Falling Off A Cliff… Or Not: The Choice Is Ours
We didn’t need the Pew Center on the States to tell us this, but they did it anyway: Oregon is facing a severe financial crisis. Based on several factors, the Pew Center has listed Oregon as one of the ten states in most “fiscal peril,” tied with Nevada for #5. California’s fiscal state is so bad, it’s in a league of its own.
The report takes into account Oregon’s rise in unemployment, our decreasing ability to pay for basic services … and, pointedly, a system in which legislators’ power to act is undermined by the ability and willingness of corporate lobbyists to spend millions of dollars to protect their embarrassingly low taxes.
But what the report highlight more than anything is this: We have a choice in how this turns out for Oregon.
In January, Measures 66 and 67 will give us the choice between two Oregon futures. Do we vote YES, and protect schools and other critical services, or do we vote no to protect the antiquated $10 corporate minimum?
The corporate lobbyists opposing these measures have made their choice known, and that’s what worries the folks at the Pew Center:
“Limited ability to
act. In most of the 10 states, including Arizona,
California, Florida, Nevada and Oregon, lawmakers’ latitude to respond to the
fiscal crisis by raising taxes or cutting spending is limited by their states’
constitutions, ballot measures passed by voters, or other statutory or legal
impediments to change.”
In other words: the ability and willingness of the corporate lobbyists to use the referendum system to overturn legislative decision-making undermines our fiscal health.
But I have faith that in this time of crisis, Oregonians will do the right thing and vote YES on 66 and 67.
This report highlights the need to work to support Measures 66 and 67. By keeping $1 billion in the Oregon economy – much of which will come from big out-of-state corporations, and from Federal matching funds – we can protect Oregon jobs, preserve services, and put our economy back together. We can avoid the Ghost of Oregon Future that haunts the Pew report.
As the economy struggles, it’s critically important to maintain basic services for people who have nowhere left to turn. These measures will make sure that our most vulnerable—children, seniors, and struggling families—aren’t left in the cold.
(Measure 66 also helps Oregonians who’ve found themselves out of work this year by making the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits tax exempt for 2009.)
In the months leading to January, we have a choice: Do we allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to throw our schools, seniors, and other vulnerable Oregonians off a cliff, or do we come together to protect the Oregon that we all value?
|
November 12, 2009 |
Steve Novick | Comments (123 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Three Slips, a Gulley and a Silly Point | Nov 13, 2009 1:29:12 PM
Turning Oregon or Washington into the equivalent of South Carolina to compete for low-end jobs sounds like my vision of hell, but economic forces are like glaciers, they just keep grinding you down.
Watch out Greg. Objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear.
I'm a computer contract consultant and over the last 10 years there has been growing competition from other markets. First Taiwan, then India, now Pakistan and African states. There's been an upturn in activity in the last few months, and there's been a new phenomenon, just as you describe. I even said outloud, last Friday, "since when did South Carolina become Pakistan"? And made them this nifty little license plate .
Anyway, in the last few days I've been seeing a lot of the same kind of activity from...Idaho! It is a dangerous fallacy to believe that the West coast states are blue ones. The West Coast, literally- just the coast- is very blue. California is a very red state (ahhhm...RICHARD!). The Willamette valley is about as far east as it goes, and by quite a bit. I can tell you that the good folk of Stockton are every bit as nice as KKKers from Indiana. Look at the House Map, if you want to know what a state "is".
This is the one thing the Catholic Church got right. If it's an important vote, you should go to an enclosed space, lock out the rabble and not come out until you have an answer. "All politics is local"? NO politics of consequence is local. Fix that. Get rid of all this outside money and influence and limit those things to the area actually impacted. Do you think the dittoheads on this thread could exist without their holiday stuffing? I mean, read poor Richard's almanac! Can barely gibber the old tired lines. Those people are purely a symptom of outside influence. Fight the disease, not the symptoms. The symptoms will go away. That's where the dueling thing is off, m'lawd. Even if you could whip them into a debating team, they still don't have anything to say. If being unfit to be a TEA prankster doesn't qualify as useless, I don't know what could!
Unfortunately, when people produce the useless, they never, once, remove that "gotta be somebody" bit. Bugger all, that! Like a chicken running around with its head cut off.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 13, 2009 1:54:19 PM
Sales tax on goods wouldn't provide all the revenue needed for essential services, but it would certainly provide enough to help
Actually, it wouldn't provide any significant new revenue. Every sales tax proposal has been accompanied by cuts in property and income tax rates.
One supposed benefit of a sales tax was that it was more stable than income taxes, which it isn't necessarily. Neither is anywhere near as stable as property taxes; replacing property tax revenues with far more volatile sales tax revenues would actually make the system as a whole less stable than it is now.
The other supposed benefit is the capture of off-the-books income and tourist dollars but nobody ever manages to come up with very good numbers for either of those categories. How much are people who get paid under the table spending on things other than food, lodging, etc.? And does the fact that about half the overnight stays in the state are made by people who already live in the state (and therefore already pay into the tax system in other ways) offset business income tax revenue paid on purchases from out-of-staters and declines in purchasing made by tourists due to the effectively higher cost of good with sales taxes on them? Not according to the figures I've seen.
An economic war has begun between the low cost states of the Southeast and the higher cost states of the West Coast.
"Begun?" Greg, you're about thirty or forty years behind the curve. Those "low end manufacturing jobs" you mention that moved overseas started out in places like the Northeast. Textile mills started moving into the South long, long ago, then they moved out of the country in more recent decades. Bowing may have just decided to put an assembly plant in the Carolinas, but they were talking to China more than a decade ago. Give it another ten years.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 13, 2009 1:55:24 PM
Just to clarify, the "e" and the "w" are right next to each other.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 2:17:38 PM
Steve Mauer,
Nice try but you lost focus with your theory.
You lost with
One, I didn't talk spenidng in terms of dollars. I was addressing the 9% increased spending last session and other similar occurances.
If you want to pretend otherwise as you repsond to my question with a question fine.
I don't mind considering population and inflation.
So did the population and inflation in Oregon increase by 9%?
Is that your justification?
Did the taxpayer's ability to pay taxes increase by 9%?
Obviously, and elementary, inflation and population growth should have a fundamental relationship on the size of governmental budgets.
Just as more vehicles require more road capacity.
So what is your point?
Stop inferring and spit it out.
Are you saying the increases in spending and government have only been a result of inflation and population increases? Or are you just inferring it?
So that's not why the right wing zealot label. Next?
You appear to be too easily coming up with an excuse to avoid explaining the progressive advocacy for taxing and spending increases while the economy and ability of taxpayers to pay shrinks.
Explain away pal.
Or don't bother if all it takes is some lame excuse and diverting.
So far a few blues have acknowledged the '09 session increased spending.
Of course in the context of wanting it to be twice as much of an increase.
Now here I gave you a serious answer to your imaginary presumtpion that I didn't see any relationship between pop. growth/inflation and goverment.
The missing answers are from progressives who like to avoid, divert and infer versus spitting out with plain speak.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Nov 13, 2009 3:26:27 PM
Richard: Nice try but you lost focus with your theory. You lost with...
Richard, I haven't proposed any "theory". And further, for your information, your inability to understand or accept basic logic or facts is not indicative of me "losing" anything. You need to take responsibility for your own failures, and stop trying to push it off on to others.
But, just for my own self-entertainment, I went ahead and tried to figure out what you were talking about with this so-called 9% increase. It took quite a lot of digging, because not a single reputable non-partisan economic source had any statistic even marginally close to that fantasy number, but I finally found success in digging through the old archives of "stopjobkillingtaxes.com", which quotes a Larry George (R-Sherwood) press release that claims that Oregon will in the future spend 9.38% more in the planned budget ending in 2011 than it did in the current budget ending in 2009.
This 9.38% figure pretty obviously got filtered through a bunch of progressively stupider people, until you finally latched on to it as a 9% increase over the 2007 budget. But that doesn't actually make it true.
And even in the original numbers, Larry George was distorting the facts beyond all recognition. The way he came up with his magic 9.38% figure was by adding the federal dollars given to Oregon to spend on federal programs. The State budget is nearly flat in real dollars, and does not account for population increases. Almost all of the "increase" he's complaining about are federal payments for things like unemployment insurance, and stimulus funds to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and put Oregonians back to work. There has also been a major increase in fee (for governmental service) revenue, as well. Not because fees are increasing, but because people are using state resources in the depression, rather than more expensive private ones. The fact that more people are paying Metro to take the bus, rather than get in a car, does not mean government is growing out of control - it means it's acting like the safety-net it's supposed to.
Now of course all of this is completely lost on you, Richard, because you are one of those sorts of people who doesn't really bother with facts, other than the ones you or your friends pull out of your collective asses. I suggest you go back to watching Glen Beck all the other idiots who entertain angry hate-filled emotional reasoners like yourself, with logical fallacies and outright lies that make them feel good.
Reading a website will continue to expose you to information you simply don't want to know about.
Posted by: KC Hanson | Nov 13, 2009 3:57:16 PM
The facts:
Corporate minimum has been at $10 since 1931, and PRIOR to 1931 was actually higher - $25.
2/3 of corporations will pay only the minimum, and those that pay a nominally graduated rate are multi-million and billion dollar corporations that make millions IN Oregon.
Regarding the personal increase, the increase ONLY applies to couples earning above $250k (individuals at 125k), and ONLY applies to those dollars ABOVE that mark.
In other words, if the happy couple is still bringing home $20,666 a month, their additional tax would be a whooping $15 a month... one glass of moderately decent scotch.
Frankly, the numbers don't bear out all the screeching. The push-back is indicative not of a response to real math, but the continuing drone of an anti-tax, anti-government fervor that begins from a basic premise that everything from Salem is just wrong, or everything from a Democrat is just wrong.
Passage of 66/67 is not a panacea to all the state's $ woes, but the failure of these measures will mean definitive and severe cuts in services upon which all Oregonians rely: public safety, public education and health services.
It's not a bad thing to ask the individuals and companies that have made fortunes in this state help save it.
Posted by: KCleland | Nov 13, 2009 4:10:15 PM
Oregon does need new leadership; Leadership that will focus on jobs, economy and state funding.
Steve Shields is running for Governor exactly because of this problem- the Fiscal and economic mess the state is in, and the lack of leadership to get us out. Salem seems resigned to the situation, to the point they don't even acknowledge we've been in the bottom 10% of states economically for years now.
Steve Shields is running because he sees the economic train wreck coming, and he cares enough to want to stop it. He's got the courage to step in, step up and make a difference by focusing on what really matters. Not just healthcare, not just green jobs or the environment. Steve wants to serve to create a better Oregon for everyone, which means fixing our economic mess. This is what he's good at. This is what he's been trained to do. Fix economic messes.
Steve Shields has leadership skills, businesses experience, he's created jobs, and he's got the political will to tackle the issues brought out in this study. Give him a listen, give him a chance.
Posted by: Steve Marx | Nov 13, 2009 4:31:33 PM
"because it does not happen as much as you would like us to believe."
You need to read more carefully. Ask any employer who is NOT here why. Whether he just left or is considering Oregon. I mean look at the CIty of Portland, they do not have a clue on how to attract jobs and use the jobs premise to justify development they like. I mean Sam's Eco Dev Director's experience is writing grants for African farmers. We really need to be competitive and this means looking at our own short-comings in the marketplace and fixing same.
The days of us patting each other on the back and saying everybody wants to live in Oregon are over.
You can continue your high-flown rhetoric now.
Posted by: Steve Marx | Nov 13, 2009 4:32:28 PM
"Do you accept that inflation and population growth should have a fundamental relationship on the size of governmental budgets?"
I went thru this before, but state revenues are far (like 50% faster) outpacing inflation * pop growth.
Posted by: Steve Marx | Nov 13, 2009 4:33:26 PM
Since 2007, I can guarantee our population * inflation has NOT grown 9%
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Nov 13, 2009 5:17:36 PM
For those who are interested in a thoughtful discussion on this topic, State Rep Peter Buckley will be debating one of the Chief Petitioner's, Brent DeHart, at a townhall in McMinnville on Tuesday, November 17th from 11:45 to 1:15 at the McMinnville Grand Ballroom, 325 NE 3rd St. Tickets are $5. If you want lunch it's $15 and you need to pre-register. It's hosted by the McMinnville Chamber of Commerce: (503) 472-6196.
Posted by: LT | Nov 13, 2009 9:02:09 PM
"For those who are interested in a thoughtful discussion on this topic, State Rep Peter Buckley will be debating one of the Chief Petitioner's, Brent DeHart, at a townhall in McMinnville on Tuesday, November 17th from 11:45 to 1:15 at the McMinnville Grand Ballroom, 325 NE 3rd St. Tickets are $5. If you want lunch it's $15 and you need to pre-register. It's hosted by the McMinnville Chamber of Commerce: (503) 472-6196. "
Sal, if McMinnville were closer, if I wasn't working that day, I might have considered going.
DeHart appeared in an event like that in Salem and sounded like a great example of personal pique making a snide remark to the effect that people who become legislators don't have common sense.
I hope that with the Ways and Means co-chair present, there can be some discussion of alternatives/ ways to balance the budget.
Kim Thatcher has a piece on Oregon Catalyst about core services. At least she admits there are core services the state must fund, which is more than some tax opponents want to discuss publicly.
Posted by: LT | Nov 13, 2009 10:10:05 PM
I would love to see Steve Shields debate DeHart, as Shields spoke on KGW Straight Talk about actually having locate companies and taxes were only one factor, not the only factor.
Steve Marx: language like
" Sam's Eco Dev Director's experience " makes you sound like a disciple of Lars.
Do you have any positive suggestions, or just insults?
Posted by: Liz Thorne | Nov 14, 2009 4:50:52 AM
Steve Shields has definitely sounded very tuned into specifics, and not at all like an outsider when I've heard him, recently. I agree with the poster that said the situation he had at HP (not the sauce) is very much like OR gov.
Of course the herd animals, aka party animals, will become skittish the moment they realize he's leading them outside the Dem herd. That's Kitz's appeal. He addresses what needs to be addressed without spin and national party control, yet the domesticated ones can look around and see they're still with the herd. Definitely the BO poster child if ever there was going to be one. Progressive without those nasty, hard life choices.
Posted by: LT | Nov 14, 2009 9:12:31 AM
Liz, Steve seems like a bright guy.
You, however, might want to read the old posts about Novick vs. Merkley.
Statements like "That's Kitz's appeal. He addresses what needs to be addressed without spin and national party control, yet the domesticated ones can look around and see they're still with the herd. Definitely the BO poster child if ever there was going to be one. Progressive without those nasty, hard life choices." are inclined to make people skeptical of a candidate whose fan writes something like that.
Where is Shields on the need to debate kicker reform in the Feb. session?
Or is that a question only someone "inside the herd" would ask?
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 14, 2009 10:00:04 AM
I'm only a little familiar with the suggestion of a VAT a few years ago. It would be an interesting alternative discussion to 66 and 67. Both measures passed by the legislature have fatal flaws in my view.
M66 builds on the idea that it is "OK" to tax someone else for what we want because they make "a lot" of money. Of course "a lot" is defined by us. the other major problem with 66 is that it acts as a disincentive to make "more" money. It is a built in penalty for making more than what somebody else sefines as "a lot".
M77 fatal flaws are that it went beyond what many agreed was long over due minimum tax adjustments on business. It also paced an odiferous gross receipts tax into the mix that taxes a company based soley on sales in state regardless of profit/loss.
Both measures are flawed in that they reinforce Oregon's dependency on the income tax, a widely variant form of state revenue. The PEw paper that Novick wishes to pick and choose from clearly outlines what Oregon, and several other states can do in order to shore up revenue streams and allow for a more even and sustainable tax vehicle.
I voted for the temporary tax increase on all in 2004 becaue I believed that the legislature could/would work on a better solution. that measure failed and the legislature still failed to address meaningful change. I am defintely voting aginst 67 and now am leaning towards a "NO" vote on 66 as well. It may be the only way to force the moribund dems in Salem into action to seriously consider a meaningful 3rd leg - the sales tax.
Sure, Oregon has voted against this type tax numerous times. It is basically a vote against the legislatures and government. The population has stated that they have no confidence in elected officials to be responsible. With calamaties like BETC, it is difficult to refute.
However, a properly crafted sales tax would even out revenue, protect the poor and be a revenue producing vehicle that shores up Oregon finances. Again, properly crafted, it is also mostly a personal decision. Don't want to pay high sales tax? Fine, keep the 5 year old TV and stay away from the flat screen. Purchase a good reliable used car instead of that new showroom spiffy model. Instead of micro brews, stick with BUD, Miller or Coors (OK, I went too far! still buy great local craft brews!)
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Nov 14, 2009 10:04:28 AM
"Steve Shields has definitely sounded very tuned into specifics..."
Oh yeah, very specific. But rather than take Liz's word for it, let's hear from the man himself regarding education:
"This is not a simple problem and I'm not necessarily wanting to go into all these details at this point."
Another favorite, let's-get-specific quote:
"I'm a big-picture guy, I'm a strategy guy, I'm a long-term-planning guy."
Shield's won't even man-up to the proposed tax package claiming he is for it but only because it is the lesser of two evils.
Nobody's afraid of Steve because he is outside the herd. It's just this race doesn't need another deer-in-the-headlights former business executive who feels he needs to start his next career at the top without a plan. Or a clue.
Posted by: LT | Nov 14, 2009 10:31:37 AM
"Nobody's afraid of Steve because he is outside the herd. It's just this race doesn't need another deer-in-the-headlights former business executive who feels he needs to start his next career at the top without a plan. Or a clue."
Thank you Scott. The biggest challenge Shields faces is convincing people he would not be another Bruggere.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 14, 2009 11:01:22 AM
However, a properly crafted sales tax would even out revenue, protect the poor and be a revenue producing vehicle that shores up Oregon finances. ... Instead of micro brews, stick with BUD, Miller or Coors (OK, I went too far! still buy great local craft brews!)
You do know that beer already has what is essentially a sales tax on it, don't you? The one that House Bill 2461 was intended to raise earlier this year.
As for protecting the poor, that's just a completely false statement. The Washington State Department of Revenue calculated a few years back that people on the lowest end of the income scale (<$20K/year) paid sales taxes at a rate three times higher than those making more than $130K. There's not a sales tax on the planet that protects the poor. Nobody in any of these discussions has even been able to point to an example of a system including a sales tax that doesn't have the effect of shifting more of the tax burden onto poor people than it would without the sales tax.
The whole "third leg" argument is specious. A tax system isn't a physical object subject to gravity. There's no actual validity to the need for a third major revenue stream, that's just an analogy someone made once upon a time that gets repeated by people because it makes them think they sound like they know what they're talking about. But in math, adding a third variable to an equation makes solving the equation (i.e. predicting future revenue over a period of bienniums) more difficult, particularly if that variable is less predictable than you expected.
Posted by: Eugene Carpet | Nov 14, 2009 11:16:52 AM
Business taxation is the worst thing you can do in tough times. In fact why not try to reel in some of the gross overspending in the state. Look at how little of the money spent on education is for teachers. More people work in Oregon education that are not teachers than are... yup more administrators, janitors, than teachers.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 14, 2009 11:20:03 AM
darrel, we will continue to disagree. That's OK.
contrary to your argument, adding a third varible that is more static in nature tends to even out the variations in the outcome. So to use your analogy of math, statistically adding a third varible that is more static makes perfect sense.
I also disagree about the affect of a sales tax on the poor. Again, properly structured it has additional encumberance on their ability to obtain and purchase necessary items such as food, medicine and shelter. Again, it is a tax that can be self regulating. buy hamburger and buns, pay no tax. Go to Mikky D's and pay the tax.
Poor people don't purchase home theater systems, Meemers, Porsches and second homes at Sun River. the people that do could pay the sales tax.
Bottom line darrel, the current system is not working. The addition of a well crafted sales tax will go a long way to stabilizing and solidifying the revenue base for Oregon.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Nov 14, 2009 11:40:35 AM
"Business taxation is the worst thing you can do in tough times."
Because those massive Bush tax cuts worked out soooo well, eh Eugene?
Oh, and ((admin + janitors) > teachers ) = stupid to the nth degree.
Posted by: rw | Nov 14, 2009 12:20:19 PM
Kurt C - how in touch with Oregon's unemployed are you at this time? A sales tax would be a disaster for the have-nots. Believe me on this one.
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 14, 2009 12:28:59 PM
The choice is clear and Steve is right. Pass the tax fairness and make the wealthy corporations and individuals pay their fair share, or destroy the public school system by laying off hundreds more teachers , shutting down academic and sports programs; destroy our public safety by releasing more prisoners and firing more police officers; and destroying the safety net for the unemployed and the infirm by cutting people off unemployment, food stamps, in-home care for the elderly. But the wingnuts hate all that socialism stuff, except when it's their socialism stuff.
Posted by: Liz Thorne | Nov 14, 2009 1:26:24 PM
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Nov 14, 2009 11:40:35 AM
"Business taxation is the worst thing you can do in tough times."
Because those massive Bush tax cuts worked out soooo well, eh Eugene?
Oh, and ((admin + janitors) > teachers ) = stupid to the nth degree.
Why thank you, Scott. When my math. class next asks of an example of an exponential function, I'll say, "the stupidity of salary grades in this school system". And it is soooo true.
OK all you dismissive types out there. Make your hypothesis falsifiable. Under what condition would you cut management salaries? Simple question. I'll bet I don't get a single concrete answer to that one.
This is where you may be right, but are screwing the pooch with your presentation. Any business owner could/would answer that question. Not only will you not answer it, not consider it, you grab our kids and threaten them if we keep asking. And now you want money.
Can you see why this might not be the best way to go about it? Will you admit that, given that what people like Scott and I are pointing out is blindingly obvious, that you do it because you know no other way? You're also helping the far right. Even they can get it, and can see you're conditioned to an untenable response. They will and are jumping all over that and will sway members of the great centrist herd.
Posted by: rw | Nov 14, 2009 3:12:45 PM
Bill R - interestingly, the safety net for the unemployed is tattered already. Many of those receiving unemployment are unable to qualify for any assistance to put food in their mouths, yet are unable to pay for more than very essential bills at this time. I am aware of many folks who live in our over-pumped PDX Metro area, and not high on the hog, who can barely cover the essentials and now subsist on foodbox food and know daily hunger as they search for jobs in a bleedout environment. There is no safety net. There is the illusion of a net. The proportions of the crisis in Oregon are not being adequately articulated, I think.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 14, 2009 4:37:17 PM
Kurt:
You're right that if you add a stable variable into an equation it makes the result more predictable, but the problem is that that's just not the case with a sales tax. Sales tax advocates love to make that claim, but real-world data shows sales taxes to be nearly as volatile -- and in some cases more volatile -- than income taxes. That, combined with the fact that any sales tax proposal is usually accompanied by a reduction in property taxes -- which are far more stable than the other two forms -- means you trade one volatile source of revenue for another while simultaneously reducing the influence of the most stable revenue stream.
You're woefully mistaken if you think a significant source of state revenue can be built on the sales of luxury vehicles, trips to fast-food restaurants (and I have to laugh if you think that poor people don't make up a significant portion of the customers at McD's--there's a reason they've got a $1 menu), and big-screen TVs. If you think it can be done, just tell everyone where your model is. Let us know what state or country has enacted a sales tax that doesn't work to shift the tax burden onto the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy.
I'll be looking for that link.
Posted by: sjp | Nov 14, 2009 4:51:08 PM
Darrel Plant: If the legislation is upheld after the referendum, I think it's safe to say that Oregon will be one of the few places in the world over the past several decades to adopt a more progressive tax system.
Posted by: rw | Nov 14, 2009 4:57:23 PM
I'm really stunned at the childish and empty gameplaying here. A person with five dollars in her pocket having to get food for tonight's dinner vs. someone with thousands in their bank account - and taxing the poor person for her basic necessity is PROGRESSIVE?
I just do not understand this. AND: I think politics is a mighty and stupid venue of gameplaying.
Posted by: LT | Nov 14, 2009 6:38:31 PM
"A person with five dollars in her pocket having to get food for tonight's dinner vs. someone with thousands in their bank account - and taxing the poor person for her basic necessity is PROGRESSIVE?"
A properly written sales tax bill exempts groceries.
A poorly written bill slaps the same tax on everything.
The first aims to help low income people. The second is stupid.
Conversation about "a sales tax" implies that the wording doesn't matter---but it does.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 14, 2009 7:17:32 PM
Here is a challenge for those of you who talk a lot and say so little: How does the state stabilize its revenue from one budget cycle to the next?
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 14, 2009 7:33:29 PM
Obviously, with a sales tax, mp. Would at least keep WA drivers from running down peds in the crosswalks!
But rw is right. Of course, LT, you exempt groceries. But what about the ever increasing load of schools supplies (likely to be worse when this doesn't pass), etc? Pet supplies are important. At least do like the old German Constitution and allow a pint of lager a day.
When you think all that through, then realize all the effort is to protect corps from a small amount, I think the initial comment's point about it being easy to get lost in the theory of it for the choice on the table, should be well taken.
I would add there should be no corporate tax for any showing less than $20,000 in revenue (not profit). Ultimately, the challenge is to craft an income tax that preserves Oregon's unique character. In terms of waste, we could at least put all those juggling the never predictable budget to work crafting such a measure...and then lay them off when revenue is stabilized!
Posted by: LT | Nov 14, 2009 7:34:00 PM
MP, a lot depends on those revenue forecasts---which are just that. Has any revenue forecast ever been totally accurate (to the dollar) and neither over or under? Or is it like weather forecasting--prone to conditions changing things ("if the clouds come in, it will rain")?
If we had a good-sized rainy day fund and got rid of the kicker (or didn't send it back until the rainy day fund had been built up) that would be a start.
MP, how did you like the court decision on the wording of 66 & 67?
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 14, 2009 7:51:45 PM
LT
Has there been something new on 66/67? I have been out of the loop on news this last week.
I agree on the kicker. It should be used to fund a rainy day fund of some pct of the budget before any goes back to taxpayers. How we use the kicker is another debate.
Posted by: LT | Nov 14, 2009 8:15:22 PM
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=statesmanjournal&sParam=32048203.story
Remember how the petitioners went to court to contest the ballot titles written by the Measure 66 and 67 ballot title committee?
The court ruled. It changed a few words here and there but did not throw out the ballot titles.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 14, 2009 8:51:40 PM
Steve Maurer,
Your type of progressive California obfuscation is exactly the kind used to justify the insane expansion of government .
Your tone and attitude are oozing progressive anger.
When liberals turned progressive this is where they have taken us.
The legislature wisely cut spending during the 1981 recession
1981-83-----$8,940,741,798 --(-10.88%)
But then,,,
After liberals turned progressive.
The Legislature increased spending during recession.
2001-03----$35,508,990,712 ----16.57%
The Legislature increased spending during the current recession
2009-11----$53,760,031.018----- 9.38%
And now progressives are advocating massive tax and spending increases at every level.
Oregon and especially the Democrats, have a spending problem,
that has lasted a long time.
Biennium----Total All Funds-----% of increase
2009-11----$53,760,031.018----- 9.38%
2007-09----$48,005,409,654-----13.72%
2005-07----$43,220,555,200 ----11.56%
2003-05----$38,743,009,114 -----9.11%
2001-03----$35,508,990,712 ----16.57%
1999-01----$30,462,319,439 ----11.55%
1997-99----$27,308,692,023 ----17.62%
1995-97----$23,218,655,377 ----15.85%
1993-95----$20,042,060,862 ----12.18%
1991-93----$17,866,757,268-----17.74%
1989-91----$15,174,994,031 ----20.72%
1987-89----$12,570,014,958 -----4.23%
1985-87----$12,060,094,718 ----17.97%
1983-85----$10,223,173,163 --- 14.34%
1981-83-----$8,940,741,798 --(-10.88%)
1979-81----$10,031,862,751 ----35.08%
1977-79-----$7,426,493,362 ----42.91%
1975-77-----$5,196,769,722 --- 56.72%
1973-75-----$3,315,908,507 ----22.15%
1971-73-----$2,714,651,811 ----27.54%
1969-71-----$2,128,527,639 ----13.49%
1967-69-----$1,875,459,599
1965-67-----$1,411,920,395
1963-65-----$1,267,100,097
1961-63-----$1,067,822,805
1959-61-------$946,954,063
1957-59-------$718,552,984
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 14, 2009 9:25:47 PM
@ rw
No safety net? I remember before there was food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid, Medicare. I remember when aid to dependent children required a years's residency in a state. I remember sleeping in a car in the 50s, with a single mother one of three children who were all hungry, and government had no interest, nor did anyone else. You claim there is no safety net. It can be much, much worse than it is now. And that's where the right wing wants to take us. They love those times when poverty was so noble and uplifting, and deprivation so purifying. Their Ayn Rand world of social darwinism is what they worship.
Posted by: LT | Nov 14, 2009 10:45:15 PM
Atiyeh didn't support raising taxes?
"The legislature wisely cut spending during the 1981 recession
1981-83-----$8,940,741,798 --(-10.88%)
But then,,,
After liberals turned progressive."
And how much did it cost the state to pay back the SAIF Funds they used to balance the budget?
If you don't understand what really happened back then, have a conversation with St. Sen. Jackie Winters.
Posted by: rw | Nov 14, 2009 11:15:24 PM
Bill R - I lived in those times too. And I am here to explain to you that you are listing items that are no longer open. Voc Rehab has a waiting list to get considered for one of three waiting lists; medicaid opens for a lottery once every couple of years; the housing lists you go on about have three and five year waitlists.
A person who does not have credit cards, fancy housing or even television whose unemployment ONLY covers the rent will find themselves a slim 12 dollars above the amnt allowed to get food help.
It's worse than you think it is, dear Bill.
Believe me.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Nov 14, 2009 11:29:04 PM
Steve Novick:
....our decreasing ability to pay for basic services
Bob T:
What, in your opinion, are the non-basic services funded by the state budget. Or is everything basic?
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: matthew vantress | Nov 15, 2009 3:13:19 AM
how about a major league cut of the size of the continuing to grow size of the state govt?it appalls me that i am the only one posting regularly on blue oregon that calls for that.bill r what have your left wing nut buddies actually done to get oregons unemployment rate down and put people in the private sector back to work? oregon has a safety net bill r the millions of dollars they anually waste on consultants and studies like green this and green that that never gets the unemployment rate down.before you mouth off bill r and call people right wing nuts look at how the left wing has ruined the economy and business climate in oregon with high taxes,fees,system development charges and done absolutely nothing to reduce our high unemployment rate.
Posted by: Lord Beaverbrook | Nov 15, 2009 6:59:53 AM
So pointless. Have to make it a food fight. No. matthew, every dittohead repeats that line.
If anyone had the intellectual integrity and personal honesty to be real, the obvious option would be more gov spending less.
Posted by: matthew vantress | Nov 15, 2009 10:45:53 AM
you liberals lack the brains,education and iq mr lord beaverbrook to see through the sme old tired full of it scrare tactics abot how broke the state govt and schools really are.its never half as bad as you liberals claim.only dittoheads like you liberals keep falling for the same old tired crap.sorry mr beaverbrookn extortion scare tactics dont work with me and never have.its funny mr beaverbrook when honest people like me tell the truth about how dishonest and full of it you liberals really are and how bad your plans are you question our education level and intelligence and resort to name calling because the truth hurts you and you have absolutely no answer for it.all you want is more taxes,fees and etc to maintain the overgenerous pay and benefits package the state workers get.sorry taxpayers cant afford to pay the increasing pension and healthcare costs of state workers.i dont see you democrats talking about the fact that pers will suck up most if not all of this 733 million.im sorry when i see the state wasting millions anually on consultants and etc i dont see a revenue shortfall i see a greedy selfish state govt that cant stand up to the greedy public employee unions and tell them no for once.when i see the state telling us they have a 3 to 4 billion shortfall when they actually have a 54 billion all funds budget with a 2 billion surplus now its hard to feel sorry for them.sorry extortion scare dont work with me.
Posted by: Lord Beaverbrook | Nov 15, 2009 11:04:14 AM
If anyone had the intellectual integrity and personal honesty to be real, the obvious option would be more gov spending less.
Can you read matthew?
You will note that statement contains:
- no extortion
- no scare
- no consultants
- no greed
Just a prophetic call to get real.
If you bother to read other posts of mine you will find:
- projectile vomiting at consultants
- foo fighting with Dems
- admiration for your vigil in the cold against Wal-Mart
- no self serving arguments
I feel like screaming too. It's worth noticing who you're screaming at first. Cashing out is also an option if it's all too much. Hating the GOP is not love of the Dems. And I'm not a socialist. I'm much further left than that. Education policy? I'd take kids away from their parents at birth. You all need some real lefties so you can recognize tepid Dog Daze Dems when you see them.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 15, 2009 11:04:30 AM
A properly written sales tax bill exempts groceries. A poorly written bill slaps the same tax on everything. The first aims to help low income people. The second is stupid. Conversation about "a sales tax" implies that the wording doesn't matter---but it does.
Don't know where you get that idea, I think the wording matters a great deal, LT. But I've never seen wording for a sales tax -- either as a proposal or an existing system -- that makes it anything but a regressive revenue stream that hurts low income people, even if it claims it's "helping" them.
It's not enough to repeatedly claim that someone might be able to come up with a non-regressive sales tax if only people would talk about it. If I had wings I could fly, but without a method for growing them it ain't gonna happen and a discussion about the subject would be just so much blather until I have some realistic proposal. But it'd be pretty cool, wouldn't it?
The reality is, even if you assume a sales tax is less volatile than an income tax and that its addition would have a calming effect on overall revenue volatility, the volume of revenue from the sales tax needs to be on the same scale as other major revenue streams in order for it to have an effect on the entire tax system. In order to get something equivalent to the revenue from income and property taxes from a sales tax, you cannot tax only small classes of goods and services used by those not in the poor and working class. That means a broad-based tax that affects every household in the state. And no sales tax plan proposed in this state or enacted in any other state is progressive (where poor people pay a smaller proportion of their income than others) or even equitable (where everyone pays the same proportion). They all have a regressive effect on their tax system, making poor people pay a higher proportion of income over others, than they would without a sales tax.
Again, anyone with a link to information about a sales tax plan that isn't regressive, feel free to post it. It's been two years since I started asking people to do that and the silence is unbroken.
A few words from our neighbors to the north [PDF]:
Ability to Pay
- Washington’s tax system is regressive. The lowest income group ($20,000 or less) pays 15.7 percent of income for total excise taxes and property taxes. The highest income group pays 4.4 percent of income for the same taxes.
- Deductibility of taxes causes the tax system to be more regressive.
- When considering lifetime tax burden, Washington's tax system would still be regressive.
Posted by: LT | Nov 15, 2009 11:54:42 AM
"But I've never seen wording for a sales tax -- either as a proposal or an existing system -- that makes it anything but a regressive revenue stream that hurts low income people, even if it claims it's "helping" them."
For a long time there was a very loud anti-sales tax wing of Oregon Democrats---to the point of going after anyone who disagreed with them.
However, there have even been people in such a movement who admitted privately that the wording of one measure was not as bad as others.
In her oral history on the Oregon Channel, former Gov. Roberts talks about the Conversation with Oregon tax package which was killed by a parliamentary move from Speaker Campbell.
I'd like to see a discussion of what that plan entails, how it is different than the Westlund-Williams-Shetterly plan when the Republicans controlled the House (all 3 of those moderates found a way to leave the House not long afterwards, were they not ideologically pure enough for the majority leadership) and how either of those are different from the Sen. Frank Morse proposal and the findings of the Revenue Restructuring Task Force.
But spare me another foray into the old sales tax wars--been there, done that.
If someone has concrete ideas, I would love to see them.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 15, 2009 12:36:28 PM
darrel, seriously you need to cita other sources:
Washington’s tax system is regressive. The lowest income group ($20,000 or less) pays 15.7 percent of income for total excise taxes and property taxes. The highest income group pays 4.4 percent of income for the same taxes.
I doubt seriously that someone earning $20k/yr or less is in any position to own real estate and therefor pays $0 in property tax. They pay a little in vehicle tabs, but that is a licensing fee rather than a tax. It is also totally contollable by the payor in that the fee is a variable of vehicle value. The same holds true for excise taxation in Washington. The Washington poor as described in your cite making $20k/yr and less do not pay excise and property tax.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 15, 2009 1:05:41 PM
Funny how everyone gets all hot and bothered about a taxes regressiveness while advocating for the very same thing on businesses.
No matter how you spin it, you are advocating adding taxes to a taxable entity that has no taxable income. How else would you define regressive.
Out of 20,803 C Corp's that paid the $10 min, 15,647 did so because that ACTUALLY LOST MONEY or had minimal income as defined the ODOR. That is 15,647 companies that will have to pay higher taxes without an ability to pay.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Nov 15, 2009 1:40:58 PM
"you liberals lack the brains,education and iq mr lord beaverbrook to see through the sme old tired full of it scrare tactics abot how broke the state govt and schools really are."
Somebody? Anybody?
Some days it's like shooting conservatives, err fish in a barrel.
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: Steve Maurer | Nov 13, 2009 1:09:17 PM
Richard: I'll wager not a one of you progressives can stay focused long enough to stick to that point and justify your advocacy for increasing taxing and spending.
Here's a question for you, Richard... you keep talking about Oregon state spending in terms of dollars, not accounting for inflation or population growth.
Do you accept that inflation and population growth should have a fundamental relationship on the size of governmental budgets?
If the answer is "no" (as it currently appears) that's the reason why people consider you a right wing zealot.
I'll be happy to debate you all you want - to explain the general progressive (or at least Democratic - since some Naderite/Greens want to deny that I'm a progressive) position on the issues. But I won't even bother if this is going to be like a biologist talking to a fruitcake flat-earther creationist. If you're like the "birthers", "teabaggers", and other loons so whacked out they can't acknowledge facts, we don't have much to talk about.
This is the way most Republicans are, these days, which is one reason you don't get much of a serious answer.