IN order to keep our tax money in Hawaii, the state awards contracts to local companies that bid up to 15 percent higher than mainland companies. Charity bucks begin
at home & should stayFine. Even though that means the increase will be passed on to us.
The "paradise premium" is something we've gotten used to paying for the privilege of living in Hawaii.
But if our elected representatives are so intent on keeping Hawaii money in Hawaii, why do giant charitable trusts like Bishop Estate get to send literally millions of Hawaii-raised dollars out of the state?
If Bishop Estate were a tax-paying, privately owned business, it could invest its money any place it wants.
But while Bishop Estate does have some taxable subsidiaries, it also avoids millions in taxes because of its charitable status, millions that have to be made up by non-charitable tax-paying entities (i.e. you and me.)
That would be bad enough, except that, as the state's largest private land owner, Bishop Estate actually takes money from thousands of residents in the form of lease and rental payments and land sales. This is real Hawaii money, made by people who work every day. And it is flying out of our state at a staggering rate.
It is impossible to know exactly where all of Bishop Estate's money goes. We know they build exclusive golf courses on the mainland and things like that. Millions and millions of tax-exempt, Hawaii-raised dollars may be spurring economies across the country.
SO where are the state legislators who are so worried about keeping Hawaii money in Hawaii? How come they don't come up with a rule that any charitable tax-free trust here has to invest at least half its money in Hawaii?
Wouldn't that be just as fair as allowing local contractors to ice out mainland competitors by bidding 15 percent higher on contracts?
Actually, it would be much more fair. While the local vendors will pass on higher costs to us, forcing charities to invest in Hawaii would actually spur the economy here.
Pumping millions of dollars into our economy, especially considering the sorry state it's in, makes a lot more sense than building and running some ritzy private golf course for mainland fat cats.
And that brings up another purported role of Bishop Estate, helping Hawaiians. I doubt if any Hawaiians, other than Henry Peters or other board members are even allowed on the golf courses they are building on the mainland.
Why doesn't the legislature insist that Bishop Estate set aside some of this tax-exempt, Hawaii-raised money for low-cost mortgages to Hawaiians waiting for Hawaiian Homes lots? Construction of several thousand homes would spur the local construction industry, directly affecting the economy, not to mention fulfill many Hawaiians' dreams of owning their own home.
Of course the legislature will never demand that charities invest a certain percentage of their tax-free income in Hawaii. The presence of former legislators Henry Peters and Dickie Wong on the Bishop Estate board is ample evidence of the cozy relationship between the estate and lawmakers.
As usual, there is no continuity in the effort to keep Hawaii money in Hawaii.
Even the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau, who's job it is to attract money to Hawaii, is sending it's business out of state. A Canadian firm will be publishing HVB's Islands of Aloha magazine and keeping the profits.
It's too bad that a Hawaiian, with a loan from Bishop Estate couldn't have won that contract. He could have even bid 15 percent higher. So much for aloha.
