Why do progressives act astonished when people who pay an enormous amount in taxes receive equally enormous benefits from tax refunds or tax cuts? Is this $300,000 out of proportion to the taxes these 20 households paid? I mean, did they pay $310,000 then get $300,000 back? That would indeed be worth reporting. But if they're just getting their 18.6% of their tax liability back, why is this news?

If you'd prefer a more progressive tax structure, I think it would be much more honest to simply advocate for one instead of trying to hide it with "capped" kickers.

I mean, the OCPP page claims that this kicker is unjust because the incomes of the rich rose proportionately more than the incomes of the poor, who actually lost out to inflation. This is certainly inequitable and I think would constitute a very good argument for raising the rate on people in the upper tax brackets. I just don't see what the kicker has to do with it.

Keeping the kicker in a rainy day fund also seems like a good idea to me; again, the fact that 18.6% of a large number is also a large number seems irrelevant.

Twenty Oregon households will get over $300,000 and average $786,550

WOW! Makes me wonder how much those suckers paid in the first place!

Good on em for getting something back.

I know it likely rubs you wrong that They get anything back...but look at the huge pile of money you guys are allowing back to the lower middle class....what's up with that? Me, I'm gonna blow it all on trying to get a mortgage payment ahead.

Chuck, we gwt it. We really do. You would deny 1.5 Oregon ANY kicker in order to "penalize" the 20 households at the top.

Sorry dude, no sale.

Bill --

What those suckers paid in the first place, by definition, was an average of $4,228,763 in state tax liability for 2006. ($786,550 is 18.6% of $4,228,763)

Kari --

I'm sure yours was a rhetorical question, right? Certainly you know that if 138,492 households got no kicker check this year, it's because those households had no state tax liability in 2006.

As for the idea of creating "economic equity" in Oregon by splitting the kicker funds equally among all households -- I'm all for it. As soon as we have corresponding economic equity in Oregon by splitting the total tax bill equally among all households.

Let's see, if 18.6% of tax collections equates to $1.015B, that means that total tax collections were about $5.457B. Split that equally among 1.708 million households for a yearly tax bill of about $3,195 each.

I'm sure each of those 20 households who have been kicking in $4.2M+ each year would appreciate not having to carry the weight of more than 1,300 "average" households any more... ;-)

WHOA! Are you telling me that those who have the most withheld for taxes actually receive the largest tax refunds/kicker checks? Get out of here, Chuck! That's crazy talk!

Glen, recently it was published how much it costs to print and mail the checks (before 1995 kicker was part of the tax refund process which saved the state the expense of printing and mailing in the late fall).

The way to change/get rid of the kicker is to elect people who don't believe that it can never be changed. "The voters have spoken on the kicker" means "sorry, if you were too young to vote on the kicker, tough luck you are stuck with it".

Leave it to a progressive to bitch about someone getting an overpayment back.

Thanks JK

David Wright | Nov 17, 2007 6:19:21 PM

Bill --

What those suckers paid in the first place, by definition, was an average of $4,228,763 in state tax liability for 2006. ($786,550 is 18.6% of $4,228,763)

Really? It's a straight line payback! I'm truly pleasantly surprised. Those top 20 paid a LOT of taxes. Thank you whoever you are! I would have bet money the state would give it back exactly inverse to the way they took it. If you paid in most...you get back the smallest percentage.

Thanks Dave.

Jim, I'm certainly not a BO partisan (was a moderate Republican, now a right-leaning independent). I say that simply to establish some credibility when I correct your assertion.

Whatever the kicker fund may be, it is certainly NOT an "overpayment".

The kicker is a rebate, not a refund. The amount of your kicker check was money that you legitimately and legally owed to the state at the time the tax was taken. However, because of the kicker trigger you get a rebate after the fact, based on a set percentage of your original liability.

To reiterate -- you get a kicker check not because you personally paid more than you were supposed to in taxes (i.e., you didn't "overpay" your taxes), but rather because all tax collections in the state exceeded earlier projections by more than a certain amount.

Look; I'm pretty damned poor right now. Because of my big mouth, my wife and I will get a kicker that will allow Christmas to happen. We appreciate that.

However; I doubt that rich people are in the same boat. They need a kicker like I need a kick in the ass. Why don't we get out of the way of the truth.

Wealthy Oregonians and their corporations have skated for far too long on taxes in this state. Appologizing and/or rationalizing on their behalf is just plain OLD.

David McDonald | Nov 17, 2007 10:04:39 PM

Look; I'm pretty damned poor right now. Because of my big mouth, my wife and I will get a kicker that will allow Christmas to happen. We appreciate that.

However; I doubt that rich people are in the same boat. They need a kicker like I need a kick in the ass. Why don't we get out of the way of the truth.

Wealthy Oregonians and their corporations have skated for far too long on taxes in this state. Appologizing and/or rationalizing on their behalf is just plain OLD.

Sorry you are in tight times Mr McDonald. I'm no Diamond Jim myself. Keeping what the wealthy have earened and then paid out in taxes...at an already too high rate, will help your personal circumstance how?

Since we are debating how much taxes the "rich" should pay, let me ask you....How much should they pay? 99.9% 90% what? I actually hope the Dems raise the top tax rate quite a lot. That just means more money for me. You see, I am an accountant, and when you raise the top tax rate, those "rich" people feel the need to pay me money to help them avoid your nasty taxes. My wife thanks you in advance.

Thanks, Kari. We should ask such trolls what cuts they would make in budgets if taxes are bad---specific cuts written down somewhere. That seems to drive the "we must have spending discipline but don't ask for details" crowd of the Kim Thatcher persuasion nuts--and is a good way to end conversations.

Kari, when I first read your ideas I thought that you might be on to something. But then, wait! Why was I intereste? Well, obviously I'm not the one NOT getting a state kicker/refund on the huge anount of taxes paid into Salem's coffer.

Now that may not be all bad, but it is further splitting and dividing along socio-economic lines. I tink that the process started w/the legislature when we all watched business not get any kicker in order to set up a rainy day fund. Perhaps that is why many went along w/it.

Kari, I just don't know. I do know that I, and many other Oregonians do not trust state government to actually preserve a true rainy day fund. Aftare all, what did they do with the Tobacco Settlement? Inherently, taxes must be paid in order to preserve a representative republic where "the state" decides what is good and is in need of support through the common weal. That support is provided through some form of income collection, in Oregon it is property and income tax.

Truly, I am more in favor of greatly reducing both and moving towards a consumption based tax that exempts essentials such as medicine, food and shelter.

Oh yes consumption taxes, a plutocrat's dream, there is no tax that is much more regressive than a consuption tax, the poor pay it on everything they make beyond some exclusions and the rich pay it on a tiny percent of their income.

For Pete's sake the tax code isn't of Biblical size in order to save blue collar and middle class folks money, it's that fat to save rich people a lot. By its rates Oregon's income tax is pretty regressive, once all the "special" forms of income are worked in the rich really don't need any BlueOregon cheerleaders.

A tax increase will make CPAs money? What lala land is that from, that money is being spent already for all sorts of creative tax thinking, c'mon Mike, the way you'll get some more is if some more loop holes get written. Tom Butler's your pal, he'll see to it. Oh, he's not Chairman anymore. Did it ever occurr to any of you protectors of the rich that 99.9% of us are in a struggle for the last 10% of the wealth in this country? That it is that way because that is how the system is designed? That there is a certain amount of justice in the beneficiaries of everybody else's work pay the lion's share? Why not talk about the total complete amount of income they have and see what kind of total tax rate they pay compared a blue collar earner? What utter nonsense.

I have to know this crap and my accountant knows a heck of a lot more than I can ever get any use of.

Wow, some more useless info spewed out by Chuck and his crowd of mental midgets. Big deal, rich people get bigger refunds becuase they paid more in taxes. Wow Chuck, you actually can consider yourself a center for public policy by publishing such mundane info?

Progressives should get down on the knees every morning and give a prayer of thanks to the rich people in Oregon who pay most of the bills. Without them you would be too poor to afford most of your stupid ideas.

And Kari, I see you're still up you your typical asshole commments. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "troll" or worse. Typical intolerance from the "enlightened elite progressive" crowd!

Kari

It is such a pleasure to be in the presence of an elitist SOB. Here I thought, in a discussion relating to taxes, the opinion of someone who works in the tax field might be fodder for an intelligent discussion. Boy was I wrong.

Let me reiterate, what do YOU think the tax rate should be on the "rich?" Since this topic is a common thread among liberal sites, you know, "the rich don't pay their fair share," what is their fair share? Do you comprehend the reality, that if they perceive that the rate is too high, they will pay me to find more "loopholes" than they currently do? Raising taxes has unintended consequences.

As for your assumptions about my hero's and radio listening habits, they only serve to make you look like an ass. You don't have a clue about who or what I am, do, or believe.

Kari Chisholm | Nov 17, 2007 11:21:39 PM

OK, "Mike" and "Bill".... you're coming through loud and clear. You don't like taxes, Grover Norquist is your personal hero, blah blah blah.

Now go away. This is a discussion among progressives about some tax policy details and nuance. Your sledgehammer approach, arguing the same ol' ideological nuggets (taxes bad! government bad!) are boooooring.

Call up Lars or Rush next time you want to just repeat your talking points. We're trying to have a meaningful conversation here.

(g)...meaningful conversation? On an internet forum?

No. What you're trying to have is a group hug...little to do with information or tax policy details. What you're looking for is glad handing and fuzzy agreement.

I'm not surprised; a public forum controlled by a liberal is never tolerant of differing opinions.

Yeah...you come through loud and clear as well. Pity the old guard tactics are so worn eh?

Jenni Simonis | Nov 17, 2007 10:50:25 PM

This isn't about an overpayment. Overpayment would be that you thought you should pay 10,000 in taxes, but come to find out you should have only paid $9,000.

This is about a forecaster a few years out predicting how much money will come in from income taxes. If they're wrong by more than a small percentage, then the money has to be refunded.

In the meantime, services have been slashed because there wasn't predicted to be enough money to cover the services.

But what if a year later the economy starts doing better than planned? Or those at the higher income levels see their income increase at an even higher level than expected? Or a big business moves to Oregon and brings employees with them. Or more jobs become available and people start working again. Any of this can increase the income tax proceeds more than would have been projected. But this isn't an overpayment.

"Overpayment" is rhetoric used by conservatives to justify the kicker, pure and simple.

Some people would argue that red is green. When the government takes more of my money than they should have...I have paid them more than I should have. I have over paid them.

Is that so hard? Don't get SOS.

What really sticks in the socialist craw is that it was sooo close...you had it right there in your hands...and OH! now you have to give it back! Those darn Americans insisting on fiscal responsibility again....such as it is in Oregon these days.

Bill, please refer to my comment posted a few entries above Jenni's -- I said essentially the same thing.

Posted by: David Wright | Nov 17, 2007 9:14:32 PM

The issue is your fundamental premise -- that government has taken more of your money than they should have. In the case of the kicker, government has taken exactly as much of your money as they should have -- then a year later decides to issue a rebate.

Let me turn it around for you, 'cause as you say it's really not that hard.

If according to the tax tables you were supposed to pay $5,000 in state taxes, and that's exactly what was withheld from your pay, but overall tax revenues have fallen 2% or more short of the original forecast, do you think you've underpaid your taxes?

Let me be clear on my own position, which I've stated before on other threads here. The kicker in it's current form is as fair a system as possible for rebating tax revenues. Any attempts to change the calculation for the rebate are terribly misguided.

However, the kicker concept as a whole is bad tax policy. The kicker should be abolished entirely. But if it's not abolished, it needs to be left alone.

Sorry, just to be clear -- I said the same thing as Jenni, not as Bill. ;-)

<h2>Harry wrote (back on Nov 1st in the other Chuck wealth redistribution post):</h2>

(snip) "Oh, yeah rich people have more money than poor people, which is why we call them rich people.

And redistributing the rich person's wealth to the poor people who did not earn it (because they are poor, not rich) is still a communist system.

<h2>I lived in a communist country once, but I moved back to America. Feel free to move there if you like their system better."</h2>

Sounds familiar. Wealthy people have more money returned to them, because they gave more money into the state in the first place. 18% of any number is still 18%.

Kari writes: "...It would generate, however, $88.5 million dollars." "...It would generate, however, $130.5 million dollars." "...It would generate a massive $345.5 million dollars."

If the goal is the bottom line, then focus on the goal.

Goal: How much more money do we (need/want/require) to generate?

Action: Change the tax system to generate the additional taxes.

Another approach would be to advocate a structural change in the tax code. Maybe a flat tax? Maybe an increasse in the maximum marginal rates to 40%? ... or 50%?

Historically, the top tax bracket was well over 50%. Maybe that needs to be revisited.

What I found nice about Westlund's campaign for Gov was that he did attack the tax structure problem. And not tinkering around the edges.

Bill, please refer to my comment posted a few entries above Jenni's -- I said essentially the same thing.

Posted by: David Wright | Nov 17, 2007 9:14:32 PM The issue is your fundamental premise -- that government has taken more of your money than they should have. In the case of the kicker, government has taken exactly as much of your money as they should have -- then a year later decides to issue a rebate.

Let me turn it around for you, 'cause as you say it's really not that hard.

If according to the tax tables you were supposed to pay $5,000 in state taxes, and that's exactly what was withheld from your pay, but overall tax revenues have fallen 2% or more short of the original forecast, do you think you've underpaid your taxes?

Let me be clear on my own position, which I've stated before on other threads here. The kicker in it's current form is as fair a system as possible for rebating tax revenues. Any attempts to change the calculation for the rebate are terribly misguided.

However, the kicker concept as a whole is bad tax policy. The kicker should be abolished entirely. But if it's not abolished, it needs to be left alone.

Dave…what I mean by ‘Is that so hard?’ is that she seemed to find some ulterior threatening motive ("Overpayment" is rhetoric used by conservatives to justify the kicker, pure and simple.) for plainly calling it what it is….overpayment.

It is what it is…if it was underpayment…would there be so much wiggling?
No. There’d be a tax collector making threats at my door. That’s all I’m saying and it is a minor point in my observation Dave.

If you argue that the state should simply keep more money than it forecasted…well I think you’re just wrong. It is the closest thing Oregonians have to a brake on state government.

I have opposed the kicker since its inception. However, it is extemely popular with the voters and is unlikely to go away anytime soon.

I support the idea of a cap. The appropriate level is a matter for debate. I think an amount in the $3000 to $10,000 might be acceptable to the majority of Oregonians. Our elected leaders could use public hearings or some other testing of the public climate to determine the appropriate amount.

All the withheld kicker money (above the cap) should go into a rainy day fund. If we had salted away the kickers of biennium's past, we would have weathered our fiscal downturns with less drastic cuts in basic services.

First, if anyone wants to give the kicker back fine, but why compel the taxpayers.

In spite of all this talk, the state has 1 20% higher budget. However, when we let the state have that 20% increase for schools, did they: - Buy more books - Decrease class size - Fund any school repairs No, they gave it all in increased benefits to teachers. SO like the tobacco settlement, any extra taxes would probably be dissipated.

THis is the main reasont the kicker will probably stay as law. Unless, Teddy can come up with some good proof he would spend extra income wisely.

Kari Chisholm | Nov 18, 2007 2:44:18 PM

Bill wrote: ...fodder for an intelligent discussion. Boy was I wrong.

Let me reiterate, what do YOU think the tax rate should be on the "rich?" Since this topic is a common thread among liberal sites, you know, "the rich don't pay their fair share," what is their fair share?

You see, Bill, the "intelligent discussion" we're trying to have here is one among progressives who believe that tax and spending decisions should be done based on fairness and equity - as well as the appropriate funding levels for needed programs. And that intelligent discussion is based on this fascinating new information.

You're trying to have the "taxes are bad" conversation. That's neither interesting nor new. You're parroting idiotic talking points. Boring. Boring. Boring.

As for what level of taxes? I don't know - maybe 10%, maybe 12%. In any case, I think that Phil Knight should pay a higher rate than the guy who waters his lawn. Under Oregon's almost-perfectly-flat state income tax, they both pay 9%.

And Mike wrote: What really sticks in the socialist craw is that it was sooo close...you had it right there in your hands...and OH! now you have to give it back!

More of that intelligent discussion, eh?

actually....a guy named Mike wrote that. details details

Kari

See, was that so hard. I asked a simple question and you gave me a simple answer. Very good.

Now remember what I said about you making assumptions....where in this thread have I EVER said "taxes are bad." Putting words in my mouth is bad manners.

Also, what good is it to have a discussion when everyone in the room agrees with you. That's not how problems get solved. That's exactly how this stupid war got started. No one was allowed to dissent from the established "truth." Problems get solved with intelligent debate among people of differing viewpoints. Not by name calling. Not from banning dissenters. Only from the free exercise of the First Amendment.

Jenni Simonis | Nov 18, 2007 5:09:33 PM When the government takes more of my money than they should have...I have paid them more than I should have. I have over paid them.

See now, this is where you have it wrong. The government didn't take in more taxes then they should have. They took in just as much as they should have. The problem was that they estimated they would have one amount in total, and based on that they made huge budget cuts. Turns out, they didn't need to make so many cuts. This typically happens when the economy does better that was predicted.

An overpayment is when you mess up on your taxes and send in too much. Or there is a misprint in the tax forms and you use the wrong tax rate. That's when you send in more money than is required based on the income you brought in that year.

So services in the state got screwed when the economy did bad, and now they screwed again when it's doing well. Let's make this simple...

Say it looks like I'll have $36,000 in 2008, but this year I had $40,000. So I make up my budget for 2008 based on that, making cuts where necessary. I also make a budget for 2009, since we're planning on buying a house, and I want to ensure we have everything ready so that we can buy. I include modest increases in our income, since my husband is guaranteed a minimum level of raise during the year. But still, we're not at the $40,000 we'd had previously, so we're still continuing some cuts.

But in February, my husband gets promoted to asst manager and our income jumps $8,000 a year. Then I pick up a big long-term client that adds another $6,000 onto our income.

So now instead of $36,000, I have $50,000 to spend. I haven't been overpaid. I just made a budget based on estimated numbers for the future that ended up being incorrect. Now I re-adjust my budget, restoring cuts I'd originally made.

We should do the same with the state budget. If we're going to continue the kicker, there should be some type of clause that says that the unanticipated funds (which is what they are - not an overpayment) can be used to restore budget cuts first before funds are sent out in kicker checks.

First, thank you Jenni. I geddit! Yours is one of the few replies I have received from here devoid of condescension, pandering or mocking. I can be awful thick some times; kudos. My intent was not to drag out a long explanation or split hairs on a (for me) minor point. I tend to go broader perspective.

See now, this is where you have it wrong. The government didn't take in more taxes then they should have. They took in just as much as they should have. The problem was that they estimated they would have one amount in total, and based on that they made huge budget cuts. Turns out, they didn't need to make so many cuts. This typically happens when the economy does better that was predicted. OK. The state screwed up their estimate. Get better estimators or don’t cut it so close. Try running the ship a little tighter. Spend money only on constitutionally mandated items and quit holding schools hostage. Do that and you’d likely find much broader support.

But then this brings up a question, being a rabid conservative, which just screams inside my head. If we are all still here, the state still functions…why did we need the things that were ‘cut’ in the first place? This is exactly why I support the idea of kicker checks. It keeps the state reigned in.

Bottom line and coming back to this thread. It bothers me not at all that the checks are coming and that those who fortune has smiled on are getting nice fat checks. Good on em…doesn’t hurt my situation a bit to say they have it coming.

Well that and I am unabashedly selfish with my own earnings. It is my right and I froth at people who try to shame me for it. But that’s a separate topic.

I’ll shut up now on this thread.

Bill, are you from the "preserve the tax breaks, but cut it all out of the budget" group which was so prevalent when the Republicans controlled the legislature?

Could it be that enough voters tired of that attitude (or were in public school in the 1990s when 5 and 47 took hold and are now old enough to vote) and that is why Republicans no longer control the legislature?

Does being a "conservative" mean belonging to the Club for Growth or some other anti-tax organization?

What do you think of Mike Huckabee's years as Arkansas Gov. or for that matter Vic Atiyeh--the last Oregon Gov. of the 20th century? Seems to me both had more substance as Gov. than "taxes are bad, nothing else matters".

My Republican State Senator was once chair of a Ways and Means Subcommittee. The "cut it all" crowd came after her and said every cut submitted to her committee should be approved. She told a town hall meeting that she believed some of the cuts were too extreme, and as long as she was subcommittee chair those cuts would die and she would not let them leave her committee.

When someone told the House chair of Ways and Means what she said at her town hall meeting, he was shocked.

Who was the "conservative" in that situation, the state senator chairing the subcommittee, or the House Ways and Means chair?

I put "conservative " in quotation marks because I am old enough to know the political beliefs of Robert Taft (my Dad's hero) and Barry Goldwater.

There is a difference between Taft saying "we must give up the idea we can legislate the answer to everything" on the one hand, and someone making flat statements like "we must have spending discipline" (without mentioning details on how to implement "spending discipline" on the other hand. The whole "mystery money " charade, the 5 special sessions some years ago because of budget shortfalls, the Measure 28 and 30 situations, and the closed door budget negotiations during the last several years are not what I would call conservatism.

Someone who says "we must never discuss ending tax breaks because that is a tax increase, and we must never again discuss any tax reform which might raise someone's taxes---and here is my website where I propose what to cut to pay for state police and other essential services" is honest.

But all I have heard from the anti-taxers are things about the evils of taxes.

People who believe it would be better for the state to crumble around them than to raise another dime in taxes should say so. But they should also say if they believe bridges should be inspected and fixed if needed, if it would be OK if an uninsured child came to school with an undiagnosed fever and sat next to their kid because the parents didn't have health insurance, what happens to state police funding in a recession, that sort of thing.

I believe it is time to discuss reviving the kicker. If it is such a great idea, why don't other states copy it? What would be wrong with saving the money spent on the printing and mailing of checks and again doing the kicker with the income tax refund process ---and discussing some revision like taking the amount of money over 2% and refunding it, but putting the amount of money in the kicker fund which amounts to the first 1.99999% into the rainy day fund?

The state may still be functioning, but in some ways it is hanging on a string.

We have bridges and roads that are falling apart.

We have classes with more students in them than should be.

We have school years that are the shortest in the nation as well as one of the shortest school days. This means our children receive less education than students in other states.

A college education is increasingly out of reach of many people due to the rising costs of tuition and fees. Students are hit with thousands of dollars in fees every semester.

We have thousands of seriously ill people who were cut off the Oregon Health Plan because there wasn't the funding needed.

We have 100,000 kids without insurance. This affects all of society, as it makes their parents less productive at work, makes them miss more work, makes them more likely to bring illnesses to school to pass along to others, etc.

It's only a matter of time before these cuts come back to bite us in a big way. A bridge collapses with vehicles on it. A patient cut off a the OHP dies because they can't afford their meds/treatment. Parents sue (and win) because their kids aren't receiving the education they should. The list goes on and on.

Jenni - Bill (or bill) doesn't care about those things if it makes his tax bill increase. He only cares about himself. So sad.

And Bill, you wrote: actually....a guy named Mike wrote that. details details

Kari acknowledged that a guy named Mike wrote those things. In fact, you quoted Kari as such. So what's your point??

EP

Had you read back a little farther, you would have seen that the statements attributed to Bill, by Kari, were written by me, and the statement attributed to me(mike) were in fact written by Bill.

Ladies and Gentlemen

All this debate is going to end up doing is turning us all blue in the face. We will never have any economic stability in Oregon until we find a way to equalize our year to year revenues. I don't care what method is used, but something has to be done. Until it is, we are stuck in nothing more than a perpetual economic feast or famine.

Any ideas?

I'm one of those people who won't get a kicker check because I had no state income tax liability in 2006. That'snot to say I had no tax liability,however.

Like all working people, I paid into FICA. Owning a small business, I paid business taxes, Tri-Met tax, etc. The reason my NET income was so low is that part of the income comes from a triplex I own and live in (renting out the other two apartments). The interest, depreciation, taxes, insurance, repairs, maintenance and improvements are all deductible and always total more than I collect in rent. But the property taxes for a building like this are high.

Neither the city or county offer a tax rebate when their revenues exceed expectations. Not at all. The city's coffers overflowed last year, prompting council members to come up with more ways to spend that extra money.

The upshot is, I'm getting taxed possibly more than a lot of people with far higher incomes, but my taxes are not progressive and not subject to a kicker. Most working class people don't have income property to deduct, but they are subject to the FICA tax, which is about as regressive as you can get.

Makes me almost want a sales tax.

Kari, it's your site, but may i suggest you password protect the thing if you don't want to interact with people who aren't just like you.

I've been reading BlueOregon since you opened it and I'm posting under my real name. I'm not a troll.

Mike writes: "I don't care what method is used, but something has to be done. Until it is, we are stuck in nothing more than a perpetual economic feast or famine.

<h2>Any ideas?"</h2>

From Harry above: "What I found nice about Westlund's campaign for Gov was that he did attack the tax structure problem. And not tinkering around the edges."

<hr/>

To expand on what I was saying above, I think Kari brings up a good discussion around the kicker. There really is a lot of money to be harvested by the top few (he gives three groupings, the biggest of which garners some $345M). And he is right, just grabbing from the bigger kicker getters may get you some big bucks.

But my point was it really doesn't address the tax structure issue. Boom and bust. Diversification of state income streams (Income tax versus sales/consumption tax).

Yes, you can trim around the edges. But real leadership requires (I know, I am being redundant) real leadership of the tough issues. To be fair, TeddyK showed that with PERs reform in the first term. Sen Ben showed it with his campaign focus on revising tax structure in his run for Gov. Raiding the personal kicker doesn't address the real reform; plus it is politically not likely to be viable. Kari is for more taxes without giving up anything (other than the highest earners' money). Sen Westlund talked about real structural reform.

The question nobody ever asks when this subject is raised (but should): why is government forecasting SO BAD? When you compare this to business, it's clear that private enterprise seems to do a much better job forecasting revenue. And if they don't, then heads roll!

Fix the forecasts and the kicker "dilemma" disappears...

when the highest paid public employee is probably a football coach in Eugene, it seems like some priorities are skewed.

dave,

The highest paid among public employees might also the highest performer.

Football is about education, sport and business. Without football, maybe Phil Knight would have donated $100M++ for a library, business school, engineering school etc and maybe he did (I dunno). But I do know he also donated over $100M for football athletic facilities. The current and the previous footbal coaches assisted in generating that donation. I could not think of another group of persons who attracted more financial donations, but maybe somebody can help me out here?

And without UofO sports (cross country and track) in particular back in the 60s and 70s, maybe Phil would not have learned all that he did at UofO that later helped him build Nike into the multi-Billion dollar company it is today.

Perhaps you would rather have the highest paid public employee be a school teacher, mechanic, doctor or legislator who has been on the job the longest, regardless of performance?

"So using just 50% of the budget increase for salaries and benefits seems pretty fiscally responsible.

Am I missing something?"

http://www.oregonlive.com/elections/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/118006350982830.xml&coll=7

Correct, there are a few districts where they actually spent the 20% upside on students. However, in the great majority of schools (to quote from above):

"Much of the new money will go toward increasing salaries and benefits for teachers and other staff and to cover rising energy costs."

<h2>This is what the taxpayers are tired of - being told it is for the kids and ends up not going to the kids. At least they should be honest when asking for more money or allow the parents to keep the kicker and buy school supplies for their children.</h2>