Another contribution from Fred Thompson:
Previous blogs have focused on Oregon’s personal income
taxes, property taxes, the apportionment system for business income, the
weight-use-mile tax, now paid only by commercial vehicles, but under study for
personal vehicles as well, local user fees, and the lack of a sales tax, all of
which make Oregon weird and semi-wonderful.
Most people who pay attention to tax matters know that
Oregon’s tax eccentricities have given it the nation’s most progressive state
and local revenue system and one of its more expansive, that Oregon’s economic
growth over the past fifteen years has outstripped the nation by a wide margin,
and that its overall tax/fee burden over the same period has been relatively
restrained. It is less commonly known that the administrative costs of our tax
system are also among the lowest per-dollar-collected in the county, but that
is also true, as is that fact that more of our state and local tax payments are
offset by the IRS than in any other state. This post will note a couple of our
fiscal idiosyncrasies, which aren’t so well known, but which probably deserve
greater attention than they get.
Our estate tax generates approximately $200 million each
biennium, approximately 1.4 percent of General Fund revenues. It is tied to the
federal estate tax and levied on the net assets (all real and tangible property
in Oregon plus stocks, bonds, business interests, retirement plans, IRAs, etc.
regardless of their location) of deceased Oregonians
(residents) in excess of $1 million (the feds exclude $3.5 million). The state
rate is progressive and tops out at 16 percent. We also have an inheritance
tax, which is levied on the real/tangible property located in Oregon formerly
owned by deceased non-residents. It
doesn’t generate much revenue (less than $40 million per biennium). In both
cases, it is suspected that the tax gap (the difference between legal
liabilities and actual payments) is quite large, but at present we have no way
of knowing this for sure.
The estate tax is one of the most progressive aspects of our
tax system. If we are serious about this tax, we must make an effort to
understand it better, perhaps in cooperation with the handful of other states
that collect this tax.
At the other extreme, Oregon’s most regressive and discriminatory
tax by far is state-sponsored gambling. We know that most of the state
government’s gaming revenue (more than $1 billion in the 2015-17 budget cycle)
comes from about 100,000 or so problem gamblers. While there is relatively little
Oregon-specific information on the identity of these folks, evidence from
elsewhere suggests that they are disproportionately poor and ill educated. It
is also the case that it costs the state almost as much to collect this revenue
(not including the payout to winners) as the state nets, which is damn
inefficient.
No comments:
Post a Comment