Time for a Sales Tax?
Over at the Oregon Economics Blog, Patrick picks up on an editorial by West Linn Republican Rep Scott Bruun and argues that it's time for Oregon to adopt a sales tax. Aside from the pervasive cultural distaste for sales taxes (which more than one well-meaning politician has overlooked), the arguments against it are that it 1) will damage Oregon's economy, and 2) is regressive. But Patrick argues that neither has to be true. First, sales taxes don't have to be regressive.
Sales taxes are sometimes characterized as regressive, but with exemptions of common necessities like food, clothing and medicine sales taxes can be made neutral or even made progressive with means-tested tax rebates. It is simply not at all hard to make sales taxes progressive. More importantly, the incentives with sales taxes are toward greater savings and investment and lower consumption. This is a good thing for the economy. But the best part is that sales tax revenues are much more stable than income taxes. Certainty in tax revenue leads to better planning, better investments and thus better government for Oregon.
Next, he argues that a sales tax isn't bad for the economy; in fact, when weighed against the costs of unstable state revenues, a sales tax would help the economy:
Oregon relies heavily on income taxes to fund its government and income taxes fluctuate widely with economic cycles. This cyclical revenue stream lends itself to inefficiencies, prohibiting many long-term investments, forcing closure of half-done programs and causes uncertainty that leads to underinvestment in general.....
Look at all of the states that have sales taxes, some go as high as 9% and over, and I don't see much correlation in the health of the economy, the presence of retail businesses and such with the tax rate. To put it another way, do you think that Oregon would look much different today if there had been a sales tax in place 50 years ago? Perhaps we would have better schools and such, but I doubt the retail climate would be much different.
The sales tax creates a perfect storm of opposition. Anti-taxers hate it not only because it's a tax, but because they recognize stable funding provides bureaucrats with fatter coffers to expand social programs and so on. But its doom is abetted by liberals who don't want to adopt a regressive tax.
So here's the question to BlueOregon progressives. Since we have seen the enormous harm our current system causes to important state programs, would you consider a non-regressive, necessities-exempt sales tax (perhaps including rebates) as a part of the solution?
Incidentally, Patrick has a survey about a sales tax, should you wish to express your opinion there.
|
December 19, 2007 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (199 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: BHamm | Dec 19, 2007 10:22:54 AM
I expect the State Senate to reform our tax structure intelligently and thinking toward the long-term. And we can do that without a sales tax. Hopefully now that my boy Mark Hass is back in Salem (I have more passion for my state senator than is maybe healthy, but he's really that cool, and it's great that he's back) we can have some real work on fixing taxes here.
Posted by: Jonathan | Dec 19, 2007 10:30:53 AM
As long as the sales tax is included in the price. Also, I think any tax should phased in to avoid sticker shock.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Dec 19, 2007 10:38:29 AM
I'm so glad it's the Republicans pushing for sales taxes, thereby making it more likely that they will lose more seats in the legislature in 2008.
Oregonians aren't buying it, period. They're telling the liberals that they'll exempt necessities, and the conservatives that they're going to eliminate some of the other taxes. If you believe those things for one minute, I've got some land in Louisiana to sell you. I give those proposals a maximum of two legislative sessions before they would decide they needed more revenue and bring back all the other taxes so that we'd have the same taxes we have now, plus the sales tax too, on everything including groceries.
People who miss sales taxes should move back to California. And people who call themselves progressives and try to sell us sales taxes should be ashamed of themselves, and should shut up about it if they're interested in winning any elections.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Dec 19, 2007 10:41:20 AM
I'm so glad it's the Republicans pushing for sales taxes, thereby making it more likely that they will lose more seats in the legislature in 2008.
Mr. Alworth, you might want to think about changing your title to say, "Republicans: "Time for a sales tax?", so they don't associate it with Democrats.
Oregonians aren't buying it, period. They're telling the liberals that they'll exempt necessities, and the conservatives that they're going to eliminate some of the other taxes. If you believe those things for one minute, I've got some land in Louisiana to sell you. I give those proposals a maximum of two legislative sessions before they would decide they needed more revenue and bring back all the other taxes so that we'd have the same taxes we have now, plus the sales tax too, on everything including groceries.
People who miss sales taxes should move back to California. And people who call themselves progressives and try to sell us sales taxes should be ashamed of themselves, and should shut up about it if they're interested in winning any elections.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Dec 19, 2007 10:43:54 AM
I'm so glad it's the Republicans pushing for sales taxes, thereby making it more likely that they will lose more seats in the legislature in 2008.
Mr. Alworth, you might want to think about changing your title to say, "Republicans: "Time for a sales tax?", so they don't associate it with Democrats.
Oregonians aren't buying it, period. They're telling the liberals that they'll exempt necessities, and the conservatives that they're going to eliminate some of the other taxes. If you believe those things for one minute, I've got some land in Louisiana to sell you. I give those proposals a maximum of two legislative sessions before they would decide they needed more revenue and bring back all the other taxes so that we'd have the same taxes we have now, plus the sales tax too, on everything including groceries.
People who miss sales taxes should move back to California. And people who call themselves progressives and try to sell us sales taxes should be ashamed of themselves, and should shut up about it if they're interested in winning any elections.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Dec 19, 2007 11:15:18 AM
Perhaps a majority of voting Oregonians could be persuaded to support a progressive sales tax accompanied by an equivalent reduction in incomes taxes. I doubt it, but I would support it. I do think it would even out our state's revenue income. But my preferred alternative would be a significant carbon tax, also offset by equivalent aggregate income tax reductions, that would create strong economic incentives to conserve polluting energy sources and could contribute to a more enlightened foreign policy free from worrying about oil producing states. Unfortunately, my preferred alternative is even less like to enjoy Oregonian voter approval. But without a significant carbon tax nationally we are neither really confronting global warming nor creating an opportunity for smarter foreign policy. A significant carbon tax could be transformational, and Oregon could start.
Posted by: mconley | Dec 19, 2007 11:22:15 AM
From down here in Eugene, where we're about to have tons of visitors and millions of dollars being infused into our economy with the Olympic trials and the next five years of track events, a sales tax looks pretty good to me. It might help even out the financial problems we continually have paying for pretty much anything, from schools to police to filling potholes.
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Dec 19, 2007 11:40:42 AM
Has a sales tax in Oregon ever been studied? Do we know a sales tax will help Oregon? I know there are a lot of opinions on both sides, but have there been any studies performed that back up either position?
Fred
Posted by: James Frye | Dec 19, 2007 11:42:39 AM
No, no and no! Sales taxes are still regressive no matter how you dress them up - people do buy more than just food and clothing...even poor people. The only thing 'progressive' about a sales tax is that once it's in, it never goes away and always goes up. Take this from the former resident of a certain state to the south of us - it was amazing to watch how many times and 'crises' required 'temporary' increases in the sales tax that never went away when I lived there. Better to reform the state tax system and close some loopholes so that all people and corporations pay their fair share. Sales tax? Don't go there.
Posted by: Gerik | Dec 19, 2007 11:48:22 AM
Sales taxes are just bad public policy. Why siphon the flow of private dollars by increasing the purchase price of everyday goods? It is utter lunacy. I am an honest progressive who feels that this is just not the place for tax. Period.
Better to kick the kicker and close corporate loopholes. Better to increase marginal tax rate in the highest income brackets. Better to work within the confines of our existing code to make them more progressive and harder to evade.
Why push people farther into the maw of 'Uncle Sam the Tax Man' by reminding them every single day of their societal dues, rather than just every two weeks and once a year?
Posted by: Gerik | Dec 19, 2007 11:53:08 AM
Sales taxes are just bad public policy. Why siphon the flow of private dollars by increasing the purchase price of everyday goods? It is utter lunacy. I am an honest progressive who feels that this is just not the place for a tax. Period.
Better to kick the kicker and close corporate loopholes. Better to increase marginal tax rate in the highest income brackets. Better to work within the confines of our existing code to make them more progressive and harder to evade.
Why push people farther into the maw of 'Uncle Sam the Tax Man' by reminding them every single day of their societal dues, rather than just every two weeks and once a year? People hate Government enough without the perception of a daily intrusion into their bank account. I really think sales taxes galvanize our opposition, as Jeff notes, and hurt our movement in the long term.
Posted by: A. Rab. | Dec 19, 2007 11:53:10 AM
The whole idea of a consumption tax (which a sales tax is a type of) vs. an income tax is that a consumption tax captures revenue from people who have normal to high consumption, but low income. This includes people that liberals are comfortable taxing (millionaire trust fund playboys) and people that liberals are probably less comfortable taxing (retired people on a “fixed income” or students living on loans). A consumption tax (such as a sales tax) is a good idea if you think that high consumption/low income individuals are a big loophole in our tax system. No matter how you cut it, a sales tax is going to be regressive, even if the use of rebates and exemptions blunts the impact somewhat. However, if the goal is a more stable source of funding, and one is willing to take significant political heat (which would be generated by a sales tax) there are other ways to stabilize revenue. One example would be a wealth tax, which many European nations use. Like a sales tax, this would capture the “lost” taxes from those who have significant financial assets, but low income. A second alternative (or additional alternative), could be replacing the kicker with a stabilization fund. Under this plan, money that would have gone out would instead be held in trust for years when the budget is under funded. This second option has the additional advantage of not being easily evaded on the gray market (which is a major failing of a sales tax).
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Dec 19, 2007 12:02:32 PM
Jeff Alworth:
The sales tax creates a perfect storm of opposition. Anti-taxers hate it not only because it's a tax, but because they recognize stable funding provides bureaucrats with fatter coffers to expand social
programs and so on.
Bob T:
Once again you use broad statements that don't recognize
the various degrees of support and opposition to an
issue. A lot of anti-taxers are fine with taxes up
to a point, and afterwards don't want taxes that ass up
to the government getting more. Nothing really wrong
with that. Others would be happy to replace the
income or property tax with a sales tax. Nothing
wrong with that, either.
I like the sales tax over the others because it
doesn't require an annual financial inquisition.
One can pay it while wearing a ski mask, for example.
Stupid terms like "under the table" income can
go away.
Jeff Alworth:
But its doom is abetted by liberals who don't want to adopt a regressive tax.
Bob T:
Oh, pity. Look, a wealthy person like Soros or
Barbara Streisand can spend hundreds of thousands
of dollars (or millions) on taxable items while
working grunts might spend perhaps $20 K tops.
The wealthy will therefore be taxed more, so
to speak.
Get off the "regressive" "progressive" nonsense
regarding taxes.
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Dec 19, 2007 12:04:49 PM
I would be onboard for a sales tax. Unlike most of the conservative or libertarian yahoos on here, I understand the need for stable funding sources. A sales tax would also target tourists dollars as well. Beyond the 12%(?) Multnomah County tax on rental cars and hotels, visitors pay no taxes while in Oregon.
Unfortunately, being anti-tax is truly a zealous religion here in Oregon even more so than hating gays and lesbians. Oregon is one of the most selfish states that I have ever lived in when it comes to money. Most people here live for ME, rather than WE. This cultural reality is one that would take generations to change or a horrible natural disaster the likes of which we have never seen to wake people up. En lieu of this, no matter what "bargain" you place before the voters, they WILL reject it by overwhelming numbers. Even if Jesus himself came back and said, "Vote on this for the people"... the people would say, "Screw you, A-hole!"
Posted by: Bruce | Dec 19, 2007 12:04:57 PM
Absolutly not in favor of a sales tax, unless coupled with a top to bottom (Federal, State, and Local) overhaul. Simply adding another tax layer, that no matter how structured hits the least able to pay the hardest, only adds tax burden without any accountability. In every state that has added a new tax resource, whether a income or consumption tax, the total tax bill goes up, while the ability of government to provide services goes down.
Posted by: A. Rab. | Dec 19, 2007 12:05:39 PM
The whole idea of a consumption tax (which a sales tax is a type of) vs. an income tax is that a consumption tax captures revenue from people who have normal to high consumption, but low income. This includes people that liberals are comfortable taxing (millionaire trust fund playboys) and people that liberals are probably less comfortable taxing (retired people on a “fixed income” or students living on loans). A consumption tax (such as a sales tax) is a good idea if you think that high consumption/low income individuals are a big loophole in our tax system. No matter how you cut it, a sales tax is going to be regressive, even if the use of rebates and exemptions blunts the impact somewhat. However, if the goal is a more stable source of funding, and one is willing to take significant political heat (which would be generated by a sales tax) there are other ways to stabilize revenue. One example would be a wealth tax, which many European nations use. Like a sales tax, this would capture the “lost” taxes from those who have significant financial assets, but low income. A second alternative (or additional alternative), could be replacing the kicker with a stabilization fund. Under this plan, money that would have gone out would instead be held in trust for years when the budget is under funded. This second option has the additional advantage of not being easily evaded on the gray market (which is a major failing of a sales tax).
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Dec 19, 2007 12:06:32 PM
[off-topic personal attack deleted. -editor.]
Posted by: James Frye | Dec 19, 2007 12:21:29 PM
Bob T:
Oh, pity. Look, a wealthy person like Soros or
Barbara Streisand can spend hundreds of thousands
of dollars (or millions) on taxable items while
working grunts might spend perhaps $20 K tops.
The wealthy will therefore be taxed more, so
to speak.
JF:
The wealthy will also have hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe millions) left over and still available for them to spend more. Poor and middle class people will have to spend a higher PERCENTAGE of their income on sales taxes with less available afterward. It's not the dollars, it's the percentage of income and what's left afterward that's the issue.
So, yes, I will stick to 'progressive' and 'regressive' when it comes to taxes. Sales taxes hit hardest the ones least able to afford it. Period.
Let the ones who get the most goodies from the government - the already-wealthy - pay more for them. It's the American way.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 19, 2007 12:34:26 PM
The "good for the economy" thing puzzles me since I'm continually bombarded with messages that what keeps the economy strong in general these days in the U.S. is consumer spending.
Also, in the interstate comparisons, I would be against a sales tax without clear evidence about how such taxes correlate to the living standards and degree of security and insecurity for the lower two income quintiles, and on some issues, maybe the lower three.
Do the "state programs" that get stabilized and related investments that Patrick touts work out in practice not just as a possibility convey benefits to those sectors of the population that will be paying proportionally more of what they earn (or borrow)? Or do the benefits go mainly to the best off? What are gini coefficients of sales tax states vs. not (or lesser vs. greater). If the result of a sales tax were more funds for the cultural trust organizations but continued statements that Portland "can't afford" small schools that work better, not interested.
In addition to the kicker & corporate loopholes I think we should restore property tax parity between business and residential property. A state luxury tax would meet my approval. A local option for municipal or county taxes on meals, lodging, ski lift tickets (ouch!) & other relative luxuries might meet the case raised about Eugene.
(With a meal tax we can revisit taxes as ostensible public health promoters -- whoopee!)
Posted by: LT | Dec 19, 2007 12:35:30 PM
I agree with Liberalincarnate.
The people who say sales tax hurts the poor are saying the details of how the tax package is constructed don't matter because everyone with half a brain should know that sales tax hurts the poor. I was part of the sales tax wars of the 1980s when some said even the statement "it is time to discuss a sales tax" made one "not a real Democrat". I have heard all the arguments.
If such necessities as food and medicine are exempted, then it is not necessarily a regressive tax. It would depend on the exemptions, rate structure, etc. A friend of mine who once managed a food court said he favored a restaurant tax which would be the equivalent of a nickel on the hot dogs the food court sold. He said he didn't think his patrons would mind a nickel more for a hot dog, and anyone who couldn't afford the extra nickel on a hot dog shouldn't be eating at the food court anyway--home prepared food is not only less expensive but healthier.
That said, I know there is a "sales tax over my dead body" wing of the Democratic Party. I know it was estimated as a very vocal 10% a couple decades ago. My statement to them is that if they don't like the sales tax they should propose an alternative and line up the votes for that alternative--not just complain.
Apparently Rep. Bruun and Sen. Morse are on the Revenue Restructure Task Force which will report to the 2009 session. If people here have strong feelings, they should communicate with that task force.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 19, 2007 12:40:42 PM
The "good for the economy" thing puzzles me since I'm continually bombarded with messages that what keeps the economy strong in general these days in the U.S. is consumer spending.
Also, in the interstate comparisons, I would be against a sales tax without clear evidence about how such taxes correlate to the living standards and degree of security and insecurity for the lower two income quintiles, and on some issues, maybe the lower three.
Do the "state programs" that get stabilized and related investments that Patrick touts work out in practice not just as a possibility convey benefits to those sectors of the population that will be paying proportionally more of what they earn (or borrow)? Or do the benefits go mainly to the best off? What are gini coefficients of sales tax states vs. not (or lesser vs. greater). If the result of a sales tax were more funds for the cultural trust organizations but continued statements that Portland "can't afford" small schools that work better, not interested.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 19, 2007 12:44:09 PM
The "good for the economy" thing puzzles me since I'm continually bombarded with messages that what keeps the economy strong in general these days in the U.S. is consumer spending.
Also, in the interstate comparisons, I would be against a sales tax without clear evidence about how such taxes correlate to the living standards and degree of security and insecurity for the lower two income quintiles, and on some issues, maybe the lower three.
Do the "state programs" that get stabilized and related investments that Patrick touts work out in practice not just as a possibility convey benefits to those sectors of the population that will be paying proportionally more of what they earn (or borrow)? Or do the benefits go mainly to the best off? What are gini coefficients of sales tax states vs. not (or lesser vs. greater). If the result of a sales tax were more funds for the cultural trust organizations but continued statements that Portland "can't afford" small schools that work better, not interested.
In addition to the kicker & corporate loopholes I think we should restore property tax parity between business and residential property. A state luxury tax would meet my approval. A local option for municipal or county taxes on meals, lodging, ski lift tickets (ouch!) & other relative luxuries might meet the case raised about Eugene.
(With a meal tax we can revisit taxes as ostensible public health promoters -- whoopee!)
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 19, 2007 12:47:10 PM
What is up with all the "potential comment spam" notices?
Would our fearless leaders please address this issue as a distinct thread?
Are there tics of writing (scare quotes, other punctuation, sentence structure) we can/should avoid? Particular kinds of vocabulary?
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Dec 19, 2007 12:56:28 PM
People who miss sales taxes should move back to California.
And people who call themselves progressives and try to push sales taxes should hang their heads in shame. If you think any "exemptions" for groceries would stick around longer than the next legislative session, I've got some swampland to sell you.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 19, 2007 12:57:20 PM
How does Patricks "good for the economy" square with media conventional wisom that consumer spending is what keeps the economy strong these days?
Also, in the interstate comparisons, I would be against a sales tax without clear evidence about how such taxes correlate to the living standards and degree of security and insecurity for the lower two income quintiles, and on some issues, maybe the lower three.
Do the "state programs" that get stabilized, and related investments that Patrick touts, work out in practice, not just as a possibility, to convey benefits to the people who will be paying proportionally more of what they earn (or borrow)?
Or do the benefits go mainly to the best off? What are gini coefficients of sales tax states vs. not (or lesser vs. greater).
If the result of a sales tax were more funds for the cultural trust organizations but continued statements that Portland "can't afford" small schools that work better, I'm not interested.
In addition to the kicker & corporate loopholes, I think we should restore property tax parity between business and residential property. A state luxury tax would meet my approval. A local option for municipal or county taxes on meals, lodging, ski lift tickets (ouch!) & other relative luxuries might meet the case raised about Eugene.
(With a meal tax we can revisit taxes as ostensible public health promoters -- whoopee!)
Yeah LT, lining up the votes is the trick, isn't it? Applies to sales taxes too, doesn't it?
Sales tax opponents actually have reasons why beyond, "it'll never get the votes." Do opponents of other options?
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Dec 19, 2007 12:59:35 PM
Can we move beyong personal opinions on the value of Sales Taxes? Does anyone have any hard data or know anyone that has any information on how a sales tax would be applied in Oregon?
To say we need it or we should not have it because it is regressive is just not productive right now. We have to resolve how we fund our govenment and something has to change. If the people of Oregon are to consider a sales tax...then we need informative discussions and sound information. Who will and can provide that? Can anyone here offer anything beyond personal opinions?
Fred
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 19, 2007 1:01:51 PM
In the interstate comparisons, I would be against a sales tax without clear evidence about how such taxes correlate to the living standards and life security for the lower two income quintiles, or below median income housholds, in sales tax states vs. non-sales tax states, or in higher vs. lower sales tax states.
Do the state programs that get stabilized, and related investments that Patrick touts, work out in practice to convey more benefits to the people who will be paying proportionally more of what they earn (or borrow)? Or do they pay more and get less? In real life, not theory?
We should restore property tax parity between business and residential property. A state luxury tax would meet my approval. A local option for municipal or county taxes on meals, lodging, ski lift tickets (ouch!) & other relative luxuries might be good.
Posted by: Corvallis Antoine | Dec 19, 2007 1:05:04 PM
Before Democrats go proposing anymore taxes, they need to define the following terms:
Progressive
Regressive
Rich
Poor
Particularly with regards to rich/poor, Democrats should set a specific dollar amount which serves as the barrier between rich and poor. I think I understand what Democrats mean by progressive: they want to confiscate income earned by the rich and redistribute it to the poor. But who is rich and who is poor? If we're going to target the rich don't you think we should at least know who they are?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 19, 2007 1:09:09 PM
Fred, since as far as I know there are no concrete proposals going, I fear that no one actually can provide what you are asking.
Someone might have hard data about experiences in other states.
In principle we could discuss "soft" modelling data about what would be likely to happen under differently structured sales taxes.
Admiral Naismith, have any interest in buying the Cape Cod Canal? Massachusetts has had a sales tax that exempts food (except restaurant meals), clothing and books for at least 50 years -- other stuff too I think but those for sure. Connecticut when I lived there in the 1980s had a large list of exemptions and also got into weird territory of trying to distinguism "necessity" clothes from "luxury" clothes. Again the system had been around decades with necesessity exemptions.
Basic necessity exemptions are not inherently unstable.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Dec 19, 2007 1:14:48 PM
As a life long Oregonian, family here since the 1880's, I have to say that a "traditional" sales tax has no hope in this State.
But, non-traditional? Some of the features that Jeff notes such as non-regressive and necessity exempt are great, but the average voter doesn't pay that much attention to detail. If you want a sales tax, and I generally agree with the concept of tax diversification, you have to do something more radical.
My idea of an "Oregon" sales tax is to make it seasonal. If we had a sales tax in force from May 15 to Sept. 15 each year, we would capture lots of tourist dollars. But if I wanted to buy a car, I could do it from Sept. 16 to May 14 and not pay a sales tax. I would even be willing to include in the sales tax more of what we consider necessities, if we taxed the tourists on those items. I have no idea how much money a sales tax of this sort could raise. Tie it to the schools, and I think we might have a winner.
Posted by: PanchoPdx | Dec 19, 2007 1:20:12 PM
Perhaps a sales tax proposal would pass if it also allowed self-serve gas stations.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:32:17 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: PSJackson | Dec 19, 2007 1:32:33 PM
OP: "would you consider a non-regressive, necessities-exempt sales tax (perhaps including rebates) as a part of the solution?"
My question: Define 'necessities'?
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:33:11 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:34:55 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:35:51 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:37:18 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:38:26 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:40:28 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 19, 2007 1:41:43 PM
Steve, an intriguing suggestion on seasonal sales tax. Would you also exempt food and medicine during tax season?
Antoine,
progressive: tiered so that people with lower income pay less as a percentage.
flat: all incomes pay the same percentage of income in taxes.
regressive: the poor pay a higher percentage of income in taxes than the wealthy.
In this case, "poor" and "wealthy" are just relative terms.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:41:58 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:42:47 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:44:42 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:45:46 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Dec 19, 2007 1:49:39 PM
Chris,
I hope you are wrong, but I fear you are spot on. If we do not have any credible data on how a sales tax would work in Oregon and what that revenue channel would mean for Oregon. We need to gather that information. We need to acept that how we fund our govenment is not working as well as we need it to work and we have to make some changes to the system in order to support our collective needs and expectations.
Question for eveyone:
1. If not a sales tax....how do we best address the shortfalls we will see in revenues in 2010 and there after?
2. With the growing number of renters in Oregon. isn't property taxes as regressive as a sales tax? Is increasing property tax unfair to low income and working poor families of Oregon?
3. Would a slaes tax be limited to the state or could counties and cities impose their own sales tax?
Fred
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:55:47 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 1:56:35 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Dec 19, 2007 2:01:40 PM
In the province of Alberta, their sales tax is insane.
If you buy, say, a six pack of soda pop, there is no tax on that item, but if you buy less than that (say 1 bottle), then you are taxed. Same goes with every other food - and that is before the national GST is tacked on.
As you can see, once you get a tax on something, other smaller taxes will follow. My fiance in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta pays (for food) a town sales tax, provincial sales tax, and a National tax (GST). Then it gets more confusing with what happens with the above (the soda).
It's better not to have a sales tax at all than create confusion, panic, and frustration among the masses.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 19, 2007 10:17:44 AM
I meant to include my own opinion in the main post, but here's just as good. I would consider such a tax under these circumstances. It perhaps even offers an opportunity for Oregon to try out innovative public policy to see if a sales tax could be employed that was actually part of a progressive tax structure.
Because, we know that now the tax structure is pretty much flat when you consider all taxes and fees.