Kicking Back at the Anti-Taxers
Jeff Alworth
We got our kicker check this weekend, a tidy little envelope of ambivalence. It's such a diabolical thing, isn't it? Anti-tax zealots have figured out the perfect mechanism to hobble government: refund money to taxpayers during the holiday season, just when we're trying to buy each other iPods. This year it seems even more diabolical: although 2007 brought in better-than-anticipated returns, the looks of the economy augur danger for 2008. So after having refunded over a billion dollars, we might be right back in the hole in a few months.
But wait! For the extremely virtuous among you, there is an alternative to taking this anti-tax blood money. You could send it back to the state. And you even have an opportunity to do something lawmakers can't do unilaterally: apply it to the department of your choice. Your donation may even be tax-deductable, which is a mind-bending possibility, given that the kicker is, after all, a tax refund. From the Department of Administrative Services:
You can make a donation to the State of Oregon and have the money used for the program you choose. To make a donation you need to do the following:
- Make your check or money order payable to: The State of Oregon.
- For a specific program, your check should be sent to the Agency Board or Commission your donation is intended to benefit....
Be sure to let the State Agency, Board or Commission know, in writing, if you want your donation used for a specific program. For example: Department of Human Services for the foster care program. Secretary of State for the Oregon Cultural Trust.
So if it does feel like blood money, send all or even a portion back. It will help fund a program you care about, may help that program avoid cuts if we do hit the skids in 2008, and it will also hit the anti-taxers where they live: making government stable and strong.
I'm in.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:11 a.m.
Dec 10, '07
I like your idea. Here's a list of Oregon agencies.
Some are cool; some are goofy. If I give to the Invasive Species Council, do I get to decide who's eradicated...?
Also, I'll bite -- I'm curious to know who you're giving to. Thanks for the idea.
11:27 a.m.
Dec 10, '07
As a pinko commie type, I actually trust the judgment of the government, so I might give it to the general fund, so it can be put where it's needed. In general, I think the arts are woefully underfunded, though, so that's where my heart is.
12:13 p.m.
Dec 10, '07
One thing anyone getting a kicker check has to be to be careful about is, there is no witholding on the kicker refund. So you need to make sure not spend all of it so you can retain enough to pay the tax owed on that untaxed kicker refund next year.
Dec 10, '07
I would be considered upper-lower class. I chose to have the state KEEP my kicker.
Does that mean that I have more morals than anti-taxers like Bill Sizemore? It sure does! Sorta like comparing Angels to Devils isn't it?
1:17 p.m.
Dec 10, '07
Keeping the kicker. After paying the most taxes I've ever had to and borrowing from my house to pay them, I think keeping it is the best gift I've gotten all year. Our house lives the social work/not for profit lifestyle so our amount is a little bit to most, but nothing to shake a stick at for us. And maybe we can break out $50 gift limit a little.
Dec 10, '07
Why not spend your entire kicker check on lottery scratch-its?
If you lose, well then it's a donation to state government.
If you win, then you can just plow those profits into even more lottery tickets.
The more you win the more the state will get.
You can even persuade yourself to believe that you'll happily hand over the mega-bucks jackpot should you win it.
Dec 10, '07
It would be interesting to hear from the State, perhaps in 60 days, how much money was returned to either the General Fund or to agencies as donations.
I doubt it would hit six figures, but any amount would be interesting.
Dec 10, '07
I live from hand to mouth. Sorry, but I can't pass up this gift of food on the table for xmas. Charities and/or the State is a good idea, but I have to care for myself first before I can splurge on other items.
Dec 10, '07
For all of you pinko commie idiots who like to give the state money. Oregon has a spending problem not an income problem
Dec 10, '07
"Anti-tax zealots have figured out the perfect mechanism to hobble government"
Journalistic objectivity?
5:00 p.m.
Dec 10, '07
I'm blogger, not a journalist. Anonymous commenting--conservative courage?
Dec 10, '07
Last data I saw showed more than 13,000 filers had chosen to donate the kicker to the State School Fund rather than receive a check. Total donations exceeded $6,000,000. That clearly wouldn't account for people who received their checks then donated all or part of it back.
Dec 10, '07
Last data I saw showed more than 13,000 filers had chosen to donate the kicker to the State School Fund rather than receive a check. Total donations exceeded $6,000,000. That clearly wouldn't account for people who received their checks then donated all or part of it back.
Dec 10, '07
Donations to Talking Book and Braille Services at the Oregon State Library are used to enhance our library services to about 6,000 blind and print-disabled Oregonians who rely on us for their books and magazines in recorded and Braille format. Donations fund recordings of books by Oregon authors, purchase of described videos for the blind, and access to the NEWSLINE news service, among other things. Send donations to:
Talking Book and Braille Services Oregon State Library 250 Winter St. Salem, OR 97301
Dec 10, '07
Sorry. I need every penny of my so-called "refund" to pay my increased public utility bills, my increased health care premiums, increased uninsured medical expenses, fees for things my kid's school charges her for....
Dec 10, '07
Jeff, I admire your decision to give your kicker back to the state. However, we need to make sure we don't buy into the conservative argument that says those of us who advocate for the kicker's repeal are hypocrites if we don't send our own kickers back.
The appropriate level of taxation is decided by the majority. In the case of the kicker, the majority thinks it's a good idea. They're wrong, of course, but we still have to live with that decision. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that the minority who support increased funding for schools, health care, etc., need to take on the responsibility for those things while the anti-taxers get a free ride. It's no more appropriate for them to say "Hey, you go ahead and pay more to schools if you think they need it" than it is for me to say "Hey, you pay for that Iraq war, I'll take a pass." If the majority isn't willing to provide adequate funding, we shouldn't feel guilty for not taking it on ourselves.
One good investment of your kicker would be to an organization that is actively working to repeal the kicker. Anyone want to make suggestions?
Dec 11, '07
Jeff, consider the possible unintended consequence that if enough people voluntarily return their kickers to make government "stable and strong" (as if enough people would -- or could -- to make that happen), wouldn't that simply bolster the argument that government didn't really need that "excess" money in the first place?
In other words, the argument goes: Kickers went out, state government was still stable and strong, ergo the state didn't really need the kicker money -- so the kicker is pure good.
Seems counter-productive if your ultimate goal is to repeal the kicker.
Of course it's a Catch-22 anyway, because if the government is allowed to fail for lack of funding, the argument will be that government doesn't work, so why should we give more money to an ineffective bureaucracy?
Anyhow, good on ya if you feel like you should give your kicker money back. I just don't think it's a particularly effective form of "protest" against the kicker policy, because it's not going to remotely change anybody's mind on the issue.
Anyone who supports the kicker will simply see your example as the way things should be -- let those who want the government to have more money pick up the tab themselves, and let everybody else do what they want (or need) with their own money. Pretty tough to persuade by example on that point...
Dec 11, '07
Sorry, but I do believe that the general public can spend this money wiser than the central planners in Salem. We've spent a good deal of ors providing gifts for Foster Children this year.
Dec 11, '07
It must be nice to afford to be idealistic, but some of us have to work for a living and don't have trust funds. It felt great to use my kicker to pay bills that otherwise would have had to wait. I also used it to buy a changing table for my soon to be newborn baby. Is that selfish? I suppose I could have sent that money back to Salem to a bureaucrat who makes six figures a year. That would have been much better than feeding my family!
7:46 a.m.
Dec 11, '07
Folks, I am not trying to make a moral argument here. Giving your kicker (or part of it, which is what I'm planning to do) back to the state is purely an act of generosity. One of the reasons I hate this law so much is that it's such a hard thing to give money back in December--even harder than other times.
(I love the implication that I'm a trust-funder, too! The "elites" argument rises again!)
Sorry, but I do believe that the general public can spend this money wiser than the central planners in Salem.
Then you oppose all taxation? Privatize all public infrastructure? Do you think that would be more cost-effective? I'd like to hear you outline out that would work. Based on the mortgage crisis and the overwhelming debt of Americans, I'd like to hear you make an argument for the public's sober spending ability.
Dec 11, '07
Jeff-
I could have sworn you just stated, in this very post, that you thought more taxpayer dollars should go towards public art. That would seem to invalidate any of your arguments about funding "essential government services" or the money being spent "for the children." And while you may not have any problem with taxpayer dollars going towards funding depictions of Jesus in a bottle of piss, some people think they should be able to spend it on their families. But, of course, you know better than they do, because you seem to have so little faith in people and so much faith in government.
8:23 a.m.
Dec 11, '07
It must be nice to afford to be idealistic, but some of us have to work for a living and don't have trust funds.
Wow, that's funny. I'm raising a child, too, and I work my ass off to pay the bills, and I still give as generously as I can to charities, campaigns and whatnot. Maybe it's just $25 or $50 here and there, but there's always somewhere to cut the fat to make that possible. Cable TV, maybe?
I have a theory that if every family contributed to progressive political campaigns or organizations what they spend on cable TV each month, this country would be more family-friendly in a million ways: better health care, more public arts, the best schools, etc. But, maybe cable TV is better. Who am I to say.
8:25 a.m.
Dec 11, '07
Scott,
You do realize that Federal dollars to the NEA don't come from Salem, don't you?
The NEA, which provides funding for "non-essentials" such as reading programs at thousands of public libraries, costs American taxpayers roughly $0.20 per person per year -- less than 1/15th the cost of 1 B2 stealth bomber.
Are you really that anxious to see the reading program at your local public library or your child's school library get the axe over NEA funding that costs your family less than $0.20 per year?
As for the Serrano "Piss Christ" exhibit...
How much mileage do social conservatives intend to get out of a small grant that was awarded more than 15 years ago?
Dec 11, '07
I don't have cable TV, Majority. I do not have enough of a paycheck to even know what disposable income is, much less what to do with it if I did. This also goes for Jeff's generosity statement. I would be generous if I could, but food on the table takes precident over frivilous things - including Cable TV. Thats why I cashed my kicker and bought extra food for the rest of the month.
Dec 11, '07
Jeff - "Folks, I am not trying to make a moral argument here."
Really?
Your original post is full of moralistic jingoism - "even more diabolical", "For the extremely virtuous among you", "blood money".
You're certainly trying to make a moral argument! And that argument is - Kicker checks are evil and they who spend them are only slightly less so.
Just calling 'em as I sees 'em...
9:34 a.m.
Dec 11, '07
Scott, your argument is a bogus misdirection--and you know it. Sal has corrected you on the facts. As to question of essential--yes, I think the arts are essential. Tolstoy described art as the expression of the transcendent; it lifts and buoys cultures and acts as a balm against such scars as war, tragedy, and hate.
But even that's misdirection, isn't it? Either you think taxes are all bad, or you admit that their purpose is legitimate. Refunding tax money based on nothing but a year-old guess by a state economist therefore either cuts into funds you acknowledge are legitimate. Let's be transparent about what we're talking about instead of using silly, false anecdotes.
9:40 a.m.
Dec 11, '07
I'm having posting problems. Larry, a clarification--you're right to raise this. The immorality is with the kicker, which may well force the state to cut services as it did in '02-'03, when the elderly lost medicine and the mentally ill were refused treatment. But the decision with what to do with your kicker check--that's not a moral one. Most people will use them to pay rent, buy gifts for loved ones, make a donation to charity. Thanks for pointing out the distinction.
Dec 11, '07
You know, Jeff, I kind of think Scott has hit on the key difference between those who like the kicker and those who don't (hint: it's the same difference in assumptions that divides conservatives and liberals). If you believe the government is wasting money (on "Piss Christ", overpaid bureaucrats, wasteful programs) you're going to oppose giving them another dollar. If you believe the government is doing something useful (health care for the sick and elderly, food stamps for the hungry, high quality education for everyone) you're going to support additional spending.
Wasn't M50 going to provide about $80 million a year in new tax revenue? I'm pretty sure that if we put on the ballot a proposal to take this $1 billion kicker and fund health care for 100,000 kids for the next 10 years, it would pass overwhelmingly. This drives home for me the need for progressives to not just talk about new programs we'd like to see, but to talk about the success of existing programs. How many people are on OHP, and how has it helped them? How many people are able to put food on the table at the end of the month due to food stamps? How many people raised themselves out of poverty because they got a state-subsidized education at one of our universitites?
We're not effectively telling those stories now. Instead, we're ceding the debate to those who claim waste, fraud, and abuse are endemic to government, resulting in majorities that support idiotic policies like the kicker.
Dec 11, '07
Either you think taxes are all bad, or you admit that their purpose is legitimate.
Now there's some moral clarity from Alworth and delivered in a way that would make our Commander-in-Chief proud:
"Taxes, you are either with 'em or against 'em."
Dec 11, '07
Sal- I detect quite a bit of bitterness and sarcasm in your comments. I guess I would be pissed too if I lost a legislative race to a schmuck like Donna Nelson. The point I was making is that people like you and Jeff would rather take dinner off of the tables of hard-working people and use it to fund things that the goverment has no business funding--such as public art. I know that based on your past postings that your reading comprehension is probably not developed enough to understand that. I'm sure that's why your would-be constuents decided to send a loser like Nelson to Salem instead of you. But I'm glad to see that you're making productive use of what must be a whole lot of spare time.
How much mileage do social conservatives intend to get out of a small grant that was awarded more than 15 years ago? Plenty, especially if you're still expecting people to willfully surrender their pocketbooks to bureaucrats to fund more, similar grants.
Talk about misdirection. Just tell the folks that you would rather take their money to have it go towards paying the salary of a bureaucrat who will then return part of it to you in the terms of highly dimished services.
I love how altruistic you people are when it comes to other peoples' money. But until and unless you are willing to surrender everything you own to the government, in the empty promise of some far-fetched utopian pipe dream, then you should either put up or shut up. Right now, you're doing neither.
2:32 p.m.
Dec 11, '07
The point I was making is that people like you and Jeff would rather take dinner off of the tables of hard-working people and use it to fund things that the goverment has no business funding--such as public art.
The example that you used to make your point -- NEA funding -- is not taking food off of anyone's dinner table. It is, in fact, helping to increase literacy by funding reading programs in public and school libraries.
If you don't support programs aimed at increasing literacy in this country, that's your business, but it puts you firmly in the lunatic fringe of this country. If the NEA were really as wasteful as you claim it is, you wouldn't need to recycle a 15-year old example to make your point.
As I said, the total funding of the agency costs individual taxpayers about $0.20 per year on average -- less than 1/15th of the cost of a stealth bomber.
I love how altruistic you people are when it comes to other peoples' money.
Other people's money? Based on your comments, I probably pay more in taxes than you do.
The real difference between us is that it I'm willing to pay higher taxes if it means that fewer children will go to bed hungry and more children will have an opportunity to go to college or learn a trade -- even if they aren't my children. I'm willing to pay higher taxes if it means that fewer seniors will have to make a choice between buying life-saving drugs and putting food on their table.
Those things matter to me even if we're not talking about my child or my grandparent. You aren't willing to pay taxes for those things. I get it. What that says to me is that you don't value citizenship and that you probably don't share many of the most basic Christian and human values that bring us together as a nation.
As to your other comments... say what you'd like about me, personally, but you have no reason to get involved in name-calling towards Donna Nelson. She was willing to step forward and subject herself to personal attacks and ridicule in order to serve this state. I may not agree with her on several policy issues, but she deserves credit for her willingness to serve, not puerile attacks from ill-informed people who have contributed next to nothing for any political cause, let alone be willing to step forward and run for public office.
2:39 p.m.
Dec 11, '07
One other point: I have never favored eliminating the personal kicker. Get your facts straight.
Dec 11, '07
"The appropriate level of taxation is decided by the majority. In the case of the kicker, the majority thinks it's a good idea. They're wrong, of course"
Dear Miles, Please let us all know how much is enough?? 75% of your income" 99%?? Please give us a "good" number.
Dec 11, '07
Well, dddave, Oregon is currently a low-tax state. The Tax Foundation says that Oregon's tax burden puts us in 37th place, and the Census data show that our per capita taxes put us in 40th place. The Tax Foundation (the people who bring you "Tax Freedom Day" by the way) says our state and local tax burden is about 10% of income, whereas the national average is 11% of income.
There is no magic number for taxes. As I say above, it's appropriate for the majority to determine that number through elections (and in Oregon, through I&R). And frankly, the number is less important than whether government is doing everything that its citizens want it to do: good schools, strong public safety, solid health care safety net. If they can do that on 8% of my income, great. If they need 12% of my income, fine by me. We're currently not doing all of the things that I think we should be doing, which is why I'm in favor of higher taxes.
6:15 p.m.
Dec 11, '07
Well said Sal.
Dec 12, '07
Jeff: Just got my kicker check yesterday. I am going to spend it on ME! I feel good about that decision.
Dec 12, '07
did any of you idealists return your checks yet ??????????????
Dec 12, '07
PanchoPDX:
I couldn't agree more! But I've bought several lottery tickets and I've never won...So I've decided to spend a mere $20 (of a kicker check in excess of $600) on tonight's Megabucks drawing.
If I win, I've decided that I will donate 20% of my after tax winnings to the Oregon Food Bank (in the name of PanchoPDX). As far as I can tell, they are doing a much better job of feeding the hungry than the State of Oregon.