HJR 14: Raising taxes with fewer votes?

 HJR 14: Raising taxes with fewer votes?HJR 14: Raising taxes with fewer votes?
By Taxpayer Association of Oregon

Today the House Revenue Committee will be hearing HJR 14 which would allow lawmakers to raise taxes with fewer votes by removing the 3/5th majority requirement for tax increases.  HJR 14 is a referral to voters because the taxpayer protections are in the constitution.

Raising taxes with fewer votes means less consensus, less bipartisanship and more taxes, more jobless and more economic setbacks.

Voters are yearning for change in Salem, I do not think the change they seek is more power for lawmakers to pass more taxes easier.

tt twitter big4 HJR 14: Raising taxes with fewer votes? tt facebook big4 HJR 14: Raising taxes with fewer votes? tt linkedin big4 HJR 14: Raising taxes with fewer votes? tt reddit big4 HJR 14: Raising taxes with fewer votes?

Posted by at 04:55 | Posted in OR 77th Legislative Session, State Taxes | 5 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Yes we shouldn’t add to the power of the Oregon legislature to hike taxes (as with HJR 14). The country’s founding fathers were keen to slowing the impulses of its legislative body (Congress), and this is why there are three branches of government and within each additional deliberative processes (2 Senators per state, Senate filibuster, and diversity of geographic representation). I doubt democrat party legislators think much of the risk to them the GOP taking over the legislature with slight majorities, and passing tax cuts and spending cuts. But in a hypothetical balanced political party scenario, allowing for simple majority instead of the existing three fifths rules, would make taxation much less stable. Tax stability is a positive for the likes of business and the Oregon economy, such as in the Nike case.

  • HBGuy

    Perhaps we should also sunset all tax deductions and special tax breaks and require a 3/5 vote as well to continue them. Seems like if a special tax inventive or deduction benefitting a narrow set of taxpayers really is good for us all, then it shouldn’t be a problem to get 3/5 support.

    • JacklordGod

      This sounds vaguely reasonable, until you consider more than a few on the left consider the mortgage interest deduction a special interest loophole.

      • HBguy

        It is a special interest deduction. The special interest happens to be a large percentage of our population. I think you’d get well over 60% of the legislators voting to keep it largely intact. Maybe get rid of it for second homes, or interest on loans over maybe twice the median home price, or some sort of cap on it. And I think that would be a valuable discussion to have. Does the deduction exist to encourage home ownership among the middle class? Or is it to to subsidize all homeowners, regardless of their need for the subsidy, or to allow people to purchase more home than they would without the subsidy?

  • JacklordGod

    Get rid of the 3/5 rule with the current balance of power and future time will make these times look like the golden age of Oregon.

    Absent reasonable and common sense reforms to Oregon’s spending problem, our freight train ride to collapse will continue. Lets not stoke the engine any more with insanity like this proposal. It’s what got us in this mess in the first place.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)