Chuck, please do us all a favor and add a column or 3 to your nice little chart.

Percentage (share) of state taxes paid

Percentage (share) of property taxes paid

Then we can conduct a more complete analysis and come to a better conclusion about the level of wrong headedness, unjustness and wrongness of the state 'kicker' program. For the grammar police, thanks in advance; I'm almost certain I've invented a few new words.

Also, lets not forget that this year the corporate portion of the kicker goes to a rainy day fund.

Kurt, I can help you out a little bit there. The first column you asked for, "Percentage (share) of state taxes paid" (assuming of course you're talking about income taxes) would be, by definition, exactly equal to the 3rd column in Chuck's table, "Share of kicker".

So for example, where it says that the top 20% income group receives 65.4% of the kicker, it must then be true that the top 20% income group had paid 65.4% of state personal income taxes in the first place.

And that first 20% income group? They apparently only paid 0.9% of state personal income taxes in the first place.

Chuck, could you please explain the title of this table? Exactly how can the kicker "exacerbate income inequality" when it isn't income in the first place, but a rebate on income that had already been taxed? Certainly it is distributed unequally, since the original tax burden is distributed unequally and the kicker is distributed proportionate to tax burden.

For example, say two people with incomes of $10K and $100K were originally taxed $500 and $8000 respectively. And, say that they receive 20% kicker checks of $100 and $1600 respectively. That doesn't change the original $10K/$100K of income at all.

Mr. Sheketoff's table shows that the top 20% of taxpayers pay 2/3 of the total personal income taxes received by the State. I doubt they consume 2/3 of the services funded by personal income tax revenues. So much for the argument that the rich don't pay their "fair share" ...

But Kari, the posts here aren't even about that. I think we all agree and understand that the higher wage earners pay higher taxes. We just wanted to know why those paying the most out getting a higher gross amount back is so wrong.

You like micro brews, so here is a little something called Bar Stool Economics: Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Interesting table... Perhaps we could fund children's healthcare through the kickers the top 26 percent will receive instead of a tobacco tax that will effect mainly the bottom 60 percent.

Speaking of inane mutterings...

Progressives actually believe that higher-income folks have a responsibility to pay more, as a percentage of income, than low-income folks. After all, they're the ones reaping the benefits of our society.

My point in my earlier comment was that the kicker doesn't impact the relative percentages of tax burden because the rebate is proportional to those original tax burdens.

Using my example above (and the actual numbers don't much matter, it's the proportions that are important -- fill in your own specifics and you'll get the same relative results): Person A paid $8K on $100K of income for an effective 8% rate. Person B paid $500 on $10K of income for an effective 5% rate (that's probably a high number at that income level anyhow, but as I say use your own numbers if you don't like it).

Person A's original rate of 8% is 1.6 times person B's rate of 5%.

Now, after the $1600 / $100 rebates from the kicker checks, person A has effectively paid $6400 on $100K of income for a 6.4% tax rate; person B has effectively paid $400 on $10K for a 4% tax rate.

Person A's effective rate of 6.4% is still exactly 1.6 times person B's effective rate of 4%. On exactly the same original income.

The relative progressivity of the tax structure is absolutely unchanged before and after the kicker check.

If you want a more progressive tax structure in Oregon, then great -- change the state tax rates (especially, change the tax income brackets).

But the kicker as currently implemented has nothing whatsoever to do with the progressivity of the tax structure. Implying that it does is simply intellectually dishonest.

The kicker may in fact be wrongheaded, and costly. It's may also represent a federal tax increase, but only to the extent that federal taxes had been deferred when the kicker money was deducted as a state tax liability (and, by the way, that's a bigger federal tax increase for those with bigger kicker checks).

But unjust? The kicker alone is only as "just" as the original tax system. If you've got a problem with the justice of the kicker, you've really got a problem with the justice of the state tax code.

By the way, I happen to support the abolition of the kicker entirely. I'm not anti-tax per se (though I'm not exactly pro-tax either). I just don't appreciate the mischaracterization of the facts that so often comes out of Mr. Sheketoff's "analysis" pieces here on BO.

Kari Chisholm said: Progressives actually believe that higher-income folks have a responsibility to pay more, as a percentage of income, than low-income folks. After all, they're the ones reaping the benefits of our society.

Hmmm.

I thought that "progressive" was the new branding "liberals" had come up with for themselves. After coming in from a sunny afternoon of picking the petals off of daisies in the yard, you drop a mushroom cloud on me:

Progressive = Socialism

You guys are wasting your time trying to explain this to the Libs. They have worked very hard to take your money and the thing they hate the most is the idea of having to give some of it back.

The fact that a small percentage of taxpayers pay the majority of total taxes collected just doesn't matter to them. What matters is that you don't have a 90% tax bracket on all income above $100,000. That's the only thing that would make them truly happy.

Kevin

Not at all surprised that you embrace the fantasy world.

Here is an interesting twist on the data:

 350,000 Oregon taxpayers pay 65.4% of the bill

1,400,000 Oregon taxpayers pay 34.6% of the bill

I think it is quite clear who is supporting Oregon.

About the term "progressive " (as a political label, not a description of a tax system where there are a variety of tax brackets where people with lower incomes pay lower rates), the turn of the 20th century was marked by much Progressive (capitalized as a movement or party would be) activity. Robert LaFollette was a famous progressive.

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive Republican (and later 3rd party candidate) who said "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be great or a democracy".

the anti-taxers have shown up here in force, trying to defend their support of a regressive tax system.

Kari, your tendency to dismiss those who disagree with you as right-wing ideologues, trolls, or devil-worshippers is really aggravating. Some of those commenting here are clearly anti-tax, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Sheketoff's claim that the kicker exacerbates income inequality is pure horseshit. Any college freshman taking intro stats can tell you that the kicker simply reflects existing income inequality, it does not change it. (Likewise, the fact that 350,000 Oregonians pay 65% of the tax bill isn't, as Mike puts it, a reflection of a wildly unfair tax system. It's a reflection of just how insanely out-of-control income inequality is in Oregon, that those 350,000 make so much that they end up paying 65% of all taxes.)

Sheketoff's inclusion of this drivel drives some of us crazy because it makes the entire progressive movement look weak-minded and lazy. There are about 100 good reasons to oppose and repeal the kicker, but reducing income inequality isn't one of them.

Chuck, all you're pointing out is that the income tax in Oregon is mildly progressive, which I think we all know. So yes, the tax system reduces (slightly) post-tax income inequality, and if we give some of that back in the same ratio as it was taken, we will reduce the ability of the tax system to do what it's supposed to do. I guess if you now want to hang your hat on that circular argument, fine, but it's not the argument you make in the issue brief:

The 2007 kicker exacerbates income inequality:

The top fifth of taxpayers will garner nearly two-thirds of the kicker, averaging $2,002, or six times what the typical taxpayer will receive.

The poorest 20 percent of taxpayers will receive less than 1 percent of the total kicker amount, with an average refund of just $28.

Nowhere in the paper do you talk about post-tax income inequality. Instead, you use ratios (top 20% get two-thirds of the total refund, bottom 20% get less than 1% of the refund) to make it seem as though the refunds given to the wealthy are outrageous, without showing what those quintiles paid in income taxes in the first place. If the top 20% paid two-thirds of the total income taxes, then most people will see this as a pretty fair way to distribute the refunds. Again, there are so many really good arguments against the kicker, why use one that's intellectually misleading?

The argument about how this will increase Federal taxes is, to say the least, so simplistic as to be misleading. The full facts are that the kicker will not increase the amount of federal tax due for those whose itemized deductions would be less than the standard deduction, and therefore who would not deduct state income tax.

I'd be interested to know the income distribution of those who use the standard deduction because there is some reason to believe that a higher percentage of low income people would claim the standard deduction (primarily because of lower home ownership rates). If that suspicion is true, the lower rate at which lower income taxpayers claim itemized deductions would tend to counteract the increase in income disparity, at least between the highest and lowest brackets, due directly to the kicker refund.

Although I personally oppose the kicker refund, at least the executive summary suggests disappointing scholarship which in the end doesn't help our case. This is primarily because the analysis is not very sophisticated, but also because the claims, while technically correct, exhibit a breathlessness that exceeds the quantitative substance.

David, that's an interesting idea. It would require a constitutional amendment

Kari, you are aware that M50 changes the constitution, right? Are you suggesting it's ok to change the constitution to cause additional grief to low income people, but not ok if it irritates the wealthy?

I find Kevin's quoting Biblical verse interesting. Reverand Chuck Curry touts the local religious leaders as a unified "YES" on 50. I find it difficult to believe that Jeseus, Mohammed, Buddha, et.al. would be in favor over taxing low income folks, over demanding the wealthy provide healthcare for our children. I also don't believe they would be tiptoeing around, mumbling; "Well; it's the best we can do right now..."

It's early...

That should read "Jesus" and "in favor of". Guess that's what the "Preview" button's for,huh?

<blockqoute> Although I personally oppose the kicker refund, at least the executive summary suggests disappointing scholarship which in the end doesn't help our case. Here's the thing, people. This is a classic "concern troll" -style post.

Here's the first thing Kari: I and a few other people gave concrete examples of precisely why the executive summary suggest poor scholarship in the first paragraph (based on personal experiences with the Federal tax code, and out of a genuine support for progressive taxation by the way.) It is a fact that using poor scholarship to reach excited political conclusions, conclusions that go way beyond what the substance supports, harms the political case.

The argument that people need to compare and contrast a carefully circumscribed, fact-based comment like that with other comments before evaluating the argument for it's validity strongly suggests that you may not really believe that arguments should be evaluated independently on their substance, or may not be capable of doing that, or perhaps even both.

Here's the second thing Kari: What we actually learn from this is that you and anyone who agrees with your argument here are just like the right wing, in that you only want to hear people who contribute to an echo chamber that affirms your viewpoint, rather than substance which could help curb offputting excesses. Belittling and marginalizing as "concern troll(s)" what you can't answer, perhaps because you don't understand it, doesn't actually support your argument. (In fact, it suggests that you probably don't even really understand what "concern troll" means.)

If that simplistic and propagandistic image is the face of progressive thinking you and those who agree with you really want to present to the public, it is difficult to see how you can possibly believe that it helps the progressive cause.

CENT ONE: During the 1950s--an era that Conservatives nostalgically yearn for frequently and publicly--there really were income tax rates of 90% on the richest 1% of Americans. It was also one of the most prosperous periods in our nation's history. America's Golden Age. For some reason, those people at the top paying the whopping 90% rate did NOT just take their ball and go home and stop acquiring that income, like conservatives say anyone would if taxed at that rate. Could be because even keeping just 10% of those highest incomes made them the wealthiest people in America..and in those days, that meant, in the world.

CENT TWO: That said, I gotta go with the minority view on the kicker refund. Seems to me, the time for progressive taxation is, you know, when the people are actually paying the taxes. When there's a refund to be had, I see nothing regressive about doling out the refunds in proportion to what people actually paid in. It is because we have a progressive income tax that we have the kicker system we have. Seems to me, your real problem is with such things as corporations not paying a proportionate share in the first place; low-to-middle income families not getting reasonable deductions in the first place, or with there being a kicker at all instead of an automatic rainy day fund. There's a lot to be said on either side of those issues; seems to me though, that complaining about the kicker being in proportion to actual payments is just wrong.

Chuck,

Would you agree that 9.68:1 and 9.75:1 are both better than 10:1?

Would you explain what you think "exacerbate" means?

Just tweaking you. Of course I understand that you are picking the pre-kicker net income as your baseline for "income inequality". And that is precisely what is so misleading about your "analysis" (never mind, as others have pointed out, that your original post never raised the issue of pre-tax versus post-tax income).

Income inequality exists at the point of earnings, i.e., in gross income terms. That income inequality is, granted, mitigated somewhat by tax policy. And after the kicker, that income inequality is mitigated a bit less -- but mitigated still, not exacerbated.

And if you're truly concerned about the effects of tax policy on after-tax income inequality, how about fighting against all tax deductions? That's where some actual exacerbation takes place. I personally have seen two people (I was one of them) with roughly the same gross incomes end up with dramatically different after-tax incomes because of mortgage deductions, dependent deductions, etc. Creating inequality where there was none before -- surely that is something a good progressive should go after, right?

Let me point out again -- I think the kicker should be abolished. I think it is a bad idea. I think it is bad tax policy. But it is a perfectly fair, perfectly just bad tax policy. Arguments against the fairness or justice of the kicker alone simply have no credibility. And, by extension, those who push those arguments are less credible.

Looks to me from the chart that the wealthy people pay most of the bills in the state. Not sure why the so called progressives hate rich people so much. Without them you wouldn't have diddly since you obviously aren't willing to pay for it yourself (or can't pay for it since you don't earn enough)

If people on this site were really progressive they would figure out this rather simple concept and then adopt measures that would bring more rich people to the state. Every rich person who moved to Oregon would provide tax revenues that are greatly in excess of what they would consume. That would provide more money for the little pet causes that the progressives love so much. (but can't afford to fund themselves)

What the hell is taking them so long to send me my money back?

According to a recent Oregonian story, the price of printing and mailing the kicker checks has been determined:

$1 million to print and mail the December checks.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1193370918105420.xml&coll=7

It seems to me that is a concrete number, whether someone is registered with a major party, a minor party, or NAV.

What I want to know is whether the Measure 50 opponents were as protective of the Constitution when putting the kicker in the Constitution was voted on in 2000, or if this is really just about tobacco taxes.

Kari

Regarding bringing rich people to the state, the best way to do that is by making the state business friendly. According to Forbes, Oregon ranks #28 in best states for business.

<h1>26 -- Business Costs</h1> <h1>34 -- Regulatory Environment</h1> <h1>32 -- Economic Climate</h1> <h1>38 -- Quality of life, you know, that thing the progressives like to talk about when others say that the state and Portland in particular are "anti-business."</h1>

Since magazines like Forbes are what business owner read, maybe we should be paying attention.

Miles said: (Likewise, the fact that 350,000 Oregonians pay 65% of the tax bill isn't, as Mike puts it, a reflection of a wildly unfair tax system. It's a reflection of just how insanely out-of-control income inequality is in Oregon, that those 350,000 make so much that they end up paying 65% of all taxes.)

I was amazed at the conclusion that you imply I was drawing, since that never entered my mind. What I was showing was another way to illustrate for people that the top 20% of the population pays 65% of the taxes. That I find it hard to accept that people believe the "rich" aren't paying their fair share would have been an accurate conclusion to draw. As a tax accountant, I have no opinion what so ever regarding the "fairness" of our current system.

kari, this is a meta thing, but i think there is absolutely no point in impugning people's motives, or what you believe to be there motives, when it comes to the substance of posts here.

and that goes to anonymous posts as well as posts made by "regulars" with street cred who use their real names.

if the substance of the post is valid, logically correct, and relevant, then it needs to be addressed, regardless of who posted it or why they posted it.

ignoring it to call the person a "troll" or a paid operative of the opposition, or saying that their motives are not pure does little to further the conversation here at this sight.

this isn't the only thread where you've done that, and i'm (gently) suggesting that you're not doing blueoregon a service by engaging in that behaviour.

I agree with trishka and think that all blogs should follow the same path. I had been a Dem my whole life and I was shocked at the commentary I found on conservative blogs. Everyone who said something they didn't like was attacked and slimed.

I was even more shocked to see the same thing on the left, and by no means do I only mean BlueOregon. If you disagree with someones comments, prove them wrong. It's that simple. Thats my 2 cents.

Ha ha! I am so entertained by the outrage of "conservatives" over the plight of ultra-rich taxpayers. Do these people ever consider historical perspective and implications of policy to real life, or do they operate only in a world of abstract political philosophy?

Tom, that is a great comment. It has been my experience (esp. with House Republicans) that if you want to make them uncomfortable, don't go nasty, attack and try to slime them.

Just ask specific questions like How do you intend to pay for this (details, not just generality) where can I read the details *how many legislators support this?

Bruce Hanna was whining in the SJ today that Republicans are outnumbered on committees and questions whether the Speaker will be fair, so will Republicans be able to pass any bills? I called his office and reminded them that an issue with broad bipartisan support which has been discussed in public shouldn't have any problem, but the "our caucus is better than your caucus" mentality doesn't solve anything.

Back when Norma Paulus was a House freshman decades ago, 10 women members across the political spectrum got bills passed (of the fair credit reporting variety) to bring Oregon's financial laws regarding women into the 2nd half of the 20th century. There is a lesson there---a group of bipartisan legislators who care deeply about an issue can be a power bloc to force the parties to move on an issue.

Kicker reform could be such an issue if legislators would remember how many people have registered to vote since 2000, all the things that have happened since, and that many think it is time to discuss the kicker publicly. It was only put into the Constitution (which tobacco money has been reminding us is a place where some things don't belong), not engraved in the capitol marble!

If people think there is no better use for the money than the kicker, they should say "Of course the kicker should remain intact, and if it costs us money we can always cut____ to pay for it".

Too many kicker advocates act as if it is a free lunch, although it does cost money to send out those checks.

Tom, if we are to accept the table above, over 64 percent of the kicker is going to those with AGI of $68,200 and above. That certainly doesn't rise to the level of "ultra rich". The problem with many progressives is that in their zeal to punish the "ultra rich" they inflict collateral damage on the middle class.

This is where progressives lose the general voter. Perpetuating and defending things like the AMT punish the middle class and the message of the progressive dies with it.

So Kurt, the "general voter" makes $68,000 per year?

What about the folks making less than $20 per hour? Are they the "general voters" you mean when you say,

"This is where progressives lose the general voter."

And with your crack about the AMT (a federal program not controlled by the Oregon legislature), are you talking theory or are you talking the reality of the Oregon tax structure?

And since you mention the AMT, what do you think of Chairman Rangel's proposed fix? Should he only consider how it will affect people making $68,000 per year? Or should he take into account the people who are making less than $20 per hour (and who may have variable schedules so that their yearly income may be difficult to predict )?

Kurt Chapman wrote:

"This is where progressives lose the general voter."

I agree with you to a large degree, but the situation is not the doing of progressives. Check out David Kay Johnston's Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and CheatEverybody Else [but buy it at an independent bookstore]. The super-rich have lobbyists and make big campaign contributions to fix the rules. Low and middle income taxpayers get the shaft.

I was amazed at the conclusion that you imply I was drawing, since that never entered my mind.

My bad, Mike. Sorry to assume a conclusion that you didn't make.

As for Kari's views on anonymous posters, ditto to other comments that we should take what people write at face value, without impugning the motives or values of those posting. Whether "anonymous" is really concerned about the progressive movement or faking it, the question is still valid: Does weak analysis of the kind that Chuck Sheketoff is posting here (and presumably elsewhere) hurt or help our attempt to repeal the kicker?

Personally, my experience at the progressive water cooler would be more fulfilling if we just debated that head-on, rather than wasting time trying to figure out if anon is with us or against us.

What I want to know is whether the Measure 50 opponents were as protective of the Constitution when putting the kicker in the Constitution was voted on in 2000, or if this is really just about tobacco taxes.

Based on voting history, it's pretty clear most Oregonians don't really understand the difference between the Constitution and statutes, or whether a particular type of law is appropriate to one or the other. We've had a lot of inappropriate stuff put into the constitution over the years, and (based on the voters pamphlets) the opposing side rarely complained "this shouldn't be in the constitution." (Notable exception: the deans of Oregon's three law schools would sometimes file a joint argument in opposition explaining what a constitution was about and why a particular measure did not beliong there.)

Speaking just for myself, as someone who really does understand (and cares about) what a constitution is and what it's for, yes, I was as protective of the constitution in 2000 when the kicker was put into it. Moreso, in fact; Measure 50 is inappropriate for the constitution (details about tax policy almost always are), but at least the underlying idea (taxing tobacco to support health care) is good public policy.

On the other hand, the kicker was a stupid idea in the first place, and putting it in the constitution just made a bad situation worse. Right now we're handing back hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus that should be banked in a stability fund and invested in permanent endowments for higher education.

Badly considered constitutional amendments have given Oregon a completely dysfunctional tax system. Practically speaking, we're going to need a whole string of amendments (or, against all odds, one massive constitutional revision, which would require 2/3rds of both houses plus a vote of the people) to straighten some of this out. Court challenges might get rid of some of the amendments; any amendment that affects more than one other section of the constitution is subject to being struck down by the Supreme Court. (I have no idea if the kicker amendment could survive a challenge like that or not; I haven't analyzed it that closely.)

As for the present argument against Measure 50, I just wish that Big Tobacco's self-serving ten million dollar megaphone would make people think harder about this stuff in the future. But the effect won't last. Next time an inappropriate amendment is on the ballot, it'll just be a handful of law professors making the point that it doesn't belong there, and nobody else will even care.

There isn'y anything unjust about a refund so that part of the "analysis" is a joke. Wrongheaded is a policy debate. I for one come down on the side that I'd rather have the refund in my pocket than let the clowns in Salem add it to their play fund. I suppose others disagree. If so, they can put it on the ballot and lets all vote on it again. Costly is an interesting point. Personally I don't have an issue with the refund being a credit rather than a check. I don't really care one way or another and I don't have any context for the original decision. The Fed tax point escapes me. I guess if Oregon took all of my money away I wouldn't owe the Feds anything either but so what? And for Kari's constant concern about where people are coming from, my IP address usually shows me in Palo Alto although I live in Wilsonville. I have no idea why, I'm not that savvy on IP addresses, server proxy protocol and all of that.

Dear Kari:

Person A earns $100,000 dollars.

What percentage of that is YOUR money.....

"...we should take what people write at face value, without impugning the motives or values of those posting."

As an initial orientation to discussion, this is a good general rule, but the presence of anonymous postings and undisclosed operatives makes skepticism necessary. Otherwise, one will waste a lot time and energy on bona fide trolls.

kari, your approach makes a lot more sense if what we're talking about are posts involving scurrilour rumours about candidates.

but the thing is, and i'm only going to say this one more time, if a person is presenting a well-reasoned argument that is factually accurate, refusing to address it and instead impugning the identity or the motives of the poster does nothing to refute it.

and the argument sits out there, untouched, has the possible effect of changing people's minds all by itself. that's why it is important to refute it on its own terms - factually and logically. going on to impugn the poster is counter-productive because it makes it look to the observer like you can't find a way to argue the substance so you go after the poster. which further legitimizes the argument. not serving the progressive cause, see?

scurrilous rumour = bad. well-reasoned argument = better to deal with it then slam the author.

"if a person is presenting a well-reasoned argument that is factually accurate.........."

Lots I disagree with Andy about, but do agree that maybe it is time to put the kicker on the ballot again.

What I do NOT believe is a reasoned argument is what the Republicans were saying when they were still in majority--that the voters put the kicker in the Constitution in 2000, therefore "the voters have spoken" and no one who registered to vote after 2000 had a right to an opinion because they were bound by the 2000 vote they had no part in.

And I think Kari has a point: That said, I'm the one who sees the dozens of comments posted over many different names (Mike, Joe, Sally, Kevin, Jimmy, etc.) defending Gordon Smith and attacking Measure 50 -- all from a series of IP addresses in Virginia and North Carolina.

Not only that, but we know that there are Republican operatives explicitly selling "blog attack" services.

The average reader has no way of knowing whether anything online even came from Oregon unless they know where the post is coming from as Kari mentioned.

My IP address now says I'm in Irving, TX. I was in Palo Alto last hour. Hopefully my proxy server doesn't bounce me to NC or else nobody will pay attention to the many reasons why I voted against M50!

Kari states: That said, I'm the one who sees the dozens of comments posted over many different names (Mike, Joe, Sally, Kevin, Jimmy, etc.) defending Gordon Smith and attacking Measure 50 -- all from a series of IP addresses in Virginia and North Carolina.

I live in Oregon. There was a previous "Sally" here and I switched to SallyC for a while thinking that would differentiate us, but s/he hasn't posted here in a while so I figured it didn't matter anymore.

I believe I've posted valid objections re: M50 in a reasonable manner. That doesn't make me a troll or a neocon or any other label you use to dismiss my arguments.

You have admin powers, feel free to email me at the address I post under if you have more questions. I use the same email address for every post.

I will not be posting under my real name. Anyone else who's suffered from a stalker will understand why. I had a nutcase follow me around for over three years until I relocated w/ my family.

"I believe I've posted valid objections re: M50 in a reasonable manner. That doesn't make me a troll or a neocon or any other label you use to dismiss my arguments. "

If someone feels that way they should vote no--that is what a free country is all about.

I just hope those who vote no will contribute to the discussion of how to fund health care for all but especially for kids.

It bothers me that the anti-taxers (the same folks who say "we must have spending discipline" but are allergic to discussing details) are listed as sponsoring some of the ads. By definition, budget cuts (if that is what is meant by "spending discipline") take 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate. My Republican state senator refused to go along with the "cut it all" mentality of the Republican House majority. If the anti-taxers can only line up 11 votes in the Senate and 25 votes in the House, for instance, all the pontificating in the world won't cut the budget.

Should we change the laws so that it only takes a majority to put a statute on the ballot? Should we raise taxes to pay for health care for kids and frail adults? Or in the next recession will there still be the anti-taxers telling us we shouldn't even have a surtax on high incomes in order for the state to be able to provide health care for the medically frail?

The anti-taxers don't want my vote. Measure 50 may not be perfect, but I believe in providing health care for kids and given the slim House majority, this may have been the best thing the legislature could do under current circumstances.

And if the anti-taxers don't like that, I didn't like their political games incl. Measure 28 and Measure 30.

LT>Who are the anti-taxers?

I said before in one of the numerous daily topics about Measure 50--a discussion that's become increasingly nasty beyond the point of return--that we could get rid of the kicker. I said we should use general revenue funds for needed programs like healthcare. I said it's unfair to force taxes on a minority for the majority and it's regressive. I said that if we were serious about fighting tobacco, we would adequately fund anti-smoking education and stop smoking programs instead of cutting them and eliminating them. I said I thought it was a bad idea to have it added to the constitution instead of expecting the legislature to do their job. I said the corporate minimum tax is so low that it's a joke.

Nothing about that is anti-tax. I'd like to see universal healthcare for everyone. We're the ONLY industrialized country without it and most non-industrialized countries have it.

If we had a fair and progressive tax then the top 2% with 28% of the assets would pay 28% of the taxes. The top 10% with 54% of the assets would pay 54% of the taxes. A progressive tax is in place because governments go where the money is. They also want to avoid a permanent privileged class with a permanent underclass.

Income tax trends have reversed in Oregon the past 25 years with individuals paying 60% of the taxes and corporations paying 40%--the opposite of the percentages in the past.

PG&E stole hundreds of millions of dollars from Oregon, exported the money to Enron in Texas, by claiming they needed it to pay taxes. They got repeated rate hikes for taxes they never paid. The legislature finally acted to stop it but did nothing to get the money back. That's one example of how crooked our legislature and PUC has been.

Shouldn't I expect more from the Democrats?

SallyC,

The utility company tax scam is one example of how those who can afford lobbyists and big campaign contributions game the system and screw the rest of us. That's why I am a strong proponent of campaign finance reform.

As you imply, Democrats are not immune to political bribery, but human need will continue whether or not we clean up our political mess. Cutting off money to the state means cutting off money to those who are not doing wrong, and are actually the primary victims of industry scams. So, I urge you to work to clean up politics, but not sentence kids to poor health and bad education, our environment to lax care, and our infrastructure to decay in the meantime.

I'm not cutting off money by voting against M50. The program doesn't exist. You may not understand it, but I find it morally repugnant to tax people who generally make WAY less money than I do.

I already voted for 49 and gave my reasons above.

Most people will vote for 50 because it's better than nothing.

Everyone has to decide where they draw the line. 50 will probably pass, but I don't agree w/ it. It's lazy politics making bad policy.

Just to wrap up the whole "trolls vs. substance" argument, I think Trishka is really onto something when distinguishing between the types of arguments the anonymous posters are making. Even if the person posting is a paid lobbyist for Big Tobacco or a Gordon Smith staffer, if they raise serious points, why should we refrain from posting serious rebuttals? Whether they have good or bad motives doesn't take away (or at least shouldn't) from the substance of the post.

I would hope BO editors trust their readers enough to know that most of us will skip over the useless posts. We're sophisticated enough to scroll through whatever we're not interested in reading. And if we don't, it's only our time that is wasted.