Many of the items that I've read from taxpayers defending the kicker are demands that the state return "their" money. I simply do not understand this thinking. Oregon's income tax rate is 9% (ignoring that this is a marginal tax rate, so no one actually pays anywhere near this rate). That fraction represents our "fair share" -- the cost of providing the services that we, as Oregonians, have demanded over the years, and the dues we pay for not having to live in, say, Alabama or Uzbekistan. Why should anyone expect his "fair share" to go down just because more people paid taxes than expected, or because corporations made more taxable profits than usual? My share is 9% of my income. Your share is 9% of your income. The expectation that your share should somehow be reduced simply because someone else paid more than expected is nothing but personal greed.
Oregon is now gaining about 40,000 new residents each year. If we were to get 50,000 new residents this year, and those 10,000 unexpected immigrants begin paying income taxes, that would raise revenue above projections. However, Oregon still has the responsibility to provide roads, schools, driver's licenses, and police protection for those 10,000 people. It is unreasonable for taxpayers to demand that the taxes from those 10,000 new residents be paid back to them, while still expecting the state to provide services for those new residents.
The American Red Cross got a huge influx of money in 2005, much more than they budgeted at the beginning of the year. Should we demand that they return that money to donors because revenue exceeded their budget? No, of course not. They need that money to pay for services provided during the recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, among other things. And yet, this is exactly what we ask of the State of Oregon.
When a family gets an unexpected windfall above and beyond their expected income, such as an inheritance, or a lottery win, or a juicy raise at work, do we ask them to return money to everyone who paid them? No, of course not. We expect them to invest that windfall in some kind of a savings account, to compensate for the eventual "rainy day", when their income does not cover their expenses. And yet, the "kicker" law prevents the State of Oregon from implementing that kind of common sense savings strategy.
When revenues fall below estimates, we all expect the state to come up with the money to provide the services we demand. And yet, because of the kicker law, we refuse to allow the state to tuck away any unexpected windfall in an account to cover the inevitable downturn.
It has been said that a democracy can only last until its citizens realize that they can vote to write themselves checks from the public treasury. With both Measure 37 and the debate over the kicker law, we're now seeing this kind of thinking permeate Oregon's voters. Don't let greed become the primary driving force in Oregon. Do the right thing -- eliminate the kicker.
(Submitted to The Oregonian, March 13)
