Because, you know, government never has enough of your money, Oregon gov. Retread's planning a renewed push for something we've voted down some nine times already.
Most of the state’s revenue comes from one source: personal income tax. “(The problem with) being so reliant on the income tax is it tends to exaggerate economic trends," said Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who chairs the Senate Revenue Committee.
Well, if Ginny's behind it (the same Burdick whose surname has become synonymous with "liar", the same one who pushes gun-grabbing legislation every chance she gets, the same one who last year tried to run through tougher legislation on drivers because she feels that they impede her on her commutes between Porkland and Salem), then you know it's got to be DOA.
Retread and others believe that we need a three-legged stool" tax structure that must, therefore, include a consumption tax. They argue that dependence upon income and property taxes reduces government income during recessions, which is the very time that demand for social services rises. What they ignore is the fact that states with consumption taxes fared no better than states without such taxes during economic downturns.
The most plausible reason for Governor Kitzhaber's thirst for a sales tax is to give the state and local governments more money to spend by taking more money from taxpayers. If you feel inferior to the government in how wisely you can spend your money, then you can advocate for a sales tax or, failing that, simply send checks or cash to your favorite government.
Retread and his pals also gloss over the fact that, aside from income and property taxes, government steals from you in almost innumerable ways: permits, fees, fines, levies, special taxes on fuels, alcohol, tobacco, and more. At our former home, where I'd managed property behind the house with an eye toward habitat enhancement for over a decade, Porkland's Bureau of Environmental Services took it upon themselves to slap an "environmental overlay" on my back yard; declaring it "sensitive habitat", sending a couple of hundred pages of dead tree decreeing what I now could and could not do on "my" property:
No non-native plants within 50 feet of the stream at the back of the property (I'd removed invasive blackberry, planted ferns and Oregon grape - but suddenly my horseradish and carrots were illegal).
City employees may access "my" property at any time, without notice.
Any modifications to the structure (home) require the submission to BES of architectural renderings and a $1200 nonrefundable fee. Following receipt, BES will analyze the proposal (and decide whether or not to "allow" you to pay to carry it out).
This latter "requirement" was especially annoying, as they believed that they could charge $1200 and force me to pay for professional renderings in order to replace the rotting deck on the back of my house. Actually, it was the final straw: I took out the old elevated deck and replaced it with a new elevated deck and stairs, redwood beauty. And I did it without paying them their nonrefundable fee, without providing architectural renderings, and then I peddled the place.
Yeah, they really need more money.
