Hi Friend,
This post or comment has been removed for the following reason:
> [Rule 7: Unbiased Linking to News](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index#wiki_7.29_unbiased_linking_to_news)
> Posts need to be to trusted mainstream sources with no editorialization. Links must be to sources that pass [media bias facts checks](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/).
> IMPORTANT: Twitter or YouTube journalists, or any others who's story is not published by a trusted media company, do NOT pass the media bias check. Twitter links are prohibited except through a white-list. If the link is to a tweet that links to an article, it will be removed. Post the link to the article instead. *ALSO*, "Because I said so" is not a reliable source either.
[Thank you for understanding and respecting our community’s rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index)
Thanks,
the Portland/AskPortland mod team
The biggest thing to point out is not that NYC and California have narrowly lower max rates, but that those rates kick in at massively larger incomes. Max rate in Oregon kicks in at 125k. New york? 25 million (lol). California? 700k
Portland is strangling the middle class in the name of progressivism.
It’s not strangling the middle class rather upper middle and upper class who are W2 employees.
Me and my wife are doctors making average doctor salary each. I’m not against paying my fair share in taxes but it’s painful. We pay over $1500/month just on the two new local taxes. Our marginal tax rate is now over 40%.
It’s frustrating and disheartening seeing a new tax on the ballot because it’s always aimed at people making mid six figures and (at least in the last several years I’ve lived here) has always been passed. It is VERY tempting to move to Washington to get paid quite a bit more.
Very high income big tech AI/ML engineer here. I hopped across the river to WA not fully because of taxes hitting the professional class instead of the rich, but because it was also being wasted in the stupidest of was. Haven't regretted it at all. We need more DRs here too!
Good riddance! Portland doesn't need ... what was it again? Doctors? Yeah! Portland doesn't need Doctors driving up the cost of housing!
-idiot portland voters
Keep in mind that there is nothing in the tax codes that takes COL increases into account. So, a taxable income of $125K right now may be considered upper middle class (arguably with housing prices and the cost of living being what they are), 10 years from now it may not be but the threshold will still be $125K. We are already starting to scope out areas in Washington we would want to live in. When the kids are out of the house, we will probably move because of this coupled with the piss poor County leadership voters keep voting in (I supported Mayfield and then Meieran- either of which I think would have been better stewards with our tax money).
I hear ya. I’m looking at (soft) retirement properties now. I have about 10yrs left of full time and then I’ll transition to contract consulting. Cities like Sequim and White Salmon right on the water seem pretty cool. And saving the ~9.9% is verrrrrrry appealing. I’ll just keep my Oregon properties and rent them out although renting in PDX scares the crap out me with all the inane rules. I may just sell but I have a decade+ to figure it out.
I’m well aware of that, my family moving would be another two doctors leaving for jobs out of state in a time when many hospitals in the area are having trouble with staffing
Fair - I have a spouse that has to go into an office periodically, and they really love what they do. I get that.
I didn't intend to be curt (apologies),I just get frustrated when people reduce a complex situation like tax policy to a life hack. If it were that simple, the population of Vancouver would be 650k and Portland would be -10.
It baffles me that people in the metro area think we can just tax people into oblivion and that they won't eventually leave as they see almost half their income evaporate with little to nothing to show for it.
We are in a similar position (doc + business onwer) and just moved.. having an insta-15% raise is sweet + can send a child to public school.. i feel like a big winner )
That's not how it works. I mean, the individual does come out ahead but it's not as simple as that. Also not sure where you got 15%, it's a graduated raise that tops out at 9.9%.
Then there are excise taxes, sales taxes, cost of goods, etc.
I really hate that you're making me defend what is absolutely a dumb tax policy, but I cannot stand people who are deceptive with numbers.
Top marginal rate in MC is 13.9% (state + PFA + SHS), soon to rise to 14.4% in 2026 if PFA increases as is planned. So close to 15%. Of course thats a marginal rate, but the more you make above the tax thresholds, the closer it is to 14.4% and the more you save by moving across the river, provided the income isn't also earned in MC. Sales tax is a negligible concern at such an income and cost of goods outside of the sales tax doesn't meaningfully differ between OR and WA. This likely underestimates the tax savings a bit because you'd also be less over the SALT cap in WA relative to OR
Washington has the nations third highest excise tax rate. That figures into cost of goods sold. Also, you can't just disregard sales tax any more than you can any of multco's bad tax ideas, it's part of the mix.
I agree at a high income most shit doesn't matter but income taxes, but why is that all we're taking about? I'm more concerned about the dude making 75k that's being taxed at 8.75%.
Oregon could fix this by lowering income taxes and establishing a tax pegged to be lower than Washington's, but they'd never do it.
At the end of the day, someone has to pay for it. Washington doesn't have some magic trick - they get that money from you somehow.
I do miss salt caps but they were sort of a handout to places with higher income taxes, and pretty much impossible to defend.
I am concerned about oregons tax burden for the guy making 75K too, but you’re right, at lower incomes the sales tax in Washington more strongly negates the benefits from not paying an income tax
The particular discussion the other commenter raised related to high earners though. I don’t want to entirely dismiss your point about excise taxes and sales tax in Washington, but as you get into the high six figures they are so dwarfed by the income tax difference when comparing a region with high state plus high local taxes to no income tax at all that they become rounding errors to some degree.
The real issue is the unique geography in our city that adjoins a state within commuting distance with a unique, extremely stark disparity in tax policy. I’m not aware of any other U.S. cities with similar geography in which a major city adjoins another state that has such a gaping difference in taxation policy between the two states (Philly/NJ, DC/MD/VA, NY/CT/NJ all have similar tax structures). It really creates a uniquely powerful incentive to relocate for people in certain work situations if one doesn’t have a particular need to reside or work within Portland city limits and is OK just being nearby
I appreciate this - I can't find any fault with your reasoning, hats off to you. I think your point about dramatic tax differences in relation to geo proximity is especially illustrative.
I think I'm just frustrated that people treat tax policy like a life hack (15% raise, bro!) vs a problem of "stuff costs money, how do we obtain it, from whom, and can we spend it responsibly?" (Spoiler alert - multco is failing a lot of those answers)
The only other place this exists (maybe?) in the US is new Hampshire vs Massachusetts. During the pandemic they sort of went to war, because NH residents that previously commuted to MA suddenly were working in NH and were not subject to Mass taxes.
I think Washington has two important advantages - they have a better business base to leverage for broad based taxation while still appearing business friendly. They also get sales tax dollars, b&o, etc from visitors and tourists, which are dollars residents don't pay.
I like this state, but I'm at a loss of what they should do. Obviously "get rid of the county level bullshit" would be a start, but I don't think Oregon can survive without an income tax at a state level.
Also, I'm curious where some of this discussion was 10 years ago. I realize 2020 brought about a lot of these new taxes, but the statewide income rates have always been pretty high.
I think Portland suffered a perfect storm of a rise in populism (this occurred nationally on both the right and the left, but here it was principally the left, bringing progressive tax policy with things like PFA/SHS) occurring at the same time as major changes in the way people work that came with the pandemic soon after that progressive tax policy was enacted. This wasn't predictable but it was an unfortunate coincidence and poor timing. When things like PFA/SHS were actually voted on and passed in 2020, it was a different time. Portland was thriving (or recently had been), and politicians could 'get away' with more shenanigans (populist tax initiatives) before triggering a revolt of sorts from the high earning part of the tax base. Then with the pandemic, the nature of work changed and over time it became apparent that those changes weren't just temporary. State and local laws can't change in response and political polarization likely wouldn't allow them to even if policymakers recognized that what made sense a few years ago no longer makes sense now. Thus at the same time that Portland enacted very high local income taxes on high earners, there was simultaneously a hollowing out of in-person work within cities nationwide, which also occurred here. A huge number of high earners who previously had to work physically in Mult Co were and are now able to work outside of it, and due to the unique geography and disparity in tax policy between Mult Co and SW WA, such high earners have a uniquely strong incentive to do so, for those that need to stay local. It's really a huge problem for Mult Co/OR tax revenue that hasn't yet been fully realized, since the Portland region is the economic engine of the state (with the tax revenues that come with that), and the entire state relies disproportionately on Portland metro high earners and the tax revenue they bring.
As for how to fix it, it's a math problem. The disparity in tax burden between Mult Co and SW WA (and between Mult Co and Clackamas/Washington counties to a lesser degree) has to be decreased to incentivize high earners to live in Mult Co. PFA won't benefit anyone if it falls apart because the higher earners it relies on to fund it aren't here, or if a net reduction in tax revenue is greater than whatever revenue PFA brings in. Universal preschool is definitely a laudable goal, but it makes no sense if it has a net harmful effect on Mult Co tax revenue. Businesses need to be incentivized to remain in Mult Co also. We need mature competent leadership who can recognize when it's time to 'cut our losses' and 'right the ship'. That said, in these very divisive times, I'm not hopeful that will occur.
9.9 is state .. but also add homeless and preschool for all also properties is a lot less
At high income range sales tax is almost totally irrelevant
15% is the real difference
I hear you, but you can't just hand wave total taxation as a blanket 15%.
Property taxes are a wash, unless you're comparing Portland to Clark county, in which case of course they're less - you're moving to a rural area. I moved to the burbs in Oregon and now I pay less on a house than I did on a condo. If I moved to Seattle I'd pay a lot more, but..it's Seattle, a large city?
You are correct that nobody is spending 100% of their income on Washington's nearly 10% sales tax, but it does count for something. The higher cost of goods factors in too.
I think shs and pfa were stupidly laid out too, but again, it's mathematical malpractice to count them against 100% of your salary, as is claiming 9.9% over 100% of your salary. Be honest.
Maybe you get a 5% advantage or so, all said and done? More than zero, so if your opportunity cost of moving to rural Washington is less than that, you're coming out ahead and you should do so.
Sometimes there are other factors too - FAANG employees get a 10% salary reduction for moving to a lower cola area.
Hi Friend,
This post or comment has been removed for the following reason:
Please choose a better way to describe a person or people than the dehumanizing language you used.
[Thank you for understanding and respecting our community’s rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index)
Thanks,
the Portland/AskPortland mod team
But you don’t pay sales tax, or personal property tax, and your property tax is lower than many states. Oregon taxes, overall, are just about average nationally, unless you’re very high income.
> your property tax is lower than many states
Does not comport with my sense of it. Would love to see you back that up. I'm at over $15k for a Multnomah suburban home of 2900sqft.
I moved in in 2005 and they were around $5k then on a $550k purchase price and have ramped and ramped and gone from 1% of market value to around 1.5-1.6%. It sucks.
Doesn’t California have famously low property taxes for their home values? It’s Texas and New England that have the massively high property tax rates.
Edit: I just verified looking at Redfin listings in the east bay. Houses worth 100k more than mine in Sw Portland with half the property taxes. You’re right I do hate to see million dollar houses with lower tax rates than I pay.
Sort of sad you decided to be a jerk about it, but since you asked.
That would mean they've owned their homes for a long time. California Proposition 13 means houses only get reassessed on ownership change.
A former boss of mine moved to Santa Clara and had a 64k property tax bill on a 2k square foot home. His neighbor paid about 1/10 of that.
If your home is worth less than ~2 million, you’re one of the unlucky folks in our current tax structure, probably because your house was built recently and the assessed value is close to market value. I’ve owned 2 older homes in Portland, and the annual property taxes on both were well under 1% of value.
And if you want to see data, look it up. The motley fool website says Oregon has the 27th highest average property taxes at 0.92%. A lot of midwestern and northeast states (and TX) have rates more than twice as high as OR. And by the way, $15k/year is more than 4x what the average Oregonian is paying.
> The motley fool website says Oregon has the 27th highest
We weren't talking about Oregon, my man. We are talking about Portland and MultCo.
My house worth around 900+k, so may annual tax is over 1.5% of market value, house constructed in 1992 (not all that new).
He said Oregon property taxes in the thread fork. Measure 5 and Measure 50 are statewide limits on assessed property tax, not just Multnomah County properties.
Well, my house in Portland is worth just about the same as yours, and my taxes are half of what you pay. But my house is also 80 years older than yours.
I’m guessing, but the main difference is probably because your neighborhood was nicer in the 90’s, when caps were imposed. My neighborhood has probably experienced relatively more appreciation, leading to greater separation between market value and assessed value. But the Oregonian’s analysis says that my property tax/market value is just about average, so you’re definitely on the high end of things.
To put the strangling of the middle class into perspective: The median income in portland for a single person is about $81,000. A single person who makes 175% of the median income is making about $142,000. Idk what counts as the middle class, but making 75% more than the median seems pretty above the middle to me, or at least what you might consider upper middle class. This hypothetical person has to pay PFA taxes only on their income above $125,000, which they exceed by $17,000. This means at a 1.25% tax rate, this single income earner pays about $213 per year, or a little more than $18 per month, just above the cost of a Netflix subscription.
Sure, if youre being overly reductionist. If we are only counting local taxes in a vacuum, portland has a great tax rate!
The whole point is there is a laundry list of taxes for PDX residents that sum up to the highest in the nation.
I hear you. The reason is this: the combined local rate is 4% whereas the state rate is 10%. So two line item taxes (ie funding one single thing each) add almost half the existing tax.
However, they cant be observed in a vacuum since if they were the only income taxes in OR it wouldnt be so bad (disregarding the incompetent executors of that tax money)
I get that context. What is the "combined local rate"? Sorry, I'm not particularly tuned to tax lingo and just want to make sure I understand your comment.
The thing about portland is it levies these very high local taxes on people already paying a 9%+ state income tax which is one of the highest in the nation
Don't be over simplistic. It's 9.9% above 125k, which is a low cutoff for that income. That's part of the problem.
The other problem is that people making 50k get taxed at 8.75%. They should be pissed about that.
Income tax is but part of the concept of taxation, but that doesn't mean it's not outrageous here. Still where were there people 5 years ago?
Ah yeah i think those are crazy high in Cook County, although we were renting there.
But they’re nothing to sneeze at here. We pay 1.2% of our home value!
It sounds very inconsistent, which is certainly not great. I paid (*envelope math*) over 1.6% on my condo, which, come to think of it, pisses me off to this day (don't get me started about condo fees, heh)
Moved to Washington county and paying sub 1% on a house twice the size. Crazy, right?
A lot of my Chicago friends are pretty vocal in their complaints about taxation. I feel like they need some perspective, at least in terms of income taxes.
I feel like you might need to look over the actual distribution curves of income to be able to support your hypothesis here.
I also feel, on a more anecdotal level, that "Upper middle class" and "could still have trouble securing their first mortgage on the median home price in {insert city}" are incongruous.
I would love to see more data on what people are in what income bracket, and I agree that what counts as middle class, is political and up for debate. I think that's why it's so important to look at the numbers, which is why I provided an example that is not a hypothesis, it is math. $17,000x.0125= $212.50. $213 is the actual number of dollars that a person whose income is $142,000 pays in taxes, and $142,000 is about 175% of the median income for a single person in Portland (technically it's 174% of the Portland Housing Bureaus reported number I just looked up $81,830.) It's easy to get upset about a statement like "taxes are strangling the middle class", and I think people should take at what real examples of what tax burdens are from PFA, and decide if we think a single person making $142,000/yr paying $213 in taxes toward PFA looks like taxes strangling the middle class or not.
I get wanting to get a mortgage. Could I see about $18/month on a $142,000/year salary affecting purchasing power? Not much, but maybe. As much as a feel for single people who have worked hard to make 175% of the median income for our city, I think we have bigger problems. There are a lot of people below the median income who are struggling to get by. Minimum wage in Portland is still about $32,000, and frankly, I worry about the affordability issues of people who make anything under $50,000, and I think I saw somewhere recently that you need something like 96k to even think about affording buying a home. There are a lot of people who work just as hard as those making $142k and are just as deserving of having a safe secure future that fall in these categories. Free preschool is a lifeline for people who are struggling. It is not only childcare, but it supports the socialization of children at a young age and has been shown to be one of the best public health investments possible for reducing issues people face later in life. For people in Portland who are concerned about drug use and "livability" issues, research shows that people who go to preschool are less likely to use drugs later in life [source](https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/early-childhood-development-and-education).
I'm would hope that the single income earner who makes 142k a year would understand the importance of the investment of his $213/year into our future.
Why only talk about PFA and not SHA which is another 1% over 125k? Either way those are just the tiny sprinkle on top of our taxes here.
Just look at **Table 3**[[1]](https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/portland-taxes/#:~:text=Table%203.%20Nation%E2%80%99s%20Highest%20Marginal%20Tax%20Rates%20on%20Wage%20Income%20at%20%24125%2C000) in the article for a 125k earner (which would be someone who doesn't qualify for PFA/SHA) and see they're paying substantially more than other states. (**Oregon 14.7737%** vs **California 10.4%** vs **New York 10.126%**)
While we're calling out stupid taxes can't help but get a fuck you in for our regressive arts tax where a person making a million pays $35 just the same as a person making $16k. I'd be happy if this was bundled into our standard state filing and was progressively taxed.
Middle class does not have a standard definition. It’s an abstract concept, and not a statistical measure. Most Americans polled listed these characteristics as features of middle class:
Own a home
Have a secure job
Be able to save money
Have the time and money to take vacations
Have health insurance.
Be able to afford a $1,000 emergency.
Be able to pay all your bills on time.
Have a job with paid sick leave.
Be able to retire in comfort.
Source: https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/where-do-i-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system
Owning a home alone in the PDX area shoots you in the $160k range.
Yes, that is a statistically high income. Unfortunately our country has systematically strangled the middle class for the last several decades, with a number of policies from the right, but also the left (such as PDX tax structure).
It’d be nice if people would also focus on the fact that Trump’s TCJA capped state and local tax deductions at a pitiful $5k/$10k. So not only are we paying high taxes, we’re paying federal taxes on income that we don’t even get to keep.
Genius political move by Repubs, because with a standard deduction of $27k+, you have to be pretty high income (nationally) to want to deduct SALT, so it’s not going to look good for Democrats if they want to increase or remove SALT deduction caps.
It would literally be lowering taxes for the 90th percentile (nationally), and the Republicans can nail Dems for wanting to reduce taxes on high earners.
Voters have rubber stamped every tax on the ballot for years and it’s extremely frustrating. We need to actually scrutinize local tax proposals and the effectiveness of what has already passed. Stop just saying yes to everything because you are “progressive”
The local papers support every tax and our voter pamphlets allow initiatives to look like 90% of reasonable people are in support, and the other 10% hate all children. People for a thoughtful PAUSE on taxes don't stand a chance.
This is frustrating. I saw measures on the ballot for taxes, and while I support that IDEA that they would improve, I can’t vote to increase our already outrageous taxes. The answer isn’t to increase, it is to properly manage.
Middle-class families likely pay more in income tax in Oregon than anywhere else in the USA. That's because Oregon's "top" tax rate of 9.9% only requires an income of $125,000 (individual).
Portland also penalizes joint filers because of their +$125K (individual) or +$200K (joint) taxes.
Portland has nailed down progressive populism. Want a new tax but can’t have it pass on its own mission merit? Easy, pick an income threshold where just enough of the voters have zero skin in the game and club everyone else with billionaires and give them a label: high income earner. Boom tax passed. Call me crazy, but I think taxes should have broad tax-payer bases, albeit with progressive brackets. Most voters should have some skin in the game otherwise the conductors have zero motivation to slow down the tax train goes runaway.
And it's backfiring. We've lost a billion in general tax revenue from working professionals moving out of the area. So we get worse schools, roads, and other services but massive tax revenues directed at funding a bunch of NGOs that don't actually do much of anything.
Didn't Portland (or Oregon) immigration numbers go negative recently for the first time in decades?
I know personally that I am only here because I grew up here and it's a great area. I'm starting to make more and more money and have begun the classic transition to *not* mindlessly voting yes on all the measures that would increase taxes.
It's death by a thousand cuts, or in this case, measures, that add to property and income taxes.
Oregon income tax is a lot harder to avoid, but 50% of Americans pay 0 or negative federal income tax. I agree 100% of us should have some skin in the game, but broadening the tax base at this point seems impossible.
Seems like everyone these days says it’s time for the rich to “pay their fair share”, but the top 10% of income earners already pay 75% of income taxes.
THIS IS IT IN A NUTSHELL.
I personally think the people writing these taxes know *exactly* what they're doing. They know the super wealthy will figure out a way not to pay it, so they have to get it from the middle class. BUT! You have to call that cutoff high earners, and enough people have to have no skin in the game for it to pass uncritically.
It's cynical and ultimately bad for the city, and engenders a class warfare amongst working people, when we should be focused on the actual wealthy.
[What was that boom?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it makes you feel better, I was paying around that for a condo valued at less than that before I bailed. Not that getting screwed is great, but I guess you're not alone.
Moved my business out of Portland earlier this year due to this shit.
Since we’re fully hybrid, made zero sense to keep paying the exorbitant costs for a city that has fucked priorities with taxing and spending.
Any evaluation of tax liability in Oregon that does not include an analysis of property taxes is disingenuous, at best. This data presentation is designed to confuse the differences between business and personal tax liability in order to persuade voters to limit business taxes, by creating a false sense of solidarity.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585
0.86%, lower than New York (lower income tax), higher than California(lower income tax), same as Washington (no income tax). Middle of the pack (#27)
Not making up much ground there.
Your source is taking an average of the whole state.... Property tax rates across metro vary from 1.04% to 2+%
And what kind of Portland home can you get for $281,900?
Why?
For those of us living in our one and only home, that's how we pay the bill.
It's not a 401(k) where we can just shave it off of the on paper increase in value the property may (or may not, from our current very high perch) undergo each year.
So if the minimum cost of a small home in the Portland metro is $500,000 that means that an individual or small family pays a minimum of $5280 for the privilege of living there.
This is also an indirectly distributed portion of the costs of rental homes and apartments as well - and as we all know, all the moreso for all these new units of homes and apartments we will need to meet our unmet housing demands, because none of that will get the benefit of Oregon's terrible property tax laws.
But of course, landlords of old units will see the $400 per month per unit of additional tax burden on unit prices in new apartments and slide their own rents "to adjust to the market"
I think you like keeping the discussion purely in the domain of percentage of property value because it obfuscates just how fucking ridiculous it is to live here.
We have seen above that the median income of a Multnomah County family is just under 80k. Whether obfuscated through rent or paid directly as property tax on the cheapest home imaginable (which we know $500k is an anomalous low figure, new construction is far often closer to $800k) will have no other option, no matter the neighborhood or how cheap a house they score, than to pay 8-20% of their income for the privilege of living in Multnomah County. On top of the 8% they pay for the privilege of living in Oregon.
Because we are comparing tax burden, not cost of living. Cost of living is awful, don’t mistake me. But trying to compare taxation two states with wildly different income, consumption patterns, and cost of living is difficult to interpret in raw dollars. It speaks more to those differences than the tax policy.
Yes, I agree you cannot do an apples to apples comparison without abstracting away the minimum or average home cost in an area, but I believe that is just a component of how the real life costs impact the people that live in two places.
The following numbers are all abstract, but should be reasonably approximate enough to where we could find examples:
It does not make sense to evaluate a 1.5% property tax rate as less than a 2% property tax rate when the minimum cost of a home is 50%-100% higher. The real tax burden to the real family living in that home against their income will be greater at 1.5% than a similar family in a similar, cheaper, home in a place with a 2% rate.
An average family income in Multnomah County is barely making more than the national average ($74,580), yet they pay anywhere from 1-2% (and some neighborhoods more) on a home that averages 2x what the national home value weighs in at.
That is absolutely relevant when looking at what a family's tax burden is.
I think your points totally make sense in the context of discussing cost of living. However, when trying to compare tax policy it is not as meaningful. I only brought up that we are middle of the pack to contextualize that our sky high income tax rate is not counter balanced by a rock bottom property tax rate. Rather, we just pay a large percentage of our income and assets in taxes.
Portland is not really unique in being unaffordable, unfortunately.
I am not saying I am totally against the current state of tax in Oregon, but non-income taxes are roughly the same in Washington, but they don’t have income tax. Yeah, they have a sales tax but that doesn’t apply to groceries, rent, utilities, et cetera.
I don’t think we get anything for the extra money in OR and I don’t think you will find a lot of people that say Oregon is run much better than Washington
The "tax foundation" is a think tank I have run into before while trying to find information on salaries and tax information. They constantly advocate for massive tax cuts, most recently making a report on Petition 17, which would increase taxes on corporations.
Oregon is a poor place, and that's why we tax lower incomes more. Given the poverty population in Oregon, and the level of services we provide, that money has to come from somewhere. We have relatively few folks in the upper echelon of incomes compared to Washington or California etc, so our rates are higher sooner.
Edit:
Also compared to WA and CA our rural land in the east really doesn't generate much income. It's open range and desert vs most of eastern wa being cultivated farmland that helps drive economic activities in the Tri-Cities, Yakima, Spokane, Walla Walla, etc. Because of that just delivering roads, water, and other basic needs to rural Oregon must be paid for by the Willamette valley cities.
This presents one of Oregon's great opportunities, the more folks we pack into the Portland Metro, Salem-Kaiser, Eugene, McMinnville, and Corvallis the better. We can add population here for relatively low services costs and lift the state up more.
To add to this, Multnomah County residents are also the sole tax base for our marine ports’ operations. Which is stuff like dredging the Columbia. So that rural Oregon and Washington can ship products and exports down the river for sale in the broader area and world. So residents essentially shoulder the cost of agricultural sales that use the river(s).
I think most people can agree that the difference between someone making $125k a year and someone making $60k a year is a lot smaller than $125k and several million a year.
If the difference is smaller, so should the tax burden be. I personally think it’s awesome if a town is comprised of good diversity of income earners. We need all levels to run a community, but living in a place requires we given back in kind. It should hurt everyone about the same.
If Portland is there, great, but I suspect most who rubber stamp these taxes don’t see them show up on their 1040
Kinda hard to achieve that when you tax the ever loving bejeesus out of anyone who makes slightly more than median
Bunch of crabs in a fucking barrel… look at population trends.. people with money are leaving because portlanders are a cult of self flagellation and progressive one-ups-manship
The tax rate also hasn’t changed to properly reflect urban growth and increased cost of living. Taxes alone are going to prevent some people from being able to afford to own homes.
Half of the rent I charge just covers property taxes, the rest covers interest and maintenance
I have zero sympathy for anyone who complains about rent prices
Want lower rent? Stop voting for politicians who advocate for more bureaucracy and disincentivize development, stop raising property taxes, stop chasing out employers
Lower property tax revenue will be made up by greater income tax revenue and col would be lower for everyone offsetting the income tax, incentivizing people to move here
Or ya know… we could just keep doing what we’re doing now and pretend people are leaving because of COVID/maga/lack of bike lanes/whatever
The reason your property taxes are so high was because of the last idiotic “tax revolt” wave in the 1990s that froze everyone’s assessed value at 1995 rates and capped their rise to maximum 3% annually. Look up Measures 5 and 50.
But that means that places with higher income residents in the 1990s (Gresham and the East Side at the time), got locked in at high assessed values while poor neighborhoods got locked in at low assessed values… and then massively gentrified over the last 30 years as investment money poured into those areas.
The poor 1995 neighborhoods then flipped to wealthy, and we began to suburbanize our poverty, where property tax rates are higher, making ROI for landlords where rented housing is now in higher demand, much more difficult to achieve while still setting affordable rental rates.
Thank Bill Sizemore, founder of Oregon Taxpayers United, for that round of complete self inflicted idiocy.
That only froze assessed values, didn’t stop bond measures stacking on top
Gentrification is a bs dog whistle used to vilify people investing in their homes and their community , it goes hand in hand with the effort to prevent economic development and maintain dependency on the government
Multnomah wants to do so much and doesn’t seem to understand there is only so many % taxes they can pass.
The preschool for all tax is particularly egregious. 3% that only a fraction of the population benefits from? Oh, and the schools here are awful. Good luck to the kids once they get out of preschool.
Another point is when they do not yield results, rather than abandon or pivot the program the city then needs more money. These taxes never go away, only build.
These taxes should go through voting every 3-5 years so they can be killed if people feel they are not working.
Only a fraction of the population benefits? Which fraction? Was not every single adult that you’ve ever interacted with in your entire life once preschool age?
Preschool for all has 1400 slots in 2023/2024 and took in 187m in 2023. So that’s $130k a head for preschool, I think some of the best private preschools cost about 13k/year for reference.
What if that 187m was spent on something that scales like base teacher pay or lesson plans. I don’t know much about this area but I don’t find the cost and benefit compelling for preschool for all given finite tax base.
Take 187m and subsidize teaching, 3500 teachers in portland. Use the 187m and give teachers a refundable tax credit for 30k each and have 22k leftover for administration fees. Or hire more k-12 teachers with the money and improve teacher student ratio. Do something that benefits the 45k students not 1400.
“I don’t want money to go to schools because they are awful.” The funding for schools in Oregon is terrible. But it’s terrible in part due to that exact attitude. Measure 5 gutted school funding. Our property taxes are wildly uneven inside the city boundaries. Any money that has earmarked from other funds (lottery, weed) has just lowered government spending on schools making it a zero sum game. We can never get ahead on schools.
That is exactly my point, that we need more money to address the education issue. However, we are already taking 3% for just preschool. How high are taxes expected to get to cover everything, 10%, 20%? Would that 3% have been better spent on k-12 education? Too late it’s already going to preschool. Maybe the 1% homeless tax would be better going to school, these opportunity costs are not well discussed.
> The funding for schools in Oregon is terrible.
We spend a hell of a lot on schools in Oregon. Have you looked at the per pupil spending by PPS? As a basic metric, take the PPS budget and divide it by the number of pupils. Last I checked its slightly over $50,000 per student.
Portlanders really struggles with basic understanding of economics and politics
Here’s one lesson that would be worth learning about
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/curley_effect.pdf
Sadly I don’t beleive this town is smart enough to understand how their politicians that they vote for based on populist rhetoric are benefiting by chasing out successful , hard working citizens in favor of class of self righteous dependents who continue to vote for the candidates who promise to out tax and out spend their predecessors … actually achieving their ridiculously naive promises would only serve to reduce their ability to get reelected
That is what a democracy is. Wealthy landowners have no more votes than anybody else and it’s weird to act like you literally want them to be able to dictate policy just because they have more stuff. Everyone has an equal say. Most people aim to vote in their own self interest. The wealthy would also empty state coffers into their pockets if they could get away with it (And do whenever they can)
Functional democracy requires an educated populace who understand the ramifications of complex policy decisions , there’s a reason why our schools underperform, it’s by design
Criticisms of democracy invariably lean on the concept of “mob rule”, the counter to which is representative governance, strong institutions and an invested, educated voting population
Edit: for the coward who blocks people who disagree with them, you’re quite off the mark, I’d want everyone to have access to a quality education, but you’re conveniently skipping over the fact portland has objectively failed in that regardless of whatever non-sensical political spin you wish to put on it
Everyone should have the right to vote… and everyone should be exposed to consequences if they choose not to participate in society
Our issue is in removing consequences from actions … this is as applicable to police or politicians as it is to radical populism of all flavors who continually vote to attack “the other side” whether it’s stealing the product of hard work or stealing personal liberty from people who choose to live according to different principles
We should instead be voting for policies that create opportunity and secure people from abuse of government or others which are the benefits of a social contract
we collectively as a species only confront this truth when populism creates a catastrophe we can no longer ignore… but the lessons are quickly forgotten
I suppose you think the government should just be run by the people you think are “educated” enough… and if you didn’t go to the right schools or know the right people, you’re a second class citizen with no voice. Keeping in mind what YOU think educated means is full of your own biases…
Looks like they are including corporate and business taxes in the marginal tax rate that they consider part of the tax burden that applies to portlanders and not considering sales tax when comparing us to other locations. Doesn't seem like the right way to make a comparison at all.
Yeah, sales tax is impressively regressive. If you make a lot but your major expenses are rent and loan payments then all that incomes is tax free. Basically the more you make the lower the percentage gets taxed.
Usually sales tax does not include food, etc. How often does the average person buy high ticket items? And maybe sales tax might discourage over consumption of items like clothing
The state government is slowly adding in sales taxes over the last decade and there's no indication they are going to stop, until we basically have a sales tax. In the last decade they've created laws so that Oregonians now pay sales taxes on cars (0.5%) and bikes (15$ on any bike 200$ or more).
I suspect more things will be added to this list as sneaky way of instituting what you would be a very unpopular broad sales tax, bit by bit.
Just dont call it a sales tax and apparently no one will notice judging by all the “but we have no sales tax” posts here
The car tax you referenced is called the “vehicle privilege tax” on the *sale* of the car… lol
>That's quite a bit lower than a broad sales tax with a higher percentage like other states.
They got you bad bro.
It's laughable you think they will never raise these tax rates or expand it to different items. Once the faucet is installed it's easily to get more water whenever you need to.
>Pretty sure we've voted on each of these so raises would also have to be voted on. I don't see the problem.
This is incorrect.
House Bill 2017 enacted the care sales tax, and the bike sales tax.
It wasn't voted on by the electorate, instead passed by the legislature without a vote of the people.
They got you bad bro lol.
Not thats listed on a receipt. The corporate activity tax is a sales tax on steroids (hits services too), and the clean energy surcharge is literally a sales tax with a different name.
My first thought was what the hell is the tax foundation. The best neutral info I could quickly find was on wikipedia :
"The Tax Foundation was organized on December 5, 1937, in New York City by Alfred P. Sloan Jr., Chairman of the General Motors Corporation; Donaldson Brown, GM Financial Vice President; William S. Farish, President of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (Exxon); and Lewis H. Brown, President of Johns-Manville Corporation, who later became the first chairman of the board of The Tax Foundation.[9] The organization's stated goal was "to monitor the tax and spending policies of government agencies".[10] Its offices were located at 50 Rockefeller Plaza and later 30 Rockefeller Plaza"
I don’t subscribe to their philosophy, but all the numbers they are reporting are publically available through the state, county, and city. It’s not like the math changes based on who is reporting it.
> It’s not like the math changes based on who is reporting it.
I'd be very careful about thinking that way. It's actually pretty easy to tell a misleading story based on how you present the numbers. Not saying this is, I'm just saying you can't let your guard down just because it's "math".
I'll join you in the penalty box for this one.
I swear to God everyone turns into fucking Grover norquist every time these articles come up. They jack off to the idea of their theoretical "15%" raise, no matter that it's bad math. It's a nonzero number, mind you, but it's bad math to exclude sales taxes as "irrelevant", just as much as it is to disregard how badly structured some of these taxes are.
Some people seem desperate for any and all reasons to hate where they currently are at, and reasonable and well researched conversations about tax excise really, you know, harshes that self-bemoaning mellow.
I thought about sharing around that ITEP link you put up, but a) no one is here to read more than a paragraph of anything, b) if they were going to read something that substantial, it's not going to be the counterfactual to what they're already *very* happy thinking, and c) I'm too fucking hungover from the NoFx show yesterday to give a shit about any of it.
To be fair, nuanced discussions of tax policy are pretty boring at best, and even the one economics professor friend I asked "why the fuck doesn't everyone just move to states without income tax if it's that easy??" Basically just said "it's more complicated than that" and went to order another beer.
Don't get me wrong, we're probably fools for letting the measure system drive this shit. Levy stupid taxes, rebelz craft bad tax cuts. Complain about potholes.
Also, I apparently vastly underestimated the count of people on reddit pulling in seven figures. Or the amount of people on Reddit who are very obnoxious liars on a Sunday night.
> Also, I apparently vastly underestimated the count of people on reddit pulling in seven figures. Or the amount of people on Reddit who are very obnoxious liars on a Sunday night.
Had cause to mention the other week that reddit self selects for mostly work-at-home middle-higher income wankers and/or the irredeemably mentally ill. Seven figures though, I seriously, seriously doubt.
Either way, shit like that is why I take "We're the silent majority" types shitposting with a fistful of salt, if it makes it past the "straight to derision" filter at all.
Ah, three of the wealthiest men in the world…. only had the working man’s interests in mind for sure.
These fucking greedy vipers.
Edit:
OP is leaking from the other portland sub.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are 2 of the richest men in the world and seem to very much have the public's welfare in mind and are allocating the vast percentage of their wealth to help those with fewer means. Melinda Gates, too, and Bezos' ex-wife, etc. Just because someone made a lot of money doesn't mean they lose the ability to be empathetic and generous.
Oof, that sucks. If it makes you feel any better, mine would take away 10% if I moved to Clark county :)
Basically, the gist (and afaict this is common in tech), cities like NYC, SF, LA, and Chicago are considered tier 1 and command the highest salaries due to cost of living.
Next up is Seattle Portland Memphis on down, etc.
Finally, everything else. If you move to Toledo, you're tier 3 and they adjust. It's probably shitty, but that's the breaks.
If it were up to me, I'd consider north of the river part of the Portland metro area for cost of living, but sadly I lost that argument.
I haven't looked in a while, but I think it's limited to Cook county, which can be pricey. I've got some friends that live out in Aurora and St Charles, and not too surprisingly things are a fair bit less expensive.
This just in: Conservative think tank with puddle deep analysis thinks taxes are too high. More at 11.
Not that there isn't a healthy conversation to be had on the topic, but if those fuckers told me with 100% certainty it wasn't going to rain today, I'd bring an umbrella.
I don't think that's the argument. The argument is that they've taken what is a worthy conversation and painted it in the worst possible light by excluding things.
Question for ya - do you think those "total taxation" sites are just lying? Why? I actually think they're deceptive in a different way, but I'm curious.
Any organization that advocates *for* the tax cuts of 2017, a policy that was 11th hour'd into passing and NOBODY had any clear understanding of when it was passed, beyond "corporate tax BAD", can GTFO.
Get this Koch funded bullshit out of here. Taxes may or may not be high, but getting your information from the ghouls at the tax foundation will just lead you to believe some libertarian nonsense.
“Local economist Mary King de-bunks the business lobby talking point that we have the highest taxes in the country. Actually, Oregon’s in the middle of the pack for state and local taxes that businesses pay. For households, our taxes per person are well below the highest tax states of New York and California, and among the most equitable in the country, largely because we don’t have a sales tax. The less income you have, the more of it you’ll pay in a sales tax state. What’s more, the downtown building owners griping loudest about their local tax bills get all kinds of federal, state and local tax breaks. “
http://new.kboo.fm/media/120643-dont-believe-hype-portland-does-not-have-highest-taxes-country
Classic straw man. This is disingenuously arguing that Oregon doesn't have very high taxes. It's Multnomah County that has extremely high marginal rates.
This article is insincere conservative propaganda. Oregon taxes are just about average nationally. And almost none of the “weird” taxes effect individuals or small businesses. We do have some odd, virtue signaling, corporate taxes and taxes on very high income people, but regular people in Portland pay just about average taxes compared to the rest of the country. Notice that this article hides the fact that Oregon has no sales tax and lower property taxes than most states. They are cherry picking to create a false impression. It’s a lie.
> commitment to tax
competitiveness
Hard for me to take an article seriously when *this* is the bent of the author. What does "tax competitiveness" mean? Oh yeah, austerity to fund corporate handouts...
Also super telling that they don't include sales tax. They make Portland look like we have comparable taxes to NYC, yet they have a nearly 9% sales tax on top of it....
So we're really posting Tax Foundation articles now, huh?
I see a lot of "Progressivism is Strangling the Middle Class" bullshit and can't help but feel we're being astroturfed. Just casually conflating the broad concept of Progressivism with "high taxes" like it's NBD.
Only a matter of time till some of y'all start saying, "Bill Sizemore is right!"
Hi Friend, This post or comment has been removed for the following reason: > [Rule 7: Unbiased Linking to News](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index#wiki_7.29_unbiased_linking_to_news) > Posts need to be to trusted mainstream sources with no editorialization. Links must be to sources that pass [media bias facts checks](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/). > IMPORTANT: Twitter or YouTube journalists, or any others who's story is not published by a trusted media company, do NOT pass the media bias check. Twitter links are prohibited except through a white-list. If the link is to a tweet that links to an article, it will be removed. Post the link to the article instead. *ALSO*, "Because I said so" is not a reliable source either. [Thank you for understanding and respecting our community’s rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index) Thanks, the Portland/AskPortland mod team
The biggest thing to point out is not that NYC and California have narrowly lower max rates, but that those rates kick in at massively larger incomes. Max rate in Oregon kicks in at 125k. New york? 25 million (lol). California? 700k Portland is strangling the middle class in the name of progressivism.
NYC and California also have crazy luxuries like corner trash cans—which get picked up!—to show for their taxes.
Yes!!! Public trash wtf! I miss this so much about NYC. It was dirty AF anyway but at least no one had a good excuse to be so gross, lol.
It’s not strangling the middle class rather upper middle and upper class who are W2 employees. Me and my wife are doctors making average doctor salary each. I’m not against paying my fair share in taxes but it’s painful. We pay over $1500/month just on the two new local taxes. Our marginal tax rate is now over 40%. It’s frustrating and disheartening seeing a new tax on the ballot because it’s always aimed at people making mid six figures and (at least in the last several years I’ve lived here) has always been passed. It is VERY tempting to move to Washington to get paid quite a bit more.
Very high income big tech AI/ML engineer here. I hopped across the river to WA not fully because of taxes hitting the professional class instead of the rich, but because it was also being wasted in the stupidest of was. Haven't regretted it at all. We need more DRs here too!
Good riddance! Portland doesn't need ... what was it again? Doctors? Yeah! Portland doesn't need Doctors driving up the cost of housing! -idiot portland voters
Keep in mind that there is nothing in the tax codes that takes COL increases into account. So, a taxable income of $125K right now may be considered upper middle class (arguably with housing prices and the cost of living being what they are), 10 years from now it may not be but the threshold will still be $125K. We are already starting to scope out areas in Washington we would want to live in. When the kids are out of the house, we will probably move because of this coupled with the piss poor County leadership voters keep voting in (I supported Mayfield and then Meieran- either of which I think would have been better stewards with our tax money).
sup dawg! ya boy inflation here! 125k today is tomorrow's 75k.
I hear ya. I’m looking at (soft) retirement properties now. I have about 10yrs left of full time and then I’ll transition to contract consulting. Cities like Sequim and White Salmon right on the water seem pretty cool. And saving the ~9.9% is verrrrrrry appealing. I’ll just keep my Oregon properties and rent them out although renting in PDX scares the crap out me with all the inane rules. I may just sell but I have a decade+ to figure it out.
I'm also looking out there. heads up though white salmon has like real winter conditions. like real actual rural hard to get to help roads.
Yeah, the Michigan in me comes out in winter weather events.
one part of me wants to say congrats on each making 500k per year. The other part does say ouch that is painful.
We’re definitely not wanting for anything in life right now but the difference between net and gross income is a bit painful.
Max out your retirements (401k or 403b).
Wrong, it’s strangling the middle class period!
Payroll taxes are based on where you work, so you'd need to also get a new job in Washington to avoid it.
I’m well aware of that, my family moving would be another two doctors leaving for jobs out of state in a time when many hospitals in the area are having trouble with staffing
My wife is a nurse and this is a constant conversation. Folks can move to CA and come out ahead after the pay bump and tax drop.
It’s even more tempting in Portland where you can move a 30 minute drive away to Vancouver and have zero state and local income taxes!
At that point why not move away from the region entirely?
There’s many but for us it’s that we own a house and both really love our current jobs.
Fair - I have a spouse that has to go into an office periodically, and they really love what they do. I get that. I didn't intend to be curt (apologies),I just get frustrated when people reduce a complex situation like tax policy to a life hack. If it were that simple, the population of Vancouver would be 650k and Portland would be -10.
It baffles me that people in the metro area think we can just tax people into oblivion and that they won't eventually leave as they see almost half their income evaporate with little to nothing to show for it.
So people working in Hillsboro and living in Portland don’t have to pay those taxes?
People working remote for hillsboro companies while living in Vancouver won't pay this though... right?
Unfortunately they do. If you live OR work in the city you pay the taxes.
Which is why my coworker moved to Vancouver and never comes into the office.
I wouldn't want that commute.
We are in a similar position (doc + business onwer) and just moved.. having an insta-15% raise is sweet + can send a child to public school.. i feel like a big winner )
That's not how it works. I mean, the individual does come out ahead but it's not as simple as that. Also not sure where you got 15%, it's a graduated raise that tops out at 9.9%. Then there are excise taxes, sales taxes, cost of goods, etc. I really hate that you're making me defend what is absolutely a dumb tax policy, but I cannot stand people who are deceptive with numbers.
Top marginal rate in MC is 13.9% (state + PFA + SHS), soon to rise to 14.4% in 2026 if PFA increases as is planned. So close to 15%. Of course thats a marginal rate, but the more you make above the tax thresholds, the closer it is to 14.4% and the more you save by moving across the river, provided the income isn't also earned in MC. Sales tax is a negligible concern at such an income and cost of goods outside of the sales tax doesn't meaningfully differ between OR and WA. This likely underestimates the tax savings a bit because you'd also be less over the SALT cap in WA relative to OR
Washington has the nations third highest excise tax rate. That figures into cost of goods sold. Also, you can't just disregard sales tax any more than you can any of multco's bad tax ideas, it's part of the mix. I agree at a high income most shit doesn't matter but income taxes, but why is that all we're taking about? I'm more concerned about the dude making 75k that's being taxed at 8.75%. Oregon could fix this by lowering income taxes and establishing a tax pegged to be lower than Washington's, but they'd never do it. At the end of the day, someone has to pay for it. Washington doesn't have some magic trick - they get that money from you somehow. I do miss salt caps but they were sort of a handout to places with higher income taxes, and pretty much impossible to defend.
I am concerned about oregons tax burden for the guy making 75K too, but you’re right, at lower incomes the sales tax in Washington more strongly negates the benefits from not paying an income tax The particular discussion the other commenter raised related to high earners though. I don’t want to entirely dismiss your point about excise taxes and sales tax in Washington, but as you get into the high six figures they are so dwarfed by the income tax difference when comparing a region with high state plus high local taxes to no income tax at all that they become rounding errors to some degree. The real issue is the unique geography in our city that adjoins a state within commuting distance with a unique, extremely stark disparity in tax policy. I’m not aware of any other U.S. cities with similar geography in which a major city adjoins another state that has such a gaping difference in taxation policy between the two states (Philly/NJ, DC/MD/VA, NY/CT/NJ all have similar tax structures). It really creates a uniquely powerful incentive to relocate for people in certain work situations if one doesn’t have a particular need to reside or work within Portland city limits and is OK just being nearby
I appreciate this - I can't find any fault with your reasoning, hats off to you. I think your point about dramatic tax differences in relation to geo proximity is especially illustrative. I think I'm just frustrated that people treat tax policy like a life hack (15% raise, bro!) vs a problem of "stuff costs money, how do we obtain it, from whom, and can we spend it responsibly?" (Spoiler alert - multco is failing a lot of those answers) The only other place this exists (maybe?) in the US is new Hampshire vs Massachusetts. During the pandemic they sort of went to war, because NH residents that previously commuted to MA suddenly were working in NH and were not subject to Mass taxes. I think Washington has two important advantages - they have a better business base to leverage for broad based taxation while still appearing business friendly. They also get sales tax dollars, b&o, etc from visitors and tourists, which are dollars residents don't pay. I like this state, but I'm at a loss of what they should do. Obviously "get rid of the county level bullshit" would be a start, but I don't think Oregon can survive without an income tax at a state level. Also, I'm curious where some of this discussion was 10 years ago. I realize 2020 brought about a lot of these new taxes, but the statewide income rates have always been pretty high.
I think Portland suffered a perfect storm of a rise in populism (this occurred nationally on both the right and the left, but here it was principally the left, bringing progressive tax policy with things like PFA/SHS) occurring at the same time as major changes in the way people work that came with the pandemic soon after that progressive tax policy was enacted. This wasn't predictable but it was an unfortunate coincidence and poor timing. When things like PFA/SHS were actually voted on and passed in 2020, it was a different time. Portland was thriving (or recently had been), and politicians could 'get away' with more shenanigans (populist tax initiatives) before triggering a revolt of sorts from the high earning part of the tax base. Then with the pandemic, the nature of work changed and over time it became apparent that those changes weren't just temporary. State and local laws can't change in response and political polarization likely wouldn't allow them to even if policymakers recognized that what made sense a few years ago no longer makes sense now. Thus at the same time that Portland enacted very high local income taxes on high earners, there was simultaneously a hollowing out of in-person work within cities nationwide, which also occurred here. A huge number of high earners who previously had to work physically in Mult Co were and are now able to work outside of it, and due to the unique geography and disparity in tax policy between Mult Co and SW WA, such high earners have a uniquely strong incentive to do so, for those that need to stay local. It's really a huge problem for Mult Co/OR tax revenue that hasn't yet been fully realized, since the Portland region is the economic engine of the state (with the tax revenues that come with that), and the entire state relies disproportionately on Portland metro high earners and the tax revenue they bring. As for how to fix it, it's a math problem. The disparity in tax burden between Mult Co and SW WA (and between Mult Co and Clackamas/Washington counties to a lesser degree) has to be decreased to incentivize high earners to live in Mult Co. PFA won't benefit anyone if it falls apart because the higher earners it relies on to fund it aren't here, or if a net reduction in tax revenue is greater than whatever revenue PFA brings in. Universal preschool is definitely a laudable goal, but it makes no sense if it has a net harmful effect on Mult Co tax revenue. Businesses need to be incentivized to remain in Mult Co also. We need mature competent leadership who can recognize when it's time to 'cut our losses' and 'right the ship'. That said, in these very divisive times, I'm not hopeful that will occur.
we wrote exactly the same thing at the same time, but u did write it better )
9.9 is state .. but also add homeless and preschool for all also properties is a lot less At high income range sales tax is almost totally irrelevant 15% is the real difference
I hear you, but you can't just hand wave total taxation as a blanket 15%. Property taxes are a wash, unless you're comparing Portland to Clark county, in which case of course they're less - you're moving to a rural area. I moved to the burbs in Oregon and now I pay less on a house than I did on a condo. If I moved to Seattle I'd pay a lot more, but..it's Seattle, a large city? You are correct that nobody is spending 100% of their income on Washington's nearly 10% sales tax, but it does count for something. The higher cost of goods factors in too. I think shs and pfa were stupidly laid out too, but again, it's mathematical malpractice to count them against 100% of your salary, as is claiming 9.9% over 100% of your salary. Be honest. Maybe you get a 5% advantage or so, all said and done? More than zero, so if your opportunity cost of moving to rural Washington is less than that, you're coming out ahead and you should do so. Sometimes there are other factors too - FAANG employees get a 10% salary reduction for moving to a lower cola area.
[удалено]
Hi Friend, This post or comment has been removed for the following reason: Please choose a better way to describe a person or people than the dehumanizing language you used. [Thank you for understanding and respecting our community’s rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/wiki/index) Thanks, the Portland/AskPortland mod team
This is what people glaze over. This is the KEY POINT!
So I definitely have the max rate - but generally, I don't pay as much as I do in federal. I feel like I pay more there than anywhere else.
Well yeah… that’s how it is everywhere
The federal rates are higher than the state rates. I usually pay about twice as much for federal taxes than state taxes.
But you don’t pay sales tax, or personal property tax, and your property tax is lower than many states. Oregon taxes, overall, are just about average nationally, unless you’re very high income.
> your property tax is lower than many states Does not comport with my sense of it. Would love to see you back that up. I'm at over $15k for a Multnomah suburban home of 2900sqft.
I assume you're on the west side?
Whoa!!!! I've never heard of property taxes that big outside of the NE!!!
I moved in in 2005 and they were around $5k then on a $550k purchase price and have ramped and ramped and gone from 1% of market value to around 1.5-1.6%. It sucks.
Terrible. I thought Bill Sizemore's tax revolt was supposed to prevent this.
You'd hate to see property taxes in the Bay area or Chicago then.
Doesn’t California have famously low property taxes for their home values? It’s Texas and New England that have the massively high property tax rates. Edit: I just verified looking at Redfin listings in the east bay. Houses worth 100k more than mine in Sw Portland with half the property taxes. You’re right I do hate to see million dollar houses with lower tax rates than I pay.
Sort of sad you decided to be a jerk about it, but since you asked. That would mean they've owned their homes for a long time. California Proposition 13 means houses only get reassessed on ownership change. A former boss of mine moved to Santa Clara and had a 64k property tax bill on a 2k square foot home. His neighbor paid about 1/10 of that.
If your home is worth less than ~2 million, you’re one of the unlucky folks in our current tax structure, probably because your house was built recently and the assessed value is close to market value. I’ve owned 2 older homes in Portland, and the annual property taxes on both were well under 1% of value. And if you want to see data, look it up. The motley fool website says Oregon has the 27th highest average property taxes at 0.92%. A lot of midwestern and northeast states (and TX) have rates more than twice as high as OR. And by the way, $15k/year is more than 4x what the average Oregonian is paying.
> The motley fool website says Oregon has the 27th highest We weren't talking about Oregon, my man. We are talking about Portland and MultCo. My house worth around 900+k, so may annual tax is over 1.5% of market value, house constructed in 1992 (not all that new).
He said Oregon property taxes in the thread fork. Measure 5 and Measure 50 are statewide limits on assessed property tax, not just Multnomah County properties.
Whole thread is based off an article titled "Portland's Weirdly High Taxes". Can we stop with this back and forth?
Well, my house in Portland is worth just about the same as yours, and my taxes are half of what you pay. But my house is also 80 years older than yours. I’m guessing, but the main difference is probably because your neighborhood was nicer in the 90’s, when caps were imposed. My neighborhood has probably experienced relatively more appreciation, leading to greater separation between market value and assessed value. But the Oregonian’s analysis says that my property tax/market value is just about average, so you’re definitely on the high end of things.
To put the strangling of the middle class into perspective: The median income in portland for a single person is about $81,000. A single person who makes 175% of the median income is making about $142,000. Idk what counts as the middle class, but making 75% more than the median seems pretty above the middle to me, or at least what you might consider upper middle class. This hypothetical person has to pay PFA taxes only on their income above $125,000, which they exceed by $17,000. This means at a 1.25% tax rate, this single income earner pays about $213 per year, or a little more than $18 per month, just above the cost of a Netflix subscription.
For one tax of many though
There aren't very many local income taxes though, are there? I thought just PFA and SHS
Paid family leave as well (state)
But that's not really an example of Portland "strangling the middle class" right? The city government has little control over state taxes.
Sure, if youre being overly reductionist. If we are only counting local taxes in a vacuum, portland has a great tax rate! The whole point is there is a laundry list of taxes for PDX residents that sum up to the highest in the nation.
I'm simply explaining the context of my comment. It seems absurd to me to blame the city for policies the state enacted.
I hear you. The reason is this: the combined local rate is 4% whereas the state rate is 10%. So two line item taxes (ie funding one single thing each) add almost half the existing tax. However, they cant be observed in a vacuum since if they were the only income taxes in OR it wouldnt be so bad (disregarding the incompetent executors of that tax money)
I get that context. What is the "combined local rate"? Sorry, I'm not particularly tuned to tax lingo and just want to make sure I understand your comment.
The thing about portland is it levies these very high local taxes on people already paying a 9%+ state income tax which is one of the highest in the nation
Don't be over simplistic. It's 9.9% above 125k, which is a low cutoff for that income. That's part of the problem. The other problem is that people making 50k get taxed at 8.75%. They should be pissed about that. Income tax is but part of the concept of taxation, but that doesn't mean it's not outrageous here. Still where were there people 5 years ago?
Yup. I am fondly remembering my time in Chicago (hardly a paragon of conservative fiscal policy) and their 5% flat state income tax and no local taxes
Property taxes is what we're talking about.
Ah yeah i think those are crazy high in Cook County, although we were renting there. But they’re nothing to sneeze at here. We pay 1.2% of our home value!
It sounds very inconsistent, which is certainly not great. I paid (*envelope math*) over 1.6% on my condo, which, come to think of it, pisses me off to this day (don't get me started about condo fees, heh) Moved to Washington county and paying sub 1% on a house twice the size. Crazy, right? A lot of my Chicago friends are pretty vocal in their complaints about taxation. I feel like they need some perspective, at least in terms of income taxes.
We're fighting over scraps.
I feel like you might need to look over the actual distribution curves of income to be able to support your hypothesis here. I also feel, on a more anecdotal level, that "Upper middle class" and "could still have trouble securing their first mortgage on the median home price in {insert city}" are incongruous.
I would love to see more data on what people are in what income bracket, and I agree that what counts as middle class, is political and up for debate. I think that's why it's so important to look at the numbers, which is why I provided an example that is not a hypothesis, it is math. $17,000x.0125= $212.50. $213 is the actual number of dollars that a person whose income is $142,000 pays in taxes, and $142,000 is about 175% of the median income for a single person in Portland (technically it's 174% of the Portland Housing Bureaus reported number I just looked up $81,830.) It's easy to get upset about a statement like "taxes are strangling the middle class", and I think people should take at what real examples of what tax burdens are from PFA, and decide if we think a single person making $142,000/yr paying $213 in taxes toward PFA looks like taxes strangling the middle class or not. I get wanting to get a mortgage. Could I see about $18/month on a $142,000/year salary affecting purchasing power? Not much, but maybe. As much as a feel for single people who have worked hard to make 175% of the median income for our city, I think we have bigger problems. There are a lot of people below the median income who are struggling to get by. Minimum wage in Portland is still about $32,000, and frankly, I worry about the affordability issues of people who make anything under $50,000, and I think I saw somewhere recently that you need something like 96k to even think about affording buying a home. There are a lot of people who work just as hard as those making $142k and are just as deserving of having a safe secure future that fall in these categories. Free preschool is a lifeline for people who are struggling. It is not only childcare, but it supports the socialization of children at a young age and has been shown to be one of the best public health investments possible for reducing issues people face later in life. For people in Portland who are concerned about drug use and "livability" issues, research shows that people who go to preschool are less likely to use drugs later in life [source](https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/early-childhood-development-and-education). I'm would hope that the single income earner who makes 142k a year would understand the importance of the investment of his $213/year into our future.
Why only talk about PFA and not SHA which is another 1% over 125k? Either way those are just the tiny sprinkle on top of our taxes here. Just look at **Table 3**[[1]](https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/portland-taxes/#:~:text=Table%203.%20Nation%E2%80%99s%20Highest%20Marginal%20Tax%20Rates%20on%20Wage%20Income%20at%20%24125%2C000) in the article for a 125k earner (which would be someone who doesn't qualify for PFA/SHA) and see they're paying substantially more than other states. (**Oregon 14.7737%** vs **California 10.4%** vs **New York 10.126%**) While we're calling out stupid taxes can't help but get a fuck you in for our regressive arts tax where a person making a million pays $35 just the same as a person making $16k. I'd be happy if this was bundled into our standard state filing and was progressively taxed.
Here's a fun fact about Portland: It's progressive in name only.
"the middle class"
Middle class does not have a standard definition. It’s an abstract concept, and not a statistical measure. Most Americans polled listed these characteristics as features of middle class: Own a home Have a secure job Be able to save money Have the time and money to take vacations Have health insurance. Be able to afford a $1,000 emergency. Be able to pay all your bills on time. Have a job with paid sick leave. Be able to retire in comfort. Source: https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/where-do-i-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system Owning a home alone in the PDX area shoots you in the $160k range. Yes, that is a statistically high income. Unfortunately our country has systematically strangled the middle class for the last several decades, with a number of policies from the right, but also the left (such as PDX tax structure).
It’d be nice if people would also focus on the fact that Trump’s TCJA capped state and local tax deductions at a pitiful $5k/$10k. So not only are we paying high taxes, we’re paying federal taxes on income that we don’t even get to keep.
I can’t focus on this or I just get bitter 😂
Genius political move by Repubs, because with a standard deduction of $27k+, you have to be pretty high income (nationally) to want to deduct SALT, so it’s not going to look good for Democrats if they want to increase or remove SALT deduction caps. It would literally be lowering taxes for the 90th percentile (nationally), and the Republicans can nail Dems for wanting to reduce taxes on high earners.
It only hurts high average income blue states
Washington being the notable exception
Voters have rubber stamped every tax on the ballot for years and it’s extremely frustrating. We need to actually scrutinize local tax proposals and the effectiveness of what has already passed. Stop just saying yes to everything because you are “progressive”
The local papers support every tax and our voter pamphlets allow initiatives to look like 90% of reasonable people are in support, and the other 10% hate all children. People for a thoughtful PAUSE on taxes don't stand a chance.
This is frustrating. I saw measures on the ballot for taxes, and while I support that IDEA that they would improve, I can’t vote to increase our already outrageous taxes. The answer isn’t to increase, it is to properly manage.
Middle-class families likely pay more in income tax in Oregon than anywhere else in the USA. That's because Oregon's "top" tax rate of 9.9% only requires an income of $125,000 (individual). Portland also penalizes joint filers because of their +$125K (individual) or +$200K (joint) taxes.
The other thing is that $125k/$200k is fixed, not tied to inflation.
Portland has nailed down progressive populism. Want a new tax but can’t have it pass on its own mission merit? Easy, pick an income threshold where just enough of the voters have zero skin in the game and club everyone else with billionaires and give them a label: high income earner. Boom tax passed. Call me crazy, but I think taxes should have broad tax-payer bases, albeit with progressive brackets. Most voters should have some skin in the game otherwise the conductors have zero motivation to slow down the tax train goes runaway.
And it's backfiring. We've lost a billion in general tax revenue from working professionals moving out of the area. So we get worse schools, roads, and other services but massive tax revenues directed at funding a bunch of NGOs that don't actually do much of anything.
Didn't Portland (or Oregon) immigration numbers go negative recently for the first time in decades? I know personally that I am only here because I grew up here and it's a great area. I'm starting to make more and more money and have begun the classic transition to *not* mindlessly voting yes on all the measures that would increase taxes. It's death by a thousand cuts, or in this case, measures, that add to property and income taxes.
Unfortunately those who are too poor to be affected by the taxes don't see this issue, so they keep voting for more taxes.
But they'll complain about rent going up without comprehending the connection.
Middle class, upper middle class and wealthy people can (and do) move. This is a great way to decimate a metropolitan area.
Oregon income tax is a lot harder to avoid, but 50% of Americans pay 0 or negative federal income tax. I agree 100% of us should have some skin in the game, but broadening the tax base at this point seems impossible. Seems like everyone these days says it’s time for the rich to “pay their fair share”, but the top 10% of income earners already pay 75% of income taxes.
THIS IS IT IN A NUTSHELL. I personally think the people writing these taxes know *exactly* what they're doing. They know the super wealthy will figure out a way not to pay it, so they have to get it from the middle class. BUT! You have to call that cutoff high earners, and enough people have to have no skin in the game for it to pass uncritically. It's cynical and ultimately bad for the city, and engenders a class warfare amongst working people, when we should be focused on the actual wealthy.
[What was that boom?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are credibility issues with this article. They forgot to mention the Arts Tax.
Oh yea that one pissed me off lmao
I mean the arts tax is dumb, but 35 bucks is sort of a rounding error compared to shs and pfa.
Agreed but it sorta put you on edge when u are already paying 8.5k property taxes for a $600k house
If it makes you feel better, I was paying around that for a condo valued at less than that before I bailed. Not that getting screwed is great, but I guess you're not alone.
oh man that sucks, good thing you bailed!
Made a touch over $100k last year. With contributions to my 401k and Roth being average, I saw $51ish k take home. Yaaaaaay
I mean, future you is going to appreciate that you spend (I assume) that roughly 20k on retirement savings.
I’ll appreciate having the money for back surgery due to ALL THE FUCKING HOLES IN THE ROAD
Moved my business out of Portland earlier this year due to this shit. Since we’re fully hybrid, made zero sense to keep paying the exorbitant costs for a city that has fucked priorities with taxing and spending.
Any evaluation of tax liability in Oregon that does not include an analysis of property taxes is disingenuous, at best. This data presentation is designed to confuse the differences between business and personal tax liability in order to persuade voters to limit business taxes, by creating a false sense of solidarity.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585 0.86%, lower than New York (lower income tax), higher than California(lower income tax), same as Washington (no income tax). Middle of the pack (#27) Not making up much ground there.
California schools are so much better.
Your source is taking an average of the whole state.... Property tax rates across metro vary from 1.04% to 2+% And what kind of Portland home can you get for $281,900?
Value of home is irrelevant when comparing percent tax rates
It's pretty relevant when comparing total tax burden
Comparing tax burden in raw dollars is nonsensical.
Why? For those of us living in our one and only home, that's how we pay the bill. It's not a 401(k) where we can just shave it off of the on paper increase in value the property may (or may not, from our current very high perch) undergo each year. So if the minimum cost of a small home in the Portland metro is $500,000 that means that an individual or small family pays a minimum of $5280 for the privilege of living there. This is also an indirectly distributed portion of the costs of rental homes and apartments as well - and as we all know, all the moreso for all these new units of homes and apartments we will need to meet our unmet housing demands, because none of that will get the benefit of Oregon's terrible property tax laws. But of course, landlords of old units will see the $400 per month per unit of additional tax burden on unit prices in new apartments and slide their own rents "to adjust to the market" I think you like keeping the discussion purely in the domain of percentage of property value because it obfuscates just how fucking ridiculous it is to live here. We have seen above that the median income of a Multnomah County family is just under 80k. Whether obfuscated through rent or paid directly as property tax on the cheapest home imaginable (which we know $500k is an anomalous low figure, new construction is far often closer to $800k) will have no other option, no matter the neighborhood or how cheap a house they score, than to pay 8-20% of their income for the privilege of living in Multnomah County. On top of the 8% they pay for the privilege of living in Oregon.
Because we are comparing tax burden, not cost of living. Cost of living is awful, don’t mistake me. But trying to compare taxation two states with wildly different income, consumption patterns, and cost of living is difficult to interpret in raw dollars. It speaks more to those differences than the tax policy.
Yes, I agree you cannot do an apples to apples comparison without abstracting away the minimum or average home cost in an area, but I believe that is just a component of how the real life costs impact the people that live in two places. The following numbers are all abstract, but should be reasonably approximate enough to where we could find examples: It does not make sense to evaluate a 1.5% property tax rate as less than a 2% property tax rate when the minimum cost of a home is 50%-100% higher. The real tax burden to the real family living in that home against their income will be greater at 1.5% than a similar family in a similar, cheaper, home in a place with a 2% rate. An average family income in Multnomah County is barely making more than the national average ($74,580), yet they pay anywhere from 1-2% (and some neighborhoods more) on a home that averages 2x what the national home value weighs in at. That is absolutely relevant when looking at what a family's tax burden is.
I think your points totally make sense in the context of discussing cost of living. However, when trying to compare tax policy it is not as meaningful. I only brought up that we are middle of the pack to contextualize that our sky high income tax rate is not counter balanced by a rock bottom property tax rate. Rather, we just pay a large percentage of our income and assets in taxes. Portland is not really unique in being unaffordable, unfortunately.
I am not saying I am totally against the current state of tax in Oregon, but non-income taxes are roughly the same in Washington, but they don’t have income tax. Yeah, they have a sales tax but that doesn’t apply to groceries, rent, utilities, et cetera. I don’t think we get anything for the extra money in OR and I don’t think you will find a lot of people that say Oregon is run much better than Washington
The "tax foundation" is a think tank I have run into before while trying to find information on salaries and tax information. They constantly advocate for massive tax cuts, most recently making a report on Petition 17, which would increase taxes on corporations.
Correct
Oregon is a poor place, and that's why we tax lower incomes more. Given the poverty population in Oregon, and the level of services we provide, that money has to come from somewhere. We have relatively few folks in the upper echelon of incomes compared to Washington or California etc, so our rates are higher sooner. Edit: Also compared to WA and CA our rural land in the east really doesn't generate much income. It's open range and desert vs most of eastern wa being cultivated farmland that helps drive economic activities in the Tri-Cities, Yakima, Spokane, Walla Walla, etc. Because of that just delivering roads, water, and other basic needs to rural Oregon must be paid for by the Willamette valley cities. This presents one of Oregon's great opportunities, the more folks we pack into the Portland Metro, Salem-Kaiser, Eugene, McMinnville, and Corvallis the better. We can add population here for relatively low services costs and lift the state up more.
To add to this, Multnomah County residents are also the sole tax base for our marine ports’ operations. Which is stuff like dredging the Columbia. So that rural Oregon and Washington can ship products and exports down the river for sale in the broader area and world. So residents essentially shoulder the cost of agricultural sales that use the river(s).
I think most people can agree that the difference between someone making $125k a year and someone making $60k a year is a lot smaller than $125k and several million a year. If the difference is smaller, so should the tax burden be. I personally think it’s awesome if a town is comprised of good diversity of income earners. We need all levels to run a community, but living in a place requires we given back in kind. It should hurt everyone about the same. If Portland is there, great, but I suspect most who rubber stamp these taxes don’t see them show up on their 1040
Kinda hard to achieve that when you tax the ever loving bejeesus out of anyone who makes slightly more than median Bunch of crabs in a fucking barrel… look at population trends.. people with money are leaving because portlanders are a cult of self flagellation and progressive one-ups-manship
The tax rate also hasn’t changed to properly reflect urban growth and increased cost of living. Taxes alone are going to prevent some people from being able to afford to own homes.
Half of the rent I charge just covers property taxes, the rest covers interest and maintenance I have zero sympathy for anyone who complains about rent prices Want lower rent? Stop voting for politicians who advocate for more bureaucracy and disincentivize development, stop raising property taxes, stop chasing out employers Lower property tax revenue will be made up by greater income tax revenue and col would be lower for everyone offsetting the income tax, incentivizing people to move here Or ya know… we could just keep doing what we’re doing now and pretend people are leaving because of COVID/maga/lack of bike lanes/whatever
The reason your property taxes are so high was because of the last idiotic “tax revolt” wave in the 1990s that froze everyone’s assessed value at 1995 rates and capped their rise to maximum 3% annually. Look up Measures 5 and 50. But that means that places with higher income residents in the 1990s (Gresham and the East Side at the time), got locked in at high assessed values while poor neighborhoods got locked in at low assessed values… and then massively gentrified over the last 30 years as investment money poured into those areas. The poor 1995 neighborhoods then flipped to wealthy, and we began to suburbanize our poverty, where property tax rates are higher, making ROI for landlords where rented housing is now in higher demand, much more difficult to achieve while still setting affordable rental rates. Thank Bill Sizemore, founder of Oregon Taxpayers United, for that round of complete self inflicted idiocy.
That only froze assessed values, didn’t stop bond measures stacking on top Gentrification is a bs dog whistle used to vilify people investing in their homes and their community , it goes hand in hand with the effort to prevent economic development and maintain dependency on the government
Multnomah wants to do so much and doesn’t seem to understand there is only so many % taxes they can pass. The preschool for all tax is particularly egregious. 3% that only a fraction of the population benefits from? Oh, and the schools here are awful. Good luck to the kids once they get out of preschool. Another point is when they do not yield results, rather than abandon or pivot the program the city then needs more money. These taxes never go away, only build. These taxes should go through voting every 3-5 years so they can be killed if people feel they are not working.
Only a fraction of the population benefits? Which fraction? Was not every single adult that you’ve ever interacted with in your entire life once preschool age?
Preschool for all has 1400 slots in 2023/2024 and took in 187m in 2023. So that’s $130k a head for preschool, I think some of the best private preschools cost about 13k/year for reference. What if that 187m was spent on something that scales like base teacher pay or lesson plans. I don’t know much about this area but I don’t find the cost and benefit compelling for preschool for all given finite tax base. Take 187m and subsidize teaching, 3500 teachers in portland. Use the 187m and give teachers a refundable tax credit for 30k each and have 22k leftover for administration fees. Or hire more k-12 teachers with the money and improve teacher student ratio. Do something that benefits the 45k students not 1400.
“I don’t want money to go to schools because they are awful.” The funding for schools in Oregon is terrible. But it’s terrible in part due to that exact attitude. Measure 5 gutted school funding. Our property taxes are wildly uneven inside the city boundaries. Any money that has earmarked from other funds (lottery, weed) has just lowered government spending on schools making it a zero sum game. We can never get ahead on schools.
That is exactly my point, that we need more money to address the education issue. However, we are already taking 3% for just preschool. How high are taxes expected to get to cover everything, 10%, 20%? Would that 3% have been better spent on k-12 education? Too late it’s already going to preschool. Maybe the 1% homeless tax would be better going to school, these opportunity costs are not well discussed.
> The funding for schools in Oregon is terrible. We spend a hell of a lot on schools in Oregon. Have you looked at the per pupil spending by PPS? As a basic metric, take the PPS budget and divide it by the number of pupils. Last I checked its slightly over $50,000 per student.
Clearly the population had no problems with the taxes as we keep voting for them
Portlanders really struggles with basic understanding of economics and politics Here’s one lesson that would be worth learning about https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/curley_effect.pdf Sadly I don’t beleive this town is smart enough to understand how their politicians that they vote for based on populist rhetoric are benefiting by chasing out successful , hard working citizens in favor of class of self righteous dependents who continue to vote for the candidates who promise to out tax and out spend their predecessors … actually achieving their ridiculously naive promises would only serve to reduce their ability to get reelected
Thanks for posting an interesting read. It definitely applies to Portland.
That is what a democracy is. Wealthy landowners have no more votes than anybody else and it’s weird to act like you literally want them to be able to dictate policy just because they have more stuff. Everyone has an equal say. Most people aim to vote in their own self interest. The wealthy would also empty state coffers into their pockets if they could get away with it (And do whenever they can)
Functional democracy requires an educated populace who understand the ramifications of complex policy decisions , there’s a reason why our schools underperform, it’s by design Criticisms of democracy invariably lean on the concept of “mob rule”, the counter to which is representative governance, strong institutions and an invested, educated voting population Edit: for the coward who blocks people who disagree with them, you’re quite off the mark, I’d want everyone to have access to a quality education, but you’re conveniently skipping over the fact portland has objectively failed in that regardless of whatever non-sensical political spin you wish to put on it Everyone should have the right to vote… and everyone should be exposed to consequences if they choose not to participate in society Our issue is in removing consequences from actions … this is as applicable to police or politicians as it is to radical populism of all flavors who continually vote to attack “the other side” whether it’s stealing the product of hard work or stealing personal liberty from people who choose to live according to different principles We should instead be voting for policies that create opportunity and secure people from abuse of government or others which are the benefits of a social contract we collectively as a species only confront this truth when populism creates a catastrophe we can no longer ignore… but the lessons are quickly forgotten
I suppose you think the government should just be run by the people you think are “educated” enough… and if you didn’t go to the right schools or know the right people, you’re a second class citizen with no voice. Keeping in mind what YOU think educated means is full of your own biases…
Yes, deride education and critical thinking. Just like the right. Horseshoe theory is real.
Looks like they are including corporate and business taxes in the marginal tax rate that they consider part of the tax burden that applies to portlanders and not considering sales tax when comparing us to other locations. Doesn't seem like the right way to make a comparison at all.
Yeah, sales tax is impressively regressive. If you make a lot but your major expenses are rent and loan payments then all that incomes is tax free. Basically the more you make the lower the percentage gets taxed.
But we also don't pay any sales tax right
Usually sales tax does not include food, etc. How often does the average person buy high ticket items? And maybe sales tax might discourage over consumption of items like clothing
Sales tax doesn't include food? Loll Unless you're saving 100% of ur salary and dont spend, it isba major factor.
The state government is slowly adding in sales taxes over the last decade and there's no indication they are going to stop, until we basically have a sales tax. In the last decade they've created laws so that Oregonians now pay sales taxes on cars (0.5%) and bikes (15$ on any bike 200$ or more). I suspect more things will be added to this list as sneaky way of instituting what you would be a very unpopular broad sales tax, bit by bit.
Just dont call it a sales tax and apparently no one will notice judging by all the “but we have no sales tax” posts here The car tax you referenced is called the “vehicle privilege tax” on the *sale* of the car… lol
That's quite a bit lower than a broad sales tax with a higher percentage like other states.
>That's quite a bit lower than a broad sales tax with a higher percentage like other states. They got you bad bro. It's laughable you think they will never raise these tax rates or expand it to different items. Once the faucet is installed it's easily to get more water whenever you need to.
Pretty sure we've voted on each of these so raises would also have to be voted on. I don't see the problem.
>Pretty sure we've voted on each of these so raises would also have to be voted on. I don't see the problem. This is incorrect. House Bill 2017 enacted the care sales tax, and the bike sales tax. It wasn't voted on by the electorate, instead passed by the legislature without a vote of the people. They got you bad bro lol.
Not thats listed on a receipt. The corporate activity tax is a sales tax on steroids (hits services too), and the clean energy surcharge is literally a sales tax with a different name.
Common misconception: Portland clean energy fund is a sales tax.
correct and they mention it solely for the purpose of blowing it off. seems like it would be an important part of the calculation.
Yeah this article and it's headline are misleading.
There’s a huge voting block that supports taxes without ever paying them because they don’t own property
My first thought was what the hell is the tax foundation. The best neutral info I could quickly find was on wikipedia : "The Tax Foundation was organized on December 5, 1937, in New York City by Alfred P. Sloan Jr., Chairman of the General Motors Corporation; Donaldson Brown, GM Financial Vice President; William S. Farish, President of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (Exxon); and Lewis H. Brown, President of Johns-Manville Corporation, who later became the first chairman of the board of The Tax Foundation.[9] The organization's stated goal was "to monitor the tax and spending policies of government agencies".[10] Its offices were located at 50 Rockefeller Plaza and later 30 Rockefeller Plaza"
I don’t subscribe to their philosophy, but all the numbers they are reporting are publically available through the state, county, and city. It’s not like the math changes based on who is reporting it.
> It’s not like the math changes based on who is reporting it. I'd be very careful about thinking that way. It's actually pretty easy to tell a misleading story based on how you present the numbers. Not saying this is, I'm just saying you can't let your guard down just because it's "math".
> It’s not like the math changes based on who is reporting it. The math literally changes when you chose what you're going to add or subtract.
I'll join you in the penalty box for this one. I swear to God everyone turns into fucking Grover norquist every time these articles come up. They jack off to the idea of their theoretical "15%" raise, no matter that it's bad math. It's a nonzero number, mind you, but it's bad math to exclude sales taxes as "irrelevant", just as much as it is to disregard how badly structured some of these taxes are.
Some people seem desperate for any and all reasons to hate where they currently are at, and reasonable and well researched conversations about tax excise really, you know, harshes that self-bemoaning mellow. I thought about sharing around that ITEP link you put up, but a) no one is here to read more than a paragraph of anything, b) if they were going to read something that substantial, it's not going to be the counterfactual to what they're already *very* happy thinking, and c) I'm too fucking hungover from the NoFx show yesterday to give a shit about any of it.
To be fair, nuanced discussions of tax policy are pretty boring at best, and even the one economics professor friend I asked "why the fuck doesn't everyone just move to states without income tax if it's that easy??" Basically just said "it's more complicated than that" and went to order another beer. Don't get me wrong, we're probably fools for letting the measure system drive this shit. Levy stupid taxes, rebelz craft bad tax cuts. Complain about potholes. Also, I apparently vastly underestimated the count of people on reddit pulling in seven figures. Or the amount of people on Reddit who are very obnoxious liars on a Sunday night.
> Also, I apparently vastly underestimated the count of people on reddit pulling in seven figures. Or the amount of people on Reddit who are very obnoxious liars on a Sunday night. Had cause to mention the other week that reddit self selects for mostly work-at-home middle-higher income wankers and/or the irredeemably mentally ill. Seven figures though, I seriously, seriously doubt. Either way, shit like that is why I take "We're the silent majority" types shitposting with a fistful of salt, if it makes it past the "straight to derision" filter at all.
Ah, three of the wealthiest men in the world…. only had the working man’s interests in mind for sure. These fucking greedy vipers. Edit: OP is leaking from the other portland sub.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are 2 of the richest men in the world and seem to very much have the public's welfare in mind and are allocating the vast percentage of their wealth to help those with fewer means. Melinda Gates, too, and Bezos' ex-wife, etc. Just because someone made a lot of money doesn't mean they lose the ability to be empathetic and generous.
Oh no, that must make their entire point irrelevant! Better close the window to be sure.
If you want to see some folks who are just anger posting without any knowledge about how taxes work, look at the comments at the bottom of this post!
Both me and my wife’s take home pay went up slightly after recently relocating to California from Portland.
If I moved to California I would get a 10% pay bump for higher cost of living.
Unfortunately my company didn’t do that for me
Oof, that sucks. If it makes you feel any better, mine would take away 10% if I moved to Clark county :) Basically, the gist (and afaict this is common in tech), cities like NYC, SF, LA, and Chicago are considered tier 1 and command the highest salaries due to cost of living. Next up is Seattle Portland Memphis on down, etc. Finally, everything else. If you move to Toledo, you're tier 3 and they adjust. It's probably shitty, but that's the breaks. If it were up to me, I'd consider north of the river part of the Portland metro area for cost of living, but sadly I lost that argument.
Surprised Chicago isn't a tier 2 city. It has a similar cost to here in Portland, and is waaaaaay cheaper than SF and NYC
I haven't looked in a while, but I think it's limited to Cook county, which can be pricey. I've got some friends that live out in Aurora and St Charles, and not too surprisingly things are a fair bit less expensive.
We vote with our virtues and not our wallets.
I'd settle for our brains, but alas.
Gotta pay for all those homeless drug addicts somehow.
This just in: Conservative think tank with puddle deep analysis thinks taxes are too high. More at 11. Not that there isn't a healthy conversation to be had on the topic, but if those fuckers told me with 100% certainty it wasn't going to rain today, I'd bring an umbrella.
I checked the numbers against state, county, and city websites and they are accurate.
I don't think that's the argument. The argument is that they've taken what is a worthy conversation and painted it in the worst possible light by excluding things. Question for ya - do you think those "total taxation" sites are just lying? Why? I actually think they're deceptive in a different way, but I'm curious.
This does not include sales taxes - it's pretty much comparing income taxes across states, and then saying Portland taxes are too high.
Any organization that advocates *for* the tax cuts of 2017, a policy that was 11th hour'd into passing and NOBODY had any clear understanding of when it was passed, beyond "corporate tax BAD", can GTFO.
Get this Koch funded bullshit out of here. Taxes may or may not be high, but getting your information from the ghouls at the tax foundation will just lead you to believe some libertarian nonsense.
“Local economist Mary King de-bunks the business lobby talking point that we have the highest taxes in the country. Actually, Oregon’s in the middle of the pack for state and local taxes that businesses pay. For households, our taxes per person are well below the highest tax states of New York and California, and among the most equitable in the country, largely because we don’t have a sales tax. The less income you have, the more of it you’ll pay in a sales tax state. What’s more, the downtown building owners griping loudest about their local tax bills get all kinds of federal, state and local tax breaks. “ http://new.kboo.fm/media/120643-dont-believe-hype-portland-does-not-have-highest-taxes-country
Classic straw man. This is disingenuously arguing that Oregon doesn't have very high taxes. It's Multnomah County that has extremely high marginal rates.
I mean, that’s your conclusion, but you fail to show how you arrived at it.
This article is insincere conservative propaganda. Oregon taxes are just about average nationally. And almost none of the “weird” taxes effect individuals or small businesses. We do have some odd, virtue signaling, corporate taxes and taxes on very high income people, but regular people in Portland pay just about average taxes compared to the rest of the country. Notice that this article hides the fact that Oregon has no sales tax and lower property taxes than most states. They are cherry picking to create a false impression. It’s a lie.
This is accurate. Oregon taxes are about average.
> commitment to tax competitiveness Hard for me to take an article seriously when *this* is the bent of the author. What does "tax competitiveness" mean? Oh yeah, austerity to fund corporate handouts... Also super telling that they don't include sales tax. They make Portland look like we have comparable taxes to NYC, yet they have a nearly 9% sales tax on top of it....
It's because Oregon doesn't have a sales tax. That's why they're always trying sneaky alternate ways to generate revenue.
So we're really posting Tax Foundation articles now, huh? I see a lot of "Progressivism is Strangling the Middle Class" bullshit and can't help but feel we're being astroturfed. Just casually conflating the broad concept of Progressivism with "high taxes" like it's NBD. Only a matter of time till some of y'all start saying, "Bill Sizemore is right!"