Individuals and businesses in Oregon would not automatically receive some tax breaks proposed in the federal economic-recovery plan under a bill pending in the House Revenue Committee.
Proponents say the temporary suspension of the connection between state and federal tax codes will enable lawmakers to weigh the effects that those federal tax breaks may have on state tax collections in the next two years.
Temporary? There's nothing temporary about it. Oregon already disallows, and has for years, some of the deductions that apply to your federal return. And all levels of government are involved in the same sort of scam.
Prior to 1986, when RINO Senator Bob Packwood decided to "put more money in your jeans" (a lie of truly historic proportions), federal income tax law was actually somewhat fair: If you earned, say, $30,000 but over the course of the year paid, say, $400 in federal gasoline taxes, you could deduct that amount from your total income. After all, if you have $40 of income but you pay out $1 in the form of a tax, you really only have $39.
Bob and his pals changed all that, in the name of "simplification".
Now, you still pay the tax, but that dollar isn't deductible from income. As far as the feds are concerned, that $39 in your pocket is really still $40. It's income, and you get taxed again.
This is one reason why we need education reform in this country. People actually fall for such "simplification" ruses.
Politicians at all levels decry the fact that Americans just don't save as much as they should. But who's to blame? The politicians themselves. Prior to 1986, interest earned on savings accounts wasn't taxed unless it was withdrawn and thus became "income". Bob and his pals changed that, too. Today, if you have $100 in a savings account and you earn 1% interest, you get taxed on that 1%. Let it ride for a year, and you get taxed on the next 1%. What this means is that there is no incentive for Americans to place money into savings accounts. You'll probably do at least as well (if not better) by placing any spare cash under your mattress.
Such policies surely "simplify" things - they allow the government to tax as "income" money that you don't have.
And now your Democrats in Salem want to further that disconnect.
Thanks for the article, Maxter.
Few people know or remember the stake that was driven into the back of "flat-tax" promoter Al Ullman back in the '70's.
"Now, if we were to ask that same question to a former Member of this
House, a former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Al Ullman,
his answer would be "no," because if there is one thing that brought his
defeat, it was his sponsorship of VAT. When he went home to face the
electorate, they said with loud voices, "We don't want VAT." http://tinyurl.com/dk9v6l
And make no mistake, most of the principles of Democrat Ullman were redistributionist. Just check out the policy differences between Ullman and President Ford in 1975.
http://tinyurl.com/daof24
What did Ullman advocate? "There ought to be quotas, a gas tax, a 90-day delay on the import fee." Same old same old. Ford wanted to spur domestic production. Ullman wanted quotas and taxes. Hmm. Sound familiar?
I only point these things out since I must admit that I am beginning to be a believer in a flat-tax approach.
But what would happen to those poor lobbyists who would no longer have reason to lobby congressmen to pass breaks for their particular group or industry? And how long before congress began passing exemptions to a flat-tax?
For good, sound economic reasons, of course.
.
Posted by: OregonGuy | February 03, 2009 at 12:51 PM
OG, I'm inclined to favor a flat tax as well - which almost certainly means that the approach is doomed. Ullman's VAT was an incredibly stupid idea, as the U.K. has more than adequately demonstrated.
That said, our present course seems no less likely decimate commerce.
Posted by: Max | February 03, 2009 at 04:00 PM
Gee, who signed Bob Packwood's tax bill in 1986? Wasn't it St. Ronald?
Posted by: FreedomOfSpeech | February 03, 2009 at 06:53 PM
I remember seeing union guys wearing buttons that stated that "Ronald Reagan Is A Union-Busting Son Of A Bitch!"
That was right after he fired all of the air-traffic controllers who had illegally walked off the job.
He made good decisions, and a few bad ones along the way (like signing the Packwood bill).
In other words, he was human.
You, of course, are too busy flinging spittle and venom.
I have to wonder whatever rationale you had for deciding to use the moniker "Freedom of Speech"? It's apparent that you don't seem to believe in the concept.
It's really sad that with Obama in office, you have to really search for somebody to hate. Maybe you should hook up with a kindred spirit over at Bogdanski's place.
You can get together and gripe about how Palin lied about her pregnancy just like Chimpy lied about Iraq. If that doesn't fill your hatred quota, you can get each other off while griping about Rush.
Posted by: Max | February 03, 2009 at 07:55 PM
Interesting, Max, that because I disagree with you that you think I don't agree with the concept of freedom of speech.
And pointing out uncomfortable facts is viewed as "flinging spittle and venom."
How about this fact: The national debt grew at a faster rate during Reagan's Presidency than during any other administration, and that in the two years after the tax cuts he pushed through in 1981 we had unemployment of 9.7% and 9.6%. If tax cuts for the rich boost the economy, why didn't it work in 1982 and 1983?
Posted by: FreedomOfSpeech | February 04, 2009 at 07:23 AM
FoS - not due to your disagreement at all. I've just been looking at the content.
It's not that you point out facts - in some cases you do - that results in my characterization of many of your comments as flinging spittle and venom. It's when you type things such as "Actually, the G.O.P. would be smart to stop listening to the proven liar and drug addict."
In the first place, liberal folks who characterise Limbaugh and Bush and others as "proven liars" are merely engaged in flinging spittle and venom. "Bush Lied, people died" was a great chant, but of course was as completely erroneous as the constant claims that he "stole the election".
On tax cuts: I'm by no means rich, but they helped me. So let's put away the golden mantra of "tax cuts for the rich". It just makes you look silly.
You seem to overlook the fact that effects take time. Your "he pushed through tax cuts for the rich yesterday; why isn't the economy better today" approach is sophomoric. By the time Clinton moved into the office, the economy was heading in a purely positive direction. Clinton had nothing to do with that; all he had to do was not (pardon) blow it.
Posted by: Max | February 04, 2009 at 04:34 PM
Oh, right, Max, you NEVER use harsh language in discussing the other side. Calling Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. "addled" is so FRIENDLY!
And, come on, Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin problem is well documented, as is his propensity for fabrication.
If economic effects take time, why is it that the Republicans are saying that Obama has six months to turn around the economy?
The thing about Clinton's economy isn't that it turned things around, it's that it never got bad in eight years, and unemployment dropped EVERY YEAR.
Posted by: FreedomOfSpeech | February 05, 2009 at 07:52 AM
Yes, inflation was worse under Carter than Reagan, and the Dow did better under Reagan, but most other economic measures were better under Carter than Reagan's first term:
Increase in real Median Income:
Carter: +3.6%
Reagan: +0.9%
Average unemployment:
Carter: 6.5%
Reagan: 8.6%
Increase in real GDP:
Carter: +13.7%
Reagan: +12.6
Average yearly increase in national debt:
Carter: 9.2%
Reagan: 15.7%
Posted by: FreedomOfSpeech | February 05, 2009 at 07:23 PM