Be the Spark!

contribute now

Measures 56 and 59: Tax Policy

AIR DATE: Friday, October 17th 2008
Download the mp3 for this show.

What's your take on the tax measures 56 and 59?

Oregonian voters are facing two different tax-related ballot measures this year.

The first requires a bit of history:

The passage of Measure 47 in 1996 put into effect the "double majority" rule, whereby a proposed property tax increase can only pass if it wins the majority of the vote, and if at least 50% of registered voters cast ballots.

Currently, a double majority is required for property tax measures in any election except in November of even-numbered years. Measure 56, a legislative referral, would undo this requirement for any May or November election. The double majority requirement would still apply to elections in other months, to avoid taxes being passed in low profile elections.

Proponents of the measure claim that the "double majority" rule's effects are to unfairly starve state institutions of needed funding, and to reward (or potentially misinterpret) those who choose not to participate in an election. Opponents consider the double majority to be a safeguard against "sneaker" tax increases -- levies passed in off-year, non-November elections, which traditionally draw fewer voters.

The other tax measure, Measure 59, would allow taxpayers to deduct federal income taxes from the state income taxes. Proponents say it would stop the unfair and financially draining practice of "double taxation." Opponents respond that Measure 59 would deprive public institutions of vital money -- and that it's regressive.

Does the tax code need to be rewritten? What about the way property taxes can be passed? How do you balance "overtaxation" and "underfunding," and what's your measure of 56 and 59?

Photo credit: Yoko Can't Spell / Flickr / Creative Commons

Tagged as: 2008 election · measure 56 · measure 59 · tax

Are you kidding? Does the tax code need to be rewritten? RAOTFLMFAO. Oh that's rich! Woo hoo! Yes indeed, the tax code needs to be gutted and rewritten. Preferably a one page document. Everybody reports how much they make. Richer folks pay more taxes than poorer folks. Nice graduated scale that makes sense (okay you can lambaste me now). No cheating allowed. No loopholes. No complex tax dodge structures. Simplify the hell out of the federal and state systems so that paying taxes takes no more than five minutes per tax payer. Put the displaced Oregon Tax Department employees into positions that benefit Oregonians. Maintenance of the tax system is unnecessarily costly so we should be clever and make the system simple, fair and bullet proof. What services are Oregonians willing to pay for? How much will Oregonians pay for those services? What is a reasonable price for those services? Oregon needs a rainy day fund to buffet the effects of boom and bust cycles. (We should get rid of these pesky cycles and smooth things out while we're at it.) Why doesn't Oregon have a well-balanced annuity invested in the (don't cover me with banana slugs here) global economy such that the investment of Oregonians removes taxation burden? Where's our imagination and can-do sangfroid? We've got a lot of smart people in Oregon who should be able to figure this out. Let's not be as short-sighted as we have been. Saying "I don't want to pay taxes" is a fool's statement given that our infrastructure costs money. If we all pay, but not so much that it's overly burdensome, we can all win. Government doesn't have to be our enemy. It can work for us. YES, IT MUST!

56 - yes. We shouldn't have automatic "no" votes if lazy voters sit on their cans and fail to participate in their system. Let those of us who care to vote rule the world. Maybe we can vote the non-voters out of Oregon? The Gilligan's Island initiative.

59 - no. Double taxation bites but 70% of us don't pay this. The tax system needs to be made fair. 59 seems like a good idea on the surface of it, but 59 does not address where lost revenue for Oregon will be replaced. Bad Sizemore! Bad!

How do we get Sizemore and Mannix to write good initiatives?
trurl9 —
Of course our tax laws should be rewritten. I have thought the double majority rule a problem since it was implemented, and would be happy to see it go.

I am much less impressed with Measure 59. It seems that those who make more money and pay more taxes would benefit from it, but those of us who don't make much, won't see much benefit from it. I would rather see the kicker eliminated and this measure to fail, so that we could have an actual rainy day fund to keep education and public safety funding constant, even during economic downturns.
JuliaMJK —
Regarding Measure 56, are there any other states that have a similar law? Is there another example in our democracy where people who don't exercise their voting rights have a say in the outcome of an election? If you're registered to vote, you need to make your voice heard. If you don't care, then you shouldn't vote, but your inaction should not count in any way.

hilaryn —
Oregon is unique: No other state requires a majority of cast ballots and registered voters for tax increases.

But Arizona's Proposition 105 would put a very similar law in place in November. Details here.
David Miller —
Trurl9 wrote, against Measure 59: "Double taxation bites but 70% of us don't pay this. The tax system needs to be made fair."

One of the arguments FOR Measure 59 uses the same two sentences, but arrives at the opposite conclusion: that everybody, including the wealthy, should be able to deduct federal tax payments on their state taxes.

So what's more fair?
David Miller —
I'll admit that double taxing anybody is unfair. But is it fair to cut state funding without a public discussion? Is it fair that too many Oregonians are poor? Measure 59 does not say where lost revenue will be retrieved. Whether the state has too much or too little money is another topic altogether.
trurl9 —
The double-majority is quite objectively anti-democratic. There are actually mathematical tools for analyzing fairness and power in elections. Without going into too much detail, the double-majority objectively gives more voting power to voters who oppose a tax measure by giving them the option of not voting to reduce the turnout. That is fundamentally anti-democratic (in other words, some voters have more power than others). In addition, it actively encourages voters to *not vote* as a way of achieving their goals - encouraging a non-participatory system!

There are lots of ways our democratic process comes up short by objective standards (see, for example, the electoral college system of voting) but the double-majority is so absurd from any criteria of fairness that I'm sure it's made fun of around the world. I teach this kind of thing in my math class as an example of how perversely a system can be set up - and my students are usually shocked by how unfair it is.

Duncan Parks
xanthoptica —
Dear Mr. Parks. friend and colleague,

I loved seeing your comment here and am most interested in knowing if you can weigh in on my question (see below) of fairness that I have not heard addressed on this issue:

Are there any mathematical tools for analyzing fairness and power in elections that have to do with PROPERTY tax that take into consideration the fact that some voters DO OWN property and some DO NOT. Those who do not can vote entirely on principle; those who do must weigh the affordability factor as well as principle. It does not follow that simply because one owns property one is able to afford unlimited taxation.

Thanks!

Linda Showman
lshowman —
I have also thought that the double majority was a stupid idea in and of itself, for the same reason. People who don't vote should not control the outcome of any measure. However, I would be more inclined to accept it if it were coupled with some sort of qualifier like, "if you have not voted in three successive elections then your tacit no vote doesn't count." But then I think that people who have not voted in 2-5 years should be kicked off the rolls all together unless they can show just cause.
katied —
If you want higher taxes vote "yes" on 56. If you want the minority to raise your taxes be my guest and vote "yes". If you think you are paying enough taxes vote "no". I personally think I am overpaying for the services I receive but for those on the dole (state workers, teachers, etc.) this is what they want so they can raise your taxes.
ajreuland —
It's hard to know where to start to disagree with Don MacIntyre (and the previous comment). The thing that jumped out the farthest to me was his assertion that those who benefit from property taxes are the politicians. How stupid!!! Do only the politicians benefit from reducing overcrowding in schools, from fixing potholes in the streets, or from insuring adequate fire and police protection? I don't enjoy paying taxes any more than anyone else, but I am SICK of the whole "taxes=evil" argument! I believe in doing certain things for the common good, but I fear I'm in a diminishing minority. If I am, then those people in the majority should at least have to vote their principals. The idea that they can outvote me by not voting is totally undemocratic!!
janinsalem —
If you don't vote, you should get to influence the election. Get out and vote and effect the outcome. If not don't complain. The double majority is a terrible idea because it gives more power to people who don't care or won't even take the simple step of filling out their mail-in ballot than those engaged citizens who take the time to vote.
-Sarah Young
E.O.Sarah —
Mr. MacIntire stated that governments should "plan ahead" to bring tax measures during general elections or mount significant campaigns. Given the suddenness of the current financial crisis, we can all agree that there are circumstances that impact even the best laid plans. Moreover, asking overstretched governments to spend time and resources to mount campaigns doesn't do much to improve the efficiency of government.

Also, Mr. MacIntire: government employees do get laid off - OPB reported on layoffs in one school district just minutes ago. They do pay taxes on their income. The roads you drive on, the schools your children or grandchildren attend, the fire services you depend on in emergencies, all of these things are benefits that all citizens get.
Rachaelvr —
This is one of his statements that I wish I had been able to phone in on- when the first big gas tax bill failed to pass back in the late '70's I had been working at the Highway Bridge Dept. as their very first woman draftsman. When the tax raise didn't pass, me and all the other most recent hires got fired. EVERYONE in the dept. was worried about their job. Yes, they were all paid public employees -- on the polical dole as Mr. MacIntire would have it. So where does he get off saying that 'people working for the government SHOULD be let go when taxes are cut'??? THEY ARE! They always have been. When programs are cut it is because they had to let EMPLOYEES go, and can't staff the damn programs anymore. Who is this idiot? And those employees are hard working tax paying citizens of Oregon who are just like all the rest of us hardworking tax paying citizens. I can make good arguments both for and against this issue - as are made here by all these other folks - but just the fact that this guy feels like he does is almost enough to make me vote opposite HIM just because. It has taken me an entire day to get registered and figure out how to get on this site, so I don't know if anyone will even read this, but at least I feel better for responding now. As for folks that don't vote---I don't get it. I was more excited about being old enough to vote than I was about driving or drinking either one. I can't think of any reason NOT to vote that doesn't entail some unflattering reflections on personal character. Besides, if you don't vote you don't have any right to bitch about the outcome. Wouldn't want to loose my right to complain!!!!
Quetzal —
When I read the Voters' Pamphlet, I generally vote the OPPOSITE of Don McIntire, Bill Seizmore, and Kevin Maddox. Most often they are against schools (and teachers), libraries and anything else that might educate or enrich people's lives. "Provide for the common good" includes schools, roads and the like. The only thing Mr McIntire, et al, think should be paid for is prisions. Talk about a waste! They obviously feel that the best thing is to keep people as ignorant as possible, see only the immediate and not the long term. I am so frustatedly tired of this. It's not "liberal" - it's thoughtful. Oh, wait, thinking is liberal.
damama —
Oh, Don McIntyre is utterly disingenuous once more. He attempts, in his weakly phrased arguments, to claim that only certain agencies benefit from taxes - not surprisingly, his avowed enemies for impractical and ideological reasons. He is not a sensible or intelligent man, and his proposals hold no water whatsoever. His attacks are nearly 100% ad hominem, and contain no real substance.

I am not a member of any such group, I am a citizen who most certainly benefits from what taxes provide: schools, transportation, water, safety - the list goes on and on. I find the double majority offensive as it prevents concerned citizens from acting to improve their lot voluntarily and give unwarranted power to inertia and laziness.
bradpdx —
I need to say that the public employees that cost the most (generally) and receive the highest benefits: police and fire... and if we start talking about making across the board cuts to public employees we will be hurting. This is a horrible policy - no nuance just hacking at public services!
jeninportland —
I would consider myself socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. Almost without exception I vote against anything that increases taxes. I don't mind paying taxes, but I want my government to spend it efficiently. Once you raise taxes it is almost always impossible to rescind them. States like Arizona are taxed more heavily, and unfortunately it often pays for pork barrel projects that do little for the community. Don't let the genie out of the bottle.
hsla4340 —
The "government is inefficient" myth needs to stop. Anyone who has spent work time replying to emails or sat through a three-hour status meeting knows that the private sector is plenty inefficient.

At the same time, the government cannot afford to be too efficient, because efficiency introduces risk. For example, let's imagine a road construction project. Without any government involvement, a private contractor could do a very efficient job and the quality could be very good; on the other hand, what if the road falls apart in 2 years because the contractor cut corners? What if that contractor is already out of business when the road falls apart? Without government involvement, there's no oversight on the job and there's no accountability down the road.

Ultimately, government spending may not be EFFICIENT but it is generally EFFECTIVE, because government is accountable to us and our elected officials. And the "special interest" groups that anti-tax folks rail against actually work to make the government MORE effective?nobody pays closer attention than those groups on BOTH SIDES of every issue.
danblaker —
If ever there was an ?un-American? policy put in place, it was surely Oregon?s ?double-majority? rule on property tax increases. Any law that actively DIScourages citizens from exercising the vote is more worthy of a third-world republic than of one of the most progressive states in the Union.

Don?t want a tax increase? VOTE. It?s a duty as well as a privilege.
JohnInSW —
Regarding Measure 56: Those who aim to tie government to market forces fail to remember that the government doesn't have the ability to move in and out of markets at will: school districts must accept special education students (private schools don't), police departments must offer services to everyone in their municipality (private security can pick and choose), and so on. It's no wonder that government underperforms relative to the private sector. Let's not forget that the right-wing anti-tax crowd is largely the same group as the pro-Measure 61 crowd, and that measure would increase our corrections spending by a startling amount. True to form, they offer no funding mechanism in the measure. Apparently the McIntyres and Sizemores of the world think that we can just will a new prison into existence -- that bricks and mortar are free -- and that we'll staff them with volunteers. And they call government out of touch? Remarkable.
aaron ray —
Could you please get a tax advisor on so we can hear some real numbers about how this will affect us?
As far as I know, we already get to write off our state taxes on our federal income statement, so we would not get double taxed.

Also, does this cap get raised for inflation? At what adjusted income do people stop getting to write off their federal taxes?
portlander34 —
Oh, great. The discussion is already over. These ballot measure discussions are so philosophical and contentious it's impossible to get any real information out of them.

portlander34 —
It would seem that if Sizemore et al want to remove State revenue that they should in the same measure be required to put froward a way or ways to make up that reduction or show how the reduction will not harm the general public.
ravan8 —
We moved to West Linn in 2002. My husband promptly registered to vote. As I was on active duty and a Texas resident, I did not register. Our first experience filing taxes in Oregon was a rude awakening. Active Duty military who are residents of another state are not required to pay state income tax. Oregon got around this rule by not taxing my income, but by taxing my husband on our joint income. Can someone explain this to us? I am now also an Oregon resident. Because of this experience, my husband and I vote against all bond measures and when a double majority vote comes up, we make a conscious effort to abstain.
belen1 —
Double taxation doesn't seem like the thing to do in principle. Personally I am affected slightly by it, and probably will be more so in the future. However, I think the argument that simply cutting it, with no plan to offset the loss in some way, is financially unwise.

In my own life I often consider changing jobs to get into some line of work that I enjoy and care about more. This seems like the right thing to do in principle, even if the pay is less. But I am not going to do it without first looking carefully at my own financial situation. Either I need to match the job change with decreased spending - say, a cheaper apartment - or I need to find additional sources of revenue to offset the salary loss. Otherwise I'll end up going deeper in debt.

The double taxation seems to me to be effectively the same as simply having higher rates for the higher tax brackets, which I support, so perhaps the sense of unfairness is merely semantic.

Rob, PDX
sablonnieres —
Here's my simple test regarding measures of this sort: "Is there a group of wealthy people funded by big money claiming a desire to make things 'fairer'?" If 'yes', then RUN FORREST, RUN!!!!
Flydaddy —
I see a tax revolt coming and the State may just have to get by on less just like everybody else.

Vote often and vote no.
ajreuland —
"ajreuland" is entitled to his/her opinion, although I think it's uninformed on many levels. It will be an improvement if the "no" voters have to work as hard as the "yes" voters to win an election. With the "double majority", all the antis have to do is promote apathy. Great democratic principle!
janinsalem —
I have yet to hear a discussion about the fact that there is an inherent imbalance in voting on measures that have to do with property tax: some voters own property and some voters do not. Those who do not own property are voting on principle, whereas those who do own property are voting on principle AND affordability. I believe the gap between those for and against double majority could be closed if this fundamental problem could be addressed. As it is, both sides sound equally righteous and pompous, even though the school board lady is soooo cool compared to the "liberal conspiracy" mentality of the other side.
lshowman —
I believe that the cost of running our public entities has increased, just the same as it costs individuals more to fill their tanks, fill their grocery carts and take care of their families. Why don't people realize that government services cannot be purchased for the same prices we got them for in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, or even in the early part of this decade? That's just wishful thinking. Everything costs more, and therefore, taxes will go up. It is simple cause and effect. Trying to run our government services without tax increases just jeopardizes our public safety, hobbles our first responders to emergencies, and prevents us from having decent roads, schools, and other public amenities we take for granted everyday. I'm happy to pay taxes because I value what I get for them. I, for one, do not want to call 911 and have no one there to answer the phone.
Holly Havens —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics