HB 1027 – Minimum Wage and Inheritance Tax

Lots of amendments biting the dust on Second Reading for House Bill 1027.

(Just a refresher civics course here — the life of a bill is that it’s introduced and after First Reading, it goes to committee where committee members can pass it, amend it and pass it, or kill it. It comes out of committee and undergoes Second Reading where any member of the chamber can propose an amendment. Finally, it undergoes Third Reading where the members vote on final passage. If it clears that stage, it gets referred to the other chamber (House bills go to the Senate & vice versa). The bill undergoes the same process in the second chamber. If it comes out unchanged, then it goes to the Governor. If it is changed, it goes to a conference committee where the Senate and House try to hammer out their differences. The conference committee version of the bill goes to both chambers for a final vote, and if it gets approved by both chambers, it goes to the Governor. Anyone else have the Schoolhouse Rock “I’m Just a Bill” going through their heads at this point?)

So, back to HB 1027. If you’ll recall, this is the one that started as a minimum wage increase bill. In committee, the Democrats voted to add an amendment that doubled the inheritance tax exemption. The Republicans objected, wanting to eliminate the inheritance tax instead.

Now, on Second Reading, a series of proposed amendments have gone down to defeat, apparently along party lines. Rep. T. Brown’s amendment would have excluded from the minimum wage requirements any employer “that offers health care benefits to its employees, including coverage for medical care, prescription drugs, vision care, medical savings accounts, or any other health related benefit.” That amendment was defeated 48 to 50.

Representative Davis’s amendment would have exempted an employer with less than $500,000 of gross revenue in a year. It was defeated 48 to 50.

Representative Stutzman’s amendment would have exempted an employer that is exempt from federal gross income tax under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Defeated 48 to 50.

Rep. Ripley’s amendment would have amended a provision with which I am unfamiliar called the Skills 2016 Training Program which is part of the unemployment compensation system. Apparently employers are currently required to pay nine one hundredth’s percent (0.0009) of their prior year’s taxable wages to fund this program. Rep. Ripley’s amendment would have exempted from this requirement those employers with gross annual revenues of less than $500,000. Defeated 48 to 50.

UpdateBryan Corbin, writing for the Evansville Courier Press, has a story on the failed amendments. Apparently the most contested amendment was the one exempting 501(c)(3) organizations.

Speaking out against that amendment were two House Democrats from Southwestern Indiana.

“This is undoing years, if not decades,

of existing minimum-wage laws in the state of Indiana,” said Rep. Russ Stilwell, D-Boonville. “This is really an attempt to exempt groups of people that always have paid into the minimum wage.”

Rep. Phil Hoy, a former executive director of the nonprofit Tri-State Food Bank, said the amendment is unnecessary. “We never paid as low as $5.15 an hour, even for your outreach program, because you want to get good people in these (nonprofit) positions,” said Hoy, D-Evansville. “We always started even our entry-level positions several dollars above minimum wage; it’s the only fair thing to do.”

[tags]HB1027-2007, labor[/tags]