I’m hoping you can help me figure something out. We’ve been running the Mercury‘s endorsement interviews over the last week, and so far, over the course of six interviews, one common theme has been emerging: Almost every candidate, apart from the Libertarian and the Constitution Party guy, who incidentally, thought the best way to solve our current financial crisis would have been to never open any banks, has said Oregon needs more money to adequately educate its children, protect its environment, promote public safety, cover health care, and the like. Yet, at the same time, none of those candidates believes Oregonians are willing to accept more taxes. So as a state, we’re in a bind.
Is it something to do with Oregon’s proud status as a “frontier” State? We’d hate to think of ourselves as being like California, and that includes paying for the upkeep of our roads. You can keep your fancy k through 12 education systems, you snobs. We’re going it alone.
The failure certainly isn’t from a crisis of leadership, either. In 1973, Oregon’s visionary governor Tom McCall proposed an increase in the income tax and a freeze on property taxes, hoping to shift funding for schools toward the income of the wealthy. But it failed at the polls. As have subsequent efforts. So: Is it that Oregonians are simply too stupid to know what’s good for them?
And what about those of us who’ve recently moved to the state? Do you agree with Oregon’s traditional attitude to taxation? Or does it unnerve you, like it does, me? And what can be done about it?
The best way to get government to deal with their money more efficiently seems to be to force them to work with what they have. In 2002 there was a taxation measure on the ballot for Multnomah County. The literature was decrying the same lack of funds; if the measure didn’t pass, they would have to cut jobs for teachers, policemen, and firemen, et cetera.
Well, the measure didn’t pass, and not a single job got cut. Nothing changed for the worse. Why? They “found the money”, miraculously. How did that happen?
More money in the government means less in the hands of the people. People can generally do four things with their money: spend it, save it (where it can be borrowed against), set it on fire, or give it to the government. Only two of those help the local economy.
That post, by the way, is full of some interesting implications that go a long way to explaining why us Oregonians tend to be xenophobes.
How does an increase in income tax with a freeze on property tax have more impact on those who are more wealthy? Who is more likely to actually own property vs. who is more likely to depend on their every paycheck?
i don’t hate taxes. when 30% of my check goes to the government every two weeks, it doesn’t bother me to support schools and public libraries and even roads.
it *does* bother me that corporations and rich people can weasel right out of their share, such that warren buffet said he pays something like 7% in contrast with his secretary paying 30% like the rest of us.
it also bothers me to pay for war and to bail out guys paying 7% on their giant golden parachutes.
i think most decent human beings are fine with supporting schools (remember when we voted to raise our own taxes a few years back for that?). but people care about how their taxes are used, and paying more than their fair share.
Because government has no incentive to provide a service or product better, cheaper or more efficiently since there is no competition.
Therefore taxes are money taken by force, then generally wasted or used in excess.
When I want my money to help people, I give it to them directly or through a private charity.
Taxes penalize the workers that produce the solutions and reward the stagnant and irresponsible.
Government does have incentive. It’s called elections.