View Full Version : can we lose the state income tax already???



edcrunk
05-28-2008, 10:17 PM
so we don't lose aubrey to ft. worth...

plus, how many businesses haven't located here due to that?

mmonroe
05-28-2008, 11:12 PM
A few questions, how does the state of texas get by without one.. and what is funded in the state of oklahoma by the state income tax?

soonerguru
05-28-2008, 11:27 PM
Texas is a "fee you to death" state. They get you with tags, etc. Also, the people there were in near open revolt a couple of years ago about the increase in their property tax, the tax they use in lieu of the income tax.

Yes, they still tax their citizens -- even more when you include all of the fees and taxes they impose, they just hide them.

The income tax is not impeding economic development here, despite what the Aubreys and the State Chambers of the world might say. Businesses want infrastructure and workforce quality -- and they want to be able to sell our quality of life to their employees if they are to relocate here. The state income tax isn't even in the top five or so concerns.

mmonroe
05-28-2008, 11:34 PM
What are the concerns?

PennyQuilts
05-29-2008, 05:53 AM
State income tax hits the employees, primarily they are home grown and not going anywhere just to avoid the tax. A fee based system, like Texas, hits consumption, business, etc. Seems to be working for Texas. Personally, I like a consumption based system. It doesn't seem to be slowing Texas down in terms of bringing in business but I am not prepared to debate it because I'm not really sure.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
05-29-2008, 06:11 AM
State income tax hits the employees, primarily they are home grown and not going anywhere just to avoid the tax. A fee based system, like Texas, hits consumption, business, etc. Seems to be working for Texas. Personally, I like a consumption based system. It doesn't seem to be slowing Texas down in terms of bringing in business but I am not prepared to debate it because I'm not really sure.

Same here...As far as not being sure enough to debate it anyway. I simply don't know enough. At first blush...I prefer an income tax though. Otherwise, renters are living off the backs of those responsible enough to buy a house (property taxes down there are HUGE). My mom's house in Dallas cost 60k less than mine here cost, yet her mortgage payment wasn't all that much less.

Kerry
05-29-2008, 06:28 AM
I would prefer a consumption tax. Don't be fooled by anyone that says income taxes don't drive decision where to live. The people at the top of the economic food chain care a lot about it because they have the most to lose. I know 3 high income people that live in Florida for the sole purpose of avoiding income taxes in Georgia and Kentucky.

Midtowner
05-29-2008, 08:03 AM
Same here...As far as not being sure enough to debate it anyway. I simply don't know enough. At first blush...I prefer an income tax though. Otherwise, renters are living off the backs of those responsible enough to buy a house (property taxes down there are HUGE). My mom's house in Dallas cost 60k less than mine here cost, yet her mortgage payment wasn't all that much less.

Not really... renters just pay more rent.

OKCMallen
05-29-2008, 08:06 AM
Not really... renters just pay more rent.

Exactly.

Midtowner
05-29-2008, 08:11 AM
This is really an interesting topic.

Oklahomans shouldn't bitch about their tax situation. *MAYBE* we could redo some of our corporate taxes, but we'd have to go somewhere else.

According to the Tax Foundation, who bases its statistics on The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Development, Oklahomans, on average pay 9% of their money to state and local taxes. That number puts our tax burden when it comes to state and local taxes at 45th in the country.

Add the federal taxes to that and with Oklahoma's low average income, we come in *dead last* in the country when it comes to tax burden per capita.

The Tax Foundation - State and Local Tax Burdens Compared to Other U.S. States, 1970-2007 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html)

If you do want to get the income tax, what to replace it with? Why? The government is going to have to collect the same amount of money.

If the argument is that we should be asking different people to pay a different share, a more "fair" share of the burden, great. Make that argument.

If the argument is that we're over taxed, then at least compared to other states, that's not a very easily defended proposition.

SoonerDave
05-29-2008, 09:27 AM
We may be dead last in per-capita taxation compared to other states, but aren't we also at the lower end of the per-capita income charts, too? That is, it would necessarily be harder for us to be taxed at a higher per-capita rate than a state with higher incomes that necessarily project payers into increasing tax brackets.

That is to suggest that the "lower" tax burden here probably hits more people a lot harder than the "higher" tax burden elsewhere - or, pur another way, a 9% tax on someone making $15,000 probably hurts them a lot worse than, say, a 12% tax on someone making, say, $50,000 (conjectural numbers only). I realize the example is extreme, but the point is still relevant....

Midtowner
05-29-2008, 09:38 AM
We may be dead last in per-capita taxation compared to other states, but aren't we also at the lower end of the per-capita income charts, too? That is, it would necessarily be harder for us to be taxed at a higher per-capita rate than a state with higher incomes that necessarily project payers into increasing tax brackets.

That is to suggest that the "lower" tax burden here probably hits more people a lot harder than the "higher" tax burden elsewhere - or, pur another way, a 9% tax on someone making $15,000 probably hurts them a lot worse than, say, a 12% tax on someone making, say, $50,000 (conjectural numbers only). I realize the example is extreme, but the point is still relevant....

In other words, the tax burden is apportioned to lower income-earners to a greater degree than in other states.

I'm not a big fan of "progressive" tax systems, so I'm just fine with that.

Hopefully our more even allocation of the burden can be sold to lure higher-income workers.

SoonerDave
05-29-2008, 11:34 AM
Hopefully our more even allocation of the burden can be sold to lure higher-income workers.

Be nice to have the higher-income jobs to attract them...

Markbb
05-29-2008, 12:30 PM
Florida doesn't have a income tax, tourism pays for that and I thought Oklahoma was rich with oil and natural gas, and with the lottery in place why am I still paying a school tax and have no children attending nor ever attended public school, and why are teachers asking for more money when we supposingly have all this revenue from the lottery????

OKCMallen
05-29-2008, 12:34 PM
Florida doesn't have a income tax, tourism pays for that and I thought Oklahoma was rich with oil and natural gas, and with the lottery in place why am I still paying a school tax and have no children attending nor ever attended public school, and why are teachers asking for more money when we supposingly have all this revenue from the lottery????

As though you don't benefit in any way from public schools. Give me a break.

Midtowner
05-29-2008, 12:43 PM
Florida doesn't have a income tax, tourism pays for that and I thought Oklahoma was rich with oil and natural gas, and with the lottery in place why am I still paying a school tax and have no children attending nor ever attended public school, and why are teachers asking for more money when we supposingly have all this revenue from the lottery????

I suppose the teachers are just greedy. Wanting to be compensated at about $10K less than the national average. Preposterous.

Markbb
05-29-2008, 12:43 PM
I don't know what your problem with me is since I've been posting on this site you've been ragg'n my ass, and if your gonna post a benefit name one

Midtowner
05-29-2008, 12:49 PM
I don't know what your problem with me is since I've been posting on this site you've been ragg'n my ass, and if your gonna post a benefit name one

"Ragg'n," eh?

No, I merely disagree with some of your assertions. Many of your posts have shown a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues you think you have an opinion on. I reserve the right to disagree with you, and in some cases, point out the flaws in your argument.

The word you use implies I hold some sort of animus against you. Frankly, I don't care who posts things I disagree with. If I disagree and feel like doing so publicly, I'll do it.

I do endeavor to be as agreeable as possible most of the time.

Markbb
05-29-2008, 12:51 PM
I suppose the teachers are just greedy. Wanting to be compensated at about $10K less than the national average. Preposterous. My wifes mother is a retired school teacher and most of her friends are teachers and they deserve to be equal or better then the national average, I'm just saying the lottery passed with hopefully extra income for the public schools and to my understanding to increase teachers wages so a certian percentage of the lottery goes to schools and we pay a school tax, where is all this money going? I its not going to increase wages so we can keep good teachers from leaving the state to a higher paying job....

Markbb
05-29-2008, 12:54 PM
"Ragg'n," eh?

No, I merely disagree with some of your assertions. Many of your posts have shown a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues you think you have an opinion on. I reserve the right to disagree with you, and in some cases, point out the flaws in your argument.

The word you use implies I hold some sort of animus against you. Frankly, I don't care who posts things I disagree with. If I disagree and feel like doing so publicly, I'll do it.

I do endeavor to be as agreeable as possible most of the time.Well I'm waiting for the benefits that you mentioned......

Markbb
05-29-2008, 12:56 PM
Midtowner I'm not directing the ass raggin toward you I was talken about OKCMallen

Midtowner
05-29-2008, 01:06 PM
Well I'm waiting for the benefits that you mentioned......

You don't know how you benefit from public schools? REALLY?

Did you go to one?

Lottery revenue was never targeted at raising teacher pay. I believe the intent there was for improving infrastructure and supplies.

Markbb
05-29-2008, 01:23 PM
You don't know how you benefit from public schools? REALLY?

Did you go to one?

Lottery revenue was never targeted at raising teacher pay. I believe the intent there was for improving infrastructure and supplies.Yes I went to public school in Lawton, O.k. so then that frees up the money for infrastructure and supplies monies to stay in the school system or else where...and lets not go with this pot of money does this and this pot of money does that, got that run around in the military

Oh GAWD the Smell!
05-29-2008, 01:24 PM
Not really... renters just pay more rent.

See...I don't see them paying THAT much more in Dallas. My sister lived there for several years, and wasn't paying much more down there for an equal apartment here.

But like I said...I don't know enough about the whole thing to really have a strong (or valid for that matter) opinion on it.

*shrugs*


*keeps reading thread*

Midtowner
05-29-2008, 01:40 PM
Yes I went to public school in Lawton,

Okay, so you benefited directly from the taxes paying for public education. You continue to benefit from it because literacy and basic education are crucial elements of a free society; not to mention the fact that no employer would ever seek to locate in a state which doesn't support public education.

To think that you do not benefit from public education in any way is simply ludicrous unless you think that only the well-to-do should have access to education, that literacy is no big-ass-deal, etc.


O.k. so then that frees up the money for infrastructure and supplies monies to stay in the school system or else where...and lets not go with this pot of money does this and this pot of money does that, got that run around in the military

I checked the act. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong -- the money going to primary/secondary education can be used for salary increases (but what to use it for is at the discretion of the legislature.

There isn't really enough money there to make a significant dent in teacher salaries though. Infrastructure is another story.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
05-29-2008, 01:44 PM
Okay, so you benefited directly from the taxes paying for public education. You continue to benefit from it because literacy and basic education are crucial elements of a free society; not to mention the fact that no employer would ever seek to locate in a state which doesn't support public education.

To think that you do not benefit from public education in any way is simply ludicrous unless you think that only the well-to-do should have access to education, that literacy is no big-ass-deal, etc.



Give him a break dude...He's a product of the public school system.

OKCMallen
05-29-2008, 01:53 PM
I don't know what your problem with me is since I've been posting on this site you've been ragg'n my ass, and if your gonna post a benefit name one

I don't have a problem with you at all. I usually don't even look at screen names when responding to a post. I just hit "Quote". Sorry if you think I have been on you; it was unintentional.

But you do benefit from public education regardless of whether you sent a kid there (although you already got a free education yourself thanks to taxpayers).

Markbb
05-29-2008, 01:57 PM
Give him a break dude...He's a product of the public school system.Well this is getting alittle bit outta hand, I never made no reference to not supporting publice schools, its in the name of public schools that the lottery passed....and a product of a public school remark whats that suppose to mean??? I'm just saying I went thru 12 years of public schools and my parents along with your parents paid for it and still do with a lottery in place....if the money is not going to teachers salarys where is it going too??? and don't say upgrade and upkeep....cause the school district I live in have thier students running on public streets for excersise because they don't have a track and field.....

Markbb
05-29-2008, 02:05 PM
I don't have a problem with you at all. I usually don't even look at screen names when responding to a post. I just hit "Quote". Sorry if you think I have been on you; it was unintentional.

But you do benefit from public education regardless of whether you sent a kid there (although you already got a free education yourself thanks to taxpayers).I know back in the day before the lottery taxes payed for public schools, but it looks like we're all gonna pay for rest of our lives paying taxs on a school system that we went to for 12years, and still listed in the bottem for pay on teachers salary...

Midtowner
05-29-2008, 02:07 PM
Well this is getting alittle bit outta hand, I never made no reference to not supporting publice schools, its in the name of public schools that the lottery passed....and a product of a public school remark whats that suppose to mean??? I'm just saying I went thru 12 years of public schools and my parents along with your parents paid for it and still do with a lottery in place....if the money is not going to teachers salarys where is it going too??? and don't say upgrade and upkeep....cause the school district I live in have thier students running on public streets for excersise because they don't have a track and field.....

There's so much wrong with all of this.

Mark -- you really need to research your opinion a little better. Go read the enabling legislation for the lottery. The money for the lottery was not to be used (this is in the statute) to supplant existing funds. That means, it's not supposed to do anything but raise salaries, it can't be used to pay existing salary obligations of the state.

As for my parents "paying for" public schools with the lottery in place, my folks don't play the lottery at all, nor do I. I think I purchased a lottery ticket once in Virginia, on a road trip with some of my fraternity brothers. I broke even and decided to call it quits. Many Oklahomans are like me. They see lottery tickets as a big 'ol waste of money. If I'm risking my money on an unsure thing, I'll buy shares of Devon stock.

The evidence you cite for the lack of upkeep just shows that you've never heard of a sport called "cross country." Cross country kids are the ones you see running in town. Their sport requires runners to run on trails, not a track. Hence, they practice on sidewalks, trails, etc.

At any rate, I don't know where the money is being appropriated. I'd imagine I could find out if I dug through the right legislation, but I don't have the time or inclination to do so.

If lottery money is being used to enhance teacher salaries, my wife's paycheck sure doesn't show it.

Markbb
05-29-2008, 02:21 PM
There's so much wrong with all of this.

Mark -- you really need to research your opinion a little better. Go read the enabling legislation for the lottery. The money for the lottery was not to be used (this is in the statute) to supplant existing funds. That means, it's not supposed to do anything but raise salaries, it can't be used to pay existing salary obligations of the state.

As for my parents "paying for" public schools with the lottery in place, my folks don't play the lottery at all, nor do I. I think I purchased a lottery ticket once in Virginia, on a road trip with some of my fraternity brothers. I broke even and decided to call it quits. Many Oklahomans are like me. They see lottery tickets as a big 'ol waste of money. If I'm risking my money on an unsure thing, I'll buy shares of Devon stock.

The evidence you cite for the lack of upkeep just shows that you've never heard of a sport called "cross country." Cross country kids are the ones you see running in town. Their sport requires runners to run on trails, not a track. Hence, they practice on sidewalks, trails, etc.

At any rate, I don't know where the money is being appropriated. I'd imagine I could find out if I dug through the right legislation, but I don't have the time or inclination to do so.

If lottery money is being used to enhance teacher salaries, my wife's paycheck sure doesn't show it.I don't play the lottery either or go to the casino, and maybe this lottery deal is not so cut and dry, I'm just going on what I thought it was for living in Missouri where the lottery supports public schools, I haven't been in the state for over 5 years and left S Florida, so the lottery was pretty much voted on with all the particulars before I got here, I understand what you mean about the cross country running, just never seen it before...sorry about the wifes check thing we could all use alittle more money with gas prices and all

Midtowner
05-29-2008, 02:25 PM
I don't play the lottery either or go to the casino, and maybe this lottery deal is not so cut and dry, I'm just going on what I thought it was for living in Missouri where the lottery supports public schools, I haven't been in the state for over 5 years and left S Florida, so the lottery was pretty much voted on with all the particulars before I got here, I understand what you mean about the cross country running, just never seen it before...sorry about the wifes check thing we could all use alittle more money with gas prices and all

If you read the statute, it specifically says that lottery money is used to enhance existing revenue and shall not be used to supplant it.

So to say that lottery money is supposed to fund the schools (in the sense that it was ever intended to replace the ad valorem taxes) is factually inaccurate.

blangtang
06-02-2008, 02:00 AM
anyone have a link to review/examine the state's budget? I looked but didnt find any graffs'n'charts...

from what i remember, over the past 5-10 years, the state budget was facing hardship during the dot com bust (2000-2002). <During that time frame I remember hearing that Tulsa was the second highest job loss per capita, next to San Jose.>

anyhoo, back then the state budget was in the low 5 billion range, now we're in the low 7 billion range, but apparently the state is hurting. I dont understand how a roughly 40% budget increase expenditure over the span of like 5-8 years could cause such "pain" as is being presented by the Legis and Treas. the 'rainy day fund' balance is like 500 Mil currently (but we're waiting for the 'rainy day' to come?) Also, the tax rate has been aggressively cut in the last few sessions.

I find it disingenuous when the State Regents for Higher Ed start whining about 'cuts' and jack up tuition each and every year. Same with the trans Dept.

--------
nuff o' that. its hard to argue the details with out them! More reason to keep the sheep uneducated!