Wealthy Home Builder Lobbyist Admits He Can Afford Measure 66 Tax Hike
Who did the opponents of the measure put forth as their example of someone who would be affected? Who’s their poster-child for the roughly three out of every 100 taxpayers who will see their taxes inch up? None other than Oregon Home Builders Association lobbyist Jon Chandler.
It’s ironic that that the “no” campaign’s poster-child of a high income person upset with the modest new tax only on income over a quarter of million dollars comes from an industry that’s been complaining about the economic hit it has taken this downturn.
And most telling of all, Chandler admits that he can afford the Measure 66 increase. At least he’s honest about that.
|
October 9, 2009 |
Chuck Sheketoff | Comments (70 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: rw | Oct 9, 2009 4:07:11 PM
Chuck, trying to figure out your precise points of displeasure?
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Oct 9, 2009 5:48:28 PM
rw..."precise points of displeasure" with what?
Posted by: Jeremy Rogers | Oct 9, 2009 5:53:15 PM
Chuck. I'd be interested in your answer to the the question that John Chandler posed: at what point are wealthy Oregonians paying their "fair share?"
With its high income and capital gains taxes, Oregon's state tax system is already weighted heavily toward higher income earners.
While I can understand a temporary income tax surcharge to get through the recession, is raising the permanent tax rate on upper-income Oregonians REALLY making our tax system more fair?
I'd love to understand what "fair" means in terms of income taxes paid and see some data to back up the claim that Oregon's current personal income tax system isn't fair.
Posted by: Alex Tinker | Oct 9, 2009 6:21:07 PM
@Jeremy:
Yes. A permanent income tax increase on personal and corporate income above $250k is very fair.
People and corporations earning more income benefit more from public services like roads that ship goods and move people, police that protect property, and courts that enforce contracts.
Unless you want to make the argument that consumption of additional luxury goods or additional savings are more desirable to society than provision of basic services - teachers, police, firemen, roads, health care for the most vulnerable, etc., then there really is no sense in saying taxing the rich a little bit more is anything but fair.
Isn't the whole point of money and commerce to provide for human needs more efficiently?
Posted by: Ecto Cooler | Oct 9, 2009 6:34:20 PM
Since the rich pay less of an effective share of their income in state and local taxes than people who make minimum wage, I'm gonna say that any steps toward fixing that are pretty dang fair.
Or, were you trying to make us feel sorry for poor John Chandler? In case you missed it, he makes more than a quarter of a million dollars. Poor lil rich guy is gonna have to pay a widdle bit more.
Excuse the rest of us while we go cry into our Top Ramen.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 9, 2009 7:15:37 PM
I had no idea that we are raising taxes on Burl Ives.
Posted by: Jon Chandler | Oct 9, 2009 8:38:55 PM
Chuck - to quote Mark Twain, one of the rules of good writing is to use the right word, not its second cousin. I’m afraid your post has shirttail relatives hanging all around. F’r instance:
Poster child: a person having a public image that is identified with something (as a cause). (www.merriam-webster.com, definition #2)
I, as an individual, am not a poster child for much of anything (other, perhaps, than for maintaining my boyish good looks). To the extent that you, or OPB, or anyone else, gives a rat’s patoot about what I think or what I say on a matter of public policy, it is because of my public image (using that term fairly broadly), which – Carla’s references to a fine and underrated folk singer notwithstanding – in turn derives from my affiliation with and representation of the Home Builders and my role as a spokesperson for this campaign, not as a random citizen.
Irony: incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (www.merriam-webster.com, definition 3a)
There is nothing ironic about my speaking against these taxes; my opposition is not now and never has been due to the impact they might have on me personally. Rather, I'm involved in this campaign and opposed the tax proposals during the legislative session because of their impact on the industry I represent. For that matter, the industry from which I derive my income is not home building: I work for the home builders, but I personally do not build houses. The people that do build houses, though, and on whose behalf I am opposing these taxes, have gotten their collective teeth kicked in by this recession and will have the nubs filed down by the tax increases.
Admit: to concede as true or valid (www.merriam-webster.com, definition 1b)
Contrary to your headline and final paragraph, I didn’t admit (or concede) nothin’. While my personal finances are none of your or anyone else’s business, I testified to the House Revenue committee during one of the hearings that if the legislature was determined to raise taxes, they should do so on individuals such as myself. I don’t like it, I don’t agree that any tax hikes are necessary, and I might well invest a few extra bucks with my accountant to ameliorate the increases, but I won’t fire anyone.
What the legislature did, though, will impact businesses disproportionately because 70 to 80% of the filers subject to the increased personal taxes are not individuals but are in fact Sub-S corporations and other pass-through business entities whose income is reported on the owner’s personal taxes. This will, I believe, cause the loss of jobs. It’s that belief that these tax increases will further hurt the members of my association and the overall economy of Oregon that has me involved in this campaign, not my individual situation.
But while we’re on the general subject of word choice and sloppy writing, Chuck, old buddy old pal – your ‘at least he’s honest about that’ line, might be read by those unfamiliar with your style of imprecise argumentation to imply that there are areas where I have not been. Since I know that isn’t what you meant, I’d sure appreciate it if you could perhaps be a tad more precise in the future.
C
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Oct 9, 2009 9:05:42 PM
I had no idea that we are raising taxes on Burl Ives.
Best line on BlueOregon for at least a month.
Posted by: Lucas | Oct 9, 2009 9:29:41 PM
What the legislature did, though, will impact businesses disproportionately because 70 to 80% of the filers subject to the increased personal taxes are not individuals but are in fact Sub-S corporations and other pass-through business entities whose income is reported on the owner’s personal taxes. This will, I believe, cause the loss of jobs.
Chandler -- that's a pathetic statement.
You're basically saying that some rich guy (or gal) will fire someone because they're making just a bit less than they used to as a result of the personal income tax measure.
Take a person making $280,000 a year. How much more will they pay? Under the permanent increase (.9%), that person will pay $270 more a year in taxes. Plus a bit more with the phase of the deduction of federal taxes (how much more, I don't know exactly, but a few hundred, even a couple of thousand?). And you're saying this person will fire someone for that?
There's no freaking way. If you fire that worker, it will cost you in productivity and you'll make even less.
You're just plain full of it.
But I guess that's why you get paid the big bucks as industry lobbyist.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Oct 9, 2009 9:42:59 PM
First, the story on OPB says "Chandler says that he can afford the extra hit to his wallet." If that is wrong Jon should take it up with OPB and the Northwest News Service. Until corrected I stand by my post.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, now I know for certain why Dick Warrington and the media are getting it all wrong...it is because Jon Chandler and the campaign truly are misrepresenting what the tax measures do! Jon did it right here on BlueOregon.
Jon claims that the measures "will impact businesses disproportionately because 70 to 80% of the filers subject to the increased personal taxes are not individuals but are in fact Sub-S corporations and other pass-through business entities whose income is reported on the owner’s personal taxes."
Jon, as I explained to Mr. Warrington, those "pass through" entities will only have to pay a whopping $150 under Measure 67! That's why Mr. Warrington said "I can handle that" and offered me a beer for setting his fears aside.
How can a flat $150 tax on pass-through entities lead to job losses? It won't, and you know that.
And the nonpartisan Legislative Revenue Office has calculated that about only 3 out of 100 personal income tax filers will be hit by the Measure 66 change in taxes on households with income of $250,000 or more, so how does that mean big job loss from businesses? Yeah, a lot of businesses are pass through entities, but only about 3 percent of Oregon taxpayers have enough income from salaries, pass through entities, or whatever, to see an increase in their taxes under Measure 66.
Jon, thanks for showing BlueOregon readers just how misleading the campaign has been. But shame on you. Stop misleading people.
Posted by: mp97303 | Oct 9, 2009 9:46:36 PM
People and corporations earning more income benefit more from public services like roads that ship goods and move people, police that protect property, and courts that enforce contracts.
That doesn't pass the sniff test. Care to document that
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Oct 9, 2009 10:06:30 PM
Jeremy -- It is important to look at our total tax system, not just the income tax. OCPP will be updating the chart here next week (stay tuned for new link), but today, low-income Oregonians pay a larger share of their income in state and local taxes than wealthy Oregonians. As shown on the chart, the highest-income Oregonians pay the lowest share of their income in state and local taxes. See http://www.ocpp.org/resources/2008WhoPays20080424.pdf.
The wealthy whom you and Jon Chandler apparently worry about will be paying their "fair share" of Oregon's taxes when they are paying based on ability to pay, a standard set in statute (ORS 316.003(2)(a)). Oregonians value a tax system based on ability to pay because it is grounded in the moral principle that a few pennies from a poor woman's purse costs her more than many pieces of gold from a rich man's horde.
Unlike you and Jon, I spend my time and effort worrying about low- and moderate-income Oregonians, not the wealthy. Measure 66 gives about 300,000 Oregonians who are relying on unemployment insurance this year a tax cut. I wonder how many of them are home builders or people who lost jobs building homes for the home builders, their suppliers, electricians, plumbers, roofers and the like? I wonder if they know the state home builders' association wants to take away their tax cut? Maybe Jon can give us statistics on how many people in the universe he's out to protect have collected unemployment insurance this year? I bet it is not a small number.
Posted by: Alex Tinker | Oct 9, 2009 10:46:13 PM
People and corporations earning more income benefit more from public services like roads that ship goods and move people, police that protect property, and courts that enforce contracts.
That doesn't pass the sniff test. Care to document that
People and corporations with more income have more goods to ship, more people working for them, more property to protect, and more contracts to be enforced. This is not the kind of fine-grained detail assertion that needs "documentation," this is plain simple truth.
Posted by: Jim | Oct 9, 2009 11:32:37 PM
There is some excellent information on this thread that boils down to two points of basic fairness, and helps to explain why Jon Chandler can afford these tax increases (Jon, I heard the interview, and that is what you said).
1. For almost all small businesses (unless they are making more than $250000 profit), the cost of basic filing to do business is going up from $10 per year, an amount established over 50 years ago, to $150 per year. I doubt the state can even process a tax form for $10. This is completely fair as a minimum cost of doing business in Oregon.
2. As OCPP has documented, the state and local tax system in Oregon is regressive - lower income groups pay a higher % of their income in state and local taxes than the highest income groups. This modest increase in the marginal personal income tax rates on the 3% of highest income earners starts to moderate that unfair regressivity of the tax structure.
That is what this tax referendum boils down to - should we cut school days, increase class size, reduce state police, and release criminals onto the street early OR should we rationalize the minimum tax filing fee, and begin to balance out the regressivity of Oregon's tax system?
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 9, 2009 11:44:03 PM
Chuck, you tried matching wits and good humor with Jon Chandler and were found sorely lacking.
Carla, best one-liner of the year.
Posted by: paulie | Oct 10, 2009 7:28:46 AM
Jon Chandler is simply doing his job of lobbying. He's extremely witty and a well trained attorney. Many predict we'll be in a special legislative session after the vote on the tax refurendums in January no matter the outcome. In a perfect world Oregon would finally restructure its tax system.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Oct 10, 2009 9:25:49 AM
OCPP's analysis of how the tax burden is shared is problematic at best. It seems to assume that residential property taxes are paid by renters, which is not necessarily true, but that the deductibility of those property taxes does not benefit renters, which is also not necessarily true. It also assumes all excise taxes are paid by the consumer, which is also not necessarily true.
Who actually bears the burden of a particular tax has been the subject of much research by economists with conflicting and uncertain conclusions. When you add to in a built-in bias, which OCPP clearly has, it is hard to take their numbers at face value.
Posted by: Jeremy Rogers | Oct 10, 2009 10:11:35 AM
Chuck-
Oregon clearly needs temporary increases to fill the current budget hole, but the long-term problems with Oregon’s tax system are not addressed by permanently taxing high incomes and capital gains more. In fact, without adequate reserve funds, the problems of our tax system are exacerbated by the permanent portion of the Measure 66 increase.
Every Governor for the last 30 years has asked experts to analyze Oregon’s tax system and make recommendations. Not once has “the state’s system is too regressive” or “rich people should pay more” ever been mentioned in these reports. In fact, they all say that Oregon’s biggest problem is our tax revenue volatility that is a result of our over-reliance on income and capital gains taxes, which are PARTICULARLY VOLATILE for high incomes and capital gains (when the stock market crashes, which is always unpredictable, Oregon loses hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue just from capital gains).
These reports all say that job #1 is creating adequate reserves. They say that local Governments are strapped because of Measures 5 and 50 and that these policies should be reformed. They say that Oregon does a terrible job at long-term budgeting, and that we need a "balanced budget" amendment for initiatives.
The legislature did nothing to address these issues (the piddly amount sent to reserves after Mark Hass held his vote back is not enough to be taken seriously). The legislature should have spent its political capital on permanently sending the kicker to a reserve fund, a policy supported by business and labor groups, rather than divide our state with these permanent tax increases that were not vetted through a process like the Revenue Restructuring Task Force.
While the legislature should have spent its political capital on kicker reform, a long-standing priority and one that had the support of business groups, even if they would have devoted ALL of the permanent portion of the new tax increases to reserves (until the reserve funds were adequately filled), and then adopted some of the other non-tax reforms suggested above, like a long-term budgeting process and requiring fiscal impact statements to be included in the BALLOT TITLE of ballot measures, it would have signaled a seriousness about real reform.
As it stands now, and after hearing the rhetoric coming from supporters of this increase, it seems more like class warfare than an honest attempt to improve the state's tax and budget system.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Oct 10, 2009 10:23:22 AM
Jack Roberts - before you criticize you ought to read how the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy constructed its model. See http://www.ctj.org/itep/model.htm. They note that they used "generally accepted and reasonable guidelines" for incidence and because "assumptions about state and local tax incidence can often be quite different from, say, the incidence of a national tax due to the mobility of factors of production (capital and labor), a number of interesting issues present themselves" ITEP "followed closely, in principle, that which the Minnesota Department of Revenue has employed in its incidence analyses."
Had you read the details you would have learned that "Direct payments of individual property taxes were also assumed borne by the payer." Deductibility helps those who pay it.
If you took the time to read before criticizing, you would see that you are wrong about excise taxes.
You are correct that incidence has been the subject of must research, but you are wrong to ignore that there is some consensus. Oregon used that in developing its incidence model, and if your view of the world being in too much disagreement about incidence ruled, we'd never be able answer the question. Because reasonable people can disagree about some incidence issues, the key to incidence models is transparency of assumptions. ITEP is transparent. And no matter how you design the model the bottom line will show that low-income Oregonians pay a larger share of their income in state and local taxes than wealthy Oregonians, and the highest-income Oregonians pay the lowest share of their income in state and local taxes. You have provided nothing that can dispute that.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Oct 10, 2009 10:30:48 AM
Kurt, I would never claim to be able to, or try to, match humor skills with Jon Chandler. He's tops on that issue, that's for sure.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 10, 2009 10:40:57 AM
Chuck, I'll grant you that. Here is what troubles me about the rhetoric, I agree with Jeremy that the redundant theme appears to ring of class warfare.
The state has money and has means to support itself. Otherwise, how could ODF just have instituted 40% pay increases for their wild land firefighters? Where did they find the money? are they using federal stimulas dollars? Are they counting on the tax hikes before they are final? Do they have massive amounts of cash stashed in the proverbial mattress? How many other state agencies are contemplating or doing this?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 10, 2009 10:50:31 AM
Rather, I'm involved in this campaign and opposed the tax proposals during the legislative session because of their impact on the industry I represent. For that matter, the industry from which I derive my income is not home building: I work for the home builders, but I personally do not build houses. The people that do build houses, though, and on whose behalf I am opposing these taxes, have gotten their collective teeth kicked in by this recession and will have the nubs filed down by the tax increases.
They're going to have a whole lot fewer teeth if Oregonians can't buy the homes they're building...and you're going to be out of a job if builders can't pay you.
If you insist on defeating these taxes, the Oregon State budget will be further slashed. This means more Oregonians will be laid off and out of work. A lot of them.
Less money will be available to circulate into the economy. Not only will these laid off folks not have money, those who depend on their business will not have money either. The whole thing spirals downward.
The worst thing that can happen during a recession is for the government to cut spending.
If job loss for your folks is really your concern..then get off the anti-tax horse and get on the government spending horse.
As an aside, picking at a writer on word choice (especially on a blog) is just lame. It looks like you don't have the goods to debate the actual topic.
Posted by: Jeremy Rogers | Oct 10, 2009 11:04:20 AM
Chuck and Carla-
You both seem to be very involved in this effort. There are a million ways to skin a cat. Can you tell me why the legislature chose to permanently increase the tax rate on high incomes (I'm referring to the permanent not the temporary part) rather than address the issues outlined by the Revenue Restructuring Task Force?
Posted by: Jeremy Rogers | Oct 10, 2009 11:27:47 AM
Here is the revenue restructuring report I'm referring to. It says nothing of permanently raising the income tax rate and spends thousands of words describing thoughtful reforms.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lro/task_force_exhibits.htm
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Oct 10, 2009 11:28:28 AM
The state has money and has means to support itself.
Indeed, if you're trying to drown it in the bathtub, it does. But Oregon's workers just took substantial pay cuts and is substantially reducing a number of programs. This isn't a matter of objective reality, it's a matter of priorities.
For decades, conservatives have argued that low taxes and privatized services served Oregonians best. Beginning in about 2004 (in Oregon), as these various experiments were coming to fruition, we learned that these priorities left the rich very well off indeed. The poor, uninsured, and uneducated? Less well off. Oregonians began electing Democrats who ran on platforms of fuller tax support for a greater variety of services. They argued that we should fund k-12 and higher ed, our police forces and our infrastructure, and our social service network. Conservatives continue to argue that everything was a-okay.
Now we come to an important decision point. On the one hand, Democrats are defending tax increases on those who can afford them so that these promised services are funded. Transparent. On the other, conservatives are trying to muddy the waters, failing to reveal their actual views: that the services shouldn't be funded, and that the rich should have low taxes. Not transparent. This post is one of Chuck's many useful reminders that there's a clear choice here, and he's making sure the other side is forced to defend its actual position, not mislead and bamboozle.
No wonder he's pissed. (And he's not alone.)
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 10, 2009 11:40:44 AM
OK Jeff, but you failed to answer my question. If the state is broke, if the budget is bare bones; then how did ODF find the money to give a 40% pay increase to their wildland fire fighters?
I'm not saying that they aren't all great professionals and that maybe a pay increase is deserved, but 40%? This translates to higher OT, PERS, workers compensation, FICA and Medicare costs as well. Where did the money come from?
Posted by: Jeremy Rogers | Oct 10, 2009 11:46:31 AM
Jeff:
You are a really smart guy. Do you really think the situation is as simple as you laid it out? Do you really believe that business groups like OBA are crazy conservatives? Do you really believe that the state couldn't have made a better choice about how to improve our tax system, and that there ARE choices about how money is spent that are deeper than "good government, bad government?"
This debate isn't about big government versus small government. The legislature has all sorts of options about how to raise revenue and spend money. Almost all of the business groups involved in opposing these tax increases were offering ideas and told the legislative leaders that they supported tax increases and that they would help defend those increases so long as they were temporary and structured appropriately.
These same business groups were urging the legislature to take the unique opportunity of the recession to act on kicker reform. If you don't believe me, watch this video http://www.youtube.com/user/OregonBizPlan#p/u/12/jtscLJFuqc4.
This is not an argument about government, its an argument about GOOD GOVERNMENT.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Oct 10, 2009 11:47:02 AM
ITEP "followed closely, in principle, that which the Minnesota Department of Revenue has employed in its incidence analyses."
Not the Minnesota Department of Revenue! Why didn't you say so. How can anyone possible challenge them?
Seriously, this is what your website say about the methodology for imputating of property taxes for renters says:
"Rental property taxes were computed by imputing a property value to each renter by multiplying rent by a factor. These factors were calculated using state assessment data or, in some cases, research conducted in the state. The quality of the data for this purpose varied widely among states. For states where data was not available, we used the average factor for the other states. Rental property provisions are generally calculated in the personal income tax model since they using rent data from the matched data file."
As near as I can translate that into English, it says you use rental rates to impute a property tax value, then assume the renter pays the property taxes attributable to his or her rental unit. It is the last part of that I challenge; rent is not simply, or even primarily, a function of cost and it is not always clear who bears the actually burden of the property tax on rental property, nto is it always the same.
To argue otherwise, you would have to agree that the property tax savings on rental property resutling from Measures 5 and 50 went to renters, not landlords, and I don't think you've ever quite agreed with that.
And on excise taxes, I think your model does exactly what I said it does, i.e., it attributes the tax to the consumer. It does distinguish between taxes on products primarily sold within the state and those sold on an interstate basis, but it does not seem to recognize the possibility the cost of goods sold might be reduced to offset any part of an excise tax, which market conditions sometimes dictate.
Since even relatively small adjustments in the dollar amount of taxes attributable to low-income earners can make a significant impact on the percentage of their incomes attributable to state and local taxes, it is not hard to imagine that the differential in the tax burden your chart demonstrates may well be within the margin of error.
(It also appears that this model accepts the notion that businesses don't actually pay any taxes, but the entire tax burden is passed on to individuals.)
Looking at the chart more generally, I agree with its conclusion that income taxes are progressive, property taxes are somewhat regressive and excise taxes are very regressive. It is not so obvious, however, that the answer to this is to increase the income tax to make it more progressive, while leaving excise and property taxes where they are.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Oct 10, 2009 11:49:05 AM
Oh yeah, forgot to respond to Jon's criticism of my choice of words. Jon, you note that "it is because of my public image" that you are identified with the campaign. That fits the definition you provided. I never suggested as a private person you are a poster child. As far my use of the term "irony," you complain about taxes on people of the highest income while also claiming to represent people in an industry with no income these days (are the home builders you represent taking fat salaries while their busineses show losses and layoff workers?). I never suggested that you yourself built homes...I have no idea how well you handle hammers, saws, nails, etc. There is an incongruity between the sequence of events and the result: You are whipping up small businesses to oppose Measures 66 and 67 even though they will not be subject to higher taxes under them.
My prior post addressed the "at least he’s honest about that" comment. I will stop saying that when you stop saying that pass through entities will pay significantly more taxes when it is really only $150(i.e. stop scaring the Dick Warringtons of Oregon), and when you stop suggesting that more than 3 percent of taxpayers are owners of pass through entities who will be subject to the Measure 66 tax on high income individuals.
As to the entities you professionally represent that are C-corps who will be subject to the new minimum tax schedule modeled on the proposal by the Oregon Business Association (though the Measure 67 version has small businesses paying a smaller figure), I've already commented on that while the new minimum tax schedule for C-corps might not be perfect, it is still not onerous as you allege if you do the math.
Posted by: Jeremy Rogers | Oct 10, 2009 11:55:09 AM
1. If you read the whole ITEP analysis that Chuck cited, you’ll see that Oregon's wealthy taxpayers pay more, and low and middle income taxpayers pay less, as a share of their income in state and local taxes than taxpayers in the vast majority of other states and across the nation as a whole.
(Chuck-my comments refer to the 2002 report, which is the only one that I can find that looks at ALL states. If you’ve got an updated one, please share with me and with Blue Oregon, thanks!)
The study shows that Washington has the most regressive tax system in the nation, and in fact ITEP has stated that Washington should make its system more like Oregon’s. According to ITEP, the average Washingtonian in the lowest 20% bracket is paying 17% of his/her income in state and local taxes, compared to 9.4% in Oregon. The top 1% in Washington are paying 3.3%, compared to 8.9% in Oregon.
2. A very small number of wealthy taxpayers pay about 30% of Oregon's state income taxes.
The ITEP analysis doesn't look at the total contribution to the tax pot of higher income earners. When you run that analysis, you find that about 2% of taxpayers at the top end pay about 30% of all income taxes.
3. The ITEP analysis doesn't include federal tax liability
The ITEP analysis includes the FEDERAL deduction for state incomes taxes paid (a deduction that says nothing of how much $$ the state and local government is receiving from wealthy taxpayers). If you wanted to look at the situation holistically from the perspective of the taxpayer, who must think about their total tax liability. In this case we would want to consider all federal taxes paid, not just the federal deduction. In that analysis, I assume that the overall tax burden is very progressive, with the graduated rates at the federal level. Moreover, when/if the Bush cuts expire, if healthcare is paid for with a tax on the wealthy, and other federal increases are implemented, it will become even more progressive. If all of these proposals do pass, however, Oregon’s 11%, 9.9% or 9% income tax will seem even less attractive to wealthy taxpayers.
4. Fix the property tax system and sales/excise tax systems or lower income taxes for poor people
Reading the ITEP analysis the thing that jumps out at me is that we should rethink our property tax system, that we expand the EITC or give an income tax cut to poor Oregonians, and that we should help poor people quit smoking.
Why is raising the income tax the right change?
When reading this analysis it does not occur to me that we need to increase our already high and already progressive state income taxes. That’s the part of the picture where Oregon is doing very well in the progressive category.
Posted by: Garage Wine | Oct 10, 2009 11:58:18 AM
Jon is free to write a check to the state any time he wants. What Jon is really saying is: "I'll gladly pay the additional taxes so long as we also make my competitors give up their '♫ Silver and gold, silver and gold ... ♫'"
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 10, 2009 12:07:44 PM
I'm not saying that they aren't all great professionals and that maybe a pay increase is deserved, but 40%? This translates to higher OT, PERS, workers compensation, FICA and Medicare costs as well. Where did the money come from?
I would presume, at least in large part, the surcharge levied on improved lots in the forest protection districts around the state.
Posted by: alcatross | Oct 10, 2009 1:06:09 PM
♫ In the spirit of the moment ♫:
(to the tune of 'A Holly Jolly Christmas' - with apologies to the late Burl Ives...)
Pay your higher income taxes
Pay'em 'round the year
I don't know if it's fair share
of what you may hold dear
Pay your higher income taxes
And don't you dare complain
The state needs mo'
and their take is on the wane
Oh ho
more revenue
for spending you don't see
The ODOR waits for you
Pay them more for me
Pay your higher income taxes
and in case you didn't hear
Oh by golly
pay your higher income taxes this year!
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 10, 2009 1:09:40 PM
alcatross:
If you put that much energy into actually doing something constructive--you might actually make a positive contribution.
Alas.....
Posted by: mp97303 | Oct 10, 2009 1:16:15 PM
@Alex: People and corporations with more income have more goods to ship, more people working for them, more property to protect, and more contracts to be enforced.
1) Every hear of the knowledge economy. It's that thing that Oregon has such a love affair with. Since 1993, I have never shipped a single package from any of my businesses.
2) More people working for them??? How is that bad? What services go to people with jobs that they aren't personally paying for anyway?
3) More property to protect??? Ever hear of property taxes and personal property taxes paid by businesses? That pays for their protection, not state income taxes.
4) Contracts to enforce -- I have never had to use the courts to enforce any contracts, so there goes that one.
Posted by: alcatross | Oct 10, 2009 1:26:34 PM
Carla-
(Actually) Judge not, that ye be not judged...
Posted by: alcatross | Oct 10, 2009 2:06:15 PM
rw wrote: Trossie, it's "lest ye be judged."
rw, you'll find that 'Judge not, that ye be not judged' is as it is written in the King James Version of The Holy Bible.
I'm of course aware 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' is the more common translation today, but either form is technically acceptable/correct - the meaning is the same.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 10, 2009 3:25:56 PM
Carla-
(Actually) Judge not, that ye be not judged...
Why? Cuz you wouldn't judge me if I didn't say something? LOL
Btw...you're going to have to do better than The Bible with me, I'm not a Christian.
Now...back to the topic at hand. I'd like to hear more from the subject of this post about how he's going to reconcile it when his clients can't sell houses after the state budget is further gutted.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Oct 10, 2009 3:32:51 PM
The Oregon Judicial Branch of government is comprised of a Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Tax Court, and 36 circuit courts in 27 judicial districts. The budget for the 2007–09 biennium was about $360 million. The work of the courts is carried out by 1,800 FTEs and 191 judges. The courts processed 600,000+ cases. Of those cases filed, Oregon judges presided over 21,000 court trials and more than 3,000 jury trials.
Approximately 60% of the case load is for business entities. However since mp97303 has never found the need to utilize the court system, then it never happened.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 10, 2009 3:57:39 PM
Carla Axtman - I'd like to hear more from the subject of this post about how he's going to reconcile it when his clients can't sell houses after the state budget is further gutted.
Kurt Chapman - Well Carla, it could be that the basis of the argument around these tax hikes from Mr. Chandler and his clients is that preserving high pay and high benefits jobs at the state level is not required for homes to sell. Perhaps they believe that preserving state jobs is less important than preserving or creating private sector jobs. An interesting case, when income tax hikes were turned back at the ballot box in 2003-2004, how many state jobs were lost? How many private sector jobs lost? That would be a great number to know.
Carla, I'm not a Nazi or a Communist, yet I've read Mein Kampf as well as the works of Marx and Engels.
Posted by: CS | Oct 10, 2009 4:07:29 PM
The home builders' lobbyist is obviously making too much money. If we talk about salary caps on sports stars, and award caps on lawsuits, why not salary caps on lobbyists? They serve no public good type purpose, in fact most work against the interests of the public by promoting corporate interests that are often directly contradictory to the public good. How about we just make it so lobbyists don't get paid at all? Then if you don't care enough about an issue to go to the capitol for free, you should not be going.
Posted by: alcatross | Oct 10, 2009 6:42:53 PM
Carla wrote: Why? Cuz you wouldn't judge me if I didn't say something? LOL
I don't/wouldn't judge you under any circumstances, Carla. It's not a constructive or worthwhile activity.
Posted by: Lord Beaverbrook | Oct 10, 2009 6:52:55 PM
This seems like so much fiddling while Naples burns. Someone HAS noticed that California is teetering on the edge of becoming America's first failed state? Affect any of the projections? They border Oregon, you know.
Wanna get out of the water now, or wait to be sucked under with the sinking ship? Get control of IT (at all levels of gov), raise taxes, and spend, spend, spend. You sure ain't gonna do it later and there's not enough gas in the tank to ride the storm out. The rest is details or irrelevant. Ignore the irrelevant, use the majority, and get to it!
One of those details: have the FCC rate radio/TV by their educational worth, and use that categorization to tax the parent corp. Full scale, too, positive and negative. Not only would some get a tax cut, companies like Clear, that suck off the teat of toxic radio would be paying more. Yeah, that's the ticket. A Rush tax. How appropriate.
Posted by: mp97303 | Oct 10, 2009 7:24:08 PM
The budget for the 2007–09 biennium was about $360 million. The work of the courts is carried out by 1,800 FTEs and 191 judges. The courts processed 600,000+ cases
The price of suing someone in Oregon jumped today, from an old rate of $189 or less to what can amount to $500, $5,000 or in rare cases thousands more.
So based on YOUR figures, they spend roughly <$600 per filing. I guess the new fee structure will take care of most of that. Problem solved.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 11, 2009 9:57:20 AM
I don't/wouldn't judge you under any circumstances, Carla. It's not a constructive or worthwhile activity.
Interesting. You have an odd way of commenting otherwise.
(shrug)
Well Carla, it could be that the basis of the argument around these tax hikes from Mr. Chandler and his clients is that preserving high pay and high benefits jobs at the state level is not required for homes to sell.
High paying jobs with high benefits aren't required for people to buy homes? Isn't that how we got into the financial mess in the first place?
Perhaps they believe that preserving state jobs is less important than preserving or creating private sector jobs. An interesting case, when income tax hikes were turned back at the ballot box in 2003-2004, how many state jobs were lost? How many private sector jobs lost? That would be a great number to know.
The idea that we will either have high paying state jobs OR high paying private sector jobs is a false and unsustainable premise. By continuing to gut the state budget and shed state jobs, fewer folks will have money to inject into the economy. Mr. Chandler's clients rely on those folks to buy their product. Without them, Mr. Chandler's clients will eventually lose their jobs, too.
Mr. Chandler's clients would be better off supporting the tax increases, keeping the state budget (and these jobs) intact, and having people with money to buy homes and other goods.
Carla, I'm not a Nazi or a Communist, yet I've read Mein Kampf as well as the works of Marx and Engels.
Uh...okay. Nazis and Communists aren't even close to the same thing...and I don't recall accusing you....
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Oct 11, 2009 10:54:13 AM
"So based on YOUR figures..." blah blah blah
Those are the official reported numbers from Salem. Somewhat conservative because they are for 2007-08 and the number of business related filings (i.e. foreclosure, bankruptcy) have increased dramatically over the last year.
So the question remains, given the amount of services businesses demand from the state, why is it fair to socialize their debt yet privatize their profits?
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 11, 2009 11:23:53 AM
Carla, my last snippet about Mein Kampf and the others was a poorly worded attempt at saying you don't have to believe in a person or a cause to read the works. It was aimed at your Biblical barb. I failed.
However on the central question. Why do we have to keep funding more government jobs with tax pa increases? as I said several times before, the last time these same folks placed us in this mess (2002-2004) I voted in favor of the temporary tax increase, partly because it was across the board.
Where do you come up with the premise that further cuts to the state budget will mean wholesale loss of state jobs. Did that happen when the tax increases, although temporary failed in 2004? I still beleive that Pregon is very capable of balancing the budget without huge tax increases or draconian cuts in state employees.
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: mp97303 | Oct 9, 2009 3:45:55 PM
(Someone better call an ambulance for Chuck before he reads this comment)
Since I haven't commented on the increase on individual taxes yet, here goes: I support them fully. This tax increase will have no meaningful impact on anyone in this tax bracket (myself included) and this is nothing more than ideological idiot regurgitating talking points.
(Someone throw some cold water on Chuck)
I hope this is considered "on topic"