Taxation: Archives
Bob Clark wants to give an incentive package to everyone by ending the state income tax.Interested in the FairTax? See the Oklahoma Coordinators from Americans for Fair Taxation.
The Oklahoman says tax-spenders miss the point of tax cuts.
The Oklahoman thinks the OK Senate's refusal to consider tax cuts after a BILLION in overtaxation is a reason for a taxpayer bill of rights. And Howard Wilson thinks that politicians who can't get the job done in time should move out of the way.
...Dr. Pjesky explains why an income tax cut would be good for Oklahoma.
'Live Free or Move': Jobs are flocking to low-tax states for a reason.
...Speaking of loopholes, former Rep. Istook explains why Oklahoma has the cheapest cigarettes in the nation, even after a new tax was approved: story at OKInsider.
Is Oklahoma's Death Tax unfair?
Bob O'Bar says in the Edmond Sun that "we must eliminate IRS as we know it today" and move to a FairTax.
Richard Prawdzienski, former Libertarian Party state chairman, say the government should use current funds to pay for the enhanced 911 service rather than asking for more money in a Journal Record article.
Clark Duffe and Richard Prawdzienski oppose additional cell phone taxes in a
Wireless 911 plan riddled with faults says Clark Duffe in the Edmond Sun.
If you build it they will come...Gov. Henry tries to stymie runaway tax credits. One more reason for a FairTax system, without all the special interest exemptions.
41% of Americans pay no federal income tax.
The Oklahoman does not think groceries will end soon as some cities depend on these taxes.
Tom Elmore, of the North American Transportation Institute, thinks tag and registration fees could be used for road and highway repair. Letter in the Ardmorite.
Real user fees, instead of subsidizing the trucking industry
Tom Elmore's repsonse to Michael Bates (www.batesline.com) analysis of Rep. Liotta's bill:"It's time somebody stood up for roads and bridges," says Rep. Liotta, head of the House Transportation budget subcommittee. Is that the same as standing up for fair treatment of the owners of those roads and bridges, the state's beleaguered taxpayers? Apparently not.
As Will Rogers said, the first step to getting out of a hole is to "stop digging." Representative Liotta's "plan" is manifestly more of the same old highway lobby-inspired stuff that got us into the current hole in the first place, forcing people whose vehicles don't appreciably damage public roads to foot more of the bill inflicted by the chief damagers, big commercial trucks. An outfit calling itself "T.R.U.S.T.," or "Transportation Revenues Used Strictly for Transportation" is the real source of this deal, and ODOT head Gary Ridley was apparently one of their lobbyists. Who are they? Pretty much the same bunch who tried to sell us SQ 723 last year but who would have settled for capturing more of our tag and registration fees in previous years. It doesn't really matter to them which one of the taxpayers' pockets the money is stolen from, just as long as their trucking industry associates don't have to pay their fair share.
What sense does it make that taxpayers could ever -- ever -- afford to catch up with real roadway maintenance needs when the chief, rapidly growing source of highway and bridge damage is never called on by elected leaders to pay anything like its fair share for upkeep? What sense does it make that taxpayers would find this all to be "OK" -- if they really understood it? Is it the job of elected officials to enlighten their constituents -- or darken their way with deliberate double-talk?
A standard semi-trailer truck operating at its maximum legal weight inflicts pavement damage equivalent to 9,600 automobiles; yet, in Oklahoma, that truck has paid 3 cents less state "fuel tax" than the auto pays since 1988, and it's well-known among Liotta and his colleagues that a penny of diesel "tax" produces only one-third the revenue brought by a penny of gasoline "tax."
The word "tax" is in quotes -- because pretending road-use fees are tantamount to arbitrary taxation is part of the boldly demagogic game legislators have played for years. Plainly that hasn't changed. The "Republican House" is no better than the "Democratic House" was. An indispensible key to proper roadway managment is determining what each vehicle using those roads now pays versus what it should be paying -- and then making reforms guaranteeing accurate cost retrieval and treating those receipts as what they are: user fees. The Democrats never did it. The Republicans aren't doing it now. In short, they're just as much in the pockets of the special interests who've carefully cultivated these troubles for their own profit for years as the Dems were, but they're arguably uglier, stinkier hypocrites because of all their insufferably righteous talk.
"Liotta's plan" phases in another 15% incursion into tag and registration fee receipts for road repair. Liotta knows tag and registration receipts are levied in lieu of property taxation. He knows these moneys were never designed for road upkeep, offering no hope of cost retrieval in proportion to damage done by each class of vehicle. He knows trucking, which at least pays 22% of fuel taxes, pays only about 8.5% of yearly state tag and registration fee receipts. He surely understands that using these dollars to fund road maintenance actually forces the public to pay a larger share of the costs of truck-inflicted highway damage, rewarding trucking's bad practices by freeing it from a larger part of its cost responsibility -- and absolutely guaranteeing that truck lines will use money they should have had to pay for road use to buy more trucks, bringing more traffic and more damage next year than in previous years.
Two things are needed to ensure better roads: Accurate cost retrieval from all users and the enforcement capability to make it stick. Liotta's plan contemplates neither. The "Liotta Plan" like the infamous "billion dollar highway bill" that preceeded it, will make the state highway system worse. It cannot do anything else. Of course, that's precisely what the highway contractors and their sock-puppets at ODOT are counting on. TOM ELMORE
Executive Director, North American Transportation Institute
Republican Chair, Cleveland County Precinct 22
Make truckers pay
Letter to the Editor, The Oklahoman 5/28/06The mantra that we need more funding for our roads always amazes me. I notice how many more trucks there are on the road in correlation to how much more money we need for the roads. Registration fees have always been considered a type of property tax, not road use fees. It's being reported how that money is subverted to a general fund in order to move this agenda. Fuel taxes are used as road use fees. However, it takes 9,600 automobiles to subsidize one truck and when there aren't enough cars on the road to subsidize them, our roads crumble. It's time the truckers pay what they're supposed to. Government needs to get out of the job of subsidizing other industries in order to have an unfair advantage over another.
Richard Robinson,
Oklahoma City
Tax cut foes miss the point
The Oklahoman Editorial 4/28/06http://newsok.com/article/1828547/
Our friends at the Alliance for Oklahoma's Future don't want to cut state income taxes. Understood. The group is composed of people who consume tax money, such as teachers and school administrators.
Our friends at the Community Action Project (CAP) in Tulsa, which is affiliated with the alliance, are playing the class warfare card in opposing Senate Bill 2022. Understood. The bill would cut taxes for the wealthiest Oklahomans. CAP is an advocate for the poorest Oklahomans and has no especial concern for growing the economy.
We share the alliance's desire to invest surplus revenues in, as a spokesman puts it, "areas where Oklahoma still lags behind." We share CAP's concern that Oklahoma's personal income tax system puts too much of a burden on lower-income citizens.
Where we depart from the alliance is in the nature of the investment. Investment in the future should include structuring a tax environment that attracts and retains people who create jobs and build the economy. Tax cuts for the wealthy? One doesn't have to be wealthy to pay the top income tax rate in Oklahoma. CAP, drawing on an analysis from the liberal-leaning Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, says SB 2022 would disproportionately benefit "the wealthy." That's the point!
Those who pay the most taxes obviously would get more benefit from a tax cut. They would get even more of a benefit by moving to Texas, which has no personal income tax.
Should we encourage them to make that move or should we take a small step this year to make Oklahoma more attractive to entrepreneurs? The alliance and CAP apparently would have them move. We'd like to keep them.
If Texas gets too many of our best teachers because the pay is better, it follows that Texas will get more of our successful people because it rewards their success rather than envying it and overtaxing it.
Sen. Pruitt seeks to lower OK income tax rate to 4.9% with SB 2022
"As I've said before, this $480 million will go right back into our economy, whether people save, spend or invest it," Pruitt said. "That's going to help existing businesses grow and attract new ones, ultimately creating a larger tax base that will help us invest even more in education, public safety, transportation, and in other areas as well."State Senator Scott Pruitt, speaking about his current tax cut bill, April 10, 2006
Read more at OK Insider
Income tax exemption plan rejected by Senate committee
Paul MoniesThe Oklahoman 4/5/06
http://newsok.com/article/1807251/
Calling it unfair to current Oklahoma residents, a Senate committee killed a bill Tuesday that would have given a five-year income tax exemption for out-of-state residents who move into rural areas.
State Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant, said House Bill 3126 would not create jobs in rural areas and called it "patently unfair."
"This is not going to create a single job in rural Oklahoma," said Gumm, chairman of the Senate Finance committee. "The jobs have to come first." The bill was the centerpiece of a package of rural economic development initiatives backed by House Speaker Todd Hiett, R-Kellyville, and a handful of House Democrats.
During committee debate, Gumm said he was worried the bill could help managers and executives of companies relocating into the state at the expense of workers who were hired locally.
"A budget and taxes say what we value," Gumm said. "Why should a plant manager brought in from elsewhere with a six-figure salary be exempt from income taxes and the workers aren't?"
Under the bill, newcomers to Oklahoma who buy or build single-family homes in 48 rural counties and more than 40 cities that have lost population would be eligible for the income tax break. They would have to live in the areas at least six months each year.
The measure was expected to cost $4 million in the first year and $12 million by 2008.
Sen. Ron Justice, R-Chickasha, said the loss in state revenue would have been replaced by the sales and property taxes of new residents.
Hiett said later that legislators need to provide rural areas with every incentive possible to grow their communities.
"The number one problem we've had in the rural areas of the state is a loss of population," said Hiett, who is running for lieutenant governor. "We traveled the state last year, and that was something we heard across the state. "We're looking to attract people to our state that have capital to invest and are willing to create jobs."
Last week, Hiett accused Senate Democrats of stalling on rural economic legislation. After hearing almost a dozen of the rural development bills Tuesday, Gumm joked that the Senate Finance committee wasn't as bad as Hiett thought.
"I'm apparently not as horrible as the speaker would like to say," Gumm said. The finance committee sent nine other rural development proposals to the Senate floor, including:
HB 2763, which provides tax credits for venture capital investments in agricultural-related businesses such as flour milling or cheese manufacturing. HB 2810, the Oklahoma Refinery Revitalization Act, which streamlines the permitting process for prospective oil refineries in the state. HB 2822, which would speed up the permitting process for heavy trucks on rural roads.
Hiett said he will continue to push for all the rural development bills, including those killed by Senate committees.
"Rural economic development is too far behind," he said.
"We can't waste another year. We need to move quickly and I will be pushing until the end of the session to find a place for that legislation.”
Tax relief rains on many Americans
Oklahoman Editorial 4/5/06DEADLINE for filing 2005 federal and state income tax returns is now less than two weeks away. For a surprisingly large number of Americans and Oklahomans, deadline day is of little consequence because they pay no federal income tax. The Tax Foundation says an estimated 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. This doesn't include the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return. Thus, about 121 million Americans or 41 percent of the population will be outside the federal income tax system come April 17, this year's filing deadline.
The 41 percent figure includes those who pay no tax and those who are refunded the full amount of whatever tax they paid into the system. About 66 percent of returns filed in the "head of household" category are nonpayers; by contrast, just 22 percent of married filers are nonpayers.
The economic well-being of the states is in part reflected in the number of citizens who pay no federal income taxes. The poorest states, including Oklahoma, rank high in the number of citizens who owe no money to Uncle Sam. Oklahoma's rank is 8, with an estimated 36 percent of returns in the zero or negative tax liability column. Mississippi is ranked No. 1.
As we've noted before, Oklahoma's state income tax is a different matter. Even households with relatively low income will pay something. Oklahoma's 2005 tax payment "threshold" for a two-parent family of four is $17,200, making the state the 14th worst in the nation in this regard. A family of four with a household income at the federal poverty line can expect to pay $162 in state income taxes. With 41 percent of the U.S. population not paying any federal taxes, the other 59 percent must shoulder the burden. If the size of that burden hasn't been revealed to you yet, it will be sometime in the next 12 days.
Oklahoman Editorial 3/21/06: No freer lunch: Food levy likely to stay
Another legislative session. Another attempt to stop taxing grocery sales. Another year ahead in which food will continue to be fully taxed.Like the weather, the sales tax on groceries in Oklahoma is frequently discussed but nobody does anything about it. State Rep. Thad Balkman tried to do something, but his bill to cut the tax to a token amount didn't get enough traction.
The state sales tax on groceries is a reliable and hefty source of revenue. The local sales tax on groceries is a vital and irreplaceable source of revenue.
Balkman, R-Norman, wanted to draw down the state sales tax on groceries to .25 percent from the current 4.5 percent. His bill would have done so gradually, with the final rate not in effect until 2011. Cities can't tax items that the state doesn't tax. The token .25 percent would have preserved the ability of municipalities to continue taxing groceries at whatever rate their citizens choose.
The grocery tax in Oklahoma, which is typically 7.5 percent or more (state and local combined), comes as a shock to people who move here from one of the 34 states that exempt groceries from sales taxes. The Federation of Tax Administrators says five other states tax groceries at a lower rate than other goods. And four states are in the process of reducing (but not eliminating) the sales tax on food.
Balkman's plan to all but end the state sales tax on groceries is expensive but doable. Cities, though, can't stop taxing groceries because they depend so heavily on the sales tax. Some locales rely almost entirely on taxes assessed on grocery sales.
Until that changes, don't expect the grocery sales tax to go away. The state's share might someday vanish, but no end is in sight for the grocery sales tax itself.