"Job-Killing Taxes" is nothing more than a focus-group tested marketing slogan. It has never been based on anything more than opinion and conjecture.

REAL JOBS, REAL SERVICES VOTE YES ON 66 & 67

It’s interesting that Rueben now says her best estimate of job losses will be “none.” In her report she and her co-author state:

“While the corporate income tax (and personal income tax) may place a drag on the economy, the lack of a retail or wholesale sales tax in Oregon tends to encourage productive activity.”

They thus seem to be making two assumptions, which most economists will agree with:

1. Increased taxes have detrimental effects on the economy.

2. Reducing tax liability improves productivity.

And, if Reuben really is agreeing with the Legislative Revenue Office’s study, then she’s agreeing to its conclusion that these taxes will be negative for the economy in the first seven years, and positive for the economy after that only if the new tax money goes into productive state activities.

Rueben may differ with Cascade's economist job loss estimates, but to say that no jobs will be lost doesn't square with the assumptions in her own report.

Steve B. Suppose you run a store, a restaurant, a filling station, or some other business which needs customers to stay in business.

How many customers per day will determine whether that day hits the break even point.

If you need 200 customers per day to buy something in your store, and 300 buy something, you are doing well. But if only 150 buy something, you are not doing well.

Not about "the economy" but about how many customers buy something from that business on any given day.

So statements like "Increased taxes have detrimental effects on the economy." don't really have a concrete effect on whether this particular business at least breaks even every day.

Now suppose this business is near a school or other government building. Suppose it is in Salem where there are many government workers.

If people on the public payroll have many furlough days (less income) or fewer work hours, or get laid off, are they going to be able to shop at any store, eat out, or otherwise buy anything not absolutely essential?

Or doesn't that matter because you deal in theory, and to you only private sector jobs are "real" jobs?

Obviously it matters what you do with those taxes. But this will be more "matthew ventress has to practice his cut copy paste lessons and by the way have you seen jackass lately and please stop lying dems because thats what Sean told me to say and oh I wish he would give me a chew" and every other dittohead, so I'm not even going to get into it.

Posted by: jim | Nov 25, 2009 8:31:19 AM

"Job-Killing Taxes" is nothing more than a focus-group tested marketing slogan. It has never been based on anything more than opinion and conjecture.

Nor is any of the dittohead spew anything more- hell, it isn't even original- but it has sidetracked your agenda. Ignore it at your initiatives' peril.

There're not that many trolls. You could keep tabs on most of them, then act. A group of 20 or so of us have had enough and are collecting intelligence on their habits and movements. The next time they decide to stop something they don't understand, no alternative given, they are going to find it a challenge to get out the door. They're easily distracted and we will make sure they are occupied.

LT, of course public sector jobs are real jobs. But under your analogy, raising taxes might be good for my store because it could lead to more public employees shopping with me. If that were the case, then why didn’t the Urban Institute economists make that point?

Again, even the LRO report concluded that these tax increases would be detrimental to the economy for the first seven years.

Not only should one question Cascade's math, you should also question their ability to read.

The LRO report states:

"Over the longer term, the net effect of the measures on employment and income depends critically on how the revenue is used by the public sector. The measures are expected to have relatively small negative effects on overall income and employment (-0.1%) in the absence of productivity effects from public sector expenditures. Inclusion of productivity enhancing effects of public spending on infrastructure and education can neutralize the negative effects from the tax increases and potentially generate positive results. The ultimate impact of public spending on the economy depends on the precise nature of the spending, how effectively public programs are implemented and the time period under consideration."

Buckstein: what part of that can't you understand? It says potentially "relatively minor effect" or that the measures could "potentially generate positive results."

The key phrase seems to be "depending on how the increased revenue is spent". The threats by the "pro's" to cut fire, police, in-home care, etc. seems to indicate that the increased revenue would be spent on salaries. Does this square with your thinking about possible effects?

The LRO report, on page 25 indicates that should all the "carry-over" from 07-09 revenues be called in, the actual "shortfall" would be $318.1 million or about 2% of the total budget.

The one strategy the legislature doesn't seem to have considered is that of dipping into the "rainy day reserves". To say that to cut services or raise taxes are the only two options overlooks this. Is this a rainy day? It sure looks cloudy to me.

Lucas, the quote you extracted from the LRO report is on page 3 of a 27 page report. My comments come from Table 17 on page 19. Economic effects of the taxes are expected to be negative up to the first seven years and after the first seven years "Net effects can be neutral or positive depending on how effectively revenue is used." You and I will probably disagree on how "effectively" the state will spend the revenue, but that's what the report says.

Readers can see the report for themselves at www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lro/research_report_301302.pdf

Buckstein: that table you use in support for your spin on what the LRO report also states:

"Spending reductions tend to decrease economic activity more than tax increases because of leakages & interaction with federal taxes/matching funds."

I assume you agree with that, since you cite that same square from the LRO table.

By all means, everyone should read the report, rather than rely on Cascade's lame-ass spin on the report.

Carla says "You're rearranging the deck chairs on your Titanic."

Sorry Carla, but if the state budget is a Titanic, then it's more of your philosophy's making than mine. I've argued for spending restraint for years, yet the legislature has spent every dime and then some. Now that the revenue comes up short they try to raise tax rates to make up the difference. If the voters disagree, then we can discuss how to strengthen the hull (using your analogy) so we're safer in the future.

Is "job killing taxes" dumber than "stimulus generated employment?"

The unemployment slideshow:

http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

If you include those who have quit looking for employment, the current rate is 17%. It will get higher.

Can someone explain how (a) the amount of taxes to be raised is so substantial that they will save the state government from ruin but, (b) the amount of taxes to be raised are so small that they won't affect the employment and investment decisions of those being taxed.

Lucas, actually I don’t agree with LRO when it says "Spending reductions tend to decrease economic activity more than tax increases because of leakages & interaction with federal taxes/matching funds."

I don’t believe most economists consider saving to be "leakage." Saving is investment and investment spending is as or more stimulative than consumer spending. Investment spending can be more stimulative because investments increase productivity which produce higher incomes.

The federal matching argument is what can be called the coupon fallacy. Using a coupon to buy something you can't afford does not save money. For example, some states were leary of taking stimulus matching dollars because it implied spending money on new and expanded programs that the states could not afford, and there are no guarantees of future federal funds.

" If that were the case, then why didn’t the Urban Institute economists make that point? "

Steve, seriously, what % of voters do you believe will make up their minds on these ballot measures based on whether they agree with the Cascade Policy Institute or the Urban Institute?

What percent of voters have ever even heard of those think tanks?

How many are just learning the meaning of "marginal tax rates" or looking at which companies will only pay the $150 corporate tax vs. companies with large sales which will pay a tax on sales?

This appears to me to be a debate Teddy Roosevelt would recognize---should large successful businesses pay taxes so that ordinary citizens can have services? Or should everyone have the mentality of Mark Hanna and Pres. McKinley?

-should large successful businesses pay taxes so that ordinary citizens can have services?

And there's the rub. This is not just a tax on successful businesses.

Anybody on the job? Care to deal with link spammers?

Fuck it. Spam the mf'er back. That last bit of K arlock inspired rudeness was perpetrated by:

David Milmont 11450 Community Center Dr. unit 424 Northglenn, CO, 80233 phone: 303-552-5884 Email:[email protected]

Keep info. like this, and when you need to fill out surveys to do a download, you get mailers from the Franklin Mint, etc., use the data from those that love spam so much.

I find language fascinating. The "new math." was introduced in the late 1960s, and largely fell by the wayside. 40 years on it means "bad math". More American anti-intellectualism!

Yeah, working backwards and forcing the numbers to fit is poor form. Can you imagine Dems doing that?

I am sick of right-wing faith-based economics.

In 1981 there was a tax cut for rich Americans. The unemployment rate started going up immediately. The unemployment rate went from 7.4% to 9.8% a year later.

In 1993 there was a tax cut for low-income people, accompanied by a tax increase for the wealthy. The unemployment rate went from 6.8% to 6.0% a year later.

In 2001 the first of the Bush tax cuts were passed, and the unemployment rate went from 4.5% to 5.8% a year later.

So, it seems that, if anything, tax cuts for the rich kill jobs and tax increases for the rich creates jobs.

The right keeps pushing tax cuts for the wealthy, and trying to sell it as a jobs program. It's like selling clear-cutting as healthy for forests. Oh, wait, I guess they do that, too.

anon:

In 1981 there was a tax cut for rich Americans. The unemployment rate started going up immediately. The unemployment rate went from 7.4% to 9.8% a year later.

In 1993 there was a tax cut for low-income people, accompanied by a tax increase for the wealthy. The unemployment rate went from 6.8% to 6.0% a year later.

In 2001 the first of the Bush tax cuts were passed, and the unemployment rate went from 4.5% to 5.8% a year later.

So, it seems that, if anything, tax cuts for the rich kill jobs and tax increases for the rich creates jobs.

Bob T:

My main concern over taxes is that I prefer to give the government as little as possible -- one problem now is that the definition of "basic services" has been expanded so much that it's all considered "basic" (except military). I asked Novick in another comment section last week to provide an example of something in the Oregon budget that is not "basic", and after a few days stopped looking for a reply.

Anyway, if you really believe your conclusion above (tax cuts for the rich kill jobs and tax increases for the rich creates jobs), I wish you'd explain why you think so, as best you can. I often hear this, like those saying that the 90% tax rate on top earners in the 50s was great for the economy, but I just want to hear some details. How do these high taxes make the economy better?

Bob Tiernan Portland

The "Rich-Tweaking Taxes" are just that; Rich-Tweaking. To paraphrase that old philosopher on KEX radio in the 1960's, Bruce Willamette: "If you don't help your State, we'll have to tweak you, and tweak you hard!"

~ EIO

Bob T.,

I'm actually anon 8:51.

It's hard to know if there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship between tax increases for the rich and job creation, but we do know that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs, because tax cuts have been associated with dramatic jumps in unemployment in the past.

I don't know the mechanism, I'm just looking at the data.

It could be that rich people don't put their extra money back into the economy, whereas poor and middle-class people do, so tax cuts for them actually do benefit the economy.

A more pertinent question is, why should anyone be trusted who claims that tax cuts for the rich will create jobs, and tax increases for the rich will kill jobs, when there is no evidence to support that claim?

Thank you fbear:

"It's hard to know if there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship between tax increases for the rich and job creation, but we do know that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs, because tax cuts have been associated with dramatic jumps in unemployment in the past.

I don't know the mechanism, I'm just looking at the data."

I would have less problem with "prove you have created a job and we will give you a tax break".

However, I am fed up with "tax breaks don't have to be paid for". They are expenditures--money for tax breaks must come from somewhere.

And until someone can show "Here are Sue and Ted who we hired with our tax break", I am tired of being told all good people believe tax breaks create jobs.

As management expert W.E. Demings said, "In God we trust, all others must provide data".

fbear commented: ...but we do know that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs, because tax cuts have been associated with dramatic jumps in unemployment in the past.

I don't know the mechanism, I'm just looking at the data."

So we just overlook the early 1960s Kennedy tax cuts, 1997 Clinton tax cuts, and the 2002-2003 Bush tax cuts that both quickly resulted in increased employment? Throwing out data that doesn't necessarily support the theory? You didn't by chance take some East Anglia University online economics courses, did you? ;-)

Unfortunately, analyzing and successfully predicting/managing a complex system like the US economy is not as simple as making tax policy decisions based on comparing and contrasting one set of current vs selected historical economic indicator data (i.e., the unemployment rate) completely independent of all other external factors of their respective times.

Also, the economy is more akin to the Queen Mary than a motorboat - a slight turn of the rudder or increase/decrease of the throttle does not yield an instantaneous result. Just ask Captain Obama about the speed at which his stimulus program has turned things around.

CA: Cascade Policy Institute needs a working calculator JK: Your numbers are all wrong, too.

billy: That's rich, that liberals that can't do math and conclude that temperatures are going up and species are declining complain about their policy recommendations.

Marie: You want us to change our lifestyle and be inconvenienced based on your bogus math. Species are on the increase or showing normal patterns world wide. I have asked on here for your evidence and all you do is attack the messenger.

jamieee: Can you add up how much Al Gore has made from climate change fraud? Guess you haven't gotten the memo on climategate. Someday your selecting poster child species will get outed. Learn to live without your imminent catastrophe and furry favorites! I'm not paying a penny more in tax for your energy programs, ever, period. The environment is in the best shape it has ever been. Cut funds for monitoring and all those "issues" will go away!

People that believed Gore's lies when "Inconvenient Truth" was published: 79% People that believe it today: 49%

You don't have the votes, you don't have a clue, you don't have a plan. Give up. I'm still waiting for apologies.

• Your Climate Messiah

The mechanism for the 90% tax rate in the 1950s improving things is fairly simple. The way around the tax, so to speak, was, if you owned a business, to put a good chunk of the profits back into it. This got more jobs which got people more money which got people buying things and again and again. Whether that is necessarily a good thing is something else--look at all the useless crap people will buy today.

"the 2002-2003 Bush tax cuts that both quickly resulted in increased employment?"

Actually, the first Bush tax cuts were enacted in June of 2001, when the national unemployment rate was 4.5%. The national unemployment rate was that low again until September, 2006, over five years later. I wouldn't call that "quickly".

Perhaps what's really true is that tax cuts and increases for the rich have negligible effect on employment, with other factors overriding any effect from the change in tax policy.

Again, there are enough counter examples to show that it's unlikely that tax cuts for the rich adds jobs and tax increases for the rich "kill" jobs. The anti-66 & 67 campaign is based on an idea that has no basis in reality.

What it comes down to is that some rich people don't like paying their fair share for civilized society. Fine. Let them go buy their own little island somewhere and see how that works out for them. If they want to enjoy the fruits of our society, and by definition the rich have benefited from our society, then they should pay their fair share.

Ooops. The unemployment rate wasn't that low again until September, 2006.

"2002-2003 Bush tax cuts that both quickly resulted in increased employment?"

Gee, how many jobs were created in the first Bush term? It was my memory that the net job gain was not as great as in the 1990s (when Clinton had the "gall" to get a budget passed which had tax increases and eventually resulted in a surplus!

As for the early tax cuts, people of the president's generation should be told "back when you were born, tax cuts created jobs so you should believe they will create jobs now"?

And I am still waiting to see the data about all those wonderful jobs created in 2004 because Russ Walker et al won the Measure 30 election.

Posted by: Kevin | Nov 27, 2009 9:45:35 AM

I am sick of right-wing faith-based economics.

Ditto!

Amen! Er, so am I! Let's stop giving tax breaks to the televangelists that are preaching that your relationship to God and your net worth are intimately related. That poisonous logic has turned up in the real estate bubble, the prime rate crisis, Shrub's pissing away Clinton's legacy and the TEA protests. It's crap theology, and worse economics. If pyramid schemes are illegal, we should be able to deal with this dogshit.

It would do society a lot more good if this xmas PBS replaced Yule Log with vid of Robert Tilton hung upside down by the balls, nude, being flogged with nettle filled tea bags, wielded by the thousands he has defrauded.

LT, IIRC, there was actually a net loss of jobs in Bush's first term.

fbear commented: Actually, the first Bush tax cuts were enacted in June of 2001, when the national unemployment rate was 4.5%. The national unemployment rate was that low again until September, 2006, over five years later. I wouldn't call that "quickly".

Of course, there was the small matter of 9/11 that happened between June of 2001 and 2002 that helped to contribute to the rapid increase in unemployment. One example why one can't construct hoary economic maxims from a single economic indicator independent of external factors. And let's keep in mind 4.0 to 4.5% were historic lows in US unemployment. Back in the mid-1990s days of the 'Clinton miracle economy' when unemployment got to ~5% (before the 1997 tax cuts), 5% was considered 'full-employment'...

fbear commented: Perhaps what's really true is that tax cuts and increases for the rich have negligible effect on employment, with other factors overriding any effect from the change in tax policy.

I suspect the effect will vary depending on a whole host of factors at any given point in time. My point was just you can't draw a direct cause-effect relationship. However, let's be honest and note the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were 'across the board' - phased-in 23% and ~10% cuts across all individual tax rates, respectively - benefitting ALL taxpayers. With 'the rich' paying the disproportionate share of income taxes (the top 10% paying 70% of income taxes as of 2005 - up 3% since when Bush took office), there's no way to devise an income tax cut of any significance that isn't going to disproportionately benefit 'the rich' (unless you just eliminate income taxes on the lower brackets - which has effectively been done already...) Further, you might also find it interesting that the recent history of tax cuts shows that reducing tax rates reduces tax avoidance and increases the amount and share of tax payments generated by 'the rich'.

LT commented: Gee, how many jobs were created in the first Bush term? It was my memory that the net job gain was not as great as in the 1990s (when Clinton had the "gall" to get a budget passed which had tax increases and eventually resulted in a surplus!

Hmmm... gee, we were COMING OUT of a recession when Clinton took office vs GOING INTO a recession when Bush took office. Plus memory doesn't recall a catastrophic economic disrupting event like 9/11 occurring during Clinton's presidency either. Let's also remember that the strongest economic growth and half the jobs created during the Clinton presidency came during his second term - AFTER the 1997 income tax CUTS (which also included welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts and spending curbs)...

You keep talking about federal tax cuts creating jobs. The January election is about the Oregon budget. My guess is you can't produce data showing that the Measure 30 election result created net job gains (everyone getting a paycheck has a job, whether they work in the public, private, or nonprofit sector) .

Until someone can produce that data, nothing about federal job creation answers the question about Oregon.

LT commented: You keep talking about federal tax cuts creating jobs. Actually, fbear started the discussion about federal tax cuts and their supposed immediate relationship to employment rates - claiming the data unequivocally indicates 'tax cuts for the rich kill jobs and tax increases for the rich creates jobs.'

I've just been introducing contrary data to bolster my contention that that analysis is too simplistic.

LT commented: My guess is you can't produce data showing that the Measure 30 election result created net job gains (everyone getting a paycheck has a job, whether they work in the public, private, or nonprofit sector).

The defeat of Measure 30 did not result in a tax cut - so there's no relevance. The absence of a tax increase is NOT a tax cut. I would submit the 20% increase in the 2007-2009 Oregon budget (that many at the time warned would not be sustainable in the event of an economic downturn) has just as much to do with the current budget shortfall as anything else.

Of course, there was the small matter of 9/11 that happened between June of 2001 and 2002 that helped to contribute to the rapid increase in unemployment.

Gee, back in December, 1941 there was this small matter called Pearl Harbor, and it seemed to lead to a dramatic increase in employment.

It seems as though it's only President's named Bush who are capable of presiding over job losses during a war. Wars usually lead to job creation, not job destruction. Except during Bush administrations.

Something else fbear:

When in US history (other than earlier this decade) did this country go to war without raising taxes?

fbear commented: Gee, back in December, 1941 there was this small matter called Pearl Harbor, and it seemed to lead to a dramatic increase in employment.

Now you're getting silly. The scope and scale of the Gulf and Iraq Wars hardly compares to WWII - nor does the US today fight wars the same way we did back then.

The unemployment rate at the time of Pearl Harbor was somewhere between 10 to 15% - if you declare war on two-fronts on opposite sides of the world taking many if not most of the able-bodied men aged 20-30 out of the work force via a military draft and ramp up nearly the entire US industrial base to churn out war-related stuff not just for US troops but all the Allies as well... well, OF COURSE civilian unemployment is going to decrease. DOH!

The unemployment rate around 9/11 was somewhere between 4.5% to 5% and rising - but still near historic low levels. What? You were expecting the unemployment rate to go down further to 2 or 3%? And the Iraq War didn't start until ~18 months after 9/11 - after which unemployment DID start to come down some (not necessarily implying a direct cause-effect relationship)

fbear:

It's hard to know if there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship between tax increases for the rich and job creation, but we do know that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs, because tax cuts have been associated with dramatic jumps in unemployment in the past.

Bob T:

That's too superficial an "association". There are many factors that effect the economy, with indicators that lag aswell as appear in the short term. There are overlaps, and I doubt that any serious economist will conclude that cutting taxes for the wealthy will cause unemployment to rise and that therefore we should avoid such tax cuts.

The American economy was expanding for decades before any of these people hadtheir incomes taxed, with the expanding ecomony accommodating a population that was expanding far beyond that which would come about from the usual birthrate.

fbear:

I don't know the mechanism, I'm just looking at the data.

Bob T:

I think you're looking at the data, and believing what you want to believe from that superficial information without taking the time to look into the more complicated factors of an economy, particularly one that is so distorted and micro-managed as our own.

fbear:

It could be that rich people don't put their extra money back into the economy, whereas poor and middle-class people do, so tax cuts for them actually do benefit the economy.

Bob T:

Well, unless these wealthy people you refer to put the money in a coffee can or under the mattress, they will indeed put it into the ecomony either directly or indirectly. Their money in the bank will be available to others to borrow.

As for the money of non-wealthy people, this answer is more obvious because they usually have to spend most of what they earn. Even the little that they do keep in the bank is still available as indirect benefits to the economy.

fbear:

A more pertinent question is, why should anyone be trusted who claims that tax cuts for the rich will create jobs, and tax increases for the rich will kill jobs, when there is no evidence to support that claim?

Bob T:

It stands to reason that the more you take from someone, the less he has for both direct and indirect benefits to the ecomony. The luxury tax on yachts in the early 90s is an example -- some politicians looked at plain numbers without thinking about basic economic factors such as incentives, and believed that if yachts were slapped with a huge tax that they would still be purchased. They weren't. Some wealthy and near-wealthy people decided against buying one, while others purchased them overseas and kept them in slips elsewhere. Many people employed in the yacht business lost their jobs. These are the people you claim to care so much about. But I guess it's just easier to "blame the greedy rich". Maybe it would have been better to just let them buy their yachts here w/o the luxury tax. The benefits would have been indirect compared to seeing money go right into the US Treasury, but politicians would not be able get enough credit because they could not be seen directly benefiting the yacht builders. In fact, they shouldn't get any credit, unless you're prepared to give a politicians credit for resisting the urge to tax people, or give a millionaire "farmer" like Scotty Pippin a load of money to not grow something, because he appreciates basic economics far more than any interest in advocating superficial policies that get votes but harm the economy.

Personally, I don't get go around trying to insist or prove that tax cuts or tax increases cause this or that. I want tax rates to be very low because I don't want government (state, local, national) to get that much of it. I prefer to see the rate very low (so long as we have an income tax), and then to keep it there because all of this will be far more beneficial to the economy than what the politicians will do with it. And we must keep it at a set rate so the politicians aren't screwing with it every two years. All they accomplish is to confuse people who are too prone to believe shallow demagoguery.

Bob Tiernan Portland

The unemployment rate around 9/11 was somewhere between 4.5% to 5%

Actually, in September of 2001 the unemployment rate was 5.0%.

From November, 1964 through June, 1970 the unemployment rate was at or below 5.0%, a period of nearly six years.

From July, 1950 through June, 1954, three and a half years, the unemployment rate was at or below 5.0%, going as low as 2.5% (this being a time with marginal rates as high as 90%). After going most of '54 over 5.0%, the rate dropped to that level by December, and continued below that level through October, 1957, so there was a seven year stretch with all but 10 months the unemployment rate was at or below the level of unemployment on September 11, 2001.

In September, 2001, the unemployment rate had been at or below 5.0% since May, 1997, a period of over 4 years.

It's really not as though unemployment being over 5.0% is such a big anomaly, though it's been rare under Republican Presidents since Eisenhower--the first year and a half of Nixon's first term, the first year of his second term, and the first 9 months of G. W. Bush's first term, and almost three years of Bush's second term.

Also, alcatross, the Iraq War didn't start until March of 2003 (though the buildup to it started the previous summer), but the Afghanistan War started in October, 2001, less than a month after the September 11 attacks.

Posted by: jamieee | Nov 27, 2009 5:49:06 AM

CA: Cascade Policy Institute needs a working calculator JK: Your numbers are all wrong, too.

Not only are your numbers cherry picked, when not outright manufactured (popular on this thread), but your "dirty energy" policies seem to be a generic personality characteristic, i.e. a dirty old man as well.

Taken from a xxx chat room yesterday:

boss80200: amor is perfect jaimeeeeeeeeee12: kissssssssssssss boss80200: i kiss you ass

Carla, You had a pretty good exchange going with Buckstein then you punted with obfuscation and diversion, as usual.

Taking your leap into advocating by inferring the need for higher property taxes (reversal of M5), higher (progressive)income tax brackets, and added sales tax (diversify) to fine blame for our (in part due to the erosion of the public school system) is ridiculous.

There is no question had any or all of those been in place with NO kicker as well our public school system would still be right where it is now. Controlled and operated by by hopelessly incompetnent and politicized regime who done so for decades as they adopted failed reforms and block succesful ones.

And then the progressive default bromide to contrast the oppostion as those who "would like to see government all but disappear."

Yeah there it is. The Cascade Policy Institute just wants all government gone.

Never mind the layers of excess and non sustainable continuing mission creep resulting from the progresssive pursuit of social justice and equality. And no with Climate Justice added?

I think Bob T. has brought up something that both right and left can both agree upon.

And we must keep it at a set rate so the politicians aren't screwing with it every two years.

The single way Oregon can achieve that stable rate is to transform the kicker into a rainy day fund. I think that is the one part of the tax system everyone agrees needs to change. And I hope the Legislature gets to that soon.

Lets say I run a think tank and I have an agenda. I want other more highly regarded think tanks to review an issue. Do I report on any that DON'T say what I want them to, or do I only inquire to those that I know will say what I want to hear?

"The single way Oregon can achieve that stable rate is to transform the kicker into a rainy day fund.

YES!

And regardless of what happens in Jan. with Meas. 66 & 67, if the legislature can't at least have an open public debate on that in Feb. (whether or not all members of a particular caucus want the open public debate) then it is time to throw out any legislative leader who gets in the way.

Karen Minnis restricted topics of public debate. Then along came the Public Comm. on the Legislature and openly debated (in rooms where the debates were recorded for posterity) some of the very topics that Minnis tried to stifle debate on.

If we now have any legislative leader of any party who believes the legislature can't have such an open debate because it makes members uncomfortable or whatever, what do they think they are paid a legislative salary for? To play games and tell ordinary voters that they are just supposed to be spectators? This is not pro-sports where the Blazers play another team and fans sit on the sidelines to watch.

The Oregon Constitution begins, "We the people..." NOT "They the legislative leadership...". If any legislator has a problem with that (having sworn to uphold the Constitution) they should a) let the public know that b) not file for re-election.

Enough already with the political games!

Pat Ryan:

Seems like you could be guilty of the same sins that you ascribe to fbear. When you start a paragraph with:

"It stands to reason that the more you take from someone, the less he has for both direct and indirect benefits to the ecomony"

You are already in the same faith based territory as your opponent.

Bob T:

I can't imagine how you can make that conclusion, since it's hard to argue that reducing someone's take-home pay or so-called disposible income will not reduce his ability to purchase the same amount of goods and service that he did prior to the tax increase.

Pat R:

Then we get to the heart of the matter:

"I prefer to see the rate very low (so long as we have an income tax), and then to keep it there because all of this will be far more beneficial to the economy than what the politicians will do with it."

"I think you're looking at the data, and believing what you want to believe from that superficial information without taking the time to look into the more complicated factors of an economy"

And that sums it up nicely.

Bob T:

Not really. I made it clear enough that I prefer very low rates (at most, actually), wish to leave them there, and have no interest in seeing politicians trying to make conclusions over supreficial data every three months and try to tweak things yet again. That's not having faith in an outcome so much as it's wanting to see tax rates de-politicized as much as possible.

I wil also add that I don't have to have faith in the results of the economic system I prefer, for the record is well established. The people who need faith in their economic theories are those who want to do things like, say, impose rent control and then expect to see the quality and quantity of rental units remain at the same or better.

Bob Tiernan Portland

This puts the math in perspective. Australia is the size of the US, with the population of Oregon. They are doing much more than the US on climate change. How do they pay for it? And they are WAY OVERBOARD. Look at this nonsense .

Same population, much bigger problems, yet they can publicly fund development of sheep that fart less and we can't pay for school to stay in session for a full term.

We debate it, so our legislators don't have to do it. Look at the numbers. Do that with other countries around the world. The US shows NO SIGN of being able to do any of that. That is why we should not try.

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a panda bear when I grew up. I left that dream behind. You know why? Because people can't be pandas. That is the US trying to be "environmentally responsible" or "have Euro style health care" or a transparent military, or world class education. Those are things pandas do, and we are people. We don't do those things. Never have, shouldn't now.

THEN, maybe you'll have enough money for education and such.

Thanks, JK

Now we're getting somewhere. Indeed.

history shows zero examples of standard libertarian economic theory working anywhere

I guess that depends on what you call an example. Governments have done that, but it's confounded with the scale of the question. A good example would be Britain. Protectionism worked for them, when a very libertarian anti-protectionism worked for the US (mid 19th century), because they had an empire. As soon as we decided to get one, a la TR, we went the other direction.

How about American economic expansion, from 1865 to 1890, and the way that was imitated in France, Germany and Russia, with the railroads, and how well that worked for us, and is still working for them? As I say, there's always a confounding variable, and having unlimited natural resources and expansion room helped a lot (which is why I included the continental examples).

I'm a minority, though, and don't think the way it has become formalized with Randy philosophy is necessarily gospel. I think my examples are more solid, because true libertarian economics- especially with the big L- implements those strategies in targeted areas, like the railroads. Which is where the big and little Ls part company. I don't believe for one moment that that "piece" could be "the US economy". At a macro level, big Ls like me look very much like socialists, but the devil really is in the details. State micromanagement doesn't work, which is where that bit about targeted implementations comes in.

At core I think it comes down to social and public enterprise of the citizens replacing citizen-state and municipal service models, as the operatives in "government". That, I think, is the biggest difference. There's an assumption in the history of American governance, that people can't make the right decisions. It's more teaching folks to fish rather than giving them fish handouts. That's a big role in this country, and why I take exception to libertarianism being painted as so laissez-faire. The Dutch are a good example. Definitely not libertine, but very libertarian in a way that says every person is their own monarch. Of course, that's in a system where the monarch functions narrowly within the state model. That magisterium certainly isn't laissez-faire!

Carla,

I wish you werent such a mean and spiteful witch. You come off as ignorant that way.

Zarathustra:

I think my examples are more solid, because true libertarian economics- especially with the big L- implements those strategies in targeted areas, like the railroads.

Bob T:

Well, not really. I'm assuming you're thinking of the era mainly beginning with the Lincoln Admin in which railroad companies were highly subsidized to build transcontinental and other railroad lines. That sort of thing was hardly "libertarian" economics. It was essentially state driven for Lincoln and others (then and afterwards) wanted some transportation corridors to the west coast, with a quick transport methods, in order to trigger accelerated population growth there (as well as in points in between) and to be able to send army units to the west coast as quickly as possible in the event another Pacific power (such as Tsarist Russia) had any thoughts about taking advantage of the US government being heavily diverted by the Civil War.

Once that was no longer anything to be concerned about, the quick settlement of the west was desired by the government. The railroad companies, or most of them, seem to have been formed in order to get these huge corporate welfare deals. A more market-oriented way for this to have occurred would have been for the railroads to purchase the ROWs instead of being given this land plus many square miles alongside.

The subsidized construction led to some shoddy engineering because a successful line wasn't required as much as a completed line was, in order to get the $$$$. A better example would be Hill's Great Northern line (curently used by the government's, I mean Amtrak's, Empire Builder line into Seattle from the upper midwest) which was built slowly over many years, lengthening as economic activity expanded along existing portions.

Market opponents like to point to the railroad baronsas example of so-called "capitalists" wanting to build railroads and asking the government for handouts because it could only be done that way. It's more complicated than that, and as usual the government's corporate welfare, statist model ("for the good of the whole") made things worse, both in the form of poor business models as well as exacerbating the problems with the Indian tribes due to the pumping in of far more people into the area for what it was worth.

Zarathustra:

Which is where the big and little Ls part company. I don't believe for one moment that that "piece" could be "the US economy". At a macro level, big Ls like me look very much like socialists

Bob T:

I don't know who you're referring to. Many of the (few) people who claim to be free marketers (like GW Bush) wouldn't know the free market if it had a sign on its head and bites him in the ass. What he does, and what he did, was something in its own category (and very similar to the usual crapitalism many Repubs give us). Just because they say it's free market doesn't make it so. That's why the sooner he's forgetten, the better.

There are, of course, other aspects about the 1865-1900 period of railroading in the Unites States (forget the Transcons), which indeed provide examples that have been forgotten or never understood by the market opponents. Contrary to popular opinion, there were loads of competing railroads lines and people shipping products has good choices to make, and one of the reasons the railroads started lobbying for regulations (rather than having them forced on them, as the Michael Parentis of the world want to believe) was to limit competition and to set minimum shipping rates. The consumer lost, but we're told they won. Much of this info is dry to read, and which is why people like Parenti, Zinn, Nader, and Chomsky never bother with it and rely on what some other hack says. Fortunately you can find a good analysis of this in a small book written by the pro-socialist historian Gabriel Kolko entitled "Railroads and Regulations". I have my own copy, but I believe there's one in the Mult Co library system. Kolko was honest enough to let the facts make the conclusions, and he respects facts. He did the same for other industries in his "The Triumph of Conservatism" (don't let the title fool you - he means that regulations were desired by businesses as well as politicians in order to "conserve" assorted market shares that many businesses had a hard time maintaining against competition when things were far more market-oriented than they became a few decades later -- despite what others have been saying in the history books, i.e. it was so easy to get a monopoly, oh sure).

Bob Tiernan Portland

Pat Ryan:

history shows zero examples of standard libertarian economic theory working anywhere

Bob T:

Again, we had huge economic expansion in the second half of the 19th century and well into the 20th, with low or zero tax rates. I'm waiting to hear what it is that the government does with the money it gets that makes a better economy.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob T:

I don't know who you're referring to.

That's funny. I think we're agreeing on most, but, as I read your response immediately before that, I was thinking, "that's what I meant about 'parting company' on state roles", and then you said, "I don't...".

At any rate, I think it's a fair response to Pat, taken on aggregate.

<hr/>