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

I live very close to Portland...like just across the bridge where I pay zero state tax....hehe

reply to post by James1982


All honest questions and it is rarely an area I delved into; going down to the authority of a city/township to impose taxation. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this and maybe find ground to oppose in court on an unjust tax. My guess the uniformity clause but who knows what the state will fall back on. Maybe some precedents will shed light on it. Researching that is cumbersome without legal access sometimes.

reply to post by James1982


Answer to your question no.

However, I am the designer of the "Douglas Fir" car license plate. Probably the one on your own vehicle right now. I designed it at the age of 16 in my 9th grade high school art class in 1988. I was given a template and drew it exactly as it is on the plate, only the colors was slightly off and then later ratified for a greener tree as people complained it looked "dead", and I totally agreed. The tree was originally of a yellowish/orange color. The guidelines was I could only use 4 colors. After all the other students picked out their colors the colors pencils or crayola crayons was some slim pickings and so I chose what I could.

All of the students was told after we sent them to the state and they picked the winner. At that time we would receive recognition for it and be paid $100. Well back then that money meant riding a new bike to a kid. Well time passed by and class ended and soon school was out. Needless to say I haven't received a stinking dime from them nor was given recognition for it. To this day if you was to ask the government who the designer was, they couldn't tell you! That information on file is blank. There's probably nothing I can do since it's been so long. So in closing, everything I have said is true. Is the government capable of stealing your dreams from you? The answer to that is Yes they can.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by James1982

 

All honest questions and it is rarely an area I delved into; going down to the authority of a city/township to impose taxation. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this and maybe find ground to oppose in court on an unjust tax. My guess the uniformity clause but who knows what the state will fall back on. Maybe some precedents will shed light on it. Researching that is cumbersome without legal access sometimes.

Yeah that's the main problem. I've been putting tons of research into trying to figure this stuff out. From what I can find it's kind of a gray area, and gray areas are usually the home of people with walls of law books and a brain full of case law, so us normal folks are at a disadvantage.

It just boggles my mind... the schools are funded through income tax revenue, it's not like they rely on donations to function. Why don't we expect them to live within their means just like everyone else?

If I went to my boss and said "Hey Mr. Bossman I really need some new paintings to hang around my house, but I can't afford it. You mind footing the bill?" I wonder what he would say

Speaking of art, Portland has all these ugly art "installations" all over the city. Why didn't they use that money to fund the school's art program instead of buying pieces of "art" to display?

The money IS there if they really needed some art classes in schools. They need to figure it out themselves. They are hired for that job, we the taxpayers already pay them, now get to work.

This also makes me think of some program where they have low income housing for artists that's subsidized. Can you believe that? We have to pay for starving artist's apartments now? Who are likely also getting food stamps, welfare, god knows what else.

Since when did art become the #1 priority in Portland? All the homeless aren't as important? Unemployment isn't importlant? But lets support art and screw everything else seems to be the mentality here.

I'm surprised nobody has defended the tax yet on here. All over the web are a bunch of people saying how it's no big deal, how you hate the children if you don't pay the tax, how the schools are messed up so we need to give them more money. My blood was boiling. Yes the schools are screwed up, precisely because of crap like this. Kids can't read or do math, and they don't know their own state's capital, but they can do a watercolor painting at school so everything is OK.

At least gun laws are still somewhat sane in this State, I think we owe that to the conservative people that populate the entire state of Oregon outside of Portland lol.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I live very close to Portland...like just across the bridge where I pay zero state tax....hehe

But you do have to pay sales tax, so feel free to come down here and do all your shopping and purchasing of goods, it will be cheaper for you, and more sales revenue for us!

reply to post by James1982


I am glad that you saw my initial post not in support of it! Typically when I come in to provide the base understanding it is taken as support of such, when it is merely trying to at least show where the authority is derived. On the other hand, if such authority is held to the city and the People of Portland have agreed upon it (remember, a city's political makeup isn't republican in form and more democratic with only portions of representative government in place; aka city councils), I am for it.

In theory, because of the close relationship with the People, a city is in best position to provide the civic services most demanded by its citizens. The natural thought being, is a basic power of taxation by the city, through ordinances and sales tax, would fund these initiatives based on the overall needs of the cities. Think of it as the ultimate self-governing body that is closest to the People and therefore, most easily remedied if things go awry.

As such though, much of a state decides that they also need to take in taxes to fund programs (that are most likely already funded and paid for by the local cities) and the taxation grows; leaving taxes such as this one in bad taste.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Oh I absolutely understand where you're coming from with that sort of thing. I feel the same way. I can usually tell the difference between someone "telling it like it is" and someone "supporting how it is"

My main issue with the whole thing is the double dipping being perpetrated by the schools. They have been doing it for quite some time. With one hand they wipe away the tears from their face from crying about being broke, and with the other hand they are quite literally throwing money away into the garbage can. They want more more more, and when they get it, they still aren't content.

It's like a ship with a hole in it, and instead of fixing the hole, or getting off the ship, they just plug the hole with their finger and hope for the best. Then another hole opens up, and they demand more fingers for plugging holes. Very convoluted comparison but accurate nonetheless.

Past that, I also still question the validity of this tax. I also don't understand why they went to the common worker for this money, when property taxes and service fees could probably be massaged into providing the same amount of money with less of an obvious impact.

i also question the need for Art in schools over other, more useful programs. But even if you are a die hard supporter of the arts, you still don't need school for that, as I mentioned there are free art programs for kids all over the place. Without this tax, kids would still have free access to artistic related stuff, and probably better quality as well.

Not to mention not everyone wants to be involved in Art, and forcing kids to draw pictures seems like a waste of school hours, which are always being cut, and everyone complains about not having enough time during the school day. Yet watercolors are still considered top priority... i just don't get it.

Originally posted by sean
reply to post by James1982

 

Answer to your question no.

However, I am the designer of the "Douglas Fir" car license plate. Probably the one on your own vehicle right now. I designed it at the age of 16 in my 9th grade high school art class in 1988. I was given a template and drew it exactly as it is on the plate, only the colors was slightly off and then later ratified for a greener tree as people complained it looked "dead", and I totally agreed. The tree was originally of a yellowish/orange color. The guidelines was I could only use 4 colors. After all the other students picked out their colors the colors pencils or crayola crayons was some slim pickings and so I chose what I could.

All of the students was told after we sent them to the state and they picked the winner. At that time we would receive recognition for it and be paid $100. Well back then that money meant riding a new bike to a kid. Well time passed by and class ended and soon school was out. Needless to say I haven't received a stinking dime from them nor was given recognition for it. To this day if you was to ask the government who the designer was, they couldn't tell you! That information on file is blank. There's probably nothing I can do since it's been so long. So in closing, everything I have said is true. Is the government capable of stealing your dreams from you? The answer to that is Yes they can.

edit on 6-3-2013 by sean because: (no reason given)

Holy crap dude! This is ATS so I'd like to remain skeptical, but that story is too crazy to be fake! lol I totally believe ya. And yep I got the tree plate, although I'd really like an old school blue background and yellow lettering plate ( no offense to your tree drawing abilities lol)

You know that pile of logs and rocks right? I can't find info about it anywhere on line, I'm really curious how much that cost the city.

Do you live in Portland or somewhere else? If you live in Portland you should refuse to pay the art tax based on your previous contribution to the arts. lol

Something I just thought of...on the whole license plate subject, specialty plates have been released in the past to raise money for certain causes. Why wouldn't they release a "supporter of the arts" license plate to help raise money for the arts? Seems like a good idea doesn't it?

I'm also trying to figure out that whole "run for the arts" thing. So they make kids run around in circles all day, and adults pay them for their laps, and then the kids hand over all that money to... who? for what?

All this money for the arts... and they still need more. Is "arts" code name for general government spending or something? Almost seems like it.,

The imposition of an unfair, unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional tax goes this way:

"Hello sir, this tax is unconstitutional and I will not pay."

"uh, you have to pay."

"please show me where it says I have to pay."

"you have to pay, you just do, it's the law."

"Sir, did you go to college, the constitution says this is not only unlawful, but out order on every level."

"you have to pay, sorry, it's the law."

"screw you, I refuse to pay on the grounds this is wholly unconstitutional."

"Sir, you have to pay, if you don't pay we'll put a lien on your house."

"I don't own a house, I can't afford one, or this tax."

"you have to pay, we'll just garnish your wages, or put you in jail."

"you mean there is no recourse?"

"Sir, your time is up, you have to pay, okay, you and everyone else has to pay, it is the law, nothing I can do about it, if you want to go to jail, go ahead, but I can't do anything for you."

And that my friends is the law. The "law" is #$%sh*&, the "constitution" is the same piece of horse crap. Bureaucracy administered by the uneducated, the weak and the spiritually poor is the law and it will never change as long as these lug-heads are between you and your energy. They will take a piece of you because the can and there is nothing you can do about it, quoting the law, the constitution, human liberty or "NATURAL RIGHTS" gets you buptkiss, nothing but a blank stare and one final...IT'S MY JOB!

My friend protested a parking ticket because the sign was covered in foliage. He sent a photo - per the "law" and said there was no sign to see. The response was, "complainant just sent photo of foliage" relief denied. Lughead, moron, uneducated bureaucrats are your keeper and there is nothing you can do about it, nothing.

reply to post by crankyoldman


Well if you come with that sort of logic and legal reasoning, why wouldn't they? Just claiming it is unconstitutional doesn't make it such, though I understand what you are getting at. You have to show cause as to why it is; especially since the People of Portland have agreed that the city has such power.

As always, people what "democracy" then when it is imposed, they don't want it because they now realize the axiom of "two wolves voting with a sheep on what is for dinner" (or something to that effect). There are limits in place and the question on the table is, is this tax overreaching and the OP has brought up some valid questions.

reply to post by James1982


No I don't live in Portland and never have. However I have been there several times. I don't want to reveal exactly where I live. but I grew up in Springfield and am from there. I wasn't even aware of this, but the state was given an award from the federal government for having the nicest looking plate during that time. It's funny though and I can take criticism on my design, but hell it's just a tree lol I thought In making a beaver or tail in the middle or something, but The space in the middle was just to awkward and the only thing that I could think of to fit there was a tree. Again, I could only choose 4 colors.

It really isn't all about the art. It's the fact we trusted them and they took advantage of a bunch of young art students in school and that's what pisses me off the most. Whomever was involved at the time should be ashamed of themselves. So there you have it the DMV Department of Transportation sold the plates as the generic plate. God knows what they do with the revenue from it. No one can prove anything as they took all the original art work and ran with it. All I have is my story. I did however, wrote to the head person as recently they had a gathering to come up with the new design in the works. I told her my story and well I got no reply. Why am I not surprised.

reply to post by sean


Oh no worries I wasn't trying to figure out where you live, I was just curious if you knew of that specific "art" piece by the rose garden and the highway. I thought if you lived in Portland odds are you'd know the name of it or something, I was gonna post up a pic to demonstrate how money is wasted on such stuff.

I realize school budget and "public art" budgets are two separate things but just making a point, the money is there somewhere, if they can't figure out a way to move it around to get what they want, then don't come knocking at my door looking for money.

I don't have a problem with the democratic process. I just have a problem with the inconsistency of this whole situation. If the city of Portland wants to have an Income tax, then lets have an actual Income tax, it will give the City some funds to throw around, and apply to issues just like this. Then we can have an actual income tax layout to follow, with brackets based on income, or a flat percentage of income, whatever people want to do.

But just randomly charging a fee of every single person without the actual framework of a City income tax setup seems very fishy. Either we have a city income tax or we don't. If we do, then everyone, every year, pays their income tax just like we do with federal. It can be withheld from our paychecks, and come tax time we get refunds if we pay too much, and a bill if we pay to little.

If we don't have an income tax than this "art tax" is BS. They can't have it both ways.

Do I want an actual city income tax? Of course not. I'm sure I'd end up paying more than $35. The money isn't the issue for me, it's their way of being sneaky and begging for money and then send it to a vote. If nothing else that's a very inefficient and haphazard way of raising money.

A good comparison would be comparing this to the federal bailout of the financial institutions. Congress is called in and told how awful things are and get scared into voting to give money to the financial institutions. That's very different than the government just using it's normal funds to make a loan to someone.

Just like calling a vote for a fee to pay for arts in schools is totally different than a legitimate income tax system.

Hopefully that gets my stance a little more clear. I'm sure everyone realizes that this is very different than any normal income tax out there.

If the news articles read "Portland voted to instate yearly income tax" and paying for the art in schools was just one of the things they planned to spend the money on, and it was treated like a legitimate income tax including withholding, refunds, brackets, and so on, I would have zero issue with it.

reply to post by James1982


The problem isn't "liberal nut cases"
The problem isn't "conservative nut cases"
The problem is nut cases.

While I don't agree with the tax either, it's not about political party labels. People from all parties do stupid things.

reply to post by James1982


Luckily you don't live in PA or you would be even more mad!

We have to pay a "workers tax" of $52 a year!!

$1 a week is taken from your pay for what they call a "worker's tax".....

Don't ask me what that is or means.....

reply to post by James1982


Got love it when the Govt can give you everything, and thus take everything as well.

Portland, you just got added to the list of places I will never go to spend my money.

The people there are getting what they deserve. Regardless if it is Dems or Repubs, more Govt means less money for the individual.

reply to post by James1982

If you work in the cities of Kansas City or St. Louis, Missouri, 1% of your paycheck is automatically deducted and sent to the city. The money goes towards numerous things for the city, but it also pays for trash service for everyone that lives within the city limits. So we pay 1% of our income for the privilege to just work in the city. And it doesn't matter what your income level is.

reply to post by James1982


It's a perfect example of how disarray the government is and those who are in office. They do more harm then good. Left has no idea what the right is doing. They build this spectacle spend loads of money and then sit around and think up idiotic tax gimmicks. Then someone else in office says oh hey that sounds like a good idea and then it suddenly manifests itself. No one knows how it got into law, when, where, because they are so wrapped up into their own lives just trying to survive pay check to pay check. The government really is a separate entity. The only people who benefit are the ones who are in office. Giving themselves raises. Billions of dollars missing, every year money being drained into a black hole. Our forefathers warned us of the government getting to big and out of control and the ramifications of that. You look around and that picture is coming more clear everyday.

reply to post by James1982


In Pittsburgh it was $90 a year to work in the city. They take it right out of your check.

well at least they are up front about it and not taxing you by stealth like most poxy governments do....£35 bucks is not to much to ask for spread out over a year really....i know it sucks when they can just pass these silly laws but i'm sure you fritter away £35 on stupid stuff throughout the year and dont bat an eyelid....

The dream of the 90's is alive in Portland...

You might be paying an extra $35, but at least you don't have to pump your own gas!

It's Portland...I'm surprised they don't have an opt-out program where you can spend $35 of your own money on art supplies to paint birds on things.