Eliminate income taxes over 10 years?

[erfalf]

Give the small towners a break. From their point of view it seems that they get very little from the state. Yes they build a road once every 10 years. Plus most are from a generation of self-sustainers. It's what they know.

Another poster mentioned some website touting how this would hurt farmers. It mentioned that they would no longer get the tax credits/deductions anymore. Uh, they won't be paying any income taxes. Did I miss something. The arguments were a little week in my opinion. I don't think anyone here thinks that government (state or local) will just not need as much money as it used to. This change would just change the organizational structure. Possibly make it more local. Which is a good thing.

Small town schools will suffer the most from dropping the state income tax and making tax collections more localized. They don't have the resources on their own to support a school system in every single little town. Some don't as it is and have been shutting down already. Of course, that's not to say that I think there are some gigantic efficiency's that need to be made. This idea would be terrible for one of my relatives employers, but district consolidation in rural areas I think has to happen. Each district as it is has a superintendent (duh). My old district services give or take no more than 200 students (in the whole district, shocking I know). The budget for the sup costs the district roughly 10% of their budget. That is insane! In that county in particular there are three other districts with high paid administrators that only service roughly 800 students. In the whole county. Could one administrator not service them all. Heck they could even keep all the schools open, to keep transportation costs low. Sharing specialty teachers would give added value. Hell, let them keep independent in sports as well. I just think it is ridiculous that they have this overwhelming administrative costs at such a small school.

Ok, rant over.

[AquaMan]

I just can't wait for more "logical" local control over taxes that are going to be primarily property based. The sales tax will still be collected by the state and redistributed back to the city. New licensing fees will proliferate and old ones escalate and of course we can expect stronger enforcement efforts. We may need to set up surprise dog license inspections at the local doggie parks!

You have to have more faith in the system than locally elected officials have given me to feel good about that. Ever heard of a property tax going down when the value of the property declines unless you protested them? Doesn't happen often unless the neighborhood has just declined to the extent that landlords are the predominant owners.

But hey, wealthy folks will pay less income tax and of course reinvest those savings into the state, right? New businesses will flood into our state looking for our well educated, well adjusted, healthy labor force that they keep reading about in the rankings on the internet. Its all good.

[TheArtist]

"The sales tax will still be collected by the state and redistributed back to the city."


See now, imo that can't continue to fly.  The conservative mantra is "as little government as possible, and what government there is should be as local as possible".   So as part of the "lessening of taxes" at the state level, there should be an equal amount of "lessening of government" at the state level.  It should be part and parcel of the further Republican/conservative shrinking government, or getting rid of governmet intrusion, goal that they don't continue to have all that government there collecting those taxes.  We have to push the conservatives to be accountable to and eventually fulfill all their ideals.  Thats what they campaigned on and promised, and what they were voted into office to do.   THEN, IF the citizens at the local level decide to tax themselves, by whatever means they choose, they should also be the ones responsible for seeing that it is collected and spent wisely on the projects they want.  

Why should we be paying for jobs in OKC (those "middle men" who collect and redistribute our tax dollars) when we can be paying for those jobs to be in Tulsa, if we so choose?

[AquaMan]

The same reason a dog licks his balls, because they can.

I think the conservative legislators in OKC are already at their limits Artist. They wouldn't know how to effect a change to local taxation, local collections and local budgets. Tulsa may not have that expertise either. If held to their convictions they would soon realize that their "phoney baloney" jobs would no longer be funded by the cities. Strengthening county governments might also be a solution though certainly no more popular.

[sauerkraut]

As far as I know every state with high taxes, regulations, has a poor economy and high unemployment. I grew up in Michigan a state controled by democrats for decades, the prop. taxes in the (Warren Michigan) Centerline school district are $3,000.00 for a $100,000 house. Michigan has cities like Detroit & Grand Rapids with a city income tax- That's  on top of the state income tax. Michigan is bleeding away jobs, and residents. If democrat policys worked, why then does Michigan have no jobs and 15% unemployment? The democrats ran that state. In Ohio just about every city in that state  has a city income tax on top of the state income tax, in Columbus, Ohio where I lived we had a 2% city income tax, and it gets better some school districts in Ohio have a school income tax like Canel Winchester & Renyoldsburg suburbs of Columbus, Ohio. If you lived in Canel Winchester, Ohio you'd have to pay & file taxes for the federal gov 't, state gov't, the city gov't and the school district. Any wonder the economy is poor? I don't know of any high taxed state that is booming with a strong economy and lots of jobs. Mary Fallin is on the right path for a booming and strong Oklahoma.

[Townsend]

As far as I know

You can stop there.  Your argument is invalid.

[AquaMan]

   Townie that's twice in this thread that you've made me smile. The other was "We can't even choose the right loser". Classic stuff.

Sauer, I used to think people from the upper midwest and northeast were smarter than us Okies. I want to thank you and my brother-in-law for dispelling that.

[Red Arrow]

  Townie that's twice in this thread that you've made me smile. The other was "We can't even choose the right loser". Classic stuff.

Sauer, I used to think people from the upper midwest and northeast were smarter than us Okies. I want to thank you and my brother-in-law for dispelling that.

There are some stupid people in the world but, politics aside, a formal education is frequently mistaken for intelligence.

[heironymouspasparagus]

A growing economy will bring in more money NOT less money to the state and tax cuts work to attract business and jobs. It's simple economics 101.. Cutting state fat & waste is a good idea too, but Mary Fallin will have to plan for the times inbetween before her plan is running at full bore. Mary Fallin has Oklahoma running like a well oiled machine as it is, we have some the lowest unemployment rates in the nation and low gas taxes and a low cost of living. The state's unemployment has tumbled ever since she came to power.

You really haven't learned anything in the last 30 years, have you?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not so fast, Nevada has a one industry economy, gambling/tourists- when people can't afford to vacation because of Obama's economy  and Obama's high gas prices it hurts Nevada -income tax or not. Tennessee has no income tax BUT they do tax Intrest & investment income at 6% so Tennessee chokes investments. Let's look at South Dakota with no income tax and low unemployment and cheap cost of living, that state is doing good with one of the lowest unemployment rates around. Florida has no income tax but the make up of the state is retired people and the major industry is tourism, and like in Nevada when the economy is bad people can't afford a vacation in Florida and that hurts hotels, and it ripples thru the state's economy. Then you can look at the economy of high taxed states like Michigan, Ohio, and California, things are very grim there. Michigan's housing is really down big time as is the case in all high taxed states.

Always an excuse of some sort.  Probably the attitude that goes with no income tax that causes lots of other problems.  Regressive thought process.

[heironymouspasparagus]

 
Yes, all the states who do not have income tax do have higher property taxes, and I agree that that may be a likelihood here.  But A.  That tax is can be controlled locally, aka here in Tulsa and not OKC.  B.  It doesn't mean that the property tax has to be AS high as in some of those other states. The over all tax burden doesn't HAVE to be higher than what we have now. 

Maybe not total burden higher, but the portion born by property owners would be much higher.  About 1/3 of our state budget - $2.4 billion is from income tax.  That will have to be made up somewhere.  And since on average, only about 65% of people own their homes, that means homeowners will bear the brunt of the increase.  So 1/3 less people would be paying the extra 1/3 of the state budget.

And if we think roads are bad NOW, just wait until we cut 1/3 from the state income.

But reality just doesn't intrude into Oklahoma thought very much.  Look who won the primary.  Gotta be proud!

[Red Arrow]

And since on average, only about 65% of people own their homes, that means homeowners will bear the brunt of the increase.  So 1/3 less people would be paying the extra 1/3 of the state budget.

If I owned rental property, the property tax would be part of the rental rate.  It's a good thing for renters that I don't own rental property or their rates would go up.

[Gaspar]

Maybe not total burden higher, but the portion born by property owners would be much higher.  About 1/3 of our state budget - $2.4 billion is from income tax. 

Trickles down.  The burden would land on the renter with far more impact.

I did own rental property for years.  I had condos off 27th.  Each year we adjusted rental prices based on taxes and any changes in maintenance dues.  That's what everyone who rents property does.  The purpose of renting property is to make a profit, and an increase in taxes is the most justified reason for increasing rent.  Your renters can't argue with you about it, because you can show them the increase.  

That's not to say that a few of them will try to argue with you, and call you "unfair."  We have a country filled with those people and that population in growing.  We were successful in selecting good renters, and most shared in our understanding of how property tax effects rental rates.

[Townsend]

That's not to say that a few of them will try to argue with you, and call you "unfair."  We have a country filled with those people and that population in growing.  

The anti-tax people?  That's what I hear.

[Townsend]

Okla. House ponders Fallin income tax plan

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Okla-House-ponders-Fallin-income-tax-plan/FoS_QtFAmkWNYD5Tuq4_yA.cspx?rss=2448&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Oklahoma House is considering Gov. Mary Fallin's proposal to reduce the state's income tax and help pay for it by eliminating dozens of tax credits, deductions and exemptions.

House Speaker Kris Steele introduced the bill in the House on Wednesday, but agreed to delay debate on the measure after concerns were raised over the fiscal impact of several amendments to the bill. Debate was expected to resume Wednesday afternoon.

Support in the Legislature appears to be eroding for several of the tax exemptions and deductions that have been suggested as a way to offset the revenue lost by reducing the income tax. Retirees have started lobbying lawmakers to maintain tax exemptions for Social Security benefits and other retirement income.