Measure 30

I put my ballot in the box upstairs this morning, it had the little bubble marked "Yes" next to it filled in. I think this ballot measure is really brain-dead, frankly. This year the Legislature finally gets its act together, and the crazy anti-tax people have go all crazy and get it on the ballot, where I fear it will meet certain doom. I fail to understand why they are so selfish.

I actually went through my taxes today in pencil, trying to figure out what exactly this thing will cost me. 90 bucks. That it seems like a lot to a not-exactly-rich guy like myself, but I know that it could go a long way toward, you know, educatin' people and stuff. But then again, I've always enjoyed paying my taxes, from figuring and filling out the forms (strange, I know), to knowing that the taxes we pay are the dues for living in a free society.

January 30, 2004 08:34 PM

Comments (9)

01/31: Trevor said:

Plus, your tax dollars pay for just about my entire family's existence! Everyone but my dad (and this includes Stacy's parents ... and her brother ...) totally works for a government agency. It's actually quite amusing, since I was such the Young Republican back in the day.

01/31: kelley said:

you had bubbles? we had to complete the arrows. i think i did it right, but i couldn't say for sure.
it's being said that most people won't pay more overall taxes this year if 30 passes, due to the federal tax cuts.
i just hate that it's very likely the voters will kneejerk this very hard-fought tax package right out of town.

01/31: eh? said:

That's a rather lame excuse to vote yes on something just because it doesn't affect you personally. That's akin to a rich guy saying that a 10% sales tax or an extra 50 cent gas tax doesn't really affect him, so he'd vote yes for such things.

With that being said, pulling rough numbers out of my head, I'd have to pay several hundred more per year. I don't consider myself rich, but that sure aint chump change.

Furthermore, what about the "temporary" tax increase in beaverton and multnomah county? I thought the schools were supposed to be better if we voted yes? What's this? They STILL need more money? You know even if this passes, I'm sure next year they still going to find a way to show you that schools and such are in dire need of money, and the only solution is more taxes. They've pretty much said this every year for as long as I can remember.

Is this how stuff is supposed to be run? Maybe I should suggest to my boss that if revenues start to fall, we should just raise prices of our products across the board to compensate. That'll fix the problem...

01/31: kelley said:

here's a question. can i send in my taxes if i don't qualify for the surcharge?

should i be so lucky as to have to pay, i might want to do so, thinking of oregon health plan funding. or college tuition. or of not having bratty junior high kids loose a couple weeks longer in the summer. or not letting mentally and physically disabled oregonians lose care.

yes, the state still needs money. lots of states are having trouble right now, understand. the surcharge was passed by a bi-partisan congress after much huffing and puffing. shall we take out more loans instead? or just let anti-tax groups get the best of us?

01/31: Bill said:

yay for debate!

Well, there are a lot more reasons behind my vote than just the effect it will have on my pocketbook. I think one of the more persuasive arguments is that we'll lose millions in federal matching dollars for a variety of different things because we won't have our share to put in. Oregon already pays more in federal taxes than it recieves in federal services, so going and losing out on it because we can't do our share is silly. It'll just go to Rhode Island or something instead.

And this isn't really a tax increase in straight dollar terms, although it is an increase in the tax rate. This is because incomes are down, so the tax needs to be raised just to keep the same amount of dollars coming in. The costs of running a school don't fall just because people are making less money.

My understanding is that the Beaverton and Multnomah County taxes are 2 different animals, the Beaverton tax is a property tax to support schools in the school district, while the Multnomah County tax is an income tax countywide to support schools and other social services. But I live in Tillamook, so what do I know?

The fact is government can't be run like a business. It isn't a business. It's government. It has to work for everyone, not just a select few customers. And the state can't run a deficit like the federal government, so the books have to add up. It is a double whammy lately because revenues are down and costs are up, due in large part to the rising costs of health care. The state has already made many many cuts, education is only part of the story. The State Police cuts alone trouble me deeply.

The fact is, on the revenue side we really need to look at the overall system and overhaul our tax structure so it isn't as prone to fluctuation. On the spending side, sure there are always going to be a few things here and there that could use some looking at. But most everything has already been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. Personnel costs are going to continue to rise. Prison costs have been going up due to mandatory sentencing laws. If those were altered, we could lower costs there.

I guess I could go on, but I don't even know who you are and if you'll even return to see this. I don't have all the answers, but that's the way I see it, anyway.

02/04: John said:

Well, it failed, but I feel inclined to point out a few things.

2001-03 Income tax to budget (according to Budget and Management Division) $9,402.4 million. The estimate (w/out 30) for 03-05? 9,914.7 million.

Of course, the legislature knew that this would be referred to the voters, so instead of the proposed increased taxes being spread across the board, they only go to the things that people would get worked up about.

The other issue is that all we heard about from the pro-30 people was the 'temporary tax surcharge' - when there was a list of things besides the tax surcharge, and some of it was permanent.

Not to say I voted against it, but I felt that I was being blackmailed into voting for it.

The end result is that the government didn't save when it had extra money, and now they don't have reserves to fall back on. Remove the kicker, make it go to a rainy day fund. Index spending to population growth and inflation. Run a full audit to get rid of waste. Before you ask for more taxes, cut the fluff like the Cultural Trust (and, no it isn't mandated by law, I checked).

02/04: Bill said:

The state couldn't save the surplus money when times were good- it has to pay the kicker. I agree this is dumb. When times are good, the government doesn't reap any rewards. When times are bad, the government suffers terrbily. A stabilization fund would be great, less reliance on the fluctuation-prone income tax would be better.

The core question is, of course, what should the size of government be, or, what should government be in the business of doing? One woman's "fluff" is another man's bread and butter.

02/04: kelley said:

i happen to be way into fluff.
john is talking like a republican, and it's freaking me out.
well, it failed, so we'll see what happens, i guess. or not. funny how the liberal media doesn't report on all the fallout from these things. you'd think they would, with their big-government agenads.

02/06: Scott Dier said:

Minnesota had a rainy day fund, and then they decided to raid it for 'Jesse Checks' just before our huge deficits. What insanity.

At least they are talking about doing a permanent transit capitol improvements tax so that transit is planned like roads -- and not like buildings.