A down step in taxes after 50K? Are they trying to make it harder for small shows? I would think they would only want the UFC until you see the 2% cut of everything. That is like Boston Tea Party retarded.

Here is the information that cyph didn’t include. During the 2008 Legislative Session, the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA), the department that the MMA commission will be administratively attached to, came to the legislature with legislation that proposed increases in the percentage rates to be collected by the DCCA. Here are the amendments that were made:

*In fiscal years 2009 to 2013, 4% on first $50,000 on total gross receipts on admission fees, and 3% on total gross receipts on admission fees over $50,000

*For fiscal years beginning July 1, 2013, 6% on total gross receipts on admission fees

**Upon the renewal of a promoter’s license (starting in 2011), each promoter will pay an additional surcharge fee of $16, 750 to be deposited in the compliance resolution fund; upon full payment of $335,000 for fiscal years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 to cover the costs of implementing an MMA commssion, no surcharge will be assessed

The DCCA reasoned that these increases were needed to “sustain the program and minimize the burden on licensees.”

Like in most states, regulatory bodies in Hawai’i, like an MMA commission or insurance commission are funded solely through the collection of fees through licensing, fines, etc. No general funds (funds collected from taxes) are spent on these regulatory bodies.

The problem is that when a state goes from having very little regulatory oversight ($500 event fee) to establishing a commission that will be tasked with licensing and enforcement responsibilities, money for this transition is needed. In anticipation of such transitions, Hawai’i, like many other states, have what is called a compliance resolution fund. The money in this fund is distributed to departments that need to establish regulatory bodies or programs to comply with the law. The problem with receiving these funds is that they need to be paid back by a specified date.

I think it’s easy to say that greed was the motivating factor in passing this law when it’s difficult to understand why a financial decision is made that doesn’t favor those we support. Why did the legislature pass these exporbitant fees into law? The truth is that legislators are forced to make decisions on thousands legislative proposals within a short period of time without having personal knowledge about the problems these proposals may or may not address. As a result, legislators rely heavily on public testimony to make their decisions. Before being enacted, Senate Bill 3030 (the bill that was passes into law earlier this year) was scheduled for hearing on four seperate occaisions. In each of those hearings, the committees only recieved one piece of testimony. That testimony was on behalf of the DCCA, the very department that submitted the proposal to the legislature. How can the legislators make an informed decision about a measure when the only testimony they receive is from a governmental department that submitted it?

In my opinion, Hawai’i moved too fast to establish MMA regulation. I have spoken with individuals at the DCCA who admit that implementing this program was more overwhelming than anyone anticipated. I don’t think that any one group is to blame, but I am certain that if change occurs it will be the MMA community that needs to initiate it.

It is not too late, but if anything is going to be done steps, need to be taken immediately. Legislative offices are currently drafting legislation in preparation of the 2009 legislative session. Without cahnges to the statute, MMA in Hawai’i will die.

Here is a link to SB 3030.

Isn’t it always weird when our ideals of peace and tolerance are intolerant of our love of combat?