Obscure bills worked in the far-off corners of the state Capitol by small committees – that’s where, sometimes, a debate of real weight erupts.

For instance, in the Senate Revenue Committee yesterday. They were considering legislation that would drop the premium tax paid on annuity investments. (People who purchase annuities pay a premium and at a later time receive fixed payments from the annuity. Though it might be considered a form of insurance, the term “annuity” is generally defined as income.) The tax revenue from the premium tax amounts to only $750,000 to the state, and critics think it should be eliminated to encourage more investment in such instruments.

“We don’t do income tax in Wyoming,” said Sen. Grant Larson (R-Jackson).

Chairman John Schiffer (R-Kaycee) disagreed. “Every time we eliminate one of these we become more dependent on the mineral industry,” he said. Referring to studies of government that suggest the revenue support of a three-legged stool – property, mineral severance, and income taxes – Schiffer added, “We have a two-legged stool and a straw holding up the tax system.”

“It’s a disguised income tax,” Larson insisted, adamant that despite the recommendations of studies like “Tax Reform 2000”, it was a Wyoming principle that there be no income tax. “You may want to go there, I don’t,” he told Schiffer.

It was a minor bill and an easy-going committee session that suddenly turned serious, touching an issue that has troubled Wyoming for decades – its dependence on tax revenue from the mineral industry, and the ‘free ride’ individual taxpayers get on the income side. The two former Senate presidents fought to a draw Wednesday – the committee deadlocked on a 2-2 vote. They’ll take it up again next week when they have a fifth member present.