Please link me in the comments if these questions are being addressed and I’ll update this post accordingly, because all I’ve been seeing so far is a bunch of cheerleading masquerading as news.

1. If the tax burden on corporations and high-income taxpayers (referred to colloquially by Heineman and co. as “small businesses”) must be lowered in order to make Nebraska more “business friendly,” yet if the proposals are revenue neutral, who will be paying more to make up the difference?

2. Since the alleged economic benefits of lowering taxes on corporations and high-income taxpayers are accepted without any burden of proof being placed on those making the claims (even within a story in which companies have already moved here to take advantage of Nebraska’s offerings), what would be the economic impact of raising the taxes on those who will pay the difference required to make the proposals revenue neutral?

3. How does eliminating state income taxes and raising state sales taxes translate to higher tax receipts for cities? You’d think a story dedicated to that would explain the mechanism for reaching such a profound conclusion. What is the connection between an increase in state sales taxes and city tax receipts? Are we supposed to believe that people whose sales taxes are now higher are suddenly going to feel compelled to spend more money?

Of course, reporters are instead busy spreading completely unsubstantiated spin about the magical effects of the tax shift, referring to a regressive tax shift as ‘reform’ with no attibution, or reminding us (yet again) that Heineman was an Army Ranger.

UPDATES!
From the good people of Twitter (and if you’re not following me, do it):

@nealobermeyer I suspect for 1) he would insist that the extra investment that will surely occur would cover (most/much/some of) the costs.

— Brent C. Wilson (@MrWilson) January 22, 2013

@nealobermeyer – we had same discussion of OWH article at breakfast.How can there be no research or data? That is a wish, not a windfall!

— Cindy J Ryman Yost (@rymanyost) January 22, 2013

@nealobermeyer Well, there’s been a lot of discussion, but here’s me questioning the Gov on it directly. podcast.klin.com/klin/3820462.m…

— Jack Mitchell (@JackM_KLINRadio) January 22, 2013

@nealobermeyer My reaction to his explanation is that no income tax is sexy, but it sounds too good to be true.

— Jack Mitchell (@JackM_KLINRadio) January 22, 2013

@nealobermeyer Apparently talking about “modernizing” the tax code polls better than talking about taxing prescriptions.

— Andrew Monson (@andrewnm) January 22, 2013

@nealobermeyer 3 is true, though the extent to which it is true is debatable. City sales tax applies to the same things as state sales tax.

— Dave Sund (@davesund) January 22, 2013

@nealobermeyer So a removal of exemptions on state sales tax would also remove said exemptions from city sales tax. (1/2)

— Dave Sund (@davesund) January 22, 2013

@nealobermeyer and since cities have no income tax, it would be a net gain in revenue. (2/2)

— Dave Sund (@davesund) January 22, 2013

To which I responded that this assumption ignores the effects of regressive consumption taxes on levels of consumption, to which Dave replied:

@nealobermeyer This is true. It also ignores the very real policy reasons why some of these exemptions are there in first place.

— Dave Sund (@davesund) January 22, 2013

The LJS doesn’t run general thank-yous in their letters to the editor, so here is a letter I submitted to the paper that won’t otherwise see the light of day.

Thank you to the thousands of Lincolnites who once again came out to support the runners in this year’s marathon. Even though I use the crowd as a selling point when talking friends into signing up for the race, they’re still always surprised at the level of enthusiastic support. Your cheers and high-fives are greatly appreciated and a big part of why I – and surely thousands of others – come back each year.

Neal Obermeyer, Omaha