NO and HELL NO.

Pretty easy.

"One would revamp the income tax "kicker" rebates so that most of the money would at first flow into a rainy day fund."

You know, our family has it's own rainy day fund that keeps getting smaller and smaller thanks to democrats raising fees and taxes on everything in sight. I guess we can kiss the kicker goodbye as well.

BTW, where are all the jobs that 0bama's $trillion dollar stimulus package?

Bwah ha ha. "Stop driving on my roads?" Gas taxes are paid at the pump, a user fee if there ever was one. Riding the bus and the max? Plenty of statewide taxpayers who will never use those Portland specific boondoggles helped to pay for them. Mailing requires postage, etc. Schools? There'd be a lot more money there for that if we weren't providing a FAPE to every illegal alien minor and/or budding criminal out there. Quit wasting my income and property taxes "educating" the future drop outs of the system and kick 'em to the curb early.

What do the Oregon Trail Card users pay in? How about OHP users? Why does the state have unionized janitors working for it? Why is the state in the goddamned retail liquor business?

The state didn't "give out" $1.1 billion in kicker checks, it refunded the money to the folks it belonged to in the first place. One cannot "give out" that which was never theirs to permanently possess. That'd be a "refund of excess revenues." We only give the money to the government by way of threat of fines and imprisonment, so never treat tax proceeds as societal largess from the people. The people, by and large, want the government to have as little of their money as possible, so that they may "waste it" directly, rather than have some unresponsive dimwit waste it for them and ask for yet more.

Not even major league tax revenue addicts like Charles Rangel (D), NY, trust the government with their money if there is a way to dodge it.

The only reason we have a kicker is because of faulty logic and a flawed sense of entitlement in regards to money, courtesy of our repugnican party. Time to end the dysfunctionality of it all.

And annual sessions....why not? Then at least we know we are paying enough for the job they do. Right now, we pay too much.

We have a kicker for two reasons: (1) it was a way for its sponsors to buy votes ("Vote for me and look at the check you get just before Christmas!") and (2) it was a way for its sponsors to undermine government services without attacking them directly ("Well, I don't want to cut these services, but we just can't afford them, so...")

Either have annual sessions, or pay legislators (including the executive branch) only on years when the leg. meets.

Relax, Boats. Your heaven where we're all armed, defending our little piece of turf, without governmental auspices, is coming! Do you have to leave a light on a night when you sleep? Still believe in Santa? Must. You think that Oregon Democrats will implement progressive policy!!!

Be grateful to Blue Oregon! This blog's whole purpose is to sink progressive ideas before the national party has to acknowledge them! It has been very successful, which is why it has the ear and the funding of the Party. It is why real progressives have the hostile tone that they do. THEY can be frustrated. Just what are you frustrated about?

Like all tighty righties, you're just pissed it isn't 100% your way. Grow up. All conservatives are little Nixons. He lost one race in his life, yet got up every morning feeling that life had handed him the rawest of deals. Typical Republican. If Republicans had gotten any more in the last 50 years, there wouldn't even BE a country. But, you all won't settle for what you have, will probably get the rest, and, then, there won't be a country. If you all love America so much, why are you trying to change it all the time? Yeah, I forget your ignorance of history. Actually, I should lay that at the feet of your ignorance of your ignorance of history. Most dittoheads do have the illusion of being informed.

leinad says: This would hopefully result in lower taxes instead of overpaying and then getting a refund in the off chance the state economists make a mistake.

leinad, if you think getting rid of the kicker is going to lower taxes, could I interest you in buying my bridge in Brooklyn? Over time, the cost of state government will just increase to consume all available (and even some unavailable) $ - every budget period will have a 'rainy season'...

I'm concerned the only thing that will come from annual sessions is just more time to think up ways for the state government to spend money.

And leinad, I don't 'hate' taxes - but I do think when taxes are well on their way to consuming over 50% of my income yet government at all levels is STILL crying they don't have enough (and at some levels spends $ they don't even have without restraint...), I've got a right to question the efficiency of how my $ are spent and the necessity of some of the things my $ are spent on.

Kicker---I'll wait to see the language/plan before I make a decision on that. I don't like the kicker but some of the ideas I've heard to "fix" it are worse than the kicker itself.

Annual Sessions----Please, yes. Then our legislators could spread out the work and could respond in a more timely fashion to things happening in the "off" years. I don't know the stats on how many state legislatures meet less than annually, but I do think it doesn't work well for Oregon.

You need a poll concerning the anti-tax culture of a country born in large part out of a tax rebellion, or of a state that voted in Measure 5, a state and a country wherein anyone with two operating brain cells seeks to maximize their income tax deductions and those with no time or only one brain cell hire accountants to accomplish the same?

You apparently need more than a poll. No one with a working sense of self interest pays any more in taxes than one absolutely has to.

BTW, where are all the jobs that 0bama's $trillion dollar stimulus package?

Coming in the second half of the year, as the President has said they would FROM DAY ONE.

Julie Jenkins says: All conservatives are little Nixons.

Julie, while your toting your history book there, you may want to open it up and review the chapters on Nixon. While he was somewhat to the right of George McGovern, he was absolutely no conservative... He carried on and in some cases even expanded many of LBJ's 'Great Society' programs. You see, not all 'Republicans' are 'conservative' - just the same as not all 'Democrats' are 'liberal' or 'progressive'...

Julie Jenkins says: It is why real progressives have the hostile tone that they do.

Hmmm... so, in your mind, 'real progressives' are completely justified in their hostility (because it isn't 100% your way?) - but all (not just some, mind you...) conservatives with any sort of hostile tone are 'little Nixons'... interesting. Certainly simplifies things for you, I guess.

Julie Jenkins says: If you all love America so much, why are you trying to change it all the time?

eh... help me out here. Aren't 'progressives', by definition, the ones who are always trying to change things? Conservatives are traditionally for the status quo. May want to brush up on that concept a little before including it in a post here.

Patently false--the money belongs to all of us, duly taxed on due earnings. You make more gross income (which on the state level means more taxable revenue is generated), you pay more dollars in tax. I assume that when you make LESS money in a a year than you expected, you forward more money to the state to cover the shortfall? That would be the logical corollary to expecting the state NOT to get the additional tax money, when you make MORE than you expected.

Patently? LOL. Patently if you apparently believe that government is entitled to private sector cash willy-nilly and without justification. The people have decided that the money that apparently "belongs to all of us" be returned to its rightful owners when collections exceed budgetary needs. So much for patently.

The state is required by law to formulate a budget. If revenues exceed that budget by 2% or more, the lawfully coerced money is kicked back to everyone who paid in unless the tax addicts in the lege interfere somehow. There is no "logical corollary" between a surplus and a deficit as regards a non-profit entity like the state of Oregon. It is constitutionally not entitled to a "profit" from the good times nor has it any right to expect anyone to "make good" in a year where they themselves fall short of what they expected. It's just "boo hoo" time in Salem and time to suck it up, whether money is being kicked or belts need tightening.

Screw the government of Oregon. No matter the economic weather, it is busy perpetually raising the budget new biennium over last.

IF they could guarantee ..in law and constitution that State income taxes would never go up but for a 2/3rds citizen vote then yes they can keep the Kicker. But that aint gonna happen. Until then keep the Kicker.

Without justification? I think the tax code that establishes the ability of the state to collect taxes, and sets the rates, is all the justification that's needed.

Hmmm. The kicker is in the constitution and says excess revenues don't belong to the state but to the people. Change it or end it if you can but don't pretend that the government is "giving out" money that doesn't constitutionally belong to it. True that the money was legally impounded, but any amount over 2% collected in the state's favor is but a loan.

Boats,

In effect when the kicker kicks you're lowering the income tax rate. If you're going to let the tax rate float like that when the budget's in the positive then why not let it float when it goes negative? It's only fair.

Better though to put the excess in a rainy day fund (only up to a certain point of course) to smooth out the state budget.

One could not write worse tax policy than the kicker, even if one tried really really hard. The kicker is nothing more than a converse verdict on one person's, the state economist, best guess of a revenue projection two years hence.

If he guesses well, nothing happens. If he guesses poorly, and the state is short money, then the services suffer. If he guesses poorly and revenues are excess, then the services suffer again in the next cycle, because there is no possible way to balance out the unrelenting highs and lows.

Why in the world would this be in the taxpayers' interests.

There is no faulty logic behind the kicker; there is no logic at all.

I'm not against the idea of a 'rainy day fund'... as long as we can set very specific parameters as to what truly constitutes a 'rainy day' and what those $ can be spent for...

Budget levels need to be baselined at government receipts and what people can afford to pay assuming average conditions... not baselined at government receipts during boom times (like the late 90s to early 2000s) and never re-adjusted downward for economic contraction. This is part of the reason we're in the mess we're in.

The situations aren't exactly analogous, true - but I can't help but have these visions of a 'Social Security Trust Fund' full of IOUs and promissory notes left there by Federal politicians using the $ to buy our votes.

Boats is an atheist, therefore, he does not care one whit for what is contained in a book of full of superstition and historical inaccuracies other than taking a passing interest in how its King James version colors the language.

That said, what is amusing about the demonstrably false Joseph in Egypt story as regards today is that Democratic Pharaohs keep way more than 20%, year in, year out, no matter if the granaries had been filled for a century or more. Exhibit A in the donkey entitlement catalog: The never ending telephone excise tax that was enacted to fund the five month long Spanish-American War we won well before 1899 was celebrated.

Never give anything to a government and expect to have it returned.

Annual sessions don't seem like a good idea. I'd suggest they only meet once every ten years. That way they won't be able to screw things up quite so much. The more often the clowns meet in Salem the more stupid crap they produce.

The general justification is implicit. The state can collect no more than it said it needed and must return the "excess," over two percentage points, to the people who paid it in.

Nothing is logically "owed" to an entity that said it would not need it.

If you want to starve the Salem based beast, basing tax policy on forecasts is a great idea. It's only stupid to all of the oinkers on the public teat.

Posted by: alcatross | Jun 30, 2009 1:37:26 PM

Julie Jenkins says: All conservatives are little Nixons.

Julie, while your toting your history book there, you may want to open it up and review the chapters on Nixon.

If you had read my post, instead of finding an opportunity to dump your right wing copy buffer, you would have seen that I was saying they share his attitude, not politics.

Julie Jenkins says: It is why real progressives have the hostile tone that they do.

Hmmm... so, in your mind, 'real progressives' are completely justified in their hostility (because it isn't 100% your way?) - You really didn't read it. I said we have nothing our way and YOU are the ones that want everything your way.

of hostile tone are 'little Nixons'... interesting. Certainly simplifies things for you, I guess. No, if you want the simplifying principle, it's that conservatives are "I've got mine, screw you", American "liberals" are "let's give some to a group I've identified", and progressives are "no one gets ahead until everyone gets ahead". That's the bit you hate isn't it? People that God hasn't elected getting ahead. Erasing the signs of election. This is why the evangelicals' rhetoric keeps surfacing on COMPLETELY UNGODLY commentary, like Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, America is a Christian nation, and a protestant one at that. Lose that crap!

Julie Jenkins says: If you all love America so much, why are you trying to change it all the time?

eh... help me out here. Aren't 'progressives', by definition, the ones who are always trying to change things? Duh, no. Here, NO ONE has listened since 1964. Progressive is radical, as in "root". You know, like the "radical sign" in math.? America was founded on progressive ideals. They have regressed toward the mean. The existential ground we find ourselves in is such that "progressive", in that situation, reduces to restoring the original progression from the mean. Beyond that, few advocate continuing on to a socialist model, which is the detail that the right absolutely cannot grasp.

Conservatives are traditionally for the status quo.

Got something right! And it's wonderful, no? Or do those left out deserve it? Back to signs of election. So I guess you would at least agree that Bush/Cheney/Palin/Quayle are NOT conservatives. As Barry Goldwater said, "conservatives don't have a social agenda". But why listen to that? Typical selective dittohead logic. You quote Ronald Reagan, calling Barry Goldwater, "Mr. Conservative", but you don't fess up to what Goldwater thought about Reagan.

You never listened to what he muttered afterward, leaving the 1988 Republican convention, I guess. "And these people are going to ruin this country". But then, it was his fault. He ran in 1964 to move the party focus west, so he can't bitch about Reagan. Unfortunately, Palin will repeat the trick, and that's why she's resigning/funded (which you could read there if typepad (and/or Karol) weren't tossing perfectly good posts).

Oh, Alcie probably didn't get that. I'm not saying Sarah is moving the party focus west. She's running to create a platform and framework for the Presidential debate that is evangelical-centric, without hope of winning, like Goldwater did. It's about controlling the debate, not winning the election. If you doubt that it still works, may I have the pleasure of introducing you to Dr. Howard Dean, and your latest righty tighty headache, health care reform.

Boats, do you really want change or do you get your jollies being obnoxious online?

If the latter, all you do is make people groan at your snide remarks, you are not likely to change any opinions.

However, if it is the former, then quit the online comments and spend your energies on a campaign. Help refer the tax measures, find yourself a legislative, Gov. or other candidate, and use your energies there. Of course, hard work and persuasion beats snide remarks when it comes to campaigns, so you might not fit in on a successful campaign.

<h2>Julie, I love your comments!</h2>