Let me repeat what I already said on this topic before. Our problem isn't lack of a regressive sales tax. It's the kicker - that exacerbates the swings in our economy.

The time people need a tax rebate isn't when the State economy does unexpectedly well. It's when the economy does unexpectedly poorly. That's also the time we need to shore up government services - like, say, unemployment insurance.

The solution to the State's funding problem is obvious. Have the kicker "kick" into a rainy day fund. To keep the legislature from declaring every day to be a "rainy day" (this is Oregon, after all), we make it so that the fund can only be accessed when we have a quarter of negative growth, or some other neutral criteria. "Spending" in this case means not just government spending, but "tax expenditures" as well (e.g. tax rebates).

There. Volatility problem solved. And it didn't hurt the poor one bit. Wasn't that simple?

Ahhh, the instability argument.

I don't suppose anyone's looked at the other states that have sales taxes to see how their finances are doing, have they?

In California, the sales tax is the second largest source of revenue after the personal income tax. Presumably, their finances would have to be in good order, no? But last I heard, they'd voted in Arnold Schwarzenegger -- a movie star -- to replace Gray Davis because of problems with the state budget a couple years back. And from what I understand, Arnie's still having a few problems with their finances.

Has anyone got an example of a state where the sales tax has actually stabilized the revenues over a significant period of time? Or is it just another economic myth?

As Larry sez, subject to demagoguery:

Don't forget that the already anemic capital gains tax will be cut even further because we know that people who don't actually produce anything, but live on investment income, will just quit investing if they have to pay the same goddamned taxes I pay for the privilege of running a grinder and getting welding sparks thrown in my face.

I guess if we started taxing rationally, we might be targeting people with huge piles of cash that pay little or no taxes, instead of targeting people who are below the bottom rung of the ladder, and probably won't add much additional revenue anyway.

Of course the people with huge piles of cash give it to politicians and sponsors of initiatives that will propose tax plans that protect their donor's interests.

To do otherwise would be irrational.

I guess if we started taxing rationally, we might be targeting people with huge piles of cash that pay little or no taxes, instead of targeting people who are below the bottom rung of the ladder, and probably won't add much additional revenue anyway.

This is the correct answer, but I don't know that it's a real-world one. In a perfect world, we'd have both progressive taxation and an adequate safety net; people who found themselves falling on hard times would have the resources to get back in the game.

Unfortunately, I see no chance of progressive taxation in the foreseeable future. So, if we stick to that benchmark, it means sticking with our current, wholly inadequate system. The result isn't just that the poor pay more in taxes than they should (the current system is essentially flat--Oregonians across the quintiles pay roughly the same amount of their incomes in taxation), but far worse, that the safety net disintigrates. How many kids are going to go hungry in the interim; how many get crappy educations? How many of our high school graduates will go without college? (And on and on.)

I don't know that we have the luxury of "best case" scenarios. I'm looking at things, and we're in a worst case--everything's up from here. I'd vote for a sales tax in a New York--make that Stumptown--minute.

From a CNN report released today:

In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1....In 1990...CEOs made about 107 times more than the average worker, while in 1982, the average CEO made only 42 times more.

"Pay" in this instance refers to total compensation – including salary, bonuses, restricted stock awards, payouts on long-term incentives and the value of options exercised during the year.

So we're gonna cut taxes further for these guys and institute a sales tax?

Sounds fair to me..........

But that takes courage and leadership which is sorely lacking in our elected leaders.

Funny thing about democracy. Our elected leaders tend to have about as much courage and leadership as we allow them to have.

Count me in with those who think the question isn't best answered by a sales tax, but by

1) a kicker that kicks into a rainy day fund 2) an income tax that re-balances between work income and wealth income 3) an income tax that re-balances between individual income and corporate income 4) an income tax that reflects a progressivity more in line with other states and the federal system

It's not a hard ideological sell at all, IMO. If you are a person, you get your money from working a job, and you don't make that much, you should bear the least of the burden. If you are a corporation, or you are an individual who gets their money from already-accumulated wealth, and there's a lot of it, you should bear the most.

Work over wealth People over corporations Less over more

The governor didn't call for a sales tax, no matter what the Oregonian or his opponents said.

He said, "a consumption tax of some kind"

There are all kinds of consumption taxes besides pure retail point-of-purchase sales taxes.

[Disclaimer: I built TedForGov.com, but I don't speak for him or his campaign.]

The governor didn't call for a sales tax, no matter what the Oregonian or his opponents said.

That was my reaction when I read the O piece, too, but then why didn't Lonn Hoklin immediately clarify that? Instead, he said "He was just answering a question in the best way that he could and speaking from his heart." If he meant "the Governor wasn't suggesting a sales tax," why didn't he say that. Unless of course, the Gov was suggesting it.

(And maybe it ain't a bad idea to suggest it.)

The simplest way to increase stability in Oregon's revenue structure is to create a real rainy day fund that will set aside money when times are good to fund critical services when the next recession comes. And it will come.

Two bills to substantially increase our rainy day reserves passed the Senate in 2005 by large, bipartisan majorities. Governor Kulongoski stood ready to sign the bills.

But -- surprise, surprise -- these two rainy day fund bills were blocked by House Republican party bosses from having a debate or vote in the House. House Democrats fought hard to bring these bills forward. Had a vote taken place, both bills would have passed with huge bipartisan majorities in the House.

Until we remove these Republican party bosses, it appears that we won't get a real rainy day fund. Until we get such reserves, we won't have stability for Oregon schools, health care, or public safety.

Rep. Dave Hunt's clear statement pretty much sums up the frustration of serving in the House run by Minnis. Until she is gone we can only dabble in consumption tax talk. Vote for Rob Brading. Send him what ever you can afford for his campaign! Kick her out!

Yo Kari, you're right man. At no time in the debate did Governor Kulongoski say "sales tax." The O's headline writer should be reprimanded for a very false impression created across the state...oops I forgot, the Big "O" does that all the time. The "O" makes up the news.

Gimme a break, JHL--you know as well as I that it was a 2-member GOP in the House last session. If it wasn't what Minnis or Scott wanted, you could forget it.

Sales taxes do affect the poor quite a bit.

Typically, they buy foods that aren't exempt from taxes. Usually exempt items are fresh/frozen meats, veggies, fruit, etc. Prepared foods (including many frozen foods) are taxed.

Poor people are much more likely to buy prepared foods or cheap fast food items than they are fresh fruits and veggies. It's all a matter of price-- you can buy a kid meal at many McDonalds on certain days for $1; there are frozen pizzas and meals you can buy for $1.

Even if poor people stick only with non-taxed foods, they also have to buy clothes, school supplies, household items, etc.

What ends up happening is that poor people pay a larger percentage of their income in sales tax than those who are wealthy. And that makes for a regressive tax. At least with income tax you can up the number of claimed dependents to be able to pay less taxes up front.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of a state where the sales tax has made their budget woes magically disappear.

There's no such thing as a "progressive sales tax". In order for a sales/consumption tax to provide a steady stream of revenue, it has to tax things that people need to purchase. If it only affects goods or services that people don't need, it's just as subject to volatility as income. The more the tax is weighted toward things people need to purchase (and therefore less volatile) the more it will affect the poor. If it's restricted to higher-end items that poor people don't buy, then it can't actually bring in enough money to make a difference in the state's revenue.

California's sales tax, for instance is fairly stable, in absolute numbers and percentage-wise, bringing in between 29% and 32% of general revenue between 1999/2000 and 2003/2004. But even at 8.75%, it's only three-tenths of the revenues for each year.

Also see Governing.com's reports:

http://governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3or.htm http://governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3ca.htm http://governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3wa.htm

One idea that I've been pondering.... What if we had a relatively high sales tax rate, say 8%, and then rebated back to every single citizen some equal amount... say, the amount equivalent to the taxes paid on a basic necessities basket of goods.

That way, you'd tax everything -- avoiding the whole lobbyist feast that is the exemption-creating game -- while holding poor folks harmless for basic necessities of life.

Obviously, details to be worked out - and I'm sure there's some wrinkle(s) I haven't thought of, but it's an idea.

Poor folks still end up paying taxes, which in many cases could mean the difference between paying the electricity, having food on the table, etc.

They may get it back later, but the fact is they still have to pay it.

As I said above, at least with the income tax, your rate depends on how much you're making. And you can lower it even more by claiming more dependents. There's also the option of claiming you're exempt if you know you won't make enough to pay taxes.

There were plenty of times where the cost of the sales tax kept us from buy necessities. Our sales tax was just under 8% in my home county and over 8% in Houston when I lived there (state plus local add-ons). And I know there's been increases since I left in 2000.

Kari, if you exempt lower-income people from the sales tax, you don't have enough of a base on which to draw revenue from to make the sales tax have any impact on revenue. You're either taxing them or you've somehow got to limit a consumption tax to businesses and people with higher incomes.

The Governing.com studies I mentioned above cite Washington's system as overly-reliant on sales taxes ("volatile"). California, with both a personal income tax and sales and use taxes (which is supposed to be the multi-leg system that everyone thinks is so good) has also had a roller coaster the past few years.

How about a progressive income tax that's got the loopholes knocked out of it?

Jenni and Kaza--you are both right that sales taxes are regressive and that many have trouble paying all the bills. But as I said upthread, that's only half the picture. Many of the programs the state pays for are designed to help the poor(er), and we've been cutting those programs to beat the band since 2000.

You don't want a sales tax--fine. But how will you pay for these programs people need to stay afloat? There are two sides to this equation, and a sales tax would address one side. There are fixes like Kari suggests that could even help regressivity.

Jeff:

The only suggestion I see from Kari is an "equal amount" rebate. That doesn't really address the regressivity of a consumption/sales tax.

Nor do I see how adding a sales tax would stop programs for the poor from being cut. My understanding is that -- rather than increasing the revenue stream -- gains accorded by a consumption tax would be offset by decreases in, say, the income tax. Without an increase in revenue, programs for the poor are still going to get cut. The sales tax doesn't magically make money out of thin air.

There is nothing inconsistent with wanting a sales tax to assure a stable revenue source even in periods of economic downturn and wanting to fix the problems with the kicker and our all-but-flat income tax.

A sales tax is regressive. We can have some aspects of our system that are progressive and others regressive. That is a compromise that some may support in order to stabilize our state revenue stream.

To me, the biggest problem for the past decade has been instability. To those of you who argue regressivity, do you think the poor are better off since we've demolished the Oregon Health Plan (no revenue), have hollowed out Human Services (no revenue), are hammering the public schools (no revenue)?

You have to make the hard choices here, folks.

Darrel, I'll refer you to Paul's comment (11:10 AM), which captures what I was trying to say. As for Kari's suggestion, it offsets the regressivity by offset the taxes paid by lower-income folks with rebates. It's a two-step process.

And Anne, I have to take STRONG exception to this notion of yours that "there was one reason and one reason only to come to Portland." Oregon's the best, sales tax or no!

;-)

A few years back, Texas started suspending the sales tax on a variety of items right before school begins. That's great if you have the money right then to purchase the items you need.

While this program does help some of the poor people, we've found that many of those who are wealthy will save up their purchases to make and do them during that period, saving a lot in sales tax.

The sales tax in no way made Texas' budget more stable. Recently they almost were not able to start the school year because they didn't have enough money. In several instances the state has almost gone bankrupt.

Paul, no, I don't think the poor are better off without the OHP, but I don't think making them pay for it through sales taxes is going to be any more effective than making them pay for it through income taxes. The whole point was that it was supposed to provide services for the poor that they couldn't afford by taxing everyone in the state and spreading the burden throughout the populace.

Jeff, I've asked a couple of times for anyone to give me an example of a state where finances are in good shape because of a sales tax. Nobody wants to use CA as an example, even though they have a mix of property, income, and sales tax, fine. Just show me an example of a state whose finances are in good shape and where the money comes from.

According to Washington's Department of Revenue, the state and local tax burden under their system for a household of 4 with an income of less than $20K is 15.7%. That drops to 9.8% for $20K-$30K and continues on down the scale until people making over $150K pay an average of 4.4% of their income in state and local taxes. According to their own figures: "Only three other states - Alaska, Tennessee and Nevada - have more regressive household burdens".

So, that's six states. CA has a distributed tax system, but nobody wants to use it as an example because their finances are as screwed up (or more) than OR. WA is largely sales tax supported and the poorest people pay 2-4 times more of their income, percentage-wise, than the upper middle class and wealthy. AK, TN, NV have more regressive tax structures than WA does. That leaves 44 more to choose from for an example of what works and doesn't shift more of the tax burden to the poor than they're already carrying.

Really, I'd love to see some actual figures, people, not just conjecture and happy talk. If you can't back up your assertions about a sales tax with facts, how do you actually know that you're right?

Darrel, according to Governing mag's more recent report (2005), the best performing states in terms of budgetary health and long-term outlook were Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Utah, and Virginia. Of those, only Delaware doesn't have a sales tax.

I think the point I'm trying to make is not that the sales tax is the magic bullet; state budgets are extremely complex and no one piece of the system is mandatory or a poison pill. But to suggest that all states with sales taxes are in poor financial shape is stretching it.

Incidentally, the states without a sales tax received the following grades on economic position: Alaska C+, Delaware B+, Montana C+,New Hampshire C, and Oregon D. Not exactly stellar stuff.

Actually, Jeff, I never suggested that all states with a sales tax were in bad financial shape; you're pulling a rhetorical trick there and reframing my question to make it sound more extreme than it was. This is what I said in three previous posts:

"Has anyone got an example of a state where the sales tax has actually stabilized the revenues over a significant period of time?"

"I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of a state where the sales tax has made their budget woes magically disappear."

"I've asked a couple of times for anyone to give me an example of a state where finances are in good shape because of a sales tax."

I was asking -- and continue to ask -- for an example of how a sales tax has made the difference in making any state solvent over a long period of time. Do you have any examples? Can you show that the sales tax is what made the difference? Or am I just supposed to take your word for it that a sales tax with a wide enough base to stabilize the budget isn't going to have a regressive effect on low-income Oregonians?

As for it being "extremely complex", I work with numbers all day long, I don't have a problem with them. And I've been studying various plans to implement a sales tax in Oregon since before I ran for the Legislature a dozen years ago, so I'm not totally unfamiliar with the arguments there, either.

By the way, it's not surprising, given that part of Governing's rating system is based on whether the tax system is distributed over several revenue streams that a state without a sales tax fares poorly compared to states with both income and sales taxes. If you look back at the 2003 report, you see that Washington is rated badly on adequacy of revenue precisely because it's considered to be over-reliant on sales taxes.

46 states (92% of the states) and D.C. all have a sales tax. That means only 4 states don't.

So it goes without saying that it would be no surprise that 5 of the top 6 financially stable states would have a sales tax.

I don't think having a sales tax means your state will do bad. However, just because your state is looking good budget-wise doesn't mean that your taxes are progressive.

I lived in a state with sales tax for 22 years-- I have plenty of experience with it. I've had family members who were barely making ends meet and only had food and a place to stay thanks to welfare and help from family. And I can tell you that the sales tax hit them very hard.

The fact is that unless you basically exempt most clothing, all food, household items, toiletries, etc., the poor will end up paying a larger percentage of their income in sales tax than the rich-- and that makes it regressive.

And what are you going to do? Exempt all clothing at stores that poor people are more likely to shop at, exempt all clothing under a certain price, etc.? The state would see a lawsuit before it even went into effect. Otherwise you end up not taxing enough items, and therefore don't bring in enough taxes.

There is really no way to keep the tax from not heavily affecting the poor unless you require them to carry a card stating they're exempt (therefore humiliating yourself every time you shop) or giving them a refund/rebate later (which means you have to keep track of every expenditure, keep receipts, and wait to get your money back).

As someone who has fed her family on less than $20/week many times (a family of 3), I can assure you that any extra bit of money spent on things like a sales tax means less food on the table, no toilet paper in the house, etc.

I just took a look at Westlund's proposal:

The one that jumped out at me fairly quickly is the graphic that shows "Here’s the breakdown of expected savings per household each year (by household income)"

I'd like to know what the makeup of the "households" is that they're using for those income levels. The numbers might be right for a single person, a "DINK" (double income, no kids), and possibly a household with 2 adults and a child. I'm not sure it's close for those with 2 or more kids-- and we've all heard the average family has 2.x kids.

Many of them also do not own homes, so they would see no deduction in property tax. Many households at that income level rent, and a deduction in property tax just means their landlord makes a higher profit. You're extremly unlikely to see rental houses and apartments lowering their rent just because property taxes went down-- they'd just put it in their own pockets.

When comparing "total saved" to income, this is what you find:

$35K: 0.38% of income is saved $45K: 0.38% $55K: 0.49% $75K: 0.63% $125K: 0.56%

This seems to show that those at the lower income levels are seeing smaller savings than those at higher incomes.

When looking at how much is spent on sales tax, compared to income, this is what you find:

$35K: 2.22% of income spent on sales tax $45K: 2.04% $55K: 1.91% $75K: 1.73% $125K: 1.48%

Just as I've been saying all along, sales tax affects those at lower incomes more than it does at the higher incomes.

And like I said above, these "savings" figures assume you own a home and are paying property taxes. That is only true for 64.3% of Oregonians (and 56.9% of those in Multnomah County), according to the 2000 Census. Those with household incomes under $40,000 (median household income in 2000 in Oregon was $40,916) are a lot less likely to own a home. So if you remove the property tax savings from those at the $35,000 income level, they end up paying $126 more a year under the plan.

It's also not showing what would happen with those people under $35K, which is where my family (and many families across Oregon) would have been the last few years.

We pay no federal tax, little state tax, and our property tax is in our rent. So we'd be paying sales tax on some of our food (it doesn't include prepared food, which typically means that frozen foods that are already prepared, like pizza, are taxed), all of our toiletries, household items, clothes, shoes, any toys we buy our daughter, books, etc. We wouldn't see any reduction in our federal tax or our property tax (we rent an apartment).

Looking at the table, the federal/state reduction on those listed is right at about 1.9%. Going by that and the other trends available on the table provided, we'd see about a $532 decrease in state tax and about $672 in sales tax. With no reduction available in our federal taxes or our property taxes, we'd actually see an increase of $140. Even if we paid out the exact same percentage in sales tax as those at $35K (which is unlikely, as the trends above show the % increasing the lower the income goes), our sales tax would still be $621.60-- still $89.60 more than we pay now.

I did all my math on a calculator, but that doesn't mean my sleep deprived brain couldn't have made a mistake somewhere.

Darrel, you seem to believe that a sales tax can't be part of a sensible budget; I think there's ample evidence that's false. If that's not what you believe, perhaps we have no issue. The complexity I refered to was simply meant to suggest that if you take a concept like a sales tax and think you can separate it from the other numbers in a budget, you're kidding yourself. I also deal with numbers all day. So do the economists in every state in the union. So what?

Just to be clear to both you and Jenni, I'm not suggesting that a sales tax is necessarily the way to go. But, like Paul, I think that if you're not going to consider a sales tax, you've got to figure out a different way to make revenue stable--particularly since we have the idiotic kicker law. Don't want a sales tax? What's the radical change that will bring stability to Oregon?

My ears are open.

Jeff, you're flat-out wrong about what I've said. I know that a consumption tax enacted on all items and services (including necessities) would provide greater stability than other forms of taxation precisely because it would tax things people can't do without. That's why a consumption/sales tax is more stable.

The problem is, a consumption tax gets more stable as it gets more regressive. The more it's based on things people need as opposed to things people can do without, the less subject it is to economic ups and downs.

I don't see any way for you to enact a consumption tax that has a significant effect on the stabilization fo the state's revenues that doesn't shift the tax burden further onto the poor and low-income people of Oregon. If your only goal is to stabilize revenue and you don't mind doing that by squeezing the poor, then I suppose it looks like a good option, but I'm a Democrat and I don't believe in cutting a progressive income tax system in order to enact a regressive sales tax.

On the other hand, if you've actually got a model -- like another state -- where they've come up with a sales tax package that matches the progressivity of their (or our) income taxes, by all means bring it on. I could possibly support that.

Most sales taxes (including Westlund's plan) specifically state that prepared foods are not exempt from the tax. Prepared foods are not only meals at restaurants and fast food joints, but also pizzas, frozen dinners, and many other frozen items.

And not everyone at the lower income levels are "disproportionately" using the services. We haven't used a state service any more than the average person since we got off food stamps over a year ago. And our yearly income was $28,000.

Those brackets do not get a tax cut-- they're looking at their taxes going up, according to the table on Westlund's site. Since they do not own homes, there is not a property tax decrease. This means they'll pay $100+ more in taxes than they do now.

And since when do we ask the poor to pay more for the state services? Isn't the whole reason they need state services because they can't afford to pay for them?

I don't think many of the people here understand what it's like to regularly have to buy food for your family with less money for a week than many spend on a day's worth of food. Some may have done it during college, or for short periods of time. But have you had to do it for long periods of time (months or years, not weeks)? Have you only been able to have food to eat thanks to $127 in food stamps each month (for 2 adults and a child) and a little help from family?

On the other hand, if you've actually got a model -- like another state -- where they've come up with a sales tax package that matches the progressivity of their (or our) income taxes, by all means bring it on. I could possibly support that.

Three years or so ago, I did look through Governing's report on the states, and did see a few examples that looked interesting. Actually, what seemed interesting were components from several different states. I posted those on my now-defunct Oregon Blog. Unfortunately, without some effort, I don't recall the specifics.

The cool thing about the 2003 report that you cited upthread was that it took into account tax fairness--a feature they downplayed in 2005's version. They will have another up next year, so perhaps we can revisit this conversation then--and let's hope they put fairness back into the formula.

Great conversation! I think it has been pointed out here that Ben doesn't feel like the package he is working for is perfect, he is open-minded and willing to consider some of the great points brought up here. Real tax reform will take a real conversation with Oregon and, as this blog illustrates, people may be ready to talk.

First, Ben is not married to the sales tax as opposed to the VAT or BAT, it's just that the sales is easiest to administer. Yes, a sales tax has been defeated nine times in Oregon, but I, for one, am glad we took a seventh vote on another controversial issue that finally passed in Oregon, women's suffrage. Plus, considering the change/ growth in population, it may be time to consider the issue again.

I want to address Jenni's concern about low-income families and a sales tax. First, Ben's plan adds an earned income credit and renter relief, two vital ways to reduce the amount of taxes paid by low-income Oregonians. The plan also incldes reduction in property taxes for owner-occupied homes. Currently, we tax people under the federal poverty level at the same rate we tax middle-income citizens- 9%. This plan gives an income tax cut to everyone.

Second, with stable revenue (and more of it) we can return to providing services that helped those families move from poverty into living wage jobs.

Ben doesn't just talk about the problems, he works for solutions. That is why he is chief petitioner on the Family Health and Wellness Act initiative. If the fastest growing cause of personal bankruptcy is medical bills, providing affordable access to healthcare will really help low-to-middle income families. Just by the simple act of adding a .60 cigarette tax, we can cover every unisured Oregon child, put 50,000 of our most vulnerable back onto OHP, and provide subsidies for small employers to cover up to 100,000 of our working poor. This is just one change and we can cover 1/3 of our uninsured. With complete tax reform, we can provide access to affordable healthcare to every Oregoinian, stabilize adequate funding for our schools, and restore the cuts to vital services we were forced to make in the recession of 2002.

Ben believes that Oregonians may be willing to vote for a sales tax if A) Every income-tax paying Oregonian gets a tax cut and B) They see what they are getting out of it. C) The rate is in the constitution so it can't be raised without a vote of the people.

The other issue that has been brought up a lot is whether the sales tax guarantees stability. The answer is: More than our current structure. Even though California went through a recession to and had to cut their budget, it was only a small percentage of their overall budget.

While Ben was co-chair, Oregon lost 22% of our already allocated general fund dollars. Ben says that just the way a household depends on a paycheck to cover it's bills, so does the state. It's not enough to know that it will be there, you need to budget on how much it will be. Our current structure is too volatile and depends too heavily on income taxes paid by hard-working Oregonians.

Ben didn't come up with this plan in a vacuum, it was a group effort that included labor and business and special efforts were made to address regressivity- it happened during the '03 session and has been called Draft Plan A by those who worked on it. A bipartisan, bicameral group of legislators: Westlund/ Shrader/ Jenson/ Hass introduced it as SB 382 last session. It didn't even get a hearing becuase the parties were too worried the words sales tax might be uttered before an election year.

A few good sources for tax information are linked to from our website

Thanks again for the great discussion!

I never said people wouldn't get a tax cut-- for those at the lower levels it'll mean only a decrease in their state income taxes since they already don't pay federal taxes.

I see there is an increase to allow 25% of the earned income credit, as opposed to 5. However, this would apply to people at several income levels.

Those making more than $5,000 per year (still well under federal poverty levels) are taxed at the same rate as those making a million. The only difference is that they're going to see an increase in the earned income credit. Of course that doesn't take into consideration that the credit is much, much less than the standard credits/deductions taken by those at higher income levels. It's only those under $5,000/year whose tax is calculated at a lower level.

As I said before, when looking at how much state/federal income tax is saved, it was right at 1.9% for every one of the income levels listed on the table. So I used that same percentage for a family at $28,000.

Both those at $28,000 and those at $35,000 end up paying more taxes under this plan, if they don't own a house. And the fact is few of the people at this level are going to own a house-- especially those under $30,000.

And in searching through the PDF, the only relief I could find for renters was for those 58 years of age or older.

None of this speaks to the fact the table shows that those at lower income levels pay a larger percentage of their income to sales tax than those at higher income levels (2.22% for someone making $35K, 1.48% for someone making $125K). That is a regressive tax. It also proves what I've been saying-- even when non-prepared foods, utilities, medicine, etc. are exempted, the poor still pay a greater percentage of their income in sales tax than those making more do.

Paul, I didn't say that California's problems were because of a sales tax. I said that they had problems despite a sales tax. There's a difference.

As to the Governing ratings, sure, states that have regressive sales taxes have better bond ratings. Oregon had better bond ratings before the passage of Measure 5. I suspect that if we revamped the income tax structure so that the private/corporate split of the tax burden was shared more along the lines of Washington state, that might improve things as well. A discussion of a sales tax is not solely about whether enough revenue is coming into the coffers, it's also about whether you're penalizing low-income Oregonians in order to do so.

Also, you're being very selective in your "remembering" of my requests. A couple were simply for an example of a state where the sales tax was the determining factor in stabilizing revenue.

If the argument is that a sales tax is the path to stable revenue streams, you ought to be able to find a state with a stable revenue stream and show that its's because of the sales tax. If you can't, how do you know that your argument is correct? What empirical proof (as opposed to economic theory) do you have that a sales tax is going to stabilize revenue?

Just saying "sales tax" over and over ("catapulting the propoganda" in the administration's parlance) isn't going to convince people. Saying it louder isn't going to convince people. Well, it might, but there are going to be plenty of people who are going to be asking you to provide facts to back up your claims. If sales tax proponents can't do that, then they dseserve to lose.