Improving the Oregon EITC should be part of any revenue package the legislature develops this session. It would be a small but important step in making Oregon’s overall tax system fairer and would help counter some of the regressive proposals seriously under consideration, such as increases in fuel and vehicle taxes and fees and increases in beer and tobacco taxes.

You really undermine the argument by complaining about the regressivity of beer and tobacco taxes -- alcohol and tobacco are pure luxury goods that impose tremendous social costs on our health and human service systems, costs that we don't even begin in recover through the taxes on these social ills.

The bottom line is that there is no legitimate use for tobacco, so if we tax it into oblivion we'd all be a lot better off, including the poor -- lower health care costs, higher productivity, less suffering.

And as for beer, the tax is absurdly low given the tremendous burdens that alcohol use places on society, most of which are borne by nondrinkers and drinkers alike. Even very low levels of alcohol use are implicated in higher levels of breast cancer and other cancers. So the higher the tax, the better off the poor are because they will either drink less or at least there will be a functioning public health system to deal with the fallout.

We know prohibition is destructive and doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that we should be encouraging use of either alcohol or tobacco by worrying about whether there is some cosmic unfairness to the fact that the poor have less money than the rich so, therefore, taxes on these luxury goods are somehow "regressive."

I'm much more concerned with the 30% cuts proposed for Oregon Domestic and Sexual Violence Services than I am with the terrible unfairness of regressive taxes on beer and smokes.

http://www.westernprisonproject.org/not_reviewed/story/1263

The bottom line is that there is no legitimate use for tobacco

Native Americans might disagree with this.

"The bottom line is that there is no legitimate use for tobacco"

Who died and made YOU emperor?!

There is no legitimate use thousands of products and even some behaviors such as homosexuality. I don't know how to tax that out of existence, but I suspect "progressives" can invent a few.

For that matter, there is no legitimate use for people who want to control the behavior of others by whatever means...

Alcohol, tobacco & lottery do have a legitimate use, they pay the bills. The issue is how much tax is too much? The ever increasing taxes have sent consumers to the worldwide web to obtain the products they want at the price they are willing to pay. The state has reached the point of declining returns. There are those who cheer when they think the smoking rate has declined by 10%. What they fail to comprehend is that a fair amount of that decline is due to the excessive taxation and the consumer sending their money to another state.

The state has turned ordinary law-abiding citizens into tobacco smugglers and with each increase in liquor taxes, well that too can be obtained via alternative sources.

Lawmakers need to pick thier poison. Do they want to tax a legal product out of existance or do they want consumers to pay a reasonable tax rate, support local businesses and keep their consumer dollars in Oregon's economy?

Until and unless tobacco and alcohol are banned, the public will choose where to spend their money and the state budget be damned.

NO legitimate use for tobacco?

This is not just about addiction. There are SES issues, because this is a SIN tax, not a luxury tax (expensive cigars untouched, but cheapass flake tobacco out of reach to the poor ppl who use it for their addictions); there are cultural issues that seem to be of utterly zero interest to the BO crowd. And the legislative or media crowd who BO purports to entertain on the site. I make tobacco ties in my prayers. They are offerings, and they go back to the earth or to a ceremonial fire.

I use a LOT of tobacco as I spend a lot of time in ceremonials. And I give a lot of tobacco, as I interact with a lot of people who are advising, helping, serving. And we give this as an offering, an appreciation and as support to THIER prayers. I receive a lot of tobacco from many people as a firetender or singer. This is very much a part of our daily lives too, in the small prayers of thanks offered for a car crash that was only small, not large. For a day that began nicely. Or turned out ok after all. Or a thought of a loved one that came around.

And on behalf of such as yourself.

Are you aware that this herb is used in ceremonies? It has been painful for me for some months desperately trying to get any of these people to notice this and factor it into discussions of this issue.

I've always been so disappointed and a little hurt, since some up here purport to be "in the know", deeply involved and also influential in all the politics of our state, but it feels to me they don't care and are not interested to care or learn about an entirely other side of this issue that should have been considered, could STILL in the future be considered IF anyone gave a darn.

But they do not, and they will not.

It's just not interesting to the ones who run things, influence things, and so they are not going to ask questions, or present this factoid from an entire other culture next time they start Positioning to other "politicos" on this subject.

In my brief time lobbying in internet pharmacy, I got the mistaken impression that LAs and some politicos were more interested in learning all they could about their issues than they were about simply taking a stance and staying in position. I think my expectations of free-range dialog were over the top. Nobody is in the least interested in this, they do not care. They like talking about genocides of the 1800's, and bloody atrocities on the Reserves; but not about the financial pain of the common man or woman, young or old, scraping money together to get some unsmokable tobacco together to gift an elder or to pray with. This is not 20/20 and it's not Law and Order on the Rez... and so it is not compelling enough to warrant even passing curiousity and a desire to know more.

Kevin struck up a dialog with me recently that made me feel alive and like he cares, and intelligently liked to discuss. I was really grateful for that.

Around tobacco: there are thousands of non-addicts using this product, daily, in prayer. Not smoked, even, and, when smoked, NOT drawn into the lungs. It is our way of life. Water, herb, prayer.

And nobody is hearing me. NOt one soul. Not the bigshot politicians who are reading this blog, not their minions who weigh in with their pretend jolly "dialog" voice on, and not the pretend politicos and aficionadoes of pissing matches. I keep occassionally engaging this, as it's so important.

I called the NARF ppl in DC, and they have no funding to address this issue this year though they say it's a Religious Freedom issue - just no funding for it at this time. And the native section of Legal Aid is going to be talking with me when I get back from Ceremony in MT. We will be writing, researching, publishing around this.

I am determined to help the uncaring to hear our call-out. To hear the soft call-out of the ones who pray and who are not "organized" with trumpets and placards, sermons and bands.

Yet, it does hurt, it disappoints that nobody here cares about us, about this. They will not open the dialog to include us too.

How progressive is that?

So Chuck, sorry, I pinged off a post above mine.

As to yours, I can remember when I lost that EITC and all credits given me as a single mom, the year before my son left home. It was a crashing shock. To pay hefty sums all year, no dole and no windfalls of any kind, no tax shelters for me, and no landholder perks to push my bottom line up a little.... just OWING at the end of a long year of paying! :)...

That EITC was a godsend while I was doing that single mom gig. :)...

My apologies to anyone offended by my poorly chosen word -- "legitimate" was not the best choice.

I was trying to differentiate between use of alcohol, where the increased risk from use becomes difficult to tease out from benefits, particularly from beer and wine, at very low levels of use (the balance shifts overwhelmingly to harm at higher use levels).

There is no safe level of tobacco use if it involves ingestion, and there is no health benefit to ingesting smoked or chewed tobacco.

As for the argument that taxing only leads to smuggling, well, hasn't that been the problem with all consumption taxes since the dawn of time? Particularly when we see arguments like the original post that suggest that the fact of raising taxes on beer and smokes requires a corresponding hike in the EITC -- as if we owe lower-income smokers and drinkers a break.

There are plenty of good arguments for the EITC that don't require a false and foolish connection to the fact that, faced with a multibillion dollar (and growing) budget hole, Oregon has to hike some taxes.

"faced with a multibillion dollar (and growing) budget hole, Oregon has to hike some taxes."

Actually, what Oregon needs to do is what every family and business is doing. Cut costs. Where in Oregon's Constitution does it say that bureaucracy is forever?

I am glad you posted this, however because it puts the lie to Keynesian "counter cyclical" policy. Government size and taxes rise when the economy is strong, and the same thing when it isn't. All you Keynesians out there should be lobbying for tax cuts...either that or just admit your ideology is false.

Chuck, We finally agree as EITC should be improved, as in Audited for accuracy to prevent further abuse, here and in DC.

Paying over $7 Billion to people that paid NO taxes and are stealing much needed jobs is hurting OUR economy and getting even more from Oregon is stupid too.

I noticed how Betty Komp's (the same rep. who does not want ESL kids to lean english and lose that extra 50% funding)district in Woodburn is #1, no coincidence I'm sure.

Did you not see the Washington Times article from an IRS employee..."IG: Foreigners allowed improper tax credits by IRS" By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER The Associated Press Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:38 PM WASHINGTON -- The IRS allowed foreign workers _ many of them in the U.S. illegally _ to improperly claim nearly $7 billion in child tax credits from 2004 to 2007, a government investigator said Thursday. Most of the credits went to workers who didn't make enough money to pay any federal income taxes, J. Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, said in a report. In those cases, the workers received payments from the Internal Revenue Service after filing income tax returns. The IRS allowed the tax credits even though the workers did not provide Social Security numbers on their tax returns, the report said. Instead, the workers used government-issued tax identification numbers, which are available to immigrants for certain tax-filing purposes _ regardless of their legal status _ but are not valid for employment in the U.S. The issue highlights a weakness in current law, according to the report. Federal law does not require a Social Security number to receive the $1,000 child tax credit

OK. I CAN'T TAKE IT! I REALLY CAN'T. Tobacco is bad for you, no doubt about it. If you want to increase tobacco taxes, go for it. Just plllleeeeaaaassseee quit trying to justify the tax on the basis that it is fair to single out smokers for taxation because smokers impose costs on the health care system. TOBACCO DOES NOT COST IMPOSE A NET FINANCIAL COST ON OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. That is simply a fact. Why is that you might ask? Well let me tell you: BECAUSE SMOKERS DIE EARLIER THAN NONSMOKERS! Don't believe me? Well, to quote the New England Journal of Medicine:

Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.

Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

Any number of additional sources might be cited.

I have come to the conclusion that the anti tobacco movement simply gives under performing politicans a bully pulpit. They can come out against tobacco, do press release and look like they have done something for their next election campaign. Look at me, look at me I am against big tobacco, I love the kiddies! Phooey.

Everyone knows a smoker, the lady who sings in the choir, your insurance agent, the waitress who served you dinner. They smoke, they get up, go to work every day and struggle with the same issues you do. Why the hate? Why vote to force them to pay a tax you don't? Because they are addicts, because they smoke? That is their problem, not yours.

Smoking is at the lowest level in our nations history, health care cost are at their highest. The anti tobacco people have promised health cost savings. After thirty or so years, why are health cost not the lowest they have ever been? Something does not add up.

Maybe, someone with a vested interest is lying. Why? Who benefits and what is their gain?

The losers? certainly smokers who have been taxed for an agenda, but also you, me and the rest of our states citizens. We have been sold a bill of goods, if people didn't smoke your insurance would cost less, not more, the world would be a better place, there would be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Reality? You can't afford your insurance and even if you have insurnace if you are unlucky enough to have a major medical problem, you will still end up thousand of dollars in debt.

Reality? Revenue that once flowed directly to the General Fund is sliced and diced so that very little goes to the General Fund and now we the taxpayer will see other tax increases, our kids are stacked in classrooms like cord wood and the list goes on and on.

Reality? Like Prohibition the excessive taxation has created a black market that cost all citizens.

Go hug a smoker, the state needs them!

It's a shame to see Chuck's pro-EITC posting get hijacked by the tobacco argument.

It's a shame about the tax fraud, but really, is that the point?

No, it's not the point. The point is that EITC is a great way to insulate the poor to moderate income workers from sales taxes or other taxes that might disproportionately affect the poor. While the Federal Government has a decent EITC amount, Oregon's is, what, 5% of that?

And it is true that some people get more refunded than they actually paid in taxes. This is only the case for lower income people with large families. However, these people have a greater financial burden because they have to raise those kids to pay for all of our retirement, and since they are working, they also have to find child care for those kids. Child care which is at once too expensive, and yet not expensive enough (at least, not a lucrative enough profession to attract and keep people able to provide high quality child development environments during a human's most critical years).

So, thank you Chuck and OCPP for carrying the standard for EITC. It makes a huge amount of sense, rewards people who are working (keep in mind, it is only for working families), provides extra income to help support children, and is even available in monthly installments, right into your paycheck. How great is that?

<h2>By the way, I'm not "rw". If I plan on going anonymous, I'll use the moniker, Xena, Warrior Princess.</h2>