Iowa taxpayers deserve constitutional protection. This November, Iowans will be asked to vote on a simple constitutional amendment on whether it should be more difficult for the legislature to increase income taxes. Specifically, the amendment would require a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of the legislature to increase income taxes.
Such an amendment would provide Iowa taxpayers permanent protection, while giving politicians an allowance instead of a blank check for spending.
A recent poll demonstrated that close to 74 percent of Iowans believe that making it more difficult to increase income taxes is a commonsense taxpayer protection. This important taxpayer protection is also supported by 72 percent of independent and 60 percent of Democratic voters. This means that the proposed supermajority amendment receives overwhelmingly bipartisan support.
Specifically, the proposed taxpayer protection amendment in Iowa would be a benefit for all income taxpayers. This includes families, individuals, business owners and farmers.
Requiring a supermajority to increase taxes is not a new idea. Currently, 16 states have some form of supermajority requirement either in their constitution or within the code. These states are also politically diverse. Progressive states such as California and Colorado have a supermajority requirement. At the same time, swing states such as Arizona and Wisconsin, and conservative states such as Mississippi all have a supermajority amendment.
A supermajority amendment serves as an important taxpayer protection. Too often it becomes easy for government to increase spending, because there is always an abundance of somebody wanting more. Then if the state is confronted with a budget shortage, the easiest solution too often is we need to raise taxes.
The taxpayers of Iowa are the heartbeat of Iowa’s economy and when they don’t have enough money, they are forced to find ways to reduce their spending. The government should be held to the same standard, to live within their means. Fact is, all you have to do is look at states that have a history of running to the taxpayers for more of their money to pay for the government’s lack of discipline. These states never solve their problem of spending too much.
Perhaps the state of Washington serves as the most cautionary example. Taxpayers in the Evergreen State have voted to approve a supermajority requirement several times, only to have either the courts or the legislature deny implementation. Instead of tax restraint, yearly tax increases are now the norm. Also, Washington, which previously had no income tax at all, recently passed legislation creating one to address a budget shortfall, and to increase spending.
Iowa only needs to look at its Minnesota and Illinois neighbors to see the consequence of what happens when a state continues to follow a path of increased spending and taxes. A lesson can be learned that states that continue to tax and spend heavily find themselves in a fiscal crisis, but also the consequence of taxpayers fleeing their states. The last few years have witnessed a mass exodus of taxpayers leaving high tax and spending states.
A benefit of a supermajority amendment is that it also serves as a restraint on spending. Too often special interests demand increased spending, while taxpayers are forced to abide by limits to their own budget.
A two-thirds requirement would force legislators to find consensus before raising income taxes. This means that politicians will have to justify why a tax increase is necessary on order to get the support from taxpayers.
Iowa has made historic progress when it comes to lower income tax rates. Iowa led the nation in the state “flat tax revolution,” and a supermajority amendment would help secure the 3.8 percent flat tax.
This November, Iowa taxpayers are on the ballot. Too often they are asked to vote on measures that often lead to higher taxes, now it is their turn to vote on a taxpayer protection that places them first rather than some special interest.
