Constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote for renewal or expansion of all tax credits and rebate programs. (Item #21) (2/3 - CA13s1) (OR NO IMPACT See Note)
The bill's enactment would significantly impact state tax policy by adding a layer of legislative approval required for tax credits and rebates. This could hinder the state’s ability to implement timely tax incentives that might be needed for economic development or to respond to fiscal challenges. Proponents argue that such a measure promotes fiscal responsibility and limits the proliferation of tax incentives that may not yield adequate returns to the state.
Senate Bill 9 (SB9) proposes a constitutional amendment to the state of Louisiana's Article VII, Section 2. The amendment would mandate that a two-thirds vote from each house of the legislature be required for the creation, renewal, or expansion of tax credits and rebate programs. This proposed change is aimed at imposing stricter limitations on the legislature's ability to provide financial incentives through tax policy, thereby making it more challenging to introduce new tax benefits or expand existing ones.
The sentiment around SB9 appears to be largely supportive among those who prioritize fiscal conservatism and accountability in state finances. Advocates believe that limiting tax credits will ensure that any tax relief given has robust legislative support to back it. However, critics of the bill argue that it could prevent necessary fiscal tools from being utilized, particularly in times of economic downturn or when strategic incentives are needed to attract businesses and stimulate growth.
Notable points of contention surrounding SB9 center on the balance between fiscal prudence and the need for flexibility in tax policy. Opponents of the bill fear that it could cripple the state’s ability to adapt to changing economic conditions, as obtaining a two-thirds majority may prove difficult and time-consuming, thereby delaying potential benefits that tax credits and rebates can bring. This tension highlights a broader debate about the governance of fiscal tools within the state.