Despite all of the cuts-are-coming media coverage of Measure 28 in the past few weeks, opponents of the measure have offered some rational-sounding arguments. None of them outweigh the necessity of the added revenue the income tax increase would produce, but we’ll walk through them anyway.
* Oregonians are already taxed too much.
Actually, no. Oregon ranks 41st among the 50 states in state and local taxes as a percentage of income, according to the Tax Foundation, which uses federal data. At the same time, the National Conference of State Legislatures shows that Oregon ranks 8th among the 50 states in total budget gaps. Clearly, taxpayers are not paying enough to fund state services.
* Increasing income taxes isn’t a stable way to fund state government.
We agree. As the previous rankings show, our legislators need to find a new budget solution. And Oregonians should demand that from their legislators. But a quick solution is not in the offing (despite recent reports of a “secret plan” to save services); if there was some “funding pixie dust,” the Legislature had plenty of time last summer to sprinkle it on the state. Lawmakers didn’t do that because state funding is a fundamental problem that needs a long-term, comprehensive solution.
* Even though the increase is only for three years, the Legislature could find a sneaky way to make it permanent.
Yes, theoretically, Oregon lawmakers could do that. They could also find a fair, stable, balanced form of funding for state government, but given how unlikely either scenario is for our weak-willed elected officials, vote yes on 28.
* This income tax increase hits individuals harder than businesses.
This is true; the tax rate for individuals would rise to 9.5 percent from 9 percent, while the tax rate for businesses would rise to 6.93 percent from 6.6 percent. But this argument, too, calls for fundamental change.
In the late 1970s, the tax burden was nearly evenly split between individuals and businesses. According to state sources, individuals now carry nearly 70 percent of the burden. This shift was slow, although a good portion of it occurred with Measure 5’s property tax limitation in 1990 and Measure 50’s locking of property tax values and rates in 1997.
Combined, the two measures dramatically reduced the value and tax rate of business property while slightly increasing household property taxes. Shifting the burden back will depend on individual taxpayers demanding equity, but it won’t happen overnight. In the meantime, the state will hemorrhage vital services.
* Higher income taxes will further hurt a recession-damaged economy.
Actually, not funding state services will hurt all Oregonians even more. Cutting funds to help juvenile offenders will create more hardened criminals. Cutting education will make Oregon workers less able to compete for high-paying jobs. Cutting medical, housing and drug services will cost the state’s infrastructure. Cutting public safety will shift costs onto crime victims. In the short-term, Oregon needs Measure 28’s slight relief.
* Everyone could provide services for themselves if they would work harder.
This argument comes from greed and the basest parts of humanity. As civilized human beings, we need to reject this argument; however, a better reason to reject it is that it’s not true. The most vulnerable parts of Oregon’s population — our neighbors who weren’t given the equal footing to provide for themselves — will be hurt if Measure 28 fails. As a wealthy, civilized society, we have not only the means but also the rational duty to provide some basics for those people.
Measure 28 is a necessary, short-term investment in Oregon, despite the fact that it’s not perfect. Demand long-term solutions from legislators, but vote yes on Measure 28 right now.