The hard realities that oil companies would still prosper even without gross production tax credits? Or that Oklahoma will still be awash in oil and gas even without subsidies..? Either way, how about back to the personal income tax debate.
The companies and their rigs wont be leaving. Where are they going? Arizona? Oil and gas companies go where the oil is, and that is here. Im not arguing any more about oil and gas though, back to the personal income tax debate. Have any more vague tweets or highly skewed graphs to show us?

I thought you were not going to talk any more about OIL AND GAS

When you look at the OVERALL tax climate in Oklahoma, it is already low...even compared to Texas. Services don't come free. If we lower or eliminate income, or any other single tax or fee, we have to make up for it with another. Or else, we have to cut services like education, safety, infrastructure. It is very simple...there is no such thing as a free lunch. The question always is, who pays and who gets paid. ...
Exactly, that is what I tried to say in my original post. The tax cut is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving the pile of money from one revenue stream to another. Dems & Repubs at the Legislature, seem to think that everything exists in a vacuum. it doesn't.

Yes it is true. Are there exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Yes revenues did decline in Oklahoma after a tax cut but there was that little thing called the Recession, remember? oklahlma faired much, much better during that than other States and remember when Oklahoma City was named as one of the most recession proof cities in the Country? I guess you keep missing the articles where OKC has consistently ranked as best in unemployment rates etc? Keep reading over the years how state agencies have given employees raise, just not an across-the-board raise for everyone. Teachers HAVE gotten raises, including having their insurance premiums paid for (like many other State employees). I will reiterate that the majority are seeing a tax cut. Of your remaining 38% how many of those folks taxes are going to go up? How many are staying the same? What services are being cut? Are they services that Government is supposed to be involved in anyway? The tax cut hasn't happened yet. Doesn't kick in until 2015.

Good post

I don't mind a tax cut. Who would? That said, the state needs to be able to fund itself. We can't run a deficit like the Feds, so the "cutting revenue will actually generate more revenue" argument is folly.

We need to improve our education, infrastructure, and quality of life (and health) to attract good-paying companies. The reason OKC is booming is because of our improved quality of life (among other things). The state, overall, is not booming to the same degree OKC is.

Another way of looking at it is: Boeing and other major companies have obviously not been worried about our state income tax when deciding where to locate operations. Our home-grown companies are thriving, with rumors of companies from other states relocating here. The tax climate is obviously not an impediment in attracting this growth.

If, however, we continue to underfund education and infrastructure growth, we may be faced with deteriorating prospects in the future.

Personally, the $100 bucks or so I'm going to save on my taxes would be better served going toward raising teacher pay, in my opinion. I want to drive on good quality roads and I want my children and other people's children to be well educated to compete in a global economy, so this state can continue to improve. That's more important to me than some largely symbolic income tax cut.
Yep, they depend on all of those tax incentives to relocate here.

Exactly, that is what I tried to say in my original post. The tax cut is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving the pile of money from one revenue stream to another. Dems & Repubs at the Legislature, seem to think that everything exists in a vacuum. it doesn't.

Why is the tax cut "largely self-sustaining”?

Yes because we are already in the bottom 5% for funding education, have the highest percent of unsafe bridges, and without oil and gas income, near the bottom in income. We would be 3rd world status if not for dinosaurs and trees that died millions of years ago. Our legislators know if they keep the people uneducated they can keep getting elected I guess.
Links please? According to what I have read we are much higher than that (and dollar wise, there wasn't all that much separating per pupil spending numbers. We give roughly 50% of the State budget to Education, year end, year out. How much does education need? Does education spending = results? Can't help but think that if they got 100% of the budget, they would still be begging for more.

please provide a link

This economic theory is what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.” We called it “supply-side spin” when we wrote about Republican presidential contender John McCain’s claim that President George W. Bush’s tax cuts had increased federal revenues. We found that a slew of government economists – from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers – all disagreed with that theory, saying that tax cuts may spur economic growth but they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the cuts hadn’t been enacted.

The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

Corporate income taxes, however, may be an exception. There is some evidence that cutting the corporate tax rate can produce more revenue than was projected under the higher rate in the special case of multinational corporations, which can move their money and operations around to take advantage of lower taxes in certain countries. Economists with the pro-business American Enterprise Institute came to that conclusion in a study released in July 2007. They found that lower corporate rates attract enough growth in corporate income to produce higher government revenues. However, one of the authors, Kevin A. Hassett, told FactCheck.org that small countries, such as Ireland, had the most success and that "it may or may not be correct" to apply the study’s results to the United States.

Sources
United States Congressional Budget Office. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal years 2008 to 2017" Jan. 2007.

United States Council of Economic Advisers. "Economic Report of the President." U.S. Government Printing Office. Feb. 2003.

United States Joint Committee on Taxation. "Estimated Budget Effects of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 1836" JCX-51-01. 26 May 2001.

United States Joint Committee on Taxation. "Estimated Budget Effects of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 2 The ‘Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.’ " JCX-55-03. 22 May 2003.

United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis. "A Dynamic Analysis of Permanent Extension of the President’s Tax Relief." 25 July 2006.

Mankiw, N. Gregory and Matthew Weinzierl, "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-of-the-Envelope Guide," 12 Dec. 2005.

FactCheck.org : The Impact of Tax Cuts (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-impact-of-tax-cuts/)

World petrol prices, gas prices, diesel prices 2013| MyTravelCost.com (http://www.mytravelcost.com/petrol-prices/)

I like cheap fuel too, but why do you feel we don't already pay a fair, low price? Globally, we're very near the cheapest (especially in places you would actually want to live).
Not sure if this was where you were going with this, but a few years back when they were trying to raise the State gasoline tax (when they were threatening $2/gal), the argument was often made on how cheap gas is here compared to other countries (usually European). the Oklahoman was pushing hard for it in article after article. In one lengthy article, they let it slip near the end. We are actually paying the same amount for the gas itself, the price difference was the amount of taxes paid. IIRC, the country they mentioned, England, 75% of their high cost was taxes! ironically what the Oklahoma and those pushing the state question were advocating.

Here's a list of those bottom 1/4 states as of 2010. See any states you would rather live in, such as Texas?

41. South Carolina
42. Nevada
43. Alabama
44. New Hampshire
45. Texas
46. Wyoming
47. Louisiana
48. Tennessee
49. South Dakota
50. Alaska
Most of them actually...LOL

Come off of it. I've certainly dealt with the 'hard realities' of the world. And "that we will never change" means what exactly? No impact? If you really think that, I feel sorry for you. Are you going through life looking for reason to live?

I just choose not to let the minuscule of evil in the world shape my world-view. That's the message of the song. Nothing wrong with that one bit and it certainly doesn't require you to ignore reality in any way.

That song is about someone’s idealistic dreams that will never come true because the realities of the world won’t let them happen… That’s a fantasy world that people can believe in if they wish but the world is not going to change the practicalities of human behavior.

Not sure if this was where you were going with this, but a few years back when they were trying to raise the State gasoline tax (when they were threatening $2/gal), the argument was often made on how cheap gas is here compared to other countries (usually European). the Oklahoman was pushing hard for it in article after article. In one lengthy article, they let it slip near the end. We are actually paying the same amount for the gas itself, the price difference was the amount of taxes paid. IIRC, the country they mentioned, England, 75% of their high cost was taxes! ironically what the Oklahoma and those pushing the state question were advocating.

They wanted an entire nickel per gallon increases. It was soundly defeated in a state wide vote. I was disappointed in the outcome.
It probably would have been smarter if they would have increased the tax by a penny over a 5 year period?

Not sure if this was where you were going with this, but a few years back when they were trying to raise the State gasoline tax (when they were threatening $2/gal), the argument was often made on how cheap gas is here compared to other countries (usually European). the Oklahoman was pushing hard for it in article after article. In one lengthy article, they let it slip near the end. We are actually paying the same amount for the gas itself, the price difference was the amount of taxes paid. IIRC, the country they mentioned, England, 75% of their high cost was taxes! ironically what the Oklahoma and those pushing the state question were advocating.

You have to figure in the cost of maintaing an imperial military as well as empire outposts to get a true picture of the price of a gallon.

You're wrong. It is about aspiring to the things in the song. It's about questioning what we do every day and why we do it and the impact (good or bad) it has on our species.

Lennon never believed we'd get there. No one does. Humans are imperfect and will never live in perfect harmony.

The same could be said for everything in life. You'll never be perfect at your job, be you should still work very hard. Never perfect at your marriage, but you should still try.
The song asks us to 'imagine' what exactly we should be striving for.

I think that’s pretty close to what I said, but just differently.

Why is the tax cut "largely self-sustaining”?

If the taxpayer is allowed to keep more of their money, they have a tendency to spend it. That means more purchases. More employees to make it, shift it & sell it. More employees earning a paycheck instead of getting unemployment and other government aid. That in turn means more spending and the cycle keeps going. Even some Republicans have bought into having to "pay for" a tax cut fallacy. You don't have to as it is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving a pile of money from one category to another. You get the income tax cut back in sales taxes, property taxes, decreases in expenditures for social services etc.

Most of them actually...LOL

If you like banjos and inbreeding I guess. :-P LOL

Alaska would be neat, but I'd prefer Washington St. NH doesn't have much, but New England is pretty as well. Nevada is too damn hot and dry. Wyoming is an empty rectangle, SD much the same.

please provide a link

That's a Laffer! Top economists unanimously reject that tax cuts will yield higher revenue | Oklahoma Policy Institute (http://okpolicy.org/thats-a-laffer-top-economists-unanimously-reject-that-tax-cuts-will-yield-higher-revenue)
And here are two opinions of economists here in Oklahoma.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19732897/rogers_on_ocpa_report_final_2_13_12-1.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19732897/OLSON_VOODOO_PHASING_OUT_INC_TAX.pdf

Youve just been beat over the head so many times by the conservative mantra that cutting taxes raises revenue but there are very, very few experts that say thats true.


Yes it is true. Are there exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Yes revenues did decline in Oklahoma after a tax cut but there was that little thing called the Recession, remember? oklahlma faired much, much better during that than other States and remember when Oklahoma City was named as one of the most recession proof cities in the Country? I guess you keep missing the articles where OKC has consistently ranked as best in unemployment rates etc? Keep reading over the years how state agencies have given employees raise, just not an across-the-board raise for everyone. Teachers HAVE gotten raises, including having their insurance premiums paid for (like many other State employees). I will reiterate that the majority are seeing a tax cut. Of your remaining 38% how many of those folks taxes are going to go up? How many are staying the same? What services are being cut? Are they services that Government is supposed to be involved in anyway? The tax cut hasn't happened yet. Doesn't kick in until 2015.

Oh, it works except when it doesnt..?
We rank well in unemployment because of a strong oil and gas industry (essentially because we have oil in the ground).
Government services that get flat budgets are basically getting cuts. Costs rise and if our lawmakers dont make it up, services get cut. And its not all about cuts, its about properly funding education, public health and safety and our roads. All things that we rank at the bottom in. Im going to guess its because we underfund them, and have for far too long.

If the taxpayer is allowed to keep more of their money, they have a tendency to spend it. That means more purchases. More employees to make it, shift it & sell it. More employees earning a paycheck instead of getting unemployment and other government aid. That in turn means more spending and the cycle keeps going. Even some Republicans have bought into having to "pay for" a tax cut fallacy. You don't have to as it is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving a pile of money from one category to another. You get the income tax cut back in sales taxes, property taxes, decreases in expenditures for social services etc.

Evidence of this? I believe the wealthy sock it away in questionable investment schemes ( the uber wealthy off shore- that's good for the USA ) , the middle class pays off prior credit card, so where is the new spending? Give me some cites.

If the taxpayer is allowed to keep more of their money, they have a tendency to spend it. That means more purchases. More employees to make it, shift it & sell it. More employees earning a paycheck instead of getting unemployment and other government aid. That in turn means more spending and the cycle keeps going. Even some Republicans have bought into having to "pay for" a tax cut fallacy. You don't have to as it is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving a pile of money from one category to another. You get the income tax cut back in sales taxes, property taxes, decreases in expenditures for social services etc.
+1
That’s what I have been trying to say too…. but there are a lot of people who have heard from their leaders on the very far left that it doesn’t work…. but even JFK knew it worked.

If the taxpayer is allowed to keep more of their money, they have a tendency to spend it. That means more purchases. More employees to make it, shift it & sell it. More employees earning a paycheck instead of getting unemployment and other government aid. That in turn means more spending and the cycle keeps going. Even some Republicans have bought into having to "pay for" a tax cut fallacy. You don't have to as it is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving a pile of money from one category to another. You get the income tax cut back in sales taxes, property taxes, decreases in expenditures for social services etc.

So you dont think that state employees would spend their raises? You dont think teachers or troopers would either? Not only would they spend their money too, youd also attract better and brighter folks, most likely improving our quality of education and safety too.

+1
That’s what I have been trying to say too…. but there are a lot of people who have heard from their leaders on the very far left that it doesn’t work…. but even JFK knew it worked.

Leaders...as in economists who study this for a living?

Just like enviromental scientists tell us our planet is warming. You can choose to ignore experts and trust your gut, I however realize that others know more than me.

+1
That’s what I have been trying to say too…. but there are a lot of people who have heard from their leaders on the very far left that it doesn’t work…. but even JFK knew it worked.

“[I]n 1962, President Kennedy proposed a big tax cut for the rich in order to stimulate the economy and encourage investment. And the rates have been moderating ever since.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 9/22/11]



This comes up from time to time. It’s a little game the right plays to make it seem as if tax cuts are, or at least were, a bipartisan approach to economic growth. Given the spectacular failures of the Bush-era tax breaks, it’s tempting to think even the most stubborn Republican hack would give up and move on, but apparently that’s not the case.

So, let’s set the record straight. When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldn’t afford such a tax break — the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but it’s been a half-century — but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.

Also at the time, the country had very little debt — Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s — almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now.

Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedy’s plan distributed “peace dividends” broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFK’s tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.

Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you won’t bother to learn the truth.

Political Animal - The right’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/the_rights_misplaced_love_of_j032417.php)

That's a Laffer! Top economists unanimously reject that tax cuts will yield higher revenue | Oklahoma Policy Institute (http://okpolicy.org/thats-a-laffer-top-economists-unanimously-reject-that-tax-cuts-will-yield-higher-revenue)
And here are two opinions of economists here in Oklahoma.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19732897/rogers_on_ocpa_report_final_2_13_12-1.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19732897/OLSON_VOODOO_PHASING_OUT_INC_TAX.pdf

Youve just been beat over the head so many times by the conservative mantra that cutting taxes raises revenue but there are very, very few experts that say thats true.



Oh, it works except when it doesnt..?
We rank well in unemployment because of a strong oil and gas industry (essentially because we have oil in the ground).
Government services that get flat budgets are basically getting cuts. Costs rise and if our lawmakers dont make it up, services get cut. And its not all about cuts, its about properly funding education, public health and safety and our roads. All things that we rank at the bottom in. Im going to guess its because we underfund them, and have for far too long.
Your links are form a known liberal outfit. i don't trust those anymore than you would probably trust a link from Fox News. It works the vast majority of the time. The exceptions to the rule, prove the rule. The facts speak for themselves, even here in Oklahoma revenues have risen.

Your links are form a known liberal outfit. i don't trust those anymore than you would probably trust a link from Fox News. It works the vast majority of the time. The exceptions to the rule, prove the rule. The facts speak for themselves, even here in Oklahoma revenues have risen.


Thats right.......................... and 'A rising tide lifts all boats'



This idiom, coined by John F Kennedy, describes the idea that when an economy is performing well, all people will benefit from it.

Links please? According to what I have read we are much higher than that (and dollar wise, there wasn't all that much separating per pupil spending numbers. We give roughly 50% of the State budget to Education, year end, year out. How much does education need? Does education spending = results? Can't help but think that if they got 100% of the budget, they would still be begging for more.

Oklahoma is projected to spend $8481 per student for 2012. There are only 4 states projected to spend less: North Carolina $8433, Texas $7886, and Utah $7129 and Arizona $6949. The national average is $11,068. This tells you how much Oklahoma values its education. We balance our budgets on the backs of our kids' futures. Tea Partiers love to talk about the debt our kids will face, but how about the burden of not being able to compete in the world economy because our kids are too uneducated and too unskilled to make a decent living. You can cut expenses all you want, but you can't save yourself out of poverty if you can't make a living.

I am curious how people expect to have one of the lowest tax rates on citizens with one of the lowest incomes in the US and provide competitive services which might attract skilled and educated individuals capable of growing companies and competing on a national and global scale. Low rates X low income = pitiful state basic services.

Your links are form a known liberal outfit. i don't trust those anymore than you would probably trust a link from Fox News. It works the vast majority of the time. The exceptions to the rule, prove the rule. The facts speak for themselves, even here in Oklahoma revenues have risen.

STRAWMAN! the data comes from this group/link. Poll Results | IGM Forum (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_2irlrss5UC27YXi) WHy don't you give us the opinion then of David Stockman or is he another "liberal"?

Evidence of this? I believe the wealthy sock it away in questionable investment schemes ( the uber wealthy off shore- that's good for the USA ) , the middle class pays off prior credit card, so where is the new spending? Give me some cites.

Most folks don't save or pay off existing debt, they spend the money. That was the rational with the Bush tax cuts where folks went out and bought new flat screen tvs (the first round was an advance on the anticipated next years income tax refund). Shifted somewhat with Obama's Social Security tax cut (which was essentially shorting from the Social Security fund), their tax cuts were spent for higher gas costs, and everyday items like milk. Everyday working class folks (most of which are paying the same rate as the Bennetts & McClendons). Do they have special investments/tax shelters etc that the rest of us don't have? Absolutely. If you had their money wouldn't you do the same. I was always taught to:
1) let your money work for you instead of you working for the money.
2) work smarter not harder.

Something that money gurus Suzie Orman and Dave Ramsey would probably be in agreement on.

Oklahoma is projected to spend $8481 per student for 2012. There are only 4 states projected to spend less: North Carolina $8433, Texas $7886, and Utah $7129 and Arizona $6949. The national average is $11,068. This tells you how much Oklahoma values its education. We balance our budgets on the backs of our kids' futures. Tea Partiers love to talk about the debt our kids will face, but how about the burden of not being able to compete in the world economy because our kids are too uneducated and too unskilled to make a decent living. You can cut expenses all you want, but you can't save yourself out of poverty if you can't make a living.

I am curious how people expect to have one of the lowest tax rates on citizens with one of the lowest incomes in the US and provide competitive services which might attract skilled and educated individuals capable of growing companies and competing on a national and global scale. Low rates X low income = pitiful state basic services.

You can throw all the money in the world at poor performing schools and it won’t make any difference at all if they don’t have good discipline….. That’s a much larger problem in most OKC schools than any funding problem. This is a direct product of today’s liberalism. No question!
But hey, if want to pay teachers a lot more, that’s ok with me, my wife is a teacher.

Oklahoma is projected to spend $8481 per student for 2012. There are only 4 states projected to spend less: North Carolina $8433, Texas $7886, and Utah $7129 and Arizona $6949. The national average is $11,068. This tells you how much Oklahoma values its education. We balance our budgets on the backs of our kids' futures. Tea Partiers love to talk about the debt our kids will face, but how about the burden of not being able to compete in the world economy because our kids are too uneducated and too unskilled to make a decent living. You can cut expenses all you want, but you can't save yourself out of poverty if you can't make a living.

Again, what correlation is there between the per pupil spending and results in a quality education? Besides, the Census Bureau had a report out that Oklahoma takes in $1,000 to $1,200 MORE per student than it spends. This was all revenue sources vs. all expenditures. That $1,000 to $1,200 would go a long way to raising the rankings. That money is unaccounted for. IIRC, the Census numbers were a lot closer from top to bottom than what you mentioned.

You also can't spend yourself out of debt & poverty. The amount varies but the Government borrows at least 30 cents for every dollar it spends. At some point (if we haven't reached it already), is unsustainable.

Most folks don't save or pay off existing debt, they spend the money. That was the rational with the Bush tax cuts where folks went out and bought new flat screen tvs (the first round was an advance on the anticipated next years income tax refund). Shifted somewhat with Obama's Social Security tax cut (which was essentially shorting from the Social Security fund), their tax cuts were spent for higher gas costs, and everyday items like milk. Everyday working class folks (most of which are paying the same rate as the Bennetts & McClendons). Do they have special investments/tax shelters etc that the rest of us don't have? Absolutely. If you had their money wouldn't you do the same. I was always taught to:
1) let your money work for you instead of you working for the money.
2) work smarter not harder.

Something that money gurus Suzie Orman and Dave Ramsey would probably be in agreement on.

You are repeating the same mantra with no supporting proof.

STRAWMAN! the data comes from this group/link. Poll Results | IGM Forum (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_2irlrss5UC27YXi) WHy don't you give us the opinion then of David Stockman or is he another "liberal"?
Strawman, think not. You didn't even try to defend the liberal group? Never heard of the man before now. But even conservative Repubs can be wrong too...and they are..they have somehow been convinced by their liberal counterparts on the other side of the aisle that tax cuts have to be paid for, they don't.

Jersey Boss: Prove me wrong then. You were talking about the uber rich, I wasn't. The folks I know (myself included) do exactly as I described.

I love it when people can only resort to opinions and gross simplifications to discuss complex issues. Maybe it does show the problems of our educational system..we have failed to create critical thinkers able to attack difficult problems.

The truth is, until Oklahoma embraces learning how to compete in the world it will be a third world economy reliant on natural resources and not the value added by a wide segment of its citizens.

Jersey Boss: Prove me wrong then. You were talking about the uber rich, I wasn't. The folks I know (myself included) do exactly as I described.

No, I was talking middle class as well(paying off previous debt). Obviously you have nothing to back up your belief.

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/Updated%20CRS%20Report%2012%3A13%3A12.pdf

3709

Here is a chart showing some bad correlations of economic growth and marginal tax rates:
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/505c50e6eab8eaa51a000024-525-746/tax-rates-and-growth.png

The bottom line is that is more important to be wise about how you spend the tax income than the actual marginal rate. The US has always prospered because of investments in infrastructure, research and development, etc. If we do not increase our inefficiencies at a rate greater than our debt then we will indeed be in trouble, but in the past we have done that. Without investment in systems and intellectual progress we will fail, and then we are in trouble as a country. Same is true for our state...failure to spend to improve our state production will doom us to non-competitiveness and insignificance.

No, I was talking middle class as well(paying off previous debt). Obviously you have nothing to back up your belief.

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/Updated%20CRS%20Report%2012%3A13%3A12.pdf

That may have been what you meant, but not what you wrote (notice you are spouting your beliefs as well):

I believe the wealthy sock it away in questionable investment schemes ( the uber wealthy off shore- that's good for the USA ) , the middle class pays off prior credit card,
There you go again, linking a Dem and probably liberal report....it was reported in the mainstream media (admittedly liberal) that the lump some payments under Bush were laregly spent on thos larger ticket items. By necessity, when Obama divided it up into smaller payments, they go for smaller things...like Gas & Milk. I don't know of a single person that looked at that few dollars a week and siad, I am going to pay off that credit card or save this money up to buy a TV.

Your links are form a known liberal outfit. i don't trust those anymore than you would probably trust a link from Fox News. It works the vast majority of the time. The exceptions to the rule, prove the rule. The facts speak for themselves, even here in Oklahoma revenues have risen.

Didnt know links to two different reports from economists at OSU and OU were considered liberal.

As for the Oklahoma Policy Institute, the Oklahoman might call them left leaning but they all they are are a champion of improving education and health, without raising taxes.

I googled "do tax cuts bring in more revenue" and there were a host of articles that said it doesn't work from publishers like the New York Times, Time magazine and many others. The only ones for it were from right leaning groups.

Why then are "liberal" countries out-performing our students in almost every way?

What a seriously hard to defend position you're taking.

By making poor be entirely too easy it kills the human desire to lift one’s self out of a bad situation. We have a very large population whose mainstream culture hasn’t traditionally held the same values of a good education.

Larry: Could you please give us an approved list of sources that you deem credible? It would save all of us a lot of time.

For the life of me I can't figure out why every single one of us can't agree on this basic premise. I guess we just have too many people playing by the house rules.

What baffles me is the very same people that will defend corporate welfare/subsidies to the death as long as it is "their" industry think absolutely nothing of telling a single mom, or an injured worker (likely an oil field worker in this state), or someone whose job was "outsourced" to go to hell when they need some help.

Your links are form a known liberal outfit. i don't trust those anymore than you would probably trust a link from Fox News. It works the vast majority of the time. The exceptions to the rule, prove the rule. The facts speak for themselves, even here in Oklahoma revenues have risen.


Jersey Boss: Prove me wrong then. You were talking about the uber rich, I wasn't. The folks I know (myself included) do exactly as I described.

Laffer and Reinhart/Rogoff have been proven inaccurate by impartial, non partisan economists that studied the data, yet the same tired sources still claim "trickle down" and "austerity" wil solve all our fiscal problems. Look closer at who is funding the politicians pushing these failed economic models and think about who stands to benefit most from irresponsible fiscal and tax policy.

By making poor be entirely too easy it kills the human desire to lift one’s self out of a bad situation. We have a very large population whose mainstream culture hasn’t traditionally held the same values of a good education.

Indeed, hunger is the best motivator. Lets starve the poor that'll learn'em dern'em.

The Internet Culture has reduced people to argue from their respective corners. That's always been true to an extent, but not like it is today. We have no common ideals it seems, nothing to pull us all together. We get our information from the left corner, the right corner, or no corner with celebrity news that doesn't matter. Left leaning groups can no longer publish information that isn't questioned by the right and vice versa. Sound bites rule and anything of substance is met with the silly "TL;DR" (Too long, didn't read). These days, only confirmation of our own biases is deemed as worthy. This thread just makes me sad.

What baffles me is the very same people that will defend corporate welfare/subsidies to the death as long as it is "their" industry think absolutely nothing of telling a single mom, or an injured worker (likely an oil field worker in this state), or someone whose job was "outsourced" to go to hell when they need some help.

Funny isn't it. I work in one of the most taxed industries...yet no one ever bats an eye at us. We are also at total mercy of the oil companies that get those lovely kick backs.

It is just another example the definition of "fair" is malleable depending on who benefits....

The Internet Culture has reduced people to argue from their respective corners. That's always been true to an extent, but not like it is today. We have no common ideals it seems, nothing to pull us all together. We get our information from the left corner, the right corner, or no corner with celebrity news that doesn't matter. Left leaning groups can no longer publish information that isn't questioned by the right and vice versa. Sound bites rule and anything of substance is met with the silly "TL;DR" (Too long, didn't read). These days, only confirmation of our own biases is deemed as worthy. This thread just makes me sad.

I hit the 'Like' button several times but it still isn't working. It is very sad indeed.

The Internet Culture has reduced people to argue from their respective corners. That's always been true to an extent, but not like it is today. We have no common ideals it seems, nothing to pull us all together. We get our information from the left corner, the right corner, or no corner with celebrity news that doesn't matter. Left leaning groups can no longer publish information that isn't questioned by the right and vice versa. Sound bites rule and anything of substance is met with the silly "TL;DR" (Too long, didn't read). These days, only confirmation of our own biases is deemed as worthy. This thread just makes me sad.

+1

Hit the nail on the head. I wonder if the growing anonymity that the internet, texting, and other technological advances have provided us has essentially removed any accountability for the statements we make to each other. No one wants to consider middle of the road anymore. My way or the highway. Mutual destruction agendas. It is all a mess.

However there is hope. Kerry and I actually agreed on something on this thread. He's definitely further to right than me politically, as I'm very much a centrist, but I also don't throw out common sense that so many do. For some reason sticking to the biased political leanings, regardless of how many times the statements are proven wrong or misleading, seems to be the only way people act on both sides.

Anyways. In between the political slime that has been oozing in there has been a good discussion with serious questions being presented. Let's not let the trolls completely derail us and stick to discussing the topic at hand before this gets banned away to neverland.

There are some serious concerns when it comes to reducing a relatively low state income tax down even further when state employees haven't had a raise in 7 years. Not to mention many of the other issues facing our state. We sit here and focus on one major job sector and its impacts on the state, that's not good. This state has died by relying on that before. Granted now the largest employer, by leaps and bounds, is government. We are a fat cat state when it comes to government jobs. Looking at the environment we are in, cuts are going to likely come to some branches of the government - including military. We need to focus on diversifying our economy - get away from being so reliant on Oil/Gas and Government jobs. The growth in biotech, R&D, and aerospace helps - but it can't stop. However, should we really cut the state income tax when we have so much to still do in this state?

Crumbling infrastructure, low education standards, reduced funding to our universities, low per capita income, etc. Things aren't all that bad here, but there is no reason why we should cut off our arm just because it sounds good - or because special interest group "X" says "you need to do this...but don't let people read yer emails!"

Crumbling infrastructure, low education standards, reduced funding to our universities, low per capita income, etc. Things aren't all that bad here, but there is no reason why we should cut off our arm just because it sounds good - or because special interest group "X" says "you need to do this...but don't let people read yer emails!"

This is exactly why reducing the income tax rate is irresponsible and does nothing other than check a Tea Party box. With Laffer theory proven incorrect, we know reducing revenue will only make a bad situation worse. There is a balance or "sweet spot" where the tax rate is not onerous, yet state functions are properly funded. The OK Legislature cannot grasp this and obviously think the only way the tax rate can be adjusted is down regardless of legitimate needs throughout the state.

April tax revenues in Oklahoma broke an all time record for April. That record can't be credited to tax cuts, since it's been 2008 or so since the last state income tax cut.

This is exactly why reducing the income tax rate is irresponsible and does nothing other than check a Tea Party box. With Laffer theory proven incorrect, we know reducing revenue will only make a bad situation worse. There is a balance or "sweet spot" where the tax rate is not onerous, yet state functions are properly funded. The OK Legislature cannot grasp this and obviously think the only way the tax rate can be adjusted is down regardless of legitimate needs throughout the state.
+1 Which makes me wonder as to whether or not some in the legislature are closet anarchists who really want the government to dissolve, paving the way for anarchy and the rule of everyone for themselves.

Because we are required by the State Constitution to have a balanced budget??? Education still gets roughly 50% of the budget pie. That has been fairly constant. This year they are getting 51% according to a recent article in the Oklahoman. For some, if they got 100% it wouldn't be enough. There was a little thing called the Recession, remember that? Oklahoma wasn't immune from it but fared better than most states. Takes some time to make up the lost ground.

Republicans insist cutting taxes cause revenues to soar. The recession has been officially over for several years. Yet, the Oklahoma state education budget still hasn't returned to 2008 levels. So what are Republicans really trying to do by cutting taxes and then not adequately funding education even poorer than before? Are they trying to punish teachers for not voting for them? Or if they think state education is not efficiently administered, then once again, they ought to combine various close together tiny school districts into ones.

Most of them actually...LOL

None of them for me, but would pick one off the list, which would be Colorado.

Oklahoma is projected to spend $8481 per student for 2012. There are only 4 states projected to spend less: North Carolina $8433, Texas $7886, and Utah $7129 and Arizona $6949. The national average is $11,068. This tells you how much Oklahoma values its education. We balance our budgets on the backs of our kids' futures. Tea Partiers love to talk about the debt our kids will face, but how about the burden of not being able to compete in the world economy because our kids are too uneducated and too unskilled to make a decent living. You can cut expenses all you want, but you can't save yourself out of poverty if you can't make a living.

I am curious how people expect to have one of the lowest tax rates on citizens with one of the lowest incomes in the US and provide competitive services which might attract skilled and educated individuals capable of growing companies and competing on a national and global scale. Low rates X low income = pitiful state basic services.
However, those 4 states are prospering and adding on population faster than Oklahoma. So I don't think education is everything in adding up how desirable a state is to do business and to come live and work.

However, those 4 states are prospering and adding on population faster than Oklahoma.

By all means..keep voting to keep Oklahomans ignorant and then pray the oil doesn't run out.

However, those 4 states are prospering and adding on population faster than Oklahoma. So I don't think education is everything in adding up how desirable a state is to do business and to come live and work.

Arizona is not prospering. North Carolina has a much better higher education system than Oklahoma -- as does Texas. I think we agree on most of these issues but education is critical to luring high-quality jobs. If we want more call centers, we can just keep producing more dumb people. As a state we have some of the dumbest people in the union (when you consider education attainment). This is not a plus for attracting jobs.

Think of the recent announcement by GE: they chose us because of OU, probably our finest educational institution. But GE is the tip of the iceberg, places like North Carolina have a diversified economy because of its university research triangle.

The main reason our state is doing relatively well is because of the current energy boom. There are uneducated people with a pulse making $150k in the oil field staring at pipes. This is probably not sustainable as a long-term economic development strategy.

Out of one side of their mouths, Republicans love to talk of cutting income taxes, so people can have more money to spend. Then on the other side of their mouths, pass a bill to increase drivers license by $12. Oklahoma Senate Approves Fee Hike For Driver's Licenses - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/22175633/oklahoma-senate-approves-fee-hike-for-drivers-licenses)

The main reason our state is doing relatively well is because of the current energy boom. There are uneducated people with a pulse making $150k in the oil field staring at pipes. This is probably not sustainable as a long-term economic development strategy.

This.

The good times right now aren't because of recent tax cuts, they are because of the oil and gas deep underneath us. Like you said, I know several people I went to high school with that wouldn't even know how to craft a resume, let alone have things to put in it, that are making dang good money. They aren't making that money because of tax cuts.

April tax revenues in Oklahoma broke an all time record for April. That record can't be credited to tax cuts, since it's been 2008 or so since the last state income tax cut.

Yet, with record breaking revenues coming in, Republican legislators want to raise the cost of getting a drivers license to $12. Interesting how they choose to respond to other needs in state government services by trying to cut income taxes again.

However there is hope. Kerry and I actually agreed on something on this thread. He's definitely further to right than me politically, as I'm very much a centrist, but I also don't throw out common sense that so many do. For some reason sticking to the biased political leanings, regardless of how many times the statements are proven wrong or misleading, seems to be the only way people act on both sides.

I'll bet I am further to the right than anyone on OKCTalk. You are right though that sticking to biased political leanings isn't helping because for the most part, those ideas are just wolves in sheep's clothing. Why anyone on the right can support tax exemptions, tax credits, and tax deductions is beyond me. That is just using the tax code to manipulate the economy, the free markets, and for politicians to select life's winners - all things the right-wingers say they don't like. Of course, the left does it to by having extra taxes on certain items (but I suspect many of them DO want the government performing those functions). It reminds me of that Labyrinth game where you have to roll a steel ball around a maze while avoiding all the holes so you can get to the finish line and win. That game would be a lot easier if we just got rid of the maze and holes.

gIZnQhrdol8

This is how the 1%ers do it.

UxaL-jLISU8

Yet, with record breaking revenues coming in, Republican legislators want to raise the cost of getting a drivers license to $12. Interesting how they choose to respond to other needs in state government services by trying to cut income taxes again.

Actually, what they are wanting to do is raise it by $12 up to $33.50.

Out of one side of their mouths, Republicans love to talk of cutting income taxes, so people can have more money to spend. Then on the other side of their mouths, pass a bill to increase drivers license by $12. Oklahoma Senate Approves Fee Hike For Driver's Licenses - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/22175633/oklahoma-senate-approves-fee-hike-for-drivers-licenses)

I agree it is a bit hypocritical. Even though I have been a life-long registered Repub (it was a tossup when I registered at 18) but it came down to the labels themselves. i knew we live in a Constitutional Republic/ Representational Democracy. Personally in the past few years I have little use or respect for either party. I have voted for both and been disappointed/betrayed with the votes.

Of course the argument goes that they aren't raising taxes but increasing fees. there was a court case a few years ago (but must have been in a dissenting opinion), that a tax was a tax was a tax no matter what euphemistic label they tried to slap on it. Think it had something to do with the super majority to raise taxes but fees etc don't have the same requirement.