Oregon Tax Burden up $1,041 per person

The Taxpayer Association of Oregon announces:
Oregon tax burden grows 8%, up $1,041 per person

$520 per person for one year of State’s two year budget cycle

Based up on the two year state budget cycle the tax burden on Oregon citizens will grow 8%, or an average of $1,041 per person and $4,164 per family of four. The one year increase is $520/person. The state budget was approved by the 2007 Legislature. The 2007-2009 budget increased by over 20% from the previous 2-year budget, and included over $850 million in tax and fee increases.

Jason Williams of the Taxpayer Association of Oregon commented, “Taxpayers feel the squeeze from both the economy and tax increases. The cost of government is breaking the family budget. An 8% tax burden growth is unsustainable to taxpayers and the economy.”

— Numbers provided by the help of budget expert State Representative Kevin Cameron and raw data provided by the Legislative Fiscal Office

More taxes on the way!

State Wide Tax Proposals

Gas Tax: Governor Kulongoski’s Oregon Transportation Commission is drafting plans for a statewide gas tax increase to be introduced in the 2009 Legislature (Kulongoski, summit leaders call for gas tax, Portland Business Journal, 12/3/07)

Tobacco Tax: Governor Kulongoski announced in his State of the State address plans to increase the Tobacco tax despite voters rejecting the tax back in November by 60%. (State of the State 3/21/08)

Statewide Property Tax Increase: Governor Kulongoski’s Federal Forest and County Services Taskforce is considering a proposal to for a statewide property tax increase. (See “Senator Ted Ferrioli resigns from Governor’s county payments task force” OregonCatalyst.com, 3/27/08).

National Taxes

Alternative Minimum Tax expansion: Close to 200,000 new Oregonians could be hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax for the first time unless Congress acts to cut the AMT. Action must be taken this year to avoid the new tax.

Bush Tax Cuts expiration: The March Congressional draft budget does not renew the Bush Tax Cuts for 2010. If the Bush Tax Cuts are not renewed (made permanent) this is what will happen”¦

– A single mom with kids making $30,000 in earnings will see her taxes rise by 67% (about $1,600). Parents will lose their Child Care Tax Credit.
– Seniors with $40,000 in income will see their taxes rise 155% (about $100).
– Many small business taxes will rise 17% percent ($4,000 on average).

( In 2011, the small business expensing limit will shrink from $134,000 (indexed) to just $25,000, increasing the cost of capital investments for America’s small businesses. The top tax rate on dividends will increase from 15 to 39.6 percent, while the top tax rate on capital gains will climb from 15 to 20 percent, raising the tax burden on retirees and families investing for their future. Low-income families with one or two children will no longer be eligible for the refundable child tax credit and the tax rate relief, the new 10-percent tax bracket, estate tax repeal, marriage penalty relief, and all the remaining tax relief enacted over the past few years will sunset, resulting in tax increases for every taxpayer who pays income taxes.)

Five Portland-area taxes under consideration
– $900 Million Portland Public School construction bond, (The Oregonian 1-18-08)
– $420 Portland Street Tax (expected to be referred to November ballot)
– $144 Million Portland Community College bond, (The Oregonian 1-18-08)
– $29 Million Multnomah County Public Safety Levy (under current negotiations)
– $14 Million Child Investment Bond renewal (Measure 26-94)

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:03 | Posted in Measure 37 | 30 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post

    The gas tax is a non-starter………idiotic time to be asking!

    I thought the property tax was capped at 3% max per year by Measure 5. What is the Govs. proposal?

    Too many tax increases on the November ballot, could doom them all.,

    • Anonymous

      what makes you think our politicians care what the law says

    • John in Oregon

      Crawdude, the only fault in your thinking is that anyone in Salem would allow the “people” to vote on tax increases.

  • Jerry

    I say we should be paying more. Look at all the wonderful state services we get for that money. I don’t know what I would do without them.

    • Rick

      Be carful with that tongue-in cheek stuff. It’s amazing how many voters just don’t get it. Wish it weren’t true.

  • dean

    And lets not forget…Kevin Mannix’s proposal to expand prison populations has a price tag of 2-300 million $$. How many of you are voting for that one?

    Oh…and the Iraq war, at $500 Billion and counting…will continue indefinitely by electing McCain. Not to worry though, that one is entirely on borrowed money.

    But its all the Democrats fault right?

    • Anonymous

      I’m voting for Manniz’s proposal. How much do you think it would have cost us if there hadn’t been a war? They were after us you know. It isnot the fault of the democrats, but of the voters who voted the terrified politicians in

    • Bo

      THe Mannix crime efforts are just what we needed to reduce crime.

      But Dean is right, it is not Democrats only to blame, Republicans too. Both parties seem to want to make better government, but put it on the bottomof their priorities.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Bo – If you think Dean will ever blame the Democrats for anything, you are going to be waiting a long time. Notice how whenever any spending issue comes up, Dean always answers with “Iraq”.

        Never mind that Obama and Hillary are both way bigger spenders in terms of what they want to do compared to Bush’s wildest dreams.

        Remember when Democrats won congress? Democrats all claimed at the time it was because Americans were sick of the war. Now, when Pelosi et al don’t end it, does Dean find any fault with them? No, of course not. Its still all Bush’s fault.

        Just remember, in the mind of a liberal anything government does under their reign is to be excused, anything done by a Republican is to be punished. These are the guys who expect to be taken seriously when they talk about the cost of Iraq one day, and vote to expand SCHIP to people making $100k the next.

        Never, ever, underestimate the partisanship of Democrats.


      500 BILLION? I think its running a bit higher than that 🙁

  • Bob Clark

    The governor is also proposing putting tolls on roads. If we are going to start paying tolls to use the roads and bridges, we just as well have them sold to private entities who would then have more of an incentive to actually use the funds generated to reinvest in roads and bridges instead of frittering away on general fund purposes (like excessive PERS benefits). For example, sell the Sellwood bridge to a private entity who then could charge a toll to refurbish it. Same goes for a third metro bridge over the Columbia (hopefully outside PDX city control).

    Even with the war in Iraq, federal income tax rates have been sharply reduced with the Bush Administration (top rate down from 28% to 25% and the intra marginal rate down to only 15%). If Obuma (recommend pronouncing it with a Kennedy dialect) were to be elected, god forbid, he would raise the top rate for entrepreneurs in some cases to over 50%, and in states like California and Oregon small business owners would see their business taxed at a marginal rate approaching two-thirds. This would happen because Obuma is talking about lifting the cap on the social security FICA tax (12% FICA + 39.6% marginal federal + medicare + 9% state).

    Now this would be an Obuma (Kennedy dialect remember)!

    If you think a one-third marginal rate takes the fun out of working extra, just think if you’re running a family business and two-thirds of your sweat based income is being taxed away. If I’m in the latter group, I’m throttling back my business even more. Small employers will be laying off people under Obuma’s “change” program.

    • dean

      Bob…yes, Bush 2 cut taxes, did not cut spending, started an unecesary war and has financed the package by borrowing against the future, which appears to have arrived earlier than expected.

      Yes, either Obama (however you want to pronounce it) or Clinton would re-raise tax rates to their 2000 level, which came at the end of a long economic boom that took off after Clinton 1 raised taxes and balanced the budget.

      An interesting side note. When our national economy was at its strongest and had its longest sustained period of growth (1940s through 1970s) we had top marginal tax rates of 70-90%. That did not stop the entrepenuers of the day apparently. What has changed?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Clinton 1 balanced the budget?

        Ok, I assume this means Clintons first term?

        You might want to open a book, as this is entirely untrue.

        Clinton 1 term:

        1992 – Clinton Elected. Budget not balanced
        1993 – National Health Care proposed, the biggest expansion of government ever with an astronomical price tag. Budget now way out of balance.
        1994 – People so pissed off at Democrats that Republicans win congress for the first time in 40 years. Budget still not balanced
        1994, immediately after Republicans assume control. – Clinton sends up budget projecting $300 billion deficits for as far as the eye can see.
        Republicans take Clinton to the woodshed. Clinton is so weakened politically he is forced to sign Welfare reform (no this is not the factor that produced a balanced budget, the economic expansion, in part due to Clinton signing NAFTA, did).
        Eventually budget is balanced.

        The supposedly balanced budget that was there when Clinton left office was hardly due to him. No Republican election victory in ’94, no balanced budget, as Clintons own submitted budgets confirm.

        >period of growth (1940s through 1970s) we had top marginal tax rates of 70-90%. That did not stop the entrepenuers of the day apparently. What has changed?

        Manufacturing is done globally now. Is this news? We have totally priced ourselves out of the labour market. CNC machines in Mexico machine parts from programs written in offices in California, downloaded by wire in seconds. Seriously, if you are unaware of the changes in manufacturing its a quantum leap from where we were then. Those jobs aren’t coming back.

        • dean

          Rupert…your memory and use of statistics is very selective. Clinton and the Democratic Congress raised the top marginal tax rates, with every single Republican in the House, and I think every one in the Senate voting in opposition. They claimed raising taxes in a recession (we were already out of) would destroy the economy.

          Ooops. It didn’t.

          Yes, Clinton’s submitted budgets still had deficits, and it was stronger than projected growth along with “Pay as you go rules” in Congress (initiated by the Democrats) that ended (temporarily) the deficit. Stronger than projected growth that hapened after the tax raise, not after a tax cut.

          Have we priced ourselves out of the labor market Rupert? I believe about 90% of our total trade is with Europe, Canada, Austrailia, and Japan. All of them are more unionized and have higher marginal tax rates than we do, except possibly Japan. I agree that most heavy manufacturing jobs are not coming back, regardless of what we do. And I generally agree free trade is a net good.

          I also accept the premise that Democrats by and large are not any more inclined to balance the budget than Republicans. Each party has different priorities, and each will spend what money they can raise and then some on their priorities.

          WThe difference is that the Republican Party, which prior to Reagan was “fiscally conservative,” has become addicted to tax cutting as the solution to every problem, yet without any corresponding spending reductions except in very marginal areas, or to programs for the very poor. Democrats at least recognize a link between revenues and spending, and are willing to raise taxes (on the wealthier among us) to close the gap somewhat. Republicans seem to have utterly lost the connection, at least at the federal level.

          Mannix’s measure brings national republican economics to teh state level, and any Republican who expects less state spending and votes for it should be ashamed of themselves.

          On health care…yes, the Clinton plan would have raised taxes and provided universal insurance or nearly so. Most advanced economies have socialized insurance, meaning they tax and spend. But single payer socialized insurance turns out to be so much more efficient than multiple payer private insurance that people in Europe spend a lot less in taxes than we spend on private insurance, and they get equal or better care according to just about any statistic worth bothering about.

          As to whether a “liberal” will criticize Democratic leadership…sure, this one will. But I don’t blame Pelosi and Reid for failing to get enough votes to phase down the war in Iraq. Using your own standard…”they tried.” Unfortunately that issue will take a change in Presidents to come to conclusion, since the President as commander in chief has all the meaningful authority here.

          • CRAWDUDE

            Dude, this doesn’t even rate a comment I’m afraid. If you can’t see the differences since 1940, I’m not even going try to spoon feed them to you.

            You are grasping at a bunch of deteriorating straws…………our world is over my friend, even todays liberals don’t suuport the majority of your causes as the neo-cons don’t support mine.

            Welcome to irrelevence my friend 🙂 How about a micro brew this summer 🙂

          • Sid Leiken

            Many of the European countries as well as Japan have either a o % or close to it, Capital Gains Tax. I personally know several business owners, homegrown, closely held businesses, not multinational’s that have built their manufacturing plants in Europe. Why? 0 % Capital Gains tax. Do you support Obama and Clinton wanting to raise the Capital Gains tax from 15% to 28%? Neither one has experience of running their own business, and in my opinion, lack common business sense as far as the economy is concerned.

            The other issue is a higher regulatory burden put on American business. This is yet another reason why American businesses are moving their operations overseas. Again, this is not just multinational, publicly held companies but also family owned closely held companies. How many small business owners do you know can actually hire an environmental consultant to keep up with the knee jerk reactions congress places on them? Does the EPA or OSHA care? Not really. Just as long as they can collect their fine to justify their job.

            As for spending reductions I completely agree with you. If you are wondering if this is the Springfield Mayor, yes it is. If you are wondering if I am experienced in running my own business, the answer to that is also yes.

          • eagle eye

            Sid, I think you are right about the U.S. losing its edge globally, if I may interpolate your words a bit. And it’s not just business, talk to the science professors down the street at UO, especially in the physical sciences, they can give you an earful about how the U.S. is rapidly losing its once unchallenged lead in science.

            I have to wonder, though, who to blame for this? We had our MBA Republican president, sort of a (failed?) businessman, with his Republican majority for 6 years, what did they do with it? It is certainly true that they had 9/11, war to deal with (and look how they have done at that!). But I think it will be a while before people say we need another MBA president for the good of the economy. Look how they are doing at running the dollar into the ground. It’s hard to say that things weren’t done a lot better by Clinton (to be sure, when he had to contend with a Republican opposition).

            The country has become very complacent in a lot of ways, we are going to get our comeuppance soon if we don’t wake up fast. We’ve done it before, maybe we’ll do it again.

  • Bob Clark

    The 1970s were not exactly prosperous times. There was a very sharp recession in 1973-1974, and inflation as measured by the CPI hit double digits consistently in the late 70s, leading to a sharp recession to rein-in inflation. The decade of the 1940s was a war-time economy with rationing. I don’t think the high marginal rates were very encouraging to small businesses either, and much of the growth coming out of world war two might have been via corporations and not small business. After marginal rates were dropped by Reagan in the early 1980s, the U.S entered a pretty prosperous period with growth rates in excess of 3% per year. He also deregulated airlines and energy industries leading to a steady decline in inflation rates. The decline in oil prices and the Reagan military rebuild brought down the Soviet empire. The positive results coming out of the Reagan administration carried over into the 1990s.

    Now, Obuma wants to return us to the bloated government policies of the failed Great Society, namely welfare moms driving new cars and bombed out public housing projects. He may even want to add reparations to his income re-distribution plans. Obuma!

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure Dean,,,Mr. Assigned to beat the lefty drum here, has never considered the high cost of crime. Only the cost of criminal justice. Typical progressive.

    In reality the cost of Crims that M11 has saved has been enormous . But that’s a reality dean and company steer clear of.

    As with so many other issues.

    • dean

      If the search is for root causes, maybe we should start with poverty and poor education…both of which turn out to be very expensive to the rest of us. I don’t disagree with putting bad people in jail, but America already has 7 times the incarceration rate as the rest of the developed world, so I think we should start looking for a different strategy here.

      Bob…the wheels began to come off in the 70s. Maybe it was the cost of the Nam war. Maybe it was the formation and price rises of OPEC. Maybe it was liberal overeach in the 60s. Maybe it was Carter. Maybe it was all of the above or something else. I don’t know. My earlier point was simply to suggest there is not a direct cause effect between high marginal tax rates and lack of economic growth,as demonstrated at least twice in recent history.

      CD…absolutely on the micro brew. Great idea. I’ll buy the first round if I get the new contract I am proposing on. We can talk about the Blazers prospects for next year. Their yin outplayed their yan tonight. Never thought I would say this but Channing Frye rocks.

      I think the liberals are about to re-surge, older and wiser, more cautious, with some new ideas in the hopper. But ultimately we will again overreach and conservatives will get another turn. That is the American 2-party yin and yan and we can’t escape it. Both sides ultimately have things about half right, and timing is nearly everything in politics.

      • CRAWDUDE

        Hey, they can still finish above .500 🙂

      • DMF

        You know, I actually agree with you on one thing. Root causes. Poor education, that I agree with. Too much time on their hands. There is an old saying that idle hands are the devils workshop. People have too much time on their hands. They have nothing to do. They have no education, no jobs, lot of drugs. We have protected our children to death. We, meaning our society, have been so terrified of each other and of the government policies, we don’t even correct our children any more. Look around you, they spend their time in the streets. They don’t want to work, they don’t have to. Of course our prisons are overflowing. But unless and until the parents and the schools instruct, discipline and guide them, it won’t change.

        Unfortunately the parents are in the same boat, they were not instructed, disciplined nor guided. Now we have the blind leading the blind.

        I’m so glad there are really a lot of parents who really do try to instruct and educate their children, but there are so many who don’t. They walk up and down the streets all day.

        • dean

          I don’t think “idleness” is the root problem, though I agree it is a problem.

          I am puzzled by the low crime and imprisonment rates in Europe campared with the US. If anything, Europeans have far more “time on their hands” than Americans do. They get much longer vacations, work far less hours, have higher unemployment rates, retire earlier, and are much more “coddled” by their governments. And they live in much more dense concentrations than we do. What gives?

          • eagle eye

            The U.S. has always been more violent than Europe (unless you count interludes like WWI, Stalin’s terror, WWII, the Holocaust, the Balkans … but let that pass).

            One big difference is the shocking disparity in crime rates among racial groups in the U.S. But that will probably get me censored …

            One difference, as I recall, is that Europe has lower homicide rates but higher suicide rates.

            Oregon homicide rates are not that much higher than average of European countries.

          • dean

            I don’t think Europeans are any less “violent” by nature than Americans are. By historic standards, perhaps Germans are the most violent people on earth. I think all humans, regardless of race or nationality, are about equally prone to and capable of violence (from birth).

            The disparity on crime among racial groups in the US is repeated across the world wherever there is a difference between ethnicity and economic or social status. In New Zealand a Maori is 8 times as likely to go to prison as a white. In Canada the 2% of First Nations people (Indians) are 18% of the prison population. In the US the 10% of us who are black commit about 50% of the murders, with nearly all of their victims also being black by the way.

            Correlation and causation are not the same thing. So we are left to puzzle things out. But there is little question that there is a strong correlation between poverty and crime, meaning more poor whites and poor blacks commit crimes in far higher numbers than middle class whites or blacks. Reducing poverty (by any means one chooses) is probably the best long term route to reducing crime, while locking more people up may be the best short term route.

            But which is the wiser investment for us? Given our already overwhelming prison population and our limited resources, I’m not inclined to throw more money at that solution, so I’ll just say no to Mannix.

          • eagle eye

            I didn’t say Europeans are less violent by nature, and I didn’t say “violent” in quotation marks, either. Because I’m going by homicide rates, not my view of “nature”. And I will maintain that homicide is violent, not “violent”.

            By the way, do you know of any countries where whites are the minority and commit crime at higher rates than they do in white countries?

            An interesting example of a place where whites are in the minority: S. Africa. A comparison of white/black crime rates there, and a comparison of black crime rates there compared to the U.S., is most interesting.

            What to make of all this, I don’t claim to know.

          • dean

            Yes…South Africa is a case of a white minority, but a very wealthy one compared to teh blackmajority, so again I would put my wager on the poverty-crime link…adding in the insult of being a 2nd class citizen (up until recently).

            I don’t claim to know either. But I suspect.

  • Anonymous

    Classic dean the liberal.

    He talks about “investment” and our overwhelming prison population but never recognizes any overwhelming cost of crime.

    No he’d like to throw money at progams that don’t work forever pretending he is fighting poverty while crime and it’s cost are ignored.

    Exactly the same approach with our public schools and other main issues.

  • Boring John

    It’s the FAMILY—stupid. It is not wealth, education, or politics—it is morality and upbringing…..ie the FAMILY. When will the Liberals finally admit that having a Mom and a Dad that “invest” in their childerns lives and care about where they are or when they get home makes the difference to how the children will react in society? How many poor black or asian families do you know (I know many) where the children have become leaders because they had role models at home! It doesn’t take a Village it takes a Mom and Dad!

    • dean

      John….then why do (there he goes again) Western European nations, with equally high divorce and single parent rates, have far lower crime than we do? One variable is clearly “the village.” A single mom in Sweden can raise her kid in middle class comfort rather than poverty, through public subsidies provided by government through taxes.

      No question having a mom and a dad is better than only a single parent, all else equal. But government cannot mandate 2 parent households, and in some cases the kid would be worse off with a drunken, meth-head, abusive dad living at home. Government (us) can help keep kids from being raised in impoverished households.

      Obama was raised by a single mom and his grandparents by the way. Bill Clinton was raised mostly by a single mom. It must be a Democrat thing.

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)