Every wage earner over 18 must pay a $35 tax to the city of Portland

Hi guys,

The liberal city government of Portland, OR is at it again. Every single person over 18 who is a wage earner must pay the city of Portland $35 for an "Art Tax"

This is not part of regular state taxes, of which we pay income tax to the state of Oregon. This is not a local tax as it normally appears on taxes. This, while voted into being, is an unconstitutional tax on the people of Portland. What's next? Can people vote to make it a law that everyone who makes over $40,000/yr must pay all of their income over that 40 grand to people making less than 40 grand? We can just vote to steal money from people and give it to who we wish?

This is not a legitimate tax, and the city knows that, which is why they have not been clear on how they plan to enforce this.

I'm beyond angry about this, I love my city and state but these liberal nut cases are killing it. And before you complain, I don't want conservative nut cases running things either. Liberals claim to care about those of low income, yet everyone must pay $35? Do they know that $35 is a weeks worth of food to some people? Gas to get to work? Oregon is struggling with some very bad unemployment numbers, yet the city thinks stealing even more money from its citizens is a good idea?

This is supposed to pay for art teachers at school.... OK.... there are a lot of free art programs that children can get involved in outside of school, especially in Portland. The city evidently places a higher value on teaching art, than teaching children things that can actually get them working once they grow up.

How about those Portlandia people foot the bill for these art teachers, since they are such big hippy artsy types and are making money off making Portland look like a looney bin.

Anyone live in Portland? Are you going to refuse to pay the tax? What does everyone thing about this? And keep in mind, this is not a normal tax, this is a whole different animal, unconstitutional, and wrong.

www.oregonlive.com...

Elections have consequences. Elect liberals, pay the price. Elect neo-cons, still pay the price.

reply to post by James1982


While I agree it is a silly tax art is very important it can help your soul and bring out feelings you have never had.
Iam no artist but I do love Art, it is part of our culture and you can learn other cultures with the help of their art.

reply to post by James1982


Tell your kid to take the art supplies from the class, then you'll come out ahead. No, but seriously that is ridiculous.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Elections have consequences. Elect liberals, pay the price. Elect neo-cons, still pay the price.

Yup everyone is stuck between a rock and a (dumb) hard place.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by James1982

 

While I agree it is a silly tax art is very important it can help your soul and bring out feelings you have never had.
Iam no artist but I do love Art, it is part of our culture and you can learn other cultures with the help of their art.

I don't have a problem with people learning about Art. I have a problem when art is being prioritized over the staples of education like reading, math, science, and history. Once the portland public school system gets their crap together and does a good job teaching these subjects, then they can focus on art.

I also have a problem with a random tax such as this. We pay for the schools via income tax, being an Oregon citizen we have to pay Federal and State income tax, and the state takes even more of my money than the federal government does. Now they want even more money for something they should already be doing.

They need to get their chit together. For a long time the stupid city has been pulling stunts like this as passing the problem to the tax payer. They always say it's a temporary tax to fix some immediate problem that's going to cause the end of the world, and then it becomes permanent, and it doesn't end up fixing anything.

I also said already that there are tons of FREE art programs that kids can get involved in, you don't need an art program at school to teach children art. Parents could teach their children art even. There are plenty of other ways if art is so important to people.

Art classes in portland public schools are NOT some mind opening, culturally significant program which teaches the history of art, it's quite literally a bunch of little kids sitting around playing with water colors and markers. Why can't they do that at home?

Originally posted by AwakeWeAre
reply to post by James1982

 

Tell your kid to take the art supplies from the class, then you'll come out ahead. No, but seriously that is ridiculous.

Thankfully I don't have a child in the school system, but I have family that does. And you couldn't be more correct, it's seriously ridiculous.

Well, I live here in Portland and agree with you. I'm not happy about this tax at all. Since it's going to the schools then I know it will be wasted. Very little of it probably won't actually reach the children. Most will go to teachers and their perks, and the rest to the administrators.
By the way, can this tax still be unconstitutional if it's voted in by the stupid voters? Cause it was!

Originally posted by Tompdx3
Well, I live here in Portland and agree with you. I'm not happy about this tax at all. Since it's going to the schools then I know it will be wasted. Very little of it probably won't actually reach the children. Most will go to teachers and their perks, and the rest to the administrators.
By the way, can this tax still be unconstitutional if it's voted in by the stupid voters? Cause it was!

Wasted... it's almost guaranteed. This isn't the first time the city has asked for temporary emergency money, and then the problem this money is supposed to fix actually never gets fixed, yet the money still goes flowing into their pockets. So what are we actually paying for?

The constitution is there to protect us from not only the government, but from mob rule. There could be a vote to evict black people from the city, and even if it passed, it would be unconstitutional and not allowed. While being voted in by the public gives it a veneer of legitimacy, that's all it is.

What would happen if Portland voted to re-distribute ALL income over $40,000? So if you make $100,000, the city steals $60,000 of it and gives it away (or more likely keeps it) That's not legal. Just because this "tax" is going to the schools doesn't make it any different than this example of wealth redistribution.

It seems to me the city has no right to levy this tax.....
Those with school children sure, but everyone else no!

I have a question.... What is illegal or unconstitutional and by which Constitution? Federal or Oregon State? I ask because the charge is a valid and serious one...if it had provable basis. You could challenge the tax yourself, personally, in court and likely win it if it's clear enough.

All in all it sounds like a rather cheesy and underhanded way of screwing people for more school money. If there is one thing the schools in this nation don't need, it's more MONEY. They need FAR better budgets. They need administrators who aren't foolish at best and outright corrupt at worst on the wasting of money already allotted to them...but they don't need more of it, IMO.

BTW.. I have another question. Does Portland have paid drivers ed in the schools? The schools here dropped it a long time ago and it's up to the kids to find ways to learn to drive ...or just wait until their 18 then pass the check ride with the License Bureau buy and you're off. If Portland doesn't have drivers ed, as so many have cut, I'd say THAT would be the thing to tax the city overall for..if ANYTHING. At least that addition has direct impact on public safety and the lives of the people. What does Art do when so much in meaningful education is wasted or cut outright?

You need to seek advice from Oregon's Constitution on this matter, not the United States Constitution; in which when formed, plenary power of taxation was agreed to within. From the looks of it, the city has the authority constitutionally to place such a tax (even if I do not agree with it):

Article I, Section 1:

Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.—

Article XI, Section 1:

Section 1. Assessment and taxation; uniform rules; uniformity of operation of laws. The Legislative Assembly shall, and the people through the initiative may, provide by law uniform rules of assessment and taxation. All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws operating uniformly throughout the State. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by H.J.R. 16, 1917, and adopted by the people June 4, 1917]

One could argue that the the taxation is not uniform though and that by merely living in a certain city or within its incorporated limits, subjects you to such a tax. To that, we also see the Charter of Incorporation of the city in question. It should be noted though, from here we are no longer speaking of constitutionality and everything put forward is municipal code.

There, through design of dissemination and dilution of democratic principles, the most power is held directly to the People through a more direct democracy. I will have to research more though on where the power of taxation through city/county is derived as that question isn't really brought up much, but typically and in short, the People of the city approved the measure and agreed upon it. So long as that measure is not in violation of the Oregon Constitution and the Federal Constitution, such power is held just as delegated by the People of that city.

I am still trying to determine though how such taxation is uniform, in relation to the Oregon Constitution; in which uniformity applies to that the tax has no exit for being "poor", a business owner, wealthy, etc.

The constitution is there to protect us from not only the government, but from mob rule. There could be a vote to evict black people from the city, and even if it passed, it would be unconstitutional and not allowed. While being voted in by the public gives it a veneer of legitimacy, that's all it is.

That would most surely be unconstitutional and is not the same as imposing a city-wide tax. As long as the tax is uniform it would seem, it is well within the State's Constitution.

What would happen if Portland voted to re-distribute ALL income over $40,000? So if you make $100,000, the city steals $60,000 of it and gives it away (or more likely keeps it) That's not legal. Just because this "tax" is going to the schools doesn't make it any different than this example of wealth redistribution.

They would be violating Article I, Section 1; along with a few others; if such passed.

Originally posted by stirling
It seems to me the city has no right to levy this tax.....
Those with school children sure, but everyone else no!

The tax has to be uniform so only imposing it on people with school-aged children would indeed be a direct violation of the taxation clause of the Oregon Constitution. In this case, the tax is uniform in its application and for the time being, the city, nor the People, engaged in a violation of the State's Constitution.

Originally posted by stirling
It seems to me the city has no right to levy this tax.....
Those with school children sure, but everyone else no!

That's exactly it....

You know one method to pay? You can go to www.artstax.net and pay them. Does that sound like a legitimate tax?

There are legitimate taxes other than simple state income tax here in Oregon. Tri-Met Transit District, Lane County Transit District, and Multnomah County have taxes that BUSINESSES have to pay.

Guess who handles those taxes? The OREGON department of revenue.

Guess who is handling this Art "Tax" The PORTLAND department of revenue. If this was a legitimate tax it would be going through the Oregon Department Of Revenue like all other city/county taxes.

I'm telling you, this will be a mess. This will get overturned, which will cost them money to defend, and then it will cost them tons of money to administer the refunds to everyone. Or they won't have to give refunds as they'll probably make up something stupid like we were giving that money away freely, so it's a donation, and they don't have it give it back.

They are counting on people simply paying this. They have no way to enforce payment, the State Department of Revenue can't even get involved because they aren't in the loop at all.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


This is what I was afraid of and didn't have time or the mental attitude tonight to research (It's been a BAD day.. )

What scares me isn't so much that Oregon can do this to their people. After all, how many states OUTLAW your choice of filling your own car with gas as a liberal jobs program to force full service, hence, gas pumping jobs?

The problem I see is that arbitrary taxes like this could spread to other states that hadn't considered it. I know the schools here try a tax hike EVERY ballot and they get told NO about 9 times out of 10. They deserve it too. However, could they pass THIS tax? I don't know... We have the Hancock Amendment which is suppose to forbid taxes without voter approval (Missouri politicians HATE that law.. ) but I wonder if they could find a way to weasel around it?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Most cities circumvent their taxation authority as laid out in their State Constitutions by imposing "fees"; when we know they are in fact taxes.

Still researching much of it though.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

What would happen if Portland voted to re-distribute ALL income over $40,000? So if you make $100,000, the city steals $60,000 of it and gives it away (or more likely keeps it) That's not legal. Just because this "tax" is going to the schools doesn't make it any different than this example of wealth redistribution.

They would be violating Article I, Section 1; along with a few others; if such passed.

How is that any different than this current arts "tax"

You only have to pay this art's tax if you make over a certain amount of money, which is 11,000 for you alone.

So how would my hypothetical situation be any different? Is it because I said ALL money over a certain amount? If I change it to "If you make over $40,000 you must pay $20,000 to the state" and that passes a vote do you suspect that would be legal?

All other legitimate city/district/county taxes are handled through the Oregon Department of revenue, this is going through Portland. Do you know what Portland revenue department does? Business taxes, not income taxes.

If we can't agree on the actual legality and/or constitutionality of it, can we agree that Portland has zero authority to enforce this tax? If you are skipping out on state taxes, or a business is skipping on county taxes the state can garnish your wages. Can Portland? What are they going to do if nobody pays?

Originally posted by James1982
Hi guys,

The liberal city government of Portland, OR is at it again. Every single person over 18 who is a wage earner must pay the city of Portland $35 for an "Art Tax"

This is not part of regular state taxes, of which we pay income tax to the state of Oregon. This is not a local tax as it normally appears on taxes. This, while voted into being, is an unconstitutional tax on the people of Portland. What's next? Can people vote to make it a law that everyone who makes over $40,000/yr must pay all of their income over that 40 grand to people making less than 40 grand? We can just vote to steal money from people and give it to who we wish?

This is not a legitimate tax, and the city knows that, which is why they have not been clear on how they plan to enforce this.

I'm beyond angry about this, I love my city and state but these liberal nut cases are killing it. And before you complain, I don't want conservative nut cases running things either. Liberals claim to care about those of low income, yet everyone must pay $35? Do they know that $35 is a weeks worth of food to some people? Gas to get to work? Oregon is struggling with some very bad unemployment numbers, yet the city thinks stealing even more money from its citizens is a good idea?

This is supposed to pay for art teachers at school.... OK.... there are a lot of free art programs that children can get involved in outside of school, especially in Portland. The city evidently places a higher value on teaching art, than teaching children things that can actually get them working once they grow up.

How about those Portlandia people foot the bill for these art teachers, since they are such big hippy artsy types and are making money off making Portland look like a looney bin.

Anyone live in Portland? Are you going to refuse to pay the tax? What does everyone thing about this? And keep in mind, this is not a normal tax, this is a whole different animal, unconstitutional, and wrong.

www.oregonlive.com...

Maybe it's time I take Oregon State to Supreme Court for stealing and profiting off of my art work since 1988.

Originally posted by James1982
How is that any different than this current arts "tax"

You only have to pay this art's tax if you make over a certain amount of money, which is 11,000 for you alone.

And an excellent question in which I agree. If anything, that is the leg to stand on when someone has the guts to oppose the tax. It isn't uniform as it has exceptions for those below the "Federal poverty line". A line that is arbitrary in my opinion. I was merely pointing out that by only having those with children would be a clear violation, as opposed to this, requires some maneuvering that rarely anyone ever even attempts to question.

So how would my hypothetical situation be any different? Is it because I said ALL money over a certain amount? If I change it to "If you make over $40,000 you must pay $20,000 to the state" and that passes a vote do you suspect that would be legal?

Honestly? If a city imposed such a tax, and that tax was meant for that city, I believe in the power of the People to vote with their feet and they would starve the beast of their tax base. That said, I know it is easier said than done since many have made their homestead in such a city and that is where they found work.

In essence, this is a tax that is aimed squarely at the middle-class; the middle-class who predominately occupies the city of Portland. Only 34% of its population fall under the $24,000/year mark and the median income is about $50,000. I hate to play with numbers here, but even $24,000/year with a family of 4 is above the poverty line (as what this law will fall upon).

As for how taxes are collected, and I am not questioning you, but I cannot find where what you said is true that all taxes are collected by the State; even local taxes for ordinances. Are you meaning via filing State Income taxes? This tax would be similar to a property tax that you pay directly to the City of Portland or rather to the county. That tax does not go through the Oregon Department of Revenue; though they have direct oversight of the various counties.

I agree that things seem mudled and it is up to the People of Portland to make the case here that this tax is in violation of the State's Constitution; either taxation wise, or it deprives them of something tangible as protected by the constitution.

If you are skipping out on state taxes, or a business is skipping on county taxes the state can garnish your wages. Can Portland? What are they going to do if nobody pays?

Agreed and completely honest question. I will have to get back with my answer to that.

reply to post by sean


You didn't happen to build that pile of logs and rocks by the Rose Garden that some people have the nerve to call "Art" did you? lol

No, that can't be it, you said they stole your art, I'm sure the city paid someone a few hundred thousand dollars for that pile or logs and rocks.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I wasn't too clear and I made a slight mistake with my wording.

Counties levy and collect property taxes and the like, but the state administers taxes that are to pay for Trimet. That was one of those things that was voted in as a tax on business to pay for our public transportation system. I likened this to the art tax as it was a take hike voted by the people. The state administers the whole ordeal, even thought it's county specific. Which seemed odd as countys can levy and collect property tax, so you'd think they could levy the trimet tax, but the state took control on that one.

I was incorrect in saying that only the state can collect taxes, I should have been more specific, the state is the only one that collects income tax. If counties can go through the state government to deal with taxes in their counties, like the trimet tax for instance, it seems odd that Portland wouldn't simply go through the state income tax system, as there is already a pre-setup income tax collection system.

I'm just pondering on why they are doing things they way they are doing them, as it seems they are trying to fly under the radar with the whole art tax thing. Is it an income tax? A fee? Because Portland can collect property tax and service fees, not income tax. If this is technically defined as an income tax, then not only did the voters vote for this simple one time (yeah right) tax, but they actually completely changed Portland tax code allowing the city to levy income tax.

Which means they could start an actual income tax program like federal or state income tax. If it's not an actual income tax, is it a service fee? If you aren't attending school or have kids in school what service are you paying a fee for? That's what seems tricky about this.

They seem to not be very specific with the technicalities behind this tax and that's what's making be suspicious. My conviction that this is unconstitutional is based on my interpretation of the US constitution. Whether or not government officials agree is a different story, and I guess we will find that out in the future. If the constitution was black and white we wouldn't need a supreme court.