Talk about missing some berries.

Now, now. The mixed metaphor police will punish her enough without you crimping her crust.

While researching one of my magazine columns two years ago I went looking for a definition of sustainability on the city's website. The word turns up hundreds of times, but definitions are few and far between. I finally found this on Saltzman's website:

“Sustainability is synonymous with integrating ecology, economics and social justice for long-term global stability and prosperity. It means thinking about our behavior in a bigger context-recognizing that our choices have a profound effect on our future so that we can mitigate the negative impacts. A commitment to sustainability is a commitment to creative and responsible action”.

This slice of wisdom was illustrated with a line drawing of a frog.

integrating ecology, economics and social justice for long-term global stability and prosperity

Hard to argue with that. In the old days, that was called "public policy."

But what about the condos??

As long as they're "green" (whatever that means), you can build them as big and as dense and as ugly as you want. Haven't you heard? New York City is "sustainable" now, too.

Gordly has been a member of the socialist republic of Multnomah county since birth. Nothing new there. Westlund really surprises me, I thought he might have intellegence...boy was I wrong. A sales tax really is so regressive, absolutely no equity at all. But it works well for the Spend and Tax crowd. BTW where do we get No Sales Tax bumper stickers..it's never too early.

Bend over and prepare to see/feel the future.

I am sure they are working how to sneak this thing on us even though it has been voted down 5,678,231 times. Sorry, like M7/M37 they are tone deaf and think we don't know what we want.

at least people know what sex is.

the problem with "sustainability" is--nobody knows what it means.

Oh dear. Once again I find myself on the “wrong” side of the argument. I tried this on another blog but it’s worth trying it again. I just want to hear the anti-sales tax argument without it being preceded by a “it’s just the government looking for another way to steal more money” sentence. Let’s assume it’s revenue neutral (I can already hear people getting ready to type that sentence) and that we accept that a certain amount of money is needed to run the state. With the income tax halved and a 5% sales tax we get a more stable revenue stream (not a crisis every 6 years), two million tourists chip in like we do everywhere else, drug dealers and others in the black economy contribute, and those with the best tax attorneys will find it harder to leave taxes to the little people. As long as it’s not on groceries, reading material (maybe) and children’s clothing, you pretty much get to select how much tax you pay.

Again, this cannot exist as a debate if all we hear is the mantra of big government finding new ways to screw us. As we are merely talking about the structure of the revenue stream, why should Oregon continue to have a very high income tax but no sales tax?

You can always have them made here.

Sales Tax: yes.

Politikal korrektspeak: no.

The only word other than sustainable to irriate me as much in modern politican/bureaucrat doublespeak is "cluster" oh, and "stakeholder" my my such words, that mean nothing. Although, in most settings in which the word "cluster" is being used seriously, the event or meeting usually ends up being a cluster_ _ _ _. So I do get a personal chuckle when I hear the term used.

Dave,

“Sustainability is synonymous with integrating ecology, economics and social justice for long-term global stability and prosperity. It means thinking about our behavior in a bigger context-recognizing that our choices have a profound effect on our future so that we can mitigate the negative impacts. A commitment to sustainability is a commitment to creative and responsible action”.

Odd that you found that bit on Saltzman's site - I found the same quote in a dictionary under bull****.

Sherwood,

As long as you control the terms of a discussion, you sound reasonable - if a bit otherworldly. Of course, eugenics sounds reasonable if you leave out the victims.

There has been ample thoughtful debate on this in Oregon, for decades. A sales tax is horribly regressive. And despite vague claims to the contrary, none of the existing state and local sales taxes in the United States even comes close to exempting the "necessities of life."

The point about getting dollars from tourists is a fair one. But claiming that a sales tax won't inequitably burden the poor is hogwash. They'll pay the same rate of tax on their clothing and household goods (and eventually their food, as these taxes tend to pick that up after a while) as the wealthiest among us.

As for cutting the income tax in half, how long do you think that would last? Oregon voters are not stupid, particularly about that.

To be honest I’m not that passionate about this. The wife makes too much money and we have an annoying habit of buying too much stuff so would end-up helping the good state of Oregon no matter what. A 9% income tax starting at 6K seems pretty damn regressive to me. I think what I’m looking for is some stability. Politicians know that we want great schools, no potholes, and a policeman on every corner - they also know we don’t want to pay for it. They try and grab money and we try and stop them. It’s a fun game and not particularly dependant on the form of the tax, in my humble opinion.

rr. From a question about revenue sources to an implied belief in eugenics in two sentences. Fine stuff indeed. Well done.

that, I believe, would be your inference - wholly unrelated to my point, as usual.

but thanks.

All this rhetoric and nothing mentioned on Corporation skating taxation. I remember when taxation was close to 50/50 with corporations paying close to their half of the burden. Now they are paying less than 10%. This is where the discussion should begin. Liberals are bad as right wingers on this...could it be the campaign gifts they both get?

I would love to have a City of Portland employee pension.

It's the only sustainable way I'll be able to live here once all the sustainable city/county/state tax increases go into effect.

Sherwood, there you go again. Why should "children's clothing" be exempt from a sales tax? Less than 24% of the population is under 21. I could think of hundreds of other "special interests" catagories that should be exempted with similar arguments to "children's clothing". Gosh, that's almost like the tax system we have now-a sea of exemptions.

Sherwood my friend,
"structure" this!

Don't you know that this year we are witnessing a 20% increase in funding for the legislature to "slice" up.

Yet Gordly, (and many Democrats) say
"All of the budgets we are considering today are inadequate and unsustainable!"

Well doesn't that beg the question,
"Then how much will it take to make the pie adequate and sustainable?"

How is it that that number is never part of any pitch for any new or increased tax.
I just want to know, how much is enough?

I guess the legislature needed a 40% increase this session?

But what next? Another 40% increase next session. I suppose it must be to make the "pie adequate and sustainable".

But isn't Gordly and friends forgetting something sort of major?

The people's pie?

What about the taxpayers? Don't they need to have an adequate and sustainable pie for their families?

Especailly since this is Oregon with rising costs of housing and other major expeditures, a stagnant per capita income and very little family wage jobs being created?
I mean their aint gonna be biotech research jobs bailing out the State.
Tourism is being hobbled with opposition to every new destination resort or expansion.
Building streetcars and light rail has it's limitations and government has run amok with planning chaos in every city.

Good time for a sales tax?
I can hear the Oregonian now.
"A three legged stool is the linchpin for Oregon".
More like the lynch rope.

I remember when taxation was close to 50/50 with corporations paying close to their half of the burden.

Who do you think bears the burden of the corporate tax -- shareholders or consumers? I'd bet it's the latter, which means it's effectively just another sales tax.

Reminds me of the wisdom of a particularly pithy George Carlin bit.

In the bit he was talking about women who constantly complain that all their needs aren't being met.

Carlin's sobering advice to them? Get rid of some of your needs.

I think of sustainability as synonymous with steady state economy.

The author seems to grasp some of the more salient (heretical to sustainable rates of growth) obstacles with this:

"Certain institutional adjustments are also entailed. For example, some have posited that a fractional reserve banking system may not be reconciled with a steady state economy and . . ."

Oregon voters are not stupid, particularly about that.

Honestly, does anyone here really believe that anyone in Salem gives a flying crap what voters think?
I mean c'mon...we vote on something, and they dont like the outcome....they reword it and make us vote again. And if that doesnt work, they just legislate it the way they want.
Its insane.

"But claiming that a sales tax won't inequitably burden the poor is hogwash. They'll pay the same rate of tax on their clothing and household goods (and eventually their food, as these taxes tend to pick that up after a while) as the wealthiest among us."

Except the wealthiest among us buy a lot more clothing and household goods than the poor, as Sherwood and his wife demonstrate, above. The poor pay less sales tax because they buy less stuff. The wealthiest buy ridiculous overpriced items the poor would never consider buying. The wealthy should be taxed when they make such silly purchases.

If the tax system should be structured to promote desirable behavior and discourage undesirable behavior, doesn't it make more sense to discourage frivolous consumption by taxing retail sales transactions than to discourage earning money by taxing income?

Since moving to Oregon after spending my whole life in a state with sales and income tax, I have been amazed at the school closures, constant crises over school funding, and lack of basic infrastructure (i.e. dilapidated roads and bridges, poorly funded courts and police). These problems don't seem to exist with a solid three legged revenue stool to support government.

doesn't it make more sense to discourage frivolous consumption by taxing retail sales transactions than to discourage earning money by taxing income?

No.

Taxes should be paid by those best able to pay. Income measures that ability much better than consumption.

And if you want to discourage high-end consumption, a graduated consumption tax would be much less regressive than a flat-rate retail sales tax.

These problems don't seem to exist with a solid three legged revenue stool to support government.

Do you think a sales tax would solve Oregon's school funding problems? You haven't been here very long.

Jack - every time I hear about a sales tax I hear the argument (which you brought up) that the 'tourists' will help with what they pay. What are they going to buy that is going to add all that extra money? We already tax gas and hotel/motel rooms. I don't think they are going to buy cars, big screen TV's or furniture and appliances so what is it that pro-sales tax folk (and I'm not necessarily putting you in that group) think that the 'tourists' are going to buy?

From my perspective, it's just another way (once it's passed) for the government to add a half cent here, add this one item that was previously exempt there and pretty soon, we're paying a boatload more than the system that we have now. I'm so impressed (not!) with the way state and local governments spend our money now that I can't wait (not!) to hand them some more.

"Who do you think bears the burden of the corporate tax -- shareholders or consumers? I'd bet it's the latter, which means it's effectively just another sales tax."
Not true for two basic reasons. Competition is a strong leveler and pricing will always be competitive, taxation would not be affective. When corporations paid their fair share prices were no different.
Also education would be the benefactor and the corporations would get the more needed educated workers they so loudly vociferate about. Anther thought on Corporations paying their fair share: think of the savings of lobbying NOT to have a tax on their fiefdoms?

"what is it that pro-sales tax folk (and I'm not necessarily putting you in that group) think that the 'tourists' are going to buy?"

Those things we tax through other means (hotel rooms, rental cars), and all the other stuff: food, beverages, incidentals. Of course, we'll lose a fair amount of business in white goods, electronics and, yes, cars, from across that bigger river and elsewhere. (Maybe airplanes, too, for all I know.)

Still, with the general understanding that consumption is equal to income minues savings (with debt being savings preceded by a minus sign), I think a consumption tax makes sense, to be unregressed by some hopefully simple and straightforward mechanism like an earned income credit.

"Do you think a sales tax would solve Oregon's school funding problems?"

I don't know about "solve," but I definitely think it would help. It seems to work for 45 out of the 50 other states (46 if you include Hawaii's excise tax). Washington State has sales tax but no income tax, and didn't they have a budget surplus last year?

I am sure no tax expert, and didn't get spectacular grades in your classes, Professor B. But it seems pretty basic that additional revenue from a sales tax would alleviate Oregon's infrastructure funding problems at least to some extent, and that the poor (who rely on public services more) would benefit from better-funded infrastructure more than they would be hurt by having to shell out a few extra cents when they make their few and meager purchases.

Income tax may measure "ability to pay" better than sales tax, but I don't see that as a good reason for having no sales tax at all. Sales tax may be "regressive," but I don't think the poor will mind too much if the public services they rely on start to receive decent funding.

Professor B., can you please explain why a sales tax would not at least help alleviate school funding problems in Oregon, without invoking the academic buzzword "regressive"?

Thank you for the interesting and educational discussion.

The lemming approach, how novel. They do, so we should do. Do you sulk because you don't pump your own gas?
Have you not learned the bucket of school funding is never enough, no matter how open the faucet of funding? Again, what part of corporation shirking of taxation do you not understand?

KISS:

I understand and agree that corporations should pay more than $10 in income tax and not get a kicker. But a sales tax would also help. The bucket of school funding was enough to prevent school closings and funding crises in my home state w/its sales tax, where in 25 years there I never heard of such crises, whereas in Oregon such crises are a fact of life.

"Lemming approach" is a funny metaphor. Are you comparing well-funded schools, police and roads to jumping off a cliff? Oregonians pride themselves too much on being "different," sometimes in ways that aren't necessarily better.

And yes, I do sulk because I don't pump my own gas, especially when there's only one attendant and I have to wait 5 minutes for him, when I could have pumped it myself and been out of there in less than 3.

didn't they have a budget surplus last year?

As long as there are pet trains to be built, art to be purchased, and PERS inequities to cover in this state, there will NEVER be a budget surplus in Oregon. What needs to change is how tax money is spent.

To me sustainability is the ability for that thing to stay the way it is. Couple of examples:

1) The school system. Can we continue using "constructivist" teaching methods by which students don't learn facts and information in favor of discovering them on their own. The answer is not as important as how you got to the answer. This is not sustainable. Scores are going down and let's face it, student expectations and intelligence is too.

2. Insurance. The cost rises are not sustainable. We will continue to have less insured and poorer quality. It might take so long that we become the frogs and the industry is the slowly boiling water. Because it is not sustainable, there will be changes in how insurance works.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the percentage decline in corporate tax payments and the corresponding increase in personal tax payments, mostly attributable to the proliferation of pass-through entities such a S Corps, limited partnerships, and limited liability companies, where what used to be corporate taxes are now paid at the personal level?

According to a study from about 1992 on higher education the state colleges and universities in Oregon primarily benefit the well to do. The public transit system in Portland benefits the downtown working crowd and does little, or nothing for the lower income people. More than one study has shown that zoning benefits the well to do at the expense of the poor. Inner city poor neighborhood schools are more likely to have the least qualified teachers and that is true in Portland. Not to mention the judicial system were those who can afford a lawyer are more likely to take a walk.

The government Oregon has is a benefit to the better off.

So now the legislature expects the poor to pay more for that.

Wonderful! Get the rich off welfare and the poor won't need it.

MW

My mom left the state to avoid paying real property tax on a fixed income when she retired. That tax is a continuing, and increasing burden upon the retired, who have worked all their lives to pay for their homes. On the other hand, a sales tax can be made to exempt "necessities (although I admit most don't do this, or do it well), but most significantly, and this is true of mom, and the couple across the street, who have lived in my neighborhood for forty years - on retirement, we tend to consume less, and we can control our consuming through frugality. Typically we buy less - lunch out, gasoline, clothes, things for kids (who have grown and gone). I think a sales tax is a no brainer. We absolutely need it, and real property tax relief for people, and a renewed tax for corporate owners.

A County sales tax would open up the jail, and keep the crooks behind bars. I'm for it.

Sherwood I just want to hear the anti-sales tax argument without .... Let’s assume it’s revenue neutral (I can already hear people getting ready to type that sentence)
JK: Why would you ever think it REALLY would be revenue neutral? The whole goal is to get more money for the bureaucrats. If that weren’t the goal, they’d clean out a bunch of useless bureaus, perhaps starting with the cultural trust.

Sherwood and that we accept that a certain amount of money is needed to run the state.
JK: To actually run the state? Probably about 30% less than they have now. Start with restructuring the schools to spend the same as the NYC Catholic schools do per student Then get rid of any agency that wouldn’t survive an up/down vote if placed on the ballot.

Sherwood With the income tax halved and a 5% sales tax we get a more stable revenue stream (not a crisis every 6 years),
JK: I keep hearing this, but I also heard news stories, during the last crisis, about other states also having a crisis.

Sherwood two million tourists chip in like we do everywhere else,
JK: And how much income tax will be lost by Oregon businesses when the Washington people quit shopping here?

Sherwood drug dealers and others in the black economy contribute,
JK: Are you expecting drug dealers to collect sales tax?

Sherwood and those with the best tax attorneys will find it harder to leave taxes to the little people.
JK: They just find other ways to buy - mail order being one. If you want to further hurt local businesses this will do it. Remember that Oregon’s lack of sales tax helps a lot of local business sell by mail order into sales tax states because they can’t make Oregon collect tax on behalf of other states, thus giving local business an advantage. (I thought progressives supported local businesses.).

Sherwood As long as it’s not on groceries, reading material (maybe) and children’s clothing, you pretty much get to select how much tax you pay.
JK: It will soon be on all of these as government greed leads to tax creep. And it is far easier to sell an increase of only 1/4 cent than an increase in income tax.

Sherwood Again, this cannot exist as a debate if all we hear is the mantra of big government finding new ways to screw us.
JK: But that is what is going on. The politicians need ever increasing funding for more and more programs so that we will become more dependent on them and vote for them. It is the Stockholm syndrome.

Sherwood As we are merely talking about the structure of the revenue stream, why should Oregon continue to have a very high income tax but no sales tax?
JK: Because Oregon, for the time being, avoids screwing the poor to badly. Look at tax bourdons on low income people state by state. The NO sales tax states always are among the states with the lowest taxes on the poor. Of course, Oregon is trying real hard to screw the poor through high housing prices due to its artificial shortage of land.

One last thing. Sales taxes lead to takings abuse. It works like this: Wall Mart, Costco etc go to local government and say: You’ll get millions in sales tax revenue, if we build a store in your city, but the land is too expensive for us to buy. So you just need to use immanent domain against all those homes and give us the land for a new store. It is happening all over California and it will happen here with a sale tax.

Thanks
JK

use immanent domain against all those homes and give us the land for a new store. It is happening all over California and it will happen here with a sale tax.

They already do that here. Remember Keizer Station?

Jim,

I disagree with a lot of that (obviously), but that was a well put argument. I didn’t even feel insulted at the end of it.

Obviously I really don’t think it’s going to be revenue neutral, but I do think it can be limited/monitored – the eternal vigilance argument. The tax creep argument is valid in every way but should not be a deciding factor. As I said before, politicians will find a way to raise revenue as that is (arguably) their job. I probably shouldn’t type this but my neighbor is the leading proponent of the beer tax in the state house. If that comes into effect I will be competing with Phil Knight to be Oregon’s biggest taxpayer.

No I don’t expect drug dealers to charge sales tax, although I am for the decriminalization of drugs and then a tax. The black economy is vast and everybody involved buys a lot of stuff with their tax-free income. Why shouldn’t they and tourists pay their way?

Every state gets hit during recessions but Oregon gets hit much harder than most. I’m sure there are a bunch of reasons for this but our tax structure is clearly a factor. I need to look further into the burden on the poor argument, but if next year my family was less lucky we would buy certainly buy less stuff. Simon’s point about people leaving the state is something I’ve come across several times. Our family is paid from out of state (North Carolina) and we would save much more than $10k a year by living across the river. My love of walkability, MAX, growth boundaries, libraries etc… stops me even considering that but others do move to avoid income taxes.

Are there really many internet retailers in Oregon? When I was living in a high sales tax state and buying stuff online it never came from here. It would always come from a state with sales tax but I wouldn’t have to pay as I didn’t live there. Of course I would then send a check to the state of California like everybody else does (this calls for one of those emoticons but I don’t do that). If we impose a sales tax people would stop driving across the river to buy plasma TVs at Costco but the shop wouldn’t close.

The eminent domain argument is interesting. I’m not so worried about that (in this case but I suspect it’s an area we would find common ground) but I have seen a bunch of cases where big box retailers or mall developers have pulled the sales tax argument. This is often one of the driving factors for sprawl in California – you convince a small town 80 miles from San Diego that a WalMart will boost their tax revenue and houses/commuters follow - driving on the lovely new taxpayer–funded roads.

Anyway, as I mentioned before at this point in life I don’t really have a horse in this race. We will pay a bunch no matter what. Just out of interest, would you be in favor of switching entirely to the WA model? It’s more stable but, according to several of your arguments, less equitable.

The only real reason I can see for a sales tax is to transfer even more of my money from my bank account to some one elses bank account. For all of those clowns advocating a sales tax there are at least 45 other states with one. Move the hell there and leave me alone.

43% of tax revenues in Oregon are property tax. the rest is income tax.

Oregon has (arguably) the highest state income tax rates in the nation--ranging from 5 to 9%. 2-3 other states come close.

few states with sales tax tax food. of the ten that do, six give a tax credit to compensate.

i don't believe that a sales tax will lower property or income tax rates in the long run--unless (like California's Prop 13) we pass a law specifically forbidding it.

yet, i'm leaning towards finally accepting a sales tax--but only on the condition that state income tax is eliminated and property taxes lowered and limited.

only on the condition that state income tax is eliminated and property taxes lowered
and limited

When you reach the point that you feel you can trust the folks in Salem to make a long-term commitment to those propositions, let us know -- and then we can have you committed.

8c)

oh, i'd want it in writing. in a law.

trust but codify.

i'm beyond being surprised by the lack of leadership in the state legislature.

JK: Are you expecting drug dealers to collect sales tax?

Sam: No, to pay the sales tax when they buy things. Right now most drug dealers don't report their illicit income, and thus pay no income tax. But they sure as heck buy stuff, tax-free. A sales tax would make them contribute.

Something for all the income tax haters to consider. Both Nevada and Washington State have a sales tax but no income tax. Both states are in far better condition financially than Oregon. I have already made the decision to move to one of those two states prior to retiring thus saving myself thousands of dollars in Oregon Income taxes. Many others with major assets are doing likewise.

Jack--why is this article (and all the comments, including mine) appearing on the "Tax Relief Blog"?

Beats me. This site has a feed that enables robots to read its content. I believe that it feeds only the text and not the comments, however. I will try to track down that blog and see what's on there.

Do you have a URL address for that blog? Google isn't turning it up quickly.

http://blog.peoplestaxrelief.com/?p=267

I called them and complained loudly, and they took it down.