Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3904
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Dominus Atheos »

Crooks And Liars
Just one week after the media chattering classes announced that Republican Scott Brown's upset win in Massachusetts represented a political sea change, voters in Oregon sent an unmistakable message of their own. And to be sure, they signaled an important win for Democrats and their progressive allies.

Rather than gut school funding and other essential government services during a recession like most states, Oregonians voted to raise taxes on the wealthiest residents and boost the minimum corporate tax from its shocking level of $10 a year.

As the New York Times noted this morning, Tuesday's special election became necessary when anti-tax advocates turned to Measures 66 and 67 to undo three quarters of a billion in funding for education and other programs:
The Legislature, controlled by Democrats, has already put the $727 million into the current budget. So if the ballot items, known as Measures 66 and 67, had been rejected, lawmakers would have been forced to hold a special session to find other ways to reduce spending or raise revenue.
And in what is a recurring theme for the nation as a whole, the New York Times in its election preview Sunday suggested who would vote for - and who would benefit from - the passage of the ballot measures in a state which hadn't voted for an income tax increase since 1930:
Yet if the measures pass, it will probably not be because of support here in largely conservative southwest Oregon. Too many times the state has proposed too many taxes, many residents here say, and this is no exception, never mind the school troubles.
Instead, experts say, if the measures pass it will be because Oregon lawmakers found a way to narrowly focus a tax increase that more liberal parts of the state could tolerate, even at a time when a tax increase could not be harder to digest.
Which is exactly what unfolded last night. In an election with 59% turnout statewide, voters approved both Measure 66 (which raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000) and Measure 67 (which sets sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits) by a comfortable 6 point, 90,000 vote margin. With a 70% "yes" vote, Portland's Multnomah County alone provided most of the difference.

As the Oregonian's Jeff Mapes concluded, the ballot measures' passage vindicated Governor Kulongoski, the Democratic legislature and its union supporters, which helped the "Yes" campaign outspend by $6.8 million to $4.6 million the "No" forces led by Nike's Phil Knight and Columbia Sportswear's Tim Boyle:
The strong "Yes" vote is the vindication of a risky strategy by majority Democrats and their union allies. During the Legislature, Kevin Looper, who ran the union-backed Yes campaign, told Democratic lawmakers that polling showed that a tax measure focused on the well-to-do and on corporations would win favor with voters.
All of which is a message that President Obama and Democrats in Congress need to hear. Of course, whether the mainstream media was listening is another matter altogether.

For more background on Oregon managed to preserve its budget while raising its per capita burden from 36th to 34th and business taxes from 3rd lowest in the nation to 5th lowest, visit BlueOregon here and here. Robert Cruickshank at Calitics has some thoughts on what it means to other states, too.
That is how you deal with these problems. We didn't sit around wringing our hands, or cut important state programs at a time when people need them most, or discuss the best way to call a constitutional convention to reform our massively bullshit-filled state constitution, or let the best solutions get stalled by special interests. We noticed we had a problem and the legislature acted quickly to fix it by passing a 2% tax increase on the wealthiest Oregonians and businesses. Some rich people and businesses were unhappy with the proposed solution so we sent the controversial bills to a special election and the citizens passed them. Since we have the incredibly convenient vote-by-mail system, even this special off-season election that didn't even have a federal race attracted a 60% voter turnout.

So the message to every state at risk of imploding due to budget shortfalls: Suck It. Here's a perfect guide on how to deal with your problems, and you have no excuse not to follow it.
User avatar
Razorgeist
Youngling
Posts: 83
Joined: 2009-10-29 06:30am

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Razorgeist »

Awesome..I'd like to see Pennsylvania pick it up.
"You have to believe in God before you can say there are things that man was not meant to know.
I don't think there's anything man wasn't meant to know. There are just some stupid things that people shouldn't do." - David Cronenberg


"Doesn't Rush Limbaugh remind you of one of those gay guys that like to lie in a tub while other guys pee on him?" - Bill Hicks
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Sea Skimmer »

In Pennsylvania the solution is pretty dead simple to close a big chunk of the budget gap, tax the goddamn natural gas companies which are basically foaming at the mouth to drill all over the state for the right to drill. Right now they only pay a lease on the land, and royalties once gas is produced which wont be for years. But of course, the Republicans are opposed to that, while the Democrats want to halt all further land leases least wastewater destroy all our waterways. They of course also object to building dams to retain it, or just forcing the companies to build more treatment plants.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
JediToren
Padawan Learner
Posts: 231
Joined: 2003-04-17 11:12pm
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by JediToren »

I miss Oregon. It's this strange place where people actually care about the place they live. Great beer, too.
User avatar
Serafine666
Jedi Knight
Posts: 554
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:43pm
Location: Sherwood, OR, USA

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Serafine666 »

Dominus Atheos wrote:That is how you deal with these problems. We didn't sit around wringing our hands, or cut important state programs at a time when people need them most, or discuss the best way to call a constitutional convention to reform our massively bullshit-filled state constitution, or let the best solutions get stalled by special interests. We noticed we had a problem and the legislature acted quickly to fix it by passing a 2% tax increase on the wealthiest Oregonians and businesses. Some rich people and businesses were unhappy with the proposed solution so we sent the controversial bills to a special election and the citizens passed them. Since we have the incredibly convenient vote-by-mail system, even this special off-season election that didn't even have a federal race attracted a 60% voter turnout.

So the message to every state at risk of imploding due to budget shortfalls: Suck It. Here's a perfect guide on how to deal with your problems, and you have no excuse not to follow it.
Indeed. We didn't sit around wringing our hands about the problem or rethink budget priorities or anything. With Oregon unemployment on the higher end of the national spectrum, we boldly increased taxes on the people who employ other people and made it retroactive so they hand an extra chunk of money to the state government. Somehow, this is a policy of staggering brilliance that all states really should imitate.
Image
"Freedom is not an external truth. It exists within men, and those who wish to be free are free." - Paul Ernst

The world is black and white. People, however, are grey.

When man has no choice but to do good, there's no point in calling him moral.
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Serafine666 wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:That is how you deal with these problems. We didn't sit around wringing our hands, or cut important state programs at a time when people need them most, or discuss the best way to call a constitutional convention to reform our massively bullshit-filled state constitution, or let the best solutions get stalled by special interests. We noticed we had a problem and the legislature acted quickly to fix it by passing a 2% tax increase on the wealthiest Oregonians and businesses. Some rich people and businesses were unhappy with the proposed solution so we sent the controversial bills to a special election and the citizens passed them. Since we have the incredibly convenient vote-by-mail system, even this special off-season election that didn't even have a federal race attracted a 60% voter turnout.

So the message to every state at risk of imploding due to budget shortfalls: Suck It. Here's a perfect guide on how to deal with your problems, and you have no excuse not to follow it.
Indeed. We didn't sit around wringing our hands about the problem or rethink budget priorities or anything. With Oregon unemployment on the higher end of the national spectrum, we boldly increased taxes on the people who employ other people and made it retroactive so they hand an extra chunk of money to the state government. Somehow, this is a policy of staggering brilliance that all states really should imitate.
Rethinking budget priorities? You mean protecting the rich by sacrificing the future and cut education funding? That is what happens every time.

The rich can afford it, the marginal increase in taxes over the long run is small enough that they wont really notice. Basic utilitarianism at work. If they response with layoffs to increase their quarter profits that is on them. That is their choice to reject their responsibilities to the citizens upon whom they depend.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Uraniun235 »

Serafine666 wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:That is how you deal with these problems. We didn't sit around wringing our hands, or cut important state programs at a time when people need them most, or discuss the best way to call a constitutional convention to reform our massively bullshit-filled state constitution, or let the best solutions get stalled by special interests. We noticed we had a problem and the legislature acted quickly to fix it by passing a 2% tax increase on the wealthiest Oregonians and businesses. Some rich people and businesses were unhappy with the proposed solution so we sent the controversial bills to a special election and the citizens passed them. Since we have the incredibly convenient vote-by-mail system, even this special off-season election that didn't even have a federal race attracted a 60% voter turnout.

So the message to every state at risk of imploding due to budget shortfalls: Suck It. Here's a perfect guide on how to deal with your problems, and you have no excuse not to follow it.
Indeed. We didn't sit around wringing our hands about the problem or rethink budget priorities or anything. With Oregon unemployment on the higher end of the national spectrum, we boldly increased taxes on the people who employ other people and made it retroactive so they hand an extra chunk of money to the state government. Somehow, this is a policy of staggering brilliance that all states really should imitate.
I'm a little fuzzy on it, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been retroactive if they hadn't petitioned for a referendum on the law the Legislature passed.

What budget priorities do you think should have been rethought? What do you think should be cut?

Most interesting to me: how much would you be willing to cut from the state budget before considering a tax hike?
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
Image
What is Project Zohar?
"On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it." - RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
User avatar
Serafine666
Jedi Knight
Posts: 554
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:43pm
Location: Sherwood, OR, USA

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Serafine666 »

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Rethinking budget priorities? You mean protecting the rich by sacrificing the future and cut education funding? That is what happens every time.
Yeah, and it always happens just barely in the nick of time to be used as a threat if voters contemplate cutting off the flow of unlimited green stuff. Have you ever noticed that whenever tax measures are contemplated, the groups in favor of the taxes say that children will suffer? Every. Single. Frickin'. Time. Amazingly enough, no matter how well-funded the government is, they're always set to be "forced" to cut popular and desirable programs if the voters won't increase taxes. The waste is never going to be cut, mind you, and neither are programs that are not strictly vital to the public... it's always the programs the public want that the government claims are being threatened by a lack of tax money. Doesn't this strike you as incredibly convenient?
Alyrium Denryle wrote:The rich can afford it, the marginal increase in taxes over the long run is small enough that they wont really notice. Basic utilitarianism at work. If they response with layoffs to increase their quarter profits that is on them. That is their choice to reject their responsibilities to the citizens upon whom they depend.
They have no "responsibility" to employ people. They are required to employ people in the interest of expansion which is what happens when they have the money to do so but there is no obligation to keep people if their operating costs are being increased because the government needs the money and "the rich can afford it." The "rich" as a self-interested government defines "the rich" feel stunts like 66 and 67 very acutely unless they're Bill Gates and could treat losing $500,000 as forgetting where he left a couple pennies.
Image
"Freedom is not an external truth. It exists within men, and those who wish to be free are free." - Paul Ernst

The world is black and white. People, however, are grey.

When man has no choice but to do good, there's no point in calling him moral.
User avatar
Serafine666
Jedi Knight
Posts: 554
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:43pm
Location: Sherwood, OR, USA

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Serafine666 »

Uraniun235 wrote:I'm a little fuzzy on it, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been retroactive if they hadn't petitioned for a referendum on the law the Legislature passed.

What budget priorities do you think should have been rethought? What do you think should be cut?
Well, since the advocates of Measures 66 and 67 (who are generally on the side of the government who wanted to raise the taxes in the first place) highlighted social services and schools and the like, one would think that it'd be justified to move those things to the TOP of the "must fund" list and place things that people don't care about on the bottom of the totem pole. Maybe they should cut the multi-million dollar Business Energy Tax Credit which pays for the construction of uneconomical "green" power. Maybe they should reevaluate their bid to make the public universities they fund (like Portland State University and Portland Community College) "green" and "carbon neutral" by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in up-front costs when they're running a deficit.
Uraniun235 wrote:Most interesting to me: how much would you be willing to cut from the state budget before considering a tax hike?
Until money is no longer being consumed by things that are either not immediately important (the PSU and PCC upgrades), are matters of general indifference to taxpayers (BETC), or have been evaluated and found to be sinkholes into which more money flows than benefits can justify. Then, and only then, does it seem like they're justified in asking the people to give them more money; as one of the anti-66/67 commercials put it "Oregonians are tightening their belts; Salem is not." And the next thing on the chopping block, I see from today's newspaper, is the elimination of a program that puts more money in the hands of taxpayers (the so-called "kicker"); this almost acts as another tax (it isn't precisely the same thing, mind you) because in the end, money that would have once been in taxpayer hands goes into the government's hands.
Image
"Freedom is not an external truth. It exists within men, and those who wish to be free are free." - Paul Ernst

The world is black and white. People, however, are grey.

When man has no choice but to do good, there's no point in calling him moral.
User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3904
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Dominus Atheos »

Serafine666 wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Rethinking budget priorities? You mean protecting the rich by sacrificing the future and cut education funding? That is what happens every time.
Yeah, and it always happens just barely in the nick of time to be used as a threat if voters contemplate cutting off the flow of unlimited green stuff. Have you ever noticed that whenever tax measures are contemplated, the groups in favor of the taxes say that children will suffer? Every. Single. Frickin'. Time. Amazingly enough, no matter how well-funded the government is, they're always set to be "forced" to cut popular and desirable programs if the voters won't increase taxes. The waste is never going to be cut, mind you, and neither are programs that are not strictly vital to the public... it's always the programs the public want that the government claims are being threatened by a lack of tax money. Doesn't this strike you as incredibly convenient?
That's because Education, Human Services and Public Safety make up the vast majority of Oregon's budget.

Image

There's nothing else to take money from.
User avatar
Akhlut
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2660
Joined: 2005-09-06 02:23pm
Location: The Burger King Bathroom

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Akhlut »

Serafine666 wrote:The waste is never going to be cut, mind you, and neither are programs that are not strictly vital to the public... it's always the programs the public want that the government claims are being threatened by a lack of tax money. Doesn't this strike you as incredibly convenient?
What is the 'waste'? Corporate tax breaks? Subsidization of corporate interests? Feeding poor people? What? Seriously, explain what you think waste is before bitching about it not being cut.

Plus, as Atheos has shown, Oregon's budget is made up primarily of primary education and social services. Someone's going to hurt a lot more from cutting programs then the rich are going to hurt from a tax increase.
They have no "responsibility" to employ people. They are required to employ people in the interest of expansion which is what happens when they have the money to do so but there is no obligation to keep people if their operating costs are being increased because the government needs the money and "the rich can afford it." The "rich" as a self-interested government defines "the rich" feel stunts like 66 and 67 very acutely unless they're Bill Gates and could treat losing $500,000 as forgetting where he left a couple pennies.
There are only two reasons for a person to be unable to afford a 2% tax hike: they're too poor or they are trying to live beyond their means anyway. Especially since up until $250,000, they are being taxed at lower rates, so a person who is making $250,001 is only having $1 being taxed at the new, higher rate.

Furthermore, these rich are using and benefitting from the government a lot more then the poor. While education might increase a poor person's salary enough to push them into the middle class, it enriches the rich person more due to having someone less likely to commit crimes and more likely to be a person who is a hell of a lot more productive then a dishwasher or fry cook. An educated work force is more efficient and, when more wealthy, less likely to become or be ill. So, yes, it is their goddamned obligation to pay higher taxes because they benefit much more then the people below them.
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

One funny thing I realised in the US, is that people sometimes are unwilling to pay for government services, such as law enforcement. I found this particularly hilarious, especially considering how things are sometimes organized. The rich would pack up their bags if crime rate soars, yet they don't like to pay for taxes. I find this very odd, if not stupid.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5196
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by LaCroix »

The Legislature, controlled by Democrats, has already put the $727 million into the current budget. So if the ballot items, known as Measures 66 and 67, had been rejected, lawmakers would have been forced to hold a special session to find other ways to reduce spending or raise revenue.
Since the "All other" bracket - the only one not included in "Education, Human Services and Public Safety" - amounts to a total of 986 million, you seem to believe that everything other is totally unnecessary.

What exactly is covered there? Police wages would be security, teacher and road construction is also in the big package... What is left? Tax collectors and other offices?
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Uraniun235 »

Serafine666 wrote:And the next thing on the chopping block, I see from today's newspaper, is the elimination of a program that puts more money in the hands of taxpayers (the so-called "kicker");
Sorry, but any difference in opinion regarding tax rates and program priorities aside, the kicker really has to be changed. I would rather have seen 66/67 fail than see the kicker continue in its present form. It is ludicrous that a state government, which constitutionally cannot engage in deficit spending, must return all excess revenues whenever the excess exceeds 2% of budgeted outlays.

If you really want to make the analogy of a family "tightening its belt", then you have to acknowledge that the family should be putting money into a savings account during good times so that it has a suitable reserve to fall back on during hard times. It doesn't make sense for government to cut service during hard times because that is precisely when those services will be most needed.

Besides, the concept currently being floated is not even the permanent abolition of the kicker, only until enough excess revenue comes in to fill a proposed $1 billion reserve. Personally I'd feel more at ease if the reserve were pegged at approximately equivalent to a full year's budget, but it's better than nothing.
Serafine666 wrote:The "rich" as a self-interested government defines "the rich" feel stunts like 66 and 67 very acutely unless they're Bill Gates and could treat losing $500,000 as forgetting where he left a couple pennies.
I hope you're referring to the original laws passed by the Legislature, because the measures themselves were only on the ballot because of a referendum petition submitted by their opponents.
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
Image
What is Project Zohar?
"On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it." - RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Simon_Jester »

Serafine666 wrote:Yeah, and it always happens just barely in the nick of time to be used as a threat if voters contemplate cutting off the flow of unlimited green stuff. Have you ever noticed that whenever tax measures are contemplated, the groups in favor of the taxes say that children will suffer? Every. Single. Frickin'. Time. Amazingly enough, no matter how well-funded the government is, they're always set to be "forced" to cut popular and desirable programs if the voters won't increase taxes. The waste is never going to be cut, mind you, and neither are programs that are not strictly vital to the public...
WHAT waste? WHAT "not strictly vital" programs? Does the Oregon state government actually "waste" a large fraction of its budget that way? How much of that "waste" is left after thirty years of increasingly antitax messages from one party that leave the other afraid to consider ever raising taxes if they can help it?

Taxes aren't exactly on an upward ratchet in America; if the state governments knew they were truly wasting a large percentage of their budget on things they knew they could drop without suffering with either the voters or the campaign donors, you can bet they would. Unlike the Feds, they can't borrow money to hide the fact that they've cut taxes below the sustainable level needed to fund all the things the public expects them to do.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Yeah, and it always happens just barely in the nick of time to be used as a threat if voters contemplate cutting off the flow of unlimited green stuff. Have you ever noticed that whenever tax measures are contemplated, the groups in favor of the taxes say that children will suffer?
That is because it is true you stupid fucking cunt. Not just children, but college students, the poor etc.

State budgets are strapped by their very nature. They must provide for public health and saftey, road maintenance, schools, large portions of funding to state universities, aid to keep the poor from starving in the street etc.

Which of these things would you cut? Have you worked in education a day in your motherfucking life? I live and work instructing university students in a state which has an under-funded school system. I see the pathetic results of the resistance to taxation to pay for basic services every fucking day. Even my university is hit by budget cuts that negatively impact my ability to instruct my students.

Every. Single. Frickin'. Time. Amazingly enough, no matter how well-funded the government is, they're always set to be "forced" to cut popular and desirable programs if the voters won't increase taxes.
Upon what basis do you judge a government as being well-funded? Are you aware that we americans are some of the least taxed of any western industrial nation, and have the some of the least to show for those taxes in terms of education,infant mortality rate etc?
it's always the programs the public want that the government claims are being threatened by a lack of tax money. Doesn't this strike you as incredibly convenient?
No. Because it is either cut the future by slashing education, which does not actually hurt those that vote until years later, or cut things that matter next week, like the ability to keep roads in good condition, and keep police patrols on the freeways.

The simple fact is, cutting education is the safer choice for them, so they do it every fucking time. And they succeed at it more often than not. Arizona just slashed the education budget, forcing every professor at every university to have to go on mandatory furloughs to avoid layoffs, and the universities had to pull a significant (as in double digit percent) tuition hike. This is common and has been going on for a while. It is one of the reasons why it is becoming increasingly difficult for PhD holders to get faculty positions.

You dumb fucking cunt.
They have no "responsibility" to employ people.
I am referring to an ethical responsibility, not a legal one. You know, ethics. That class you seem to never have taken.
The "rich" as a self-interested government defines "the rich" feel stunts like 66 and 67 very acutely unless they're Bill Gates and could treat losing $500,000 as forgetting where he left a couple pennies.
And where exactly is the necessary money going to come from?

As a state grows in population, its need for funding goes up in a fashion that is not proportionate to that growth. There are increased costs across the board. As cities grow the number of police needed to patrol the additional area grows geometrically with respect to the arithmetic growth in population for example. Additional schools need to be built and staffed etc. If that was not enough, inflation decreases their purchasing power every year, and real middle class wages have not been going up lately such that it can be taxed at nominal rates.

So where exactly is the money necessary just to keep necessary expenditures in the black going to come from? Are you going to tax the poor and middle class who right now cant make ends meet? Are you going to define the education budget which is already continually strapped for cash as waste?

No. You take it from those least affected personally by the economic problems. The personal incomes of the wealthy who control the majority of the local wealth and will notice a 2% increase much less, and you increase the minimum tax rate on corporations (not even a tax hike... just a decrease in the variance of said taxation amount).

That is the ethical thing to do, it is the responsible thing to do.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Maybe they should cut the multi-million dollar Business Energy Tax Credit which pays for the construction of uneconomical "green" power. Maybe they should reevaluate their bid to make the public universities they fund (like Portland State University and Portland Community College) "green" and "carbon neutral" by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in up-front costs when they're running a deficit.
Green power is not uneconomical in the long run, and the construction of that infrastructure creates the jobs you say are so desperately needed that we dare not tax the wealthy.
"Oregonians are tightening their belts; Salem is not."
Salem has growing fixed costs and has to invest in the short and long term future of an entire state. Oregonians do not.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Sorry, but any difference in opinion regarding tax rates and program priorities aside, the kicker really has to be changed. I would rather have seen 66/67 fail than see the kicker continue in its present form. It is ludicrous that a state government, which constitutionally cannot engage in deficit spending, must return all excess revenues whenever the excess exceeds 2% of budgeted outlays.

If you really want to make the analogy of a family "tightening its belt", then you have to acknowledge that the family should be putting money into a savings account during good times so that it has a suitable reserve to fall back on during hard times. It doesn't make sense for government to cut service during hard times because that is precisely when those services will be most needed.
Are you fucking shitting me? The state which is not permitted to have a deficit cannot save money either? jesus fucking christ.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Uraniun235 »

It can save money... just as long as the excess doesn't exceed 2%. It's absurd and it's caused trouble before, one of my co-workers who's been in education for a long time says that back in the late 80s there was a budget crunch so severe that the school district I work at had to close about twenty days early.


If there'd been a bigger, properly sized savings account built up (with money that instead just got refunded), the Legislature probably wouldn't have resorted to raising taxes last year. As it is they're afraid to really tap into what savings there are for fear that they'll run out before revenues come back up.
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
Image
What is Project Zohar?
"On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it." - RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Simon_Jester »

Alyrium Denryle wrote:As a state grows in population, its need for funding goes up in a fashion that is not proportionate to that growth. There are increased costs across the board. As cities grow the number of police needed to patrol the additional area grows geometrically with respect to the arithmetic growth in population for example...
Would you mind explaining how this, in particular, works to me? I'm not sure I see it. Is it something they've observed empirically, or is there a theoretical reason to expect it to happen, or both?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Simon_Jester wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:As a state grows in population, its need for funding goes up in a fashion that is not proportionate to that growth. There are increased costs across the board. As cities grow the number of police needed to patrol the additional area grows geometrically with respect to the arithmetic growth in population for example...
Would you mind explaining how this, in particular, works to me? I'm not sure I see it. Is it something they've observed empirically, or is there a theoretical reason to expect it to happen, or both?
Simple geometry. As a population grows and a city expands, the area said city occupies and thus the number of police needed to patrol it efficiently increases exponentially. Same with roads, electrical grid maintenance, and waste disposal , which are a function of area and not population. Schools have limited service areas and thus deal with that same issue as well.

The same issue exists with ant foraging (Just applying the same principles from what I know of social insect colony infrastructure to human developments, because they are governed by the same rules). As a colony grows in number the amount of area it covers to forage, and thus the area it must cover in order to patrol that foraging area and defend it against rival colonies increases exponentially with colony size. The size of the nest itself increases in volume the same way, etc.

By way of example

Image
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
fnord
Jedi Knight
Posts: 950
Joined: 2005-09-18 08:09am
Location: You're not cleared for that

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by fnord »

I'm a little confused, AD. If a population doubles, wouldn't its food needs etc suddenly square under exponential growth? (ie, 1x people needing say 40 t food per year, but 2x people now need 1600 t?)

You sure you're not talking about a quadratic or a cubic function?
A mad person thinks there's a gateway to hell in his basement. A mad genius builds one and turns it on. - CaptainChewbacca
User avatar
Hawkwings
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3372
Joined: 2005-01-28 09:30pm
Location: USC, LA, CA

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Hawkwings »

He's not talking about food, he's talking about services that cover geographic areas.

And yes, the kicker check and not being able to save money is ludicrous. It needs to be fixed, as soon as possible.
Vendetta wrote:Richard Gatling was a pioneer in US national healthcare. On discovering that most soldiers during the American Civil War were dying of disease rather than gunshots, he turned his mind to, rather than providing better sanitary conditions and medical care for troops, creating a machine to make sure they got shot faster.
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

He's not talking about food, he's talking about services that cover geographic areas.
Yep.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
fnord
Jedi Knight
Posts: 950
Joined: 2005-09-18 08:09am
Location: You're not cleared for that

Re: Oregon Sends A Game-Changing Progressive Message on Taxes

Post by fnord »

Whoops, sorry - I goofed on the example.
A mad person thinks there's a gateway to hell in his basement. A mad genius builds one and turns it on. - CaptainChewbacca
Post Reply