A few follow ups on Jack's comment:

1. The Money/CNN data comes from the Tax Foundation. Nominally nonpartisan, the quotes from President Bush, Milton Friedman, Mitch Daniels and John Snow provide a guide as to the Foundation's policy preferences.

2. The Tax Foundation makes its warm feelings on TABOR well known.

3. The Foundation itself notes that Oregon's tax burden is below the national average while being the 10th most business friendly. It does highlight the high personal income taxes, as I did above. Ultimately, the low corporate tax rate and lack of sales tax is a major constraint.

4. A historical look at Oregon's tax burden since 1970 shows a sharp drop compared to other states. That is, in 1989, Oregon had the 10th highest state and local tax burdenin the U.S., compared to 36th today.

Oregon's tax mix is a major issue; the overall level shouldn't be. And the need for the state to make critical investments for the future should be a central part of the debate.

OK, I take Jack at his point. How many Portlanders would rather live in some of the low tax cities listed here? Cheyenne? Anchorage? Jacksonville? Las Vegas? Sioux Falls?

[crickets chirping]

Ralph forgot to mention Seattle, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver and Houston - some of the fastest growing cities with the lowest tax burden.

Moreover, can we drop the "progressive, innovative and patient public investment" and call it what it is - spending? When you say investment, this is why $1M conods get such big tax breaks, yet fixed income types pay full property taxes.

Steve, did you actually read what I wrote? I did not forget to mention Las Vegas! Also, what is a "conod"?

The larger point is, people vote with their feet, obviously. If you feel like moving to Cheyenne, or even Phoenix, or Las Vegas, to escape taxes, go ahead. If that's what motivates you in life, by all means...there's the freeway.

The civic culture in Phoenix or Las Vegas has been described as lacking. Houston? Please. Houston is hell with the lid off. And Denverites bitch just as much about growth and traffic as anyone, if not more.

Seattle has a crumbling infrastructure much worse than Portland, doesn't it? 520 is a mess, the central stretch of I-5 is horrible...forget about trying to get anywhere in less than an hour, right?

Portland seems pretty good by comparison compared to all those places. But hey, that's just me.

I just wish we had a consistent framework for a comeback to the anti-taxers.

I for one have tried out a few. I think the best response is - "Don't you love Oregon? (usual answer is yes), then why kill it?" We need a balance of services to make it work, and if you keep killing services you are killing Oregon. If you like Arkansas or Mississippi service levels, move there!

Anyway, I'd like to take back my Oregon from those people that want to sit on their pile of nickles and dimes shouting out, "It's mine don't take it!" while shooting themselves in the foot paying out of pocket for services we used to think our Government provided.

I'm tired of McIntire killing my beloved Oregon.

C'mon, Mr. Makenna, you don't sniff over a typo for crying out loud. But maybe "tax fairness and efficiency" should be upfront in your proposals instead of virtually an aside. Because Steve is dead to rights that, unchecked, that reasoning leads where "condos get such big tax breaks, yet fixed income types pay full property taxes." I guarantee you that I won't forget your 41 percent statistic here -- of Oregon individual tax burden ranking.

Maybe this, instead of the rhetoric on cool cities and creative classes and the rest that seems to me a carryover from Goldschmidt days that isn't really carrying all too well.

My home part of the state, the Rogue Valley, seems to be faring better these days than Portland is. It has shifted and diversified, and without all the backpatting and mirror-gazing.

I'm not sure that this overemphasis on being cool (and on being over-impressed with that) will lead to anything except Portland as a place for an elite class who can afford it and the swills in the surrounds who just ... well, carry on the way they do.

I do know that Portland is the only place where I have ever been the victim of any crime. And not one, but three, in three years. And I found the taxes horrible. I did vote with my feet. I feel safer in Washington now, and there's no love to be lost.

At any rate, Measure 5 was a bad answer to a real problem. I have no idea if the new round of anti-tax activism will gain any ground. It would from me were I there. Don't provide no answer if you don't want a bad one. The peons of Multnomah County have some real gripes if you ask me.

Any comparisons in regards to Las Vegas and Reno are pointless. Taxes on legalized gambling obviously generate tax income that is not available to cities in Oregon.

Ralph, I'm not strictly speaking a Portlander, but live in the metro area. Family's been in Oregon since before it was a state, so hardly a Johnny-come-lately.

I have lived in Las Vegas. Not for the tax situation, but because of job opportunities.

When the job went sour, I came back home to Portland. And it was only after the experience of living under a different system of taxation that I realized how screwed up Oregon is in this regard.

I would absolutely move back to Vegas. Just might, in fact. Not for the taxes alone. For a good job. But the taxes would be an awfully nice fringe benefit. In fact, the tax situation is so much more beneficial there (and working in Portland proper so expensive here) that I could do much better at the same or even lower pay. Moving for more money would be a huge windfall.

As for the other small-town locations... Cheyenne, Sioux Falls, etc., no thanks.

But Phoenix, Denver, Seattle, Houston? Again, if there was a good job opportunity in any of those places I would absolutely consider moving.

Portland's environmental "liveability" is quite nice, but is mitigated by a number of factors, taxes among them. Lest we pat ourselves on the back too hard, we hardly have a corner on the "nice place to live" market.

At the risk of making myself even more unpopular on this board, I will say that a person who considers PHX, SEA, HOU and DEN on par with Portland and would consider living in all of the first four will be all too happily replaced by someone willing to foot the bill to live in a city as nice as Portland.

I've done a bit of time in all five cities in my travels. Ugh. Cannot even imagine the traffic headaches one would have to deal with on a bad day at rush hour every day, forever. Even Vegas is getting backed up in terms of traffic. Portland is eons better by comparison.

Jack, you're against b.s. spending, as you put it -- so why do none of your preferred candidates ever win spots on the council or the commission and do something about it? B/c from your comments, it sounds like you would have voted against all of them on there...and yet, you also say you support Potter. And yet, I think he's letting all the proposals you hate go right on through...

I have a better idea -- why don't you run for office, Jack?

David Wright: What part of TAXES ON LEGALIZED GAMBLING don't you understand. The taxes that are collected by Nevada, Clark Co., Las Vegas from the casino industry in Nevada pay for most government services for the whole state of Nevada. Of course the tax system is more pleasant in Nevada. No other state govenment entities in the US have the Christmas present that Nevada gets from legalized gambling.

David, are you suggesting that Oregon legalize casino gambling and sport gambling statewide? Write up the ballot measure. I'll vote for it. The measure would get crushed, but I'd vote for it.

If you cannot figure out a way to get casino gambling and sports gambling legalized in Oregon, shut the hell up about Las Vegas. It's a pointless comparison.

Jack,

I think we actually see the issues in a similar way.

Of course I believe that tax policies impact business decisonmaking. I also think that Oregon's current revenue mix is not equitable, puts a tremendous burden on individual taxpayers, and ultimately, leaves the state boxed in.

What I think my long-winded piece failed to quickly communicate:

1. The TABOR folks will try to use a subset of statistics showing grim Oregon economic performance. They will attribute this to out of control state spending and taxation. (As an aside, TABOR opponents like myself will no doubt do the reverse.)

2. There are real issues with tax fairness and revenue generation here that require reform, but TABOR isn't the answer.

3. In the debate to come, TABOR advocates will understandably speak at a thematic level ("government out of control, the enemy, barrier to business and personal freedom ,etc.".) Opponents will need to do so, too. They'll just have to do a much better job than I apparently did :-)

Once again, we have an article that cites Oregon's low taxation rate and ignores the high fees. What matters to most folks is how much we pay for government--the bottom line. If you ignore a key component of that total cost, those you're trying to convince will put you on ignore...and tax advocates will again be disappointed come election time.

AFS: Hey, thanks for playing. You really kill me man with your grasp of "facts".

Check out Nevada's state budget revenue numbers. Then, just for grins, check out Oregon's budget information.

Oh wait, I forgot... you hate to nitpick with actual data, that tends to get in the way of your arguments. Well, indulge me.

In 2004-2005, the Nevada state revenue budget was just over $5 billion.

Of that, about $1.45 billion (that's about 29%) comes from gaming taxes. Gaming taxes are actually providing a smaller portion of state revenues than they did ten years ago.

Sales taxes, though, account for about $1.66 billion (about 33% of the total).

Not only do gaming taxes NOT "pay for most government services for the whole state of Nevada" as you said (it's less than a third of government services), but they aren't even the fastest growing revenue sector for the state. Sales tax revenue is projected to grow nearly twice as fast.

Nevada, as you may or may not be aware, has no state income tax. Oregon, on the other hand, derives about 87.5% of its general fund revenues from personal income taxes.

So if your point was that Oregon and Nevada have very different tax structures, well duh. That's what I said.

But if your rather misguided point was that Nevada is on easy street because they've got extra piles of cash from gaming taxes that Oregon doesn't have, well as usual you're looking rather foolish yet again. Nevada does have higher gaming revenues than Oregon (uh, remember the lottery?) but actually Oregon has extra piles of cash from income taxes that Nevada doesn't. Even with the sales and gaming taxes combined ($3.1 billion) Nevada doesn't come close to Oregon's $9.4 billion in personal income taxes. (Both states budget on a biannual basis, these numbers are all for 2 year periods).

Even per capita (Nevada has roughly half the population of Oregon) the numbers don't support your assertions.

Oh, and not to nit-pick again about your cluelessness, but Nevada is not the only state in the country to receive gaming-related revenues. Not even close. But even just limiting ourselves to casino taxes, what about New Jersey? You are familiar with Atlantic City, right?

A reasonable person, therefore, could conclude that you just don't know what the heck you're talking about... A conclusion I reached a long time ago, my friend. <nobr>:-D</nobr>

Mr Makenna - Sorry I mis-spelled condo. I was trying to mention that people do vote with their feet and all of those cities are growing faster than Portland. If you look at Vancouver, Hillsboro/Beaverton they are all grwoing faster than Portland and have better schools and lower taxes.

Mr Chisholm - If I accept your theory that tax rate has nothing to do with growth, then why not just make the tax rate a minimum if it makes no difference?

In Don Macintire's defense, he did propose a few years ago what he called the "triple nickel" tax plan - 5% income tax, .05% property tax, and 5% sales tax. I recall that he figured it was a revenue-neutral change. Our high property taxes are the reason so many people move to Vancouver and work in Oregon, creating an expensive transportation problem we will have to deal with eventually. Things would be so much easier if we could find a way to change our tax structure fundamentally like Macintire has proposed. But I think he is correct that it is a political impossibility.

Regarding business taxes, I don't know a whole lot about it but get the sense that it isn't necessarily the taxes that are causing problems for business - it's intrusive regulations and poor public policy, such as restrictive sign ordinances that prevent effective communication with potential customers, or parking restrictions, for example.

I do agree with others here that Oregon is an awesome place to live and I, for one, don't ever want to leave the state. I travel quite a bit and always feel that I'm coming home to heaven when I return here - and I often wonder why people choose to live in most of the rest of the country. I am glad, however, that they do!

When I saw the Steve Novick piece I didn't bother reading it. Knowing his pattern I didn't need to. If Portland and Oregon were the highest tax burden city/state in the country by a long shot he and Chuck Sheketoff would still be lecturing us about Oregon being a low tax and pro-business state. Neither of them have ever declared any government program or expenditure in need of halting. Unless it is a tax limiting measure. They support every tax hike, every program, every expansion of government in every way. Kari appears to be fully in their wagon as he dodges the problems almost as slick as they do. "Because Nike moved here for other reasons taxes don't matter" ?????? The Nike and Intel club get huge tax breaks and then line up in support of M30 for the rest of us. When these measures go down by 60% of the public vote Steve and Chuck always line up with the 40%. I notice Steve and Chuck have no comment when the huge tax breaks (investments) are handed out to developers of luxury condos and apartments. No comment on any of the Urban Renewal abuses devouring basic services dollars. All we get is the tired old songs about M5, the kicker, double majority and the need to "invest more". Even though the "investments" would take the PDC approach and lead to further fiscally nonsustainable chaos. The problem we have in Portland and Oregon is too many electeds are not "investors". They are Novick and Sheketoff types, hell bent on throwing more public dollars at everything. All the while ignoring how the money is spent and the lack of benefiting outcomes. Novick in particular has been a big supporter of worthless programs such as our CIM/CAM school reform. His whole take on issues is centered on keeping the same people doing the same things to our state but with more of our money. In the face of irrefutable tax burden problems, declining student enrollments in Portland, closing schools, affordable housing shortages, high unemployment, bad investments on the incline and livability in decline we are told to just shut up (ignore votes)and hand over more. Fortunatley most of us can still make a good living , we can still go skiing, hit the beach and have a good time in spite of the dysfunction they want to expand. But with the current Portland & Oregon leadership I wonder how long that will be good enough.

"In the debate to come, TABOR advocates will understandably speak at a thematic level ("government out of control, the enemy, barrier to business and personal freedom ,etc.".) Opponents will need to do so, too. They'll just have to do a much better job than I apparently did :-)"

But you are sticking with a battle of rhetoric. And your sentence above -- "There are real issues with tax fairness and revenue generation here that require reform, but TABOR isn't the answer" -- leaves any real "answer" for another day.

I'll be interested to watch this unfold, and to see how much of a grip liberal Multnomah County has on the state. Can't say I wish it well. I wish it other, but like we said ... another day.

Jeff: "[T]axes only form half of our personal financial picture. The other half is benefits."

You're on to something there, Jeff. But has it occurred to anyone that the message of the "Norquistas" (as you put it) has resonance because of the perceived disparity between cost and benefit -- to those that are actually paying the cost?

Now, perhaps that's just a perception, perhaps that's reality, but I submit to you that the cost/benefit disparity is what you need to address if you want to convince people to cheerfully pay more taxes.

There are myriad ways in which our overall tax code and government spending favors some at the expense of others. It's not just rich vs. poor, either. Within the middle class, some people are subsidized by others due basically to lifestyle choices.

For example, I was comparing tax rates with a friend of mine at work. He makes slightly more than I do. But thanks to a combination of factors (not least of which is that he is married with a child and owns a house; I am single and rent) his overall tax rate was roughly half what mine was. What this means is, while he and his family derive greater benefits than I do (there are more of them to receive benefits, for starters), I pay about twice as big a percentage of my slightly smaller income for the privilege.

I'm not saying that I necessarily pay too much in taxes, just looking at my own paycheck. But why should I pay so much more, for fewer services, than another person? Especially when the other person has a higher income, but the question does scale down as well. That's one aspect of cost/benefit disparity.

I understand that TABOR isn't going to address the specific situation I described, but it and other "tax payer protection" schemes are going to be attractive to those who feel like they are paying "more than their share" of the tax burden. I think everybody does understand that government services cost money. It's not really a question of anti-tax people trying to get something for nothing. It's a question of anti-tax people thinking they're getting nothing for something.

So your task is to explain why they aren't paying more than their share. And maybe to explain why those who actually foot the bill shouldn't get more say in how that money is spent than those who don't foot the bill. And maybe to explain that there is no more than a reasonable amount of overhead being paid for delivery of whatever benefits are being provided. If you can come up with a reasonable argument on those points (I'm not convinced you can, but I'm certainly willing to hear you out), you'll have a much easier time of it I think.

For what it's worth.

David Wright: Nice try at another ridiculous distortion. You conveniently left out the total Oregon budget totals so people won't see how different the situation is.

Nevada biennial budget $5.041 billion Oregon biennial budget $37.290 billion

The reason the sales and gaming taxes in Nevada aren't close to the amount collected in income tax in Oregon is BECAUSE THE NEVADA BUDGET IS ONE-SEVENTH THE SIZE OF THE OREGON STATE BUDGET.

What percentage of the state budget spent is Oregon's personal income tax? 25.2%. That's right. Nevada generates a larger percentage of it's annual budget spending from gaming taxes than Oregon makes from personal income taxes.

Let's throw in another factor... What percentage of the Nevada's economy is generated from tourism? 27%.

http://www.nevadaworkforce.com/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=114

What percentage of Oregon's economy is generated from tourism? 5.7%

http://otc.traveloregon.com/factsfigs/KeyFacts.pdf http://stats.bls.gov/eag/eag.or.htm

That means that Nevada's legalized gaming is directly responsible for, among other things... 22% of that sales tax recipts that Oregon cannot collect from tourism. Let's add that up.

NV Direct gaming tax receipts...

$1,450,000,000 NV sales tax generated from difference in tourism... $ 365,000,000 78.9% of Nevada's live entertainment tax $ 154,000,000 $1,969,000,000 is Nevada's state goverment tax receipts completely unavailable in Oregon due to the lack of legalized gambling drawing gaming tourist to Oregon.

$5,041,300,000 Nevada's total tax receipts.

39% of Nevada's total state tax receipts come from areas of Nevada's economy that are completely unavailable to Oregonians for tax generation due to the lack of legalized gambling in Oregon. So my wild guess of half was a little off... but not much.

Again... when a state can generate 39% of it's total tax receipts off the proceeds of legalized gambling, you cannot compare the two states. It's apples and oranges.

I would settle, from an economist's point of view, for equilibrium at the beginning and end of each budget cycle. We could call it a balanced budget if you like. Each new budget cycle starts with a clean slate. Ms. Minnis learned in the sumer of 2004 that one legislature can hardly compel a future legislature to meet let alone give a rats ass about what restrictions a prior legislature wants to place on a future or current legislature. (Same applies to PERS too, it can be terminated at will; even today if someone has the stomach for it. See ORS 238.600(2).)

I would end the State Treasurer's use of revenue bonds, tax anticipation notes, and on and on in ever growing and more dizzying array of things to extend the will and bills for the current crop of policymakers out into the future, into the wild blue future.

One other problem with a monetary peg for the spending budget is that it does not include the ability of the state to fashion our own monetary policy and print our own cash to facilitate the exchange of goods. The State Treasurer has more than filled this bill with crazy bonds all over the place that are traded in like manner (via bond hedge funds) in much the same way as one would hedge currencies in the international arena. Except that here the hedge is against our own next round of borrowing or refunding and the substitution of the whim of bond rating folks like Fitch for measures of current account balances and such.

Fitch, by the way, has this habit of calling the availability of the initiative process itself a reason to keep our bond rating lower than it might otherwise be. There are so many other factors to consider that a bright eyed AG or SoS or even State Treasurer should tell Fitch to get a grip on their interference with our election process or they can go meet RICO or ORICO on interfering unlawfully with our elections. They, Fitch's clients, already reaped the windfall profit from pooh poohing Oregon's credit rating just before issuance of billions in Pension Obligation Bonds only to discover, oops, that the Oregon Supreme Court might not share their concern for the rigid unfixibility (by the legislature) of PERS. The bond buyers, including a fund dedicated to buying and hedging Oregon full faith and credit bonds, and for which former AG Dave Fronmayer sits as a trustee, is one of the beneficiaries of that windfall gain.

If Mr. McIntire really wants to fix the spending side then he would come up with a more comprehensive solution that puts an end to the bonding frenzy. Otherwise all spending gets reduced to covering bond payments first, in higher priority over everything else, in future years. If Mr. McIntire is bad and evil for clamping down on spending then State Treasure Randall Edwards is many orders of magnitude more dangerous for reducing the availability of cash in future years to meet genuine public purpose goals in those future years as we discover those needs and respond to economic uncertainties. Mr. Edwards is either an idiot or a awfully convincing wolf (grandma) with gleaming white teeth.

The rainy day fund is just yet another less than market cost opportunity to get dollars to go play like a Wall Street big wig; and engage in a form of unaccountable graft through selection of investments. We all get to bank-roll the next Longterm Capital Management group, in the name of the State of Oregon. One big blow up and all our taxing power will be consumed to cover debt. This is worse than Argentina's historic battles with the IMF, folks.

If bond payments always came last, after the genuine public purpose expenditures to meet immediate needs, then a fixed adjustment to annual spending might at least not be so potentially harmful. If the State Treasurer had the courage to tell Fitch to go jump in a lake rather than satisfy their every demand, no matter how absurd, then we might feel a bit more secure in our flexibility to manage financial uncertainty in the future.

The attack on Mr. McIntire is a convenient misdirection of attention away from addressing the real problems of debt and the absence of an effective balanced budget. The remedy is not more debt or even more savings for the purpose of investment gamesmanship.

AFS, man, you continue to astound with your lack of basic reasoning skills.

Speaking of apples and oranges... and confusing the issues...

The $37B you quoted for Oregon's budget is the overall amount, including federal funds and fees which are not strictly speaking state tax collections. Hence, I was comparing STATE TAX revenues which was the point you were trying to make, as near as I can work out. And my numbers were accurate.

But if you want to go on overall budgets, we can do that too. Nevada's overall biennium budget is almost $13.5 billion, so that's not 1/7th of Oregon's as you claimed, but rather a little more than 1/3rd. For, again, about half the population. So Nevada both spends and collects less per capita than Oregon.

Based on those totals, Nevada's sales + gaming tax combined ($3.1 billion, substantially more than you claimed no matter why the money was available, and not available to Oregon) represents just 23% of the total state budget. Oregon's income tax revenue of $9.4 billion (not available to Nevada) is about 25% of the total state budget.

So what, again, is the huge comparative advantage enjoyed by Nevada over Oregon because of gaming (and some related sales tax) revenues?

There isn't one. Of course, you've never been one to let facts get in the way of your arguments... <nobr>:-D</nobr>

"I understand that TABOR isn't going to address the specific situation I described, but it and other 'tax payer protection' schemes are going to be attractive to those who feel like they are paying "more than their share" of the tax burden. I think everybody does understand that government services cost money. It's not really a question of anti-tax people trying to get something for nothing. It's a question of anti-tax people thinking they're getting nothing for something."

Exactly. Most of the people receiving as well as dispensing the benefits are the ones perennially busy trumpeting their necessity and their glory. Portland seems to me a competition between agencies, governments and developers. An insider's game of self-designated "progressives" and "liberals. " I've never lived anywhere that seemed so elitist in the name of "progressive," gave me less for more, and cared less than that unless you were on the take at the bottom or the top.

There used to be real progressiveness -- and real independence -- in the state. It runs in my blood, and Portland started making my stomach turn.

"the smug complacency that I've encountered far too much of since returning to PDX ...."

Exactly that.

David Wright: Argue with the state of Oregon, David. I quoted the numbers from the link you provided above. Here's the quote....

"Oregon has a two-year, or biennial budget. Each budget begins July 1 of odd-numbered years and lasts for two years. Oregon law requires all governments - state and local - to balance their budgets. How does state government’s budget work? The state receives money from a variety of sources, which are grouped into ‘funds.’ These funds are known as the General Fund, Lottery Fund, Federal Funds, and Other Funds.

The total Legislatively Adopted Budget for the 2003-05 biennium was $37.290 billion. This is essentially even with 2001-03 total estimated expenditures of $37.251 billion...."

http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/govtfinance/govtfinance01.htm

My so-called "lack of basic reasoning skill" read the first budget number (37.2 billion) in the article you provided... Didn't it David? Where is that first legislatively approved budget figure anywhere in you discussion untill I called you on it, David? Nowhere. The clear intent to hide information and distort the discussion is YOURS, David.

David Wright: "So what, again, is the huge comparative advantage enjoyed by Nevada over Oregon because of gaming (and some related sales tax) revenues?

There isn't one."

You claim no benefit to tax revenue collections from legalized gambling. That's your quote, not my interpretation. That's sheer lunacy. I have links to all my info sources. I added all the numbers up on the thread. 39% of tax revenues in Nevada. Nearly 2 billion in tax revenues directly from the gaming industry and the related gaming tourist tax revenues. Free money from tourists that people in Nevada don't have to pay. Comparing free money from out-of-state tourists paying Neveada bills to income taxes raised from a state's own citizens to pay a state's bills is ridiculous.

Sales tax vs Income tax discussions are raised from in-state citizens and economic activity is a reasonable comparison. Trying to compare Oregon and Nevada when people from Nevada only have to carry 60% of the tax load, and out of state tourists pay 40% of the Nevada tax load is pure stupidity.

Paul,

Well, the numbers don't lie. Obviously someone is willing to foot the bill since people keep moving into Portland AND people keep putting people in office who support these sorts of spending projects many of you on here seem to abhor. I'm just saying the support seems to be there -- or else you would have had Sten, Adams, et al thrown out of office and replaced with anti-taxers who could have put the kibosh on the tram, streetcar, MAX, etc. But that's not happening, for whatever reason.

As to what kind of people will live in Portland -- well, it's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? You take one view -- from your words, I can see you are in favor of one type ("diverse, mixed income, family friendly city") and in opposition to another type ("'latte liberals' caricatured by Tim Hibbitts that make for a hip Pearl District but really don't constitute a city").

And I take it from those comments you would prefer public policies which give advantages to the former and not the latter. Well, for whatever reason, Portland has not seen fit to agree with you thus far. Voters have consistently put people in city and commission government who seem to favor the latter.

So what should the "losers" do? (And by that I mean those who would agree with you yet have been unable to turn their thoughts into legislative action, not losers in a pejorative sense) I dunno. It seems like the choices are:

1) Run someone who agrees with you for city council

2) Badger those currently on the council to agree with you

3) Leave the city.

Call me smug, but I really don't care which path you choose, since I like the city and the path its going down, and am willing to support it with both my tax dollars and my willingness to live inside city limits. And there are clearly others joining me, as the real estate market in Portland proper seems pretty hot right now.

Maybe what we'll have at the end of the day won't be what you like, and maybe it won't be what Portland "used to be like," but we don't get everything we want in life, do we? In fact, Jack Bog's impotent rage against everything he hates about what Portland is becoming is even mildly amusing at times, since he doesn't really ever seem to do much to counteract these trends besides bitch and moan...

David,

Your earlier post on the cost-benefit-analyses of individual Oregon taxpayers was spot on, but I'll be surprised if you find the level of introspection necessary for a useful response from the progressive spending proponents.

These are the same fellows that refused to acknowledge the confiscatory land use policies that gave birth to the M7 and M37 drives. The same guys that want to impose socialized political campaigns on the voters without waiting for approval.

These guys have few resources (beyond a "wealth" of ideas) so they remain beholden to the public employee unions to get anything accomplished. Given that, they always take the path of least resistance re spending priorities - just identify a scapegoat (M5, Enron, minimum sentencing) and look for new ways to raise revenues.

They refuse to recognize that a spending limit would do wonders for curbing the innate agency collusion required to sustain wasteful government functions. When state agencies must compete for limited resources, that pressure will shatter their pacts and they'll be much more likely to point out unnecessary spending in other programs.

Since cutting waste generally reduces the number of (dues paying) state employees, the public employee unions never want any part of that type of "reform".

I've begun to divide Oregonians into two kinds of people: those that believe our state government needs to spend a greater percentage of our money to be effective, and those that do not.

I don't need to hire a pollster to recognize out that there are more people in the latter category. If a spending limit pegging future budgets to current spending levels (factoring in growth in population and inflation) qualifies in '06 (with an understandable ballot title) it should pass easily.

AFS:

Pure stupidity, eh? You CRACK ME UP!

Why does it seem that every thread we both enter into, you and I end up arguing over numbers?

And why is it, you're the one who is consistently WRONG?

And why is it, you consistently mischaracterize what I say? Hell, in your last post you quoted me VERBATIM and then in the very next sentence you mischaracterize what you just quoted, then claim that you're just quoting me and not applying any interpretation.

That, my friend, is pure stupidity.

I hate to keep repeating myself, I'm sure everyone here is tired of hearing (er, rather reading) it. But obviously you just DON'T GET IT, so we'll try again.

Let's start with the REALLY EASY ONE, that quote: "So what, again, is the huge comparative advantage enjoyed by Nevada over Oregon because of gaming (and some related sales tax) revenues? There isn't one." (New emphasis mine.)

Comparative advantage. Can you actually read English? Try it again, real slow like so it might have a chance to sink in. Com-par-a-tive ad-van-tage.

You then immediately state: "You claim no benefit to tax revenue collections from legalized gambling. That's your quote, not my interpretation."

What the hell are you smoking? I never once said or even remotely implied that Nevada derives no benefit from tax revenue collections on gambling. Not once. You pulled that out of your ass.

We were discussing your just plain inaccurate argument that Nevada has an inherent advantage over Oregon for funding services because so much of the Nevada state budget comes from gambling-related revenues. And I pointed out that the benefit that Nevada enjoys from gaming revenue is outweighed by the benefit that Oregon enjoys from income tax revenue (both in actual dollars, and as a percentage of budget). Hence, no comparative advantage for Nevada due to gaming revenues. If you took out the exclusive elements of each state's revenue picture (income taxes in Oregon, sales + gaming in Nevada), Oregon would be in much worse shape. Got that? Oregon depends more on income taxes than Nevada depends on gaming and sales taxes combined, let alone gaming-only taxes.

Now, that was actually part two of your defective reasoning. It was based on part one of your defective reasoning, which was a matter of trying to calculate Nevada gaming tax revenues as a percentage of total Nevada state tax revenues, versus calculating Oregon income tax revenues as a percentage of the total Oregon OVERALL budget. Yes, you pulled the Oregon numbers out of the source document that I provided. But, as you so often do, you completely misapplied those numbers by comparing them to different stats for Nevada, to twist them around in a feeble attempt to support your argument.

I didn't mention the entire budgets of either state in my first post, because we were talking about how much of state tax revenues came from gaming in Nevada. The total budgets include a substantial portion of federal dollars, which are typically earmarked for specific uses and are thus not entirely at the discretion of the state.

But since you brought up overall state budgets, including federal dollars and fees, etc., my second post recalculated based on both states' OVERALL budgets. Apples and apples. No attempt to hide or distort.

And recalibrated as a portion of overall budgets, the Nevada-exclusive tax revenues are still lower than Oregon-exclusive tax revenues.

So once more, you are just plain WRONG.

Now, if you're just trying to say that Nevada has an industry they can tax which Oregon does not, and that somehow gives them an inherent advantage -- well, that's true to a point. But it still represents a choice on the part of Oregon not to allow that industry. There's absolutely nothing other than the legal environment (state constitution and statutes) to prevent Oregon from having a gaming industry which we could then tax for an alternative revenue structure. Casinos are not a natural resource that Oregon lacks the ability to exploit (unlike, for example, Alaskan oil), so there's nothing inherent about Nevada per se that makes its gaming revenues unique.

So if that really was your argument, it's rather a silly one. You could every bit as easily argue that Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, therefore it's unfair to compare Oregon with states that have a sales tax. The whole question is about the choices Oregon has made about how to fund state government, compared to the choices other states have made.

There's nothing wrong with an honest disagreement on a matter of opinion, but you're apparently basing your opinions on flat-out incorrect data. Or rather, flat-out incorrect application/manipulation of data. You aren't even just cherry-picking the stats that support your argument, you're miscalculating the stats in the first place.

Now, I don't think you are intentionally trying to distort the figures. Somebody who was clever enough to really try to distort or hide the facts wouldn't likely go about it in such an obviously stupid way. Hence, I seriously doubt your ability to reason given a simple set of facts. You've repeatedly demonstrated a remarkable incapacity for critical thought.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

And annoying.

Sorry for the insulting nature of this post. Really. This doesn't advance the overall debate at all. Which is the truly annoying part, when you won't even acknowledge the basic facts, we can't even discuss our legitimate differences of opinion...

David Wright: "Why does it seem that every thread we both enter into, you and I end up arguing over numbers?"

Because your numbers are consistantly wrong, David. You have apparently been allowed to bullshit people with piles of numbers nobody has bothered to check. I check them, point out the inaccuracies, and then watch you have a fit trying to cover up for all the mistakes you make. I have links for all my evidence for all my math above. You again meet real evidence with 1000's of words of rant.

DW: "What the hell are you smoking? I never once said or even remotely implied that Nevada derives no benefit from tax revenue collections on gambling. Not once. You pulled that out of your ass."

So I'll repeat YOUR quote from the above post...

David Wright: "So what, again, is the huge comparative advantage enjoyed by Nevada over Oregon because of gaming (and some related sales tax) revenues?

There isn't one."

And I repeat my closing statement...

Sales tax vs Income tax discussions are raised from in-state citizens and economic activity is a reasonable comparison. Trying to compare Oregon and Nevada when people from Nevada only have to carry 60% of the tax load, and out of state tourists pay 40% of the Nevada tax load is pure stupidity.

AFS/rebellingboxer.... you've taken one too many to the head, man. <nobr>:-D</nobr>

You're hopeless, so I'm done wasting my time with you. Enjoy life on your planet!

Ralph

I guess my issue is why should we favor one group of people over another? However, the reason most tax breaks for certain areas happen is not because Erik and buddies like certain demographics, but rather think they can squeeze more tax revenue out. I think that is the whole motivation with acquiring PGE is to use it as one big tax vehicle (off-topic, I know.)

As far as population, Portland proper is static, except for <18 y/o which (based on PPS data) is declining. Again, if figures don't lie compare Vancouver and Bvtn/Hillsboro's growth rate.

That what usually happens when you force Republicans to back up their rants with evidence. They insult you and disappear.

Steve --

"As far as population, Portland proper is static, except for <18 y/o which (based on PPS data) is declining."

Sorry, this is incorrect. According to this document, Portland's population has grown from 438,802 in 1990 to 545,140 in 2003.

Maybe the suburbs are growing faster -- in fact, I'm sure they are. But one would assume if Portland was such an "awful" place to live, people would be leaving in droves and the overall numbers would be dropping. They're not. Well, some may be leaving in droves to the burbs, but plenty more are moving right in to pick up the slack.

This stands in stark contrast to a lot of other major cities who are being "hollowed out" while rings of suburbs rise up in endlessly greater expansions. That's not happening to Portland, not by a longshot. I don't see properties close in to the river go begging for long...

So it looks like, given the relatively healthy growth rates of the city's population, people on balance are happy with Portland's path. Count me among them.

I may be a latte liberal, but I do enjoy a night out in the Pearl, on Hawthorne, on NE Broadway, even in the up-and-coming North Interstate district (can't wait to check out the Gotham Bldg. Tavern!). So do my friends. We love living in Portland. And we're not leaving.

And I know PLENTY of other people wasting away in other cities who will gladly take your house from you if you're "sick and tired" of Portland. They've come to visit me and they love it.

So better sell your house while the selling is good, because clearly, no one wants to buy a house in Portland! (that's sarcasm by the way)

Mr Makenna

This data reflects Portland's annexation of chunks of Multnomah county.

However, getting back to the original topic, about I don't think anyone has ever said Portland is a bad place place to live. I think what has been repeated is that it is a fairly expensive place to live measured by taxes.

So this "if you don't like it get out" attitude is misplaced. We only ask for equity with surrounding commmunities as measured by return on tax dollars.

To Mr Chisholm's comment - "If tax rate has nothing to do with growth, then why not raise them to a level that's appropriate to pay for all the services that we, as a society, want and need?"

My response is no one wants to pay more tax than they have to unless there has been some mass infusion of contributions by goodwilled citizens to tax coffers. As far as things we want, if you look at taxes a lot of them are spent on extravagant pensions and helath benefits without commensurate contributions from public employees while schools/police go to the bottom of the priority list.

I did NOT say public employees do not deserve benes and pensions.

However, when teachers get $900+/month for medical insurance and >10% of my prop tax goes to Police/Fire Disability/Retirement, something is way out of control compared to the taxpayers who labor for private enterprise.

Steve --

"this "if you don't like it get out" attitude is misplaced"

I think that was one of three options I offered. The other two are certainly equally viable, if not more so. Why you would choose to pick the last one as the one you object to me raising says a lot about your opinion of your ability to accomplish either of the first two.

It stands to reason, according to basic democratic principles, that if one is not satisfied one's desires are being met by the duly elected leaders of a polity, then the options are to try and change those leaders, or failing that, change the polity you reside in (either by moving or secession). I think there are ample public avenues for any of these options.

What I don't understand is why the people seeking "tax fairness" cannot get one of their own elected to the council or the commission. No one has answered this yet. Is it because of corruption? The evil developer-architect-latte liberal axis? Mass delusions? Some sort of voodoo curse?

Someone, please, explain it to me.

Your "on balance" view on the "latte liberal" side, Mr. Makenna, may be met with the Lars fans on the opposite end of the seesaw. Is this the race that has been, and is, on?

Sally --

Yes, Lars is on the opposite end of the seesaw. As far as I know, however, he has not been able to elect a single person to any office in local government in the Portland area sympathetic to his views.

Jack --

My friends, I think, are a bit more optimistic than you. And perhaps, more talented as well.

Still waiting for an answer to my question of why anti-taxers cannot find anyone in local gov't sympathetic to their cause...

Jack: "See how long they pay taxes here before they start complaining."

No kidding. I've heard that complaint from numerous Californicators. Especially on property taxes.

Hell, even the frickin' CANADIANS that I work with locally complain about the taxes... that just can't be good... though the ones who just visit sure like to spend their money here tax-free... <nobr>  :-D</nobr>

Jack: "See how long they pay taxes here before they start complaining."

David Wright: "No kidding. I've heard that complaint from numerous Californicators."

The far right has been whining for three weeks now because they can't execute judges they don't agree with. Right now is not the best time in the history of our country to claim that whining from the far right gives an argument legitimacy.

Ralph - When you say we can't find anti-taxers on City Council, I think that argument falls short for a couple of reasons:

1) The inherent bias of public employees to maximize income (taxes collected) works against lowering taxes regardless of party affiliation.

2) As a parallel, for me to say that in 30 years the only Democrat we have had as President is an outsider who is now shunned by his own party means America believes in the Republican viewpoint. You/I know this is not true.

In sum, I don't think we'll agree, but merely because someone is not thrown out of office doesn't imply that we should rubber-stamp everything they do.

Steve --

Fair points, perhaps -- but given the level of dissatisfaction I see sometimes on this board with the direction of Portland, I always wonder why they haven't proposed any alternative candidates.

Your local/national comparison doesn't quite work. With national elections, there are literally hundreds of millions of people involved -- so the direct link between voter preferences and executive action is quite remote and diluted.

But local elections are some of the most direct democracy we have. We're only talking hundreds of thousands here.

Public elected officials may want to maximize income, but they generally want to keep their elected posts as well. That means doing things the electorate wants.

Given all the supposed anti-tax sentiment, one would think it would be relatively easy to get at least ONE person sympathetic to your views on the council or the commission.

People always used to complain about Vera. Yet no one would run against her. Why? Likewise, people complained about Jim F., yet the only opposition to him ended up being Potter, who we can all agree is NOT an anti-taxer. Who was the anti-tax candidate in this last election cycle for Portland?

I think the reason why I cannot get a straight answer to my question is that it is very hard for the anti-taxers on this board to confront the fact that only a minority of people willing to vote for mayor in Portland agree with their position, and that they have no truck within Portland's politics. Too bad for them...

OK, last comment since I am getting boring.

On why no new candidates run - that is a good question. I don't know why.

I really don't think it would take much since a high schooler gave Vera a pretty good run about 10 years ago and Tom Potter beat Jim F with a fraction of the money. So I don't think the public is totally satisfied with who is elected now.

It just seems we see the same people/ideas over and over starting with the Goldschmidt regime. Then again look at pro sports, with all that money they end up recycling the same guys over and over.

Ralph:

You wrote: "But local elections are some of the most direct democracy we have. We're only talking hundreds of thousands here.

Public elected officials may want to maximize income, but they generally want to keep their elected posts as well. That means doing things the electorate wants.

Given all the supposed anti-tax sentiment, one would think it would be relatively easy to get at least ONE person sympathetic to your views on the council or the commission."

I reject your insinuation that those interested in limited-government are anti-taxers.

As to electing limited-government candidates for city or county offices in Multnomah county I believe that many prospective candidates have fled Multnomah county or avoided moving here.

The non-partisan nature of city/county elections in Multnomah county also plays a major part in limitng the number of candidates who want limited government. As individuals, limited-government types are on their own in non-partisan elections. On the other hand public employee unions, developers, municipal services contractors etc. are willing to donate to and work for candidates inclined to expand government and government spending.

Gus --

Well, then, you've kind of answered your own question? No "limited government" types run because very few "limited government" types live in PDX or Mult. Co.

And thus, democracy works its will yet again, responding to the wishes of the majority.

So really, bitching by "limited government" types is just impotent rage by a grouchy minority.

Glad we settled that!

Ralph,

I hate monopolies. That is, I am anti-tax, or more particularly I am anti-extraction-of-monopolistic-rent.

Sometimes there is no difference whatsoever between the government compulsion of some dollar amount that is formally called a tax and the effect of tolerance of the extraction of unearned rent, through innumerable market distortions called economic regulation.

I am a poor slob (long story) so the anti-tax fervor that I feel has nothing to do with formal taxes, just the other more sinister and hidden taxes on the poor.

The affordable housing strategy championed as an aid to the poor is some of the most sinister kinds of tripe for the benefit of the upper class that could have ever been dreamed up. Mortgage assistance for folks gambling on hyperinflation of housing, is a grotesque absurdity. Imagine a genuine pro-poor affordable housing policy that had as its cornerstone the stripping away of any mortgage assistance beyond the first 100 thousand dollars for a home and denial of any assistance whatsoever to anyone making more than double the median private sector wage. The folks who believe in the fiction of wealth in home prices (prices that are propped up to serve as a vehicle for outsiders to extract as much interest payments as possible) have their greatest ally in the do-gooder anti-anti-tax idiots that shoot themselves in the foot both coming and going.

The real value to a citizen in a house is the Rocking-Chair Test, when can one sit back and relax, and listen to the birds and the noises of kids? If the mortgage holder thinks there is real value, real investment value, in a home for the sole purpose of extracting interest payments (like Mr. Potter in the classic Jimmy Stuart movie) then let's impose a tax burden directed at their mortgage instrument holders rather than upon the glorified renters. Whenever I hear someone singing the praises of the hyperinflation of housing I have to cringe in disgust.

Why is it that the local government folks join in the frenzy? Because they can only see property, residential property, as a means to spend more. When a beneficiary of government largess drives by a high valued home the only thing they see is a bucket of cash to be pickup up each year; 2,000 here and 3,5,00 there sitting in front of each and every house they drive by. They never seem to see or internalize the cost to the public as a whole of having some remote financial outfit doing the very same thing, but in even larger volumes pegged to one third of the incomes of the residents. The actual interest rates do not really mean squat, nor do the absolute values of the homes, so long as they get one third of the incomes in the form of interest payments. There is no way to outrun them, because it just puts the community further into the hole. The faster we race the bigger the hole.

Can you find a candidate that would advocate anything that would reduce the fictional values of residential property? Is the Rocking-Chair Test better than the fictional value of home test?

Ron --

Your philosophy is very eloquent. You have a valid viewpoint. Yet if enough people agree with you, don't you think it would be natural that some would rise into politics and run for office to express that viewpoint and turn it into action?

Just asking.

Ralph:

Nothing is settled. Your statement: 'Well, then, you've kind of answered your own question? No "limited government" types run because very few "limited government" types live in PDX or Mult. Co.' That statement is all yours except the words "limited government".

The conclusion, and the failure to consider the effects of non-partisan elections are all yours.

Gus --

Please explain how non-partisan elections would prevent someone with a "limited government" viewpoint to run for office. I am genuinely confused.

It may prevent them from making the runoff. That's a different issue. But it does not prevent them from running in the primary and at least making a good faith effort to have their views heard.

If this issue is so important to so many people, WHERE IS THEIR CHAMPION?????? Come on, that 17 year old took 2nd against Vera, didn't he? If a 17 year old could do it, I would think the "limited government" types can. Don't tell me "limited government" types in Portland are more feeble than a 17 year old, and can't find ONE person to at least make an attempt to run for the primary.

Who knows, maybe with the "voter owned elections" bill, one will emerge. But non-partisan elections won't have changed...therefore, that wouldn't have been the cause, would it?

Well, he LOOKED 17. ;)

"you'd find the bulk of the votes come from the same place, the same liberal inner SE, SW, and NW neighborhoods"

Ah, finally, someone starts speaking in language I understand -- actual votes. This is only speculative, but it's a start.

Paul, you're probably right about where the votes come from to keep the current city hall cabal in power. And though the family at 52nd/Holman or 102nd/Division doesn't have much power (though they do have Randy Leonard as a self-appointed spokesman for that area), it would be nice to do a few things for them to keep them able to live in the city.

But we are a democracy, and in democracy the majority rules, and to the victor go the majority of spoils, and there are only so many spoils to go around. This is a brutal truth, but it is so. The minority has a few options besides leaving the city, as I've pointed out, but mainly has to rely on the kindness of the majority's decisions.

What you seem to be saying is that rather than at least make a good faith effort to run a candidate who will advocate your positions, you would rather complain and spend time and attention critiquing people such as myself, the latte liberal, who consistently vote for people similar to the current city hall occupiers.

Fair enough. But I can't be convinced to vote for someone who isn't running. I'd like to see the "limited government" people put up at least one candidate so I can evaluate them on the merits.

Kari -

As much as I would love to sift through the data, I can't sift through data for candidacies that don't exist.

My point here was that limited-govt types don't run for office locally. I have received a bunch of reasons why, none of them entirely satisfactory.

I maintain that if Jake Oken-Berg and Extremo the Clown can run for mayor, then a limited government advocate can as well. Nothing against Jake Oken-Berg and Extremo as people, they're just two examples of folks that I can remember as having run for mayor yet probably did not have much of a serious chance of making the runoff. They still ran, though, and that is to be commended.

Ralph:

The question I responded to involved "get(ing) at least ONE person sympathetic to your ("limited government") views on the council or the commission."

I answered it.

Now you want to change the question! I do not play those games.

Fine, Gus, so in your mind, no matter what you do, the latte liberal folks (like me) will always win due to the non-partisan at-large nature of Portland's mayoral system?

What about voting to change that system? Aren't there ballot measures you can pursue? Wasn't there one of these on the ballot just a little while ago to change to a ward system? Couldn't someone just as easily put a measure on to make Portland's election system a partisan one?

According to Jack Bog, all it takes is about 17K sigs to get something on the ballot in Portland. Why don't you spend some effort towards changing the process? Surely you can find 17K people to support your cause out of a city of more than half a million.

Sorry, I know, this is another set of questions. A debate generally involves more than one round of exchange of ideas between parties. I hope your mind can take it.

At least we beat Seattle. I'm glad we're not as progressive as Newark, NYC, or Philly: they're kind of dirty looking. How come Vancouver, WA didn't make the list? I remember reading something about housing prices going up by 50% in Las Vegas (#48) last year: something about less government, lower taxes, lots of land, etc.

In fact, Portland and LA are the only west coast cities in the entire top 20. That's weird.

Rank City (local taxes as % of $75,000 income) 1 Bridgeport CT 17.70% 2 Newark NJ 14.50% 3 New York City NY 14.00% 4 Philadelphia PA 13.00% 5 Providence RI 13.00% 6 Portland OR 12.40% 7 Baltimore MD 11.90% 8 Milwaukee WI 11.30% 9 Atlanta GA 11.00% 10 Detroit MI 11.00% 11 Louisville KY 10.60% 12 Boston MA 10.50% 13 Chicago IL 10.40% 14 Portland ME 10.40% 15 Washington DC 10.10% 16 Los Angeles CA 10.00% 17 Columbus OH 9.90% 18 Des Moines IA 9.70% 19 Salt Lake City UT 9.50% 20 Omaha NE 9.50% 21 Charlotte NC 9.40% 22 Boise ID 9.40% 23 Minneapolis MN 9.30% 24 Indianapolis IN 9.20% 25 Burlington VT 9.10% 26 Kansas City MO 9.10% 27 New Orleans LA 9.10% AVERAGE $2,845 9.10% MEDIAN $2,901 9.10% 28 Columbia SC 9.00% 29 Little Rock AR 8.80% 30 Oklahoma City OK 8.80% 31 Virginia Beach VA 8.50% 32 Honolulu HI 8.50% 33 Albuquerque NM 8.50% 34 Charleston WV 8.50% 35 Jackson MS 8.30% 36 Birmingham AL 8.20% 37 Wilmington DE 7.80% 38 Wichita KS 7.60% 39 Billings MT 7.50% 40 Denver CO 7.40% 41 Fargo ND $995 7.20% 42 Manchester NH 7.00% 43 Seattle WA 6.50% 44 Phoenix AZ 6.40% 45 Memphis TN 6.30% 46 Houston TX 6.10% 47 Sioux Falls SD 5.20% 48 Las Vegas NV $0 5.10% 49 Jacksonville FL 4.30% 50 Anchorage AK 4.30% 51 Cheyenne WY 3.90% For a more detailed look at this study, see http://www.cfo.dc.gov/cfo/frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/tax_burden_nation_2003.pdf

Jeff:

I never debate with an opponent who insists on also being the moderator.

Just FYI, the District of Columbia info Money Magazine uses is wrong by at least $500-$600 per person. It does not account for the full impact of Measure 47. It assumes tha a $75,000 family owns a $231,000 house (rather high-end for such a family) but assumes they are paying $4145 in property taxes. Actually given that Measure 47 on average results in Multnomah County homes being assessed at 68% of their actual value, the tax on such a home would be about $3500. Also, D.C. just looks at the initial incidence of taxation; it doesn't look to how business taxes are passed through to indivuduals; this, since Oregon has low business taxes, places like Washington that have business taxes twice as large as ours as a percentage of gross state product (according the Utah State Tax Commission) income look artificially great in comparison. As to my "supporting CIM/ CAM," CAM barely exists and we have to have some CIM-like thing to comply with George Bush's NO Child Left Behind. As to my supporting every government program, I have been the state's leading advocate for getting rid of the wasteful tavern subsidy program the Lottery has been running at an unecessary cost of at least $70 million a year, which is a lot greater than any cost you can possibly attribute to CIM/CAM. Finally, as to Evan saying that my methodology in my article is meaningless and regression analyses etc., I think that looking at the actual economic performance and the actual tax systems of actual states is a fine place to start. If tax policy were a really major determinant of state economic performance, as so many people claim, all the high-tax states would be poor (or rich) and vice versa. Since that is not true, even remotely, tax policy cannot be that big a deal.

Novick:

Your data is wrong.

I live in a $245k assessed value house (RMV says $319k, but the neighbor's house sold for $360k) and paid $5,216 this year in property tax. At $434.66 per month, that's more money in property taxes than I paid in rent/utilities in 1990.

Portland/Multnomah County have a home affordability problem: high property taxes are a big part of that problem. The I-tax plus State of Oregon income taxes loom larger and larger when I could move to Vancouver and save 10% right off the top.

The middle class is getting squeezed: it hurts diversity, families, and civic participation (we all have to work harder to pay the bills).

Your property tax bill is, in my opinon, obscene, GonzoJ. But what you might find even more obscene (or I do) is to find and keep track of what the market value of houses around you is vs. their assessed value and their property tax bills. Post M5, it is easy to find shockingly little equivalency and huge discrepancies. Someone in a house that just sold for twice yours may be paying half the property tax. Or such was the case in my Humboldt/Piedmont neighborhoods just a couple of years ago.

I have never seen a study of (or any interest in) this.

Sally,

The factors influencing a particular home's property tax are byzantine, but don't blame M5.

M5 limited annual prop taxes to 1.5% of assessed value (with some exceptions for certain types of levies and bonding).

Afterward, taxing districts suddenly began increasing assessed value of homes to try to offset the M5 limits. In response, along came Bill Sizemore with M47 to limit increases in individual assessed values to 3% (among other things like the double majority requirement).

But M47 had some drafting flaws, so Sizemore cooperated in a legislative rewrite (M50) that modified his limit on assessment increases from protecting individual property owners to just covering the aggregate assessment of an entire district (so your neighbor's assessment could go up 0% while yours goes up 6% - so long as all the overall assessment increases balance at 3%).

I don't know whether this flexibility in assessing values within districts has been abused, but it wouldn't suprise me. It might make for an interesting study.

BTW, M50 also modified M5 to re-enable tax increment financing plans (aka, Urban Renewal).

As I recall, a rift between McIntire and Sizemore emerged over Sizemore's support of M50.

Taken under advisement, Pancho ... thanks. You seem to have a much more finely tuned picture of the historical rewrites that have enabled this odd system. As I alluded, my knowledge is largely anecdotal. But the disparities, one property to the next, did astound me. Perhaps entities are not interested as, per your note, the bottom revenue lines will be the same.

A little publicity would put the buying public on notice, though: beware.