My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.1. ERMUSR 03-13-2013
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2013
>
03-19-2013
>
6.1. ERMUSR 03-13-2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2013 2:11:33 PM
Creation date
4/26/2013 1:54:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
3/13/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 1 of 1 <br />Muni Bond Tax Exemption Repeal Could Spike Borrowing <br />Costs by 50% <br />BY: Liz Farmer I February 28, 2013 <br />Total borrowing costs for cities, counties and states could increase by more than 50 percent if the tax - <br />exempt status of municipal bonds is repealed as part of the ongoing budget talks on Capitol Hill, a new <br />report has found. <br />Interest costs in 2012 alone would have increased by nearly $54 billion to $154 billion if those muni bonds <br />issued had been taxed by the federal government, according to the report, "Protecting Bonds to Save <br />Infrastructure and Jobs," which was released Wednesday and was a joint effort by the National Association <br />of Counties, the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Over the past decade, the <br />report said, state and local governments financed over $1.65 trillion of infrastructure investment using tax - <br />exempt bonds. <br />The report comes as state and local officials are stepping up efforts to convince national leaders that the tax - <br />exempt status of municipal bonds is a bigger win for local jobs and the middle class than it is for some of the <br />wealthy individuals who may invest in the bonds. <br />"I don't believe we have made [that argument] tangible to individuals," said Houston City Controller Ronald <br />Green during a press conference following the report's release in Washington, D.C. He added that much of <br />the information about the muni bond debate has revolved around the math: Will Congress fully eliminate the <br />tax - exempt status or include it in an overall 28 percent cap on deductions by wealthy individuals? <br />"All of that means nothing unless you drive it down to who benefits from this," said Green, who is also a <br />member of the NLC. "While you may have people in upper level in tax brackets who invest in those bonds, <br />the people who actually get the jobs from that are those people who live ... in the 19,000 cities we <br />represent." <br />According to the report, 90 percent of muni bond financing over the past decade nationwide went toward <br />schools, hospitals, water infrastructure, sewer facilities, public power utilities, roads and mass transit. <br />Schools received the biggest share, with more than $514 billion in bonds issued. Hospitals came in second <br />with nearly $288 billion in bond financing. <br />If the tax - exempt status of municipal bonds were removed, issuers would have to increase the rate of return <br />on those bonds to still make it worth investors' while. That means it would cost more to borrow the same <br />amount, which municipalities say would lead to less borrowing and fewer infrastructure projects. <br />"If we're building less ... you have fewer construction jobs, you have less economic opportunity," said Mesa, <br />Ariz., Mayor Scott Smith. "This kind of action -- while it appears that it solves Washington's problem -- has a <br />ripple effect that is beyond significance." <br />The tax exemption comes at a cost of about $40 billion annually in lost revenue to the U.S. Treasury, <br />according to some estimates, and for two years Capitol Hill lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have talked <br />about changing that status as part of the national budget and spending debate. <br />Although the bonds were not affected by the January fiscal cliff deal, Smith said the continued budget <br />debate on Capitol Hill has created a "new sense of urgency" as key deadlines approach beginning in March. <br />"We see this as one of the options that's still on the table that hasn't been eliminated [and] I think people are <br />more willing to listen now," Smith said. "I think they talked about it but no one took it seriously.... And we <br />need to let people know, what does it really mean ?" <br />This article was printed from: http: / /www. governing .com /news /state /gov -muni- bond -tax- <br />exemption- repeal - could -spi ke- borrowing- costs- by- 50- percent.html <br />http: / /www.goveming.com/ templates /gov_print_article ?id = 193647361 3/1/2013 <br />• <br />is <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.