going to be a DRE state. Precinct scanners were not under discussion, and only DREs were offered by vendors. Our experience over these five years reflects the truth of Gandhi's statement - indeed we were ignored, then laughed at, then fought bitterly by the voting machine vendors and their supporters in the election establishment. But finally, truth has prevailed, and what seemed like an impossible dream in 2003 has been made real by our hard work - New York State will be a paper ballot state...
...While technically it is possible for a DRE vendor to submit and win approval for the 2009 lever machine replacement, this is highly unlikely as at least half of the HAVA funds will be spent on scanner compatible ballot markers. Since all the approved systems are components of a precinct based scanner system the least expensive path, and the only sensible one, is for counties to complete their HAVA implementation with paper ballots and scanners. We've learned to never be complacent, but this time we have reason to be confident that the scanner compatible choices of today will inevitably lead to paper ballots for all New York voters tomorrow.
I think this is great from a sustainability and accuracy standpoint. We don't want computer voting machines that have to be tossed out in a couple of years because they break or are old technology. It's hard to have machine failures when you have written ballots. It's hard to tamper with them when they are stored in lock boxes with proper chains of custodies.
