brambleblog

Regarding OR state Rep. Richardson's "tax-for-a-tax" proposal...

Taxation applied to consumption is a more effective and fair means of producing sufficient revenues for basic public services and necessary infrastructure. One may suggest, however, that food and drinks be excluded from the broad or basic tax, and transportation fuel be included. Make this compromise before-the-fact and this measure will face less resistance from certain predictable and active constituents. In fact, flipping the food/fuel exemption gives this measure the moral/ethical high ground. Some otherwise hostile enemies may become natural allies in supporting the 'tax for a tax' measure. Prudent compromise before-the-fact is part of the strategy for ballot measure success.

Excluding food & drinks from the initial framework then gives some room for cities and municipalities to negotiate specific/acceptable revenue measures w/ local constituents (insert local beer/wine/drink/joint tax). Herein lies a chance to demonstrate tax transparency in a way that everyone can understand. If human necessities like food/water are to be taxed, let the burden fall to local application and demonstration.

The argument could be made that fuel/gasoline/diesel are also human necessities, but an impactful, successful ballot measure in this day-and-age (and in this state/region) should encourage energy independence and responsible consumption (to do otherwise is delivering lethal ammunition to your opposition - whoever and however few they may be). Besides, farmers could/would/should produce their own fuel, and cooperative structure(s) could shelter this important constituency from hypocritical application of a potential fuel surcharge. However, if it were politically necessary that fuel be excluded and left to the local tax domain along with food & drink, so be it. Again, compromise should be expected, thus reasonable contingencies prepared.

(Including fuel would more than make up for the hole left by food & drink. One necessary complication of including fuel here is voiding all other fuel taxes and surcharges at the state/municipal levels. This only makes sense if future revenues are distributed via the 'formula' prescribed by this measure.)

Wording around senior citizen exemption should be absolute and simple, i.e. all senior citizens exempt for all purchases under $5000.

Again, this 'tax-for-a-tax' idea is a good idea, and it deserves effort and careful consideration.

-- MP