A few months back I was talking to a guy who grew up in Dallas. I'm bad with ages but I'm guessing this guy was in his 60s. Anyway, we got to talking about OKC and Dallas and he said something along the lines of had OKC agreed to have what became DFW airport built here then OKC would be where Dallas is now.

Like I said, this was a few months back so I may be getting some of the details wrong. But the basic gist is that OKC and Dallas would have switched roles or places.

I hadn't heard such a thing. Is there any truth to this? Or is this guy completely wrong or did he get his facts confused?

I was in high school in late 60's, but my Dad's view was that Texas was far far more business friendly in the 50's and 60's than Oklahoma. They went right-to-work around 1960, that was a big one in Dad's eyes. Worker's comp insurance rates were a third of what was charged in Oklahoma because personal injury lawyers dominated our state politics at that time.

And of course they've always had a tax code that was far more appealing to business than Oklahoma.

Their state govt was also not as corrupt as Oklahoma.

First I've heard of the airport thing.

One more thing, which happened after DFW's growth out paced us, but when we screwed GM by promising a property tax exemption and then Mid Del Schools went to court and the court found it invalid, then word went around the country to not move your business into Oklahoma. I recall that happened in late 70's. Did not help Oklahoma's reputation in the business world, which was not very good to start with .

To boil it down to one factor like just an airport is absurd.

There’s been 100s over factors over the course of decades.

Just looked it up, Texas became a right to work state in 1947.

Also, I've heard over the years, that at one time OKC and Dallas were about the same size, but the pro business policies in Texas allowed them to grow at a much faster rate.

Just looked it up, Texas became a right to work state in 1947.

Also, I've heard over the years, that at one time OKC and Dallas were about the same size, but the pro business policies in Texas allowed them to grow at a much faster rate.
It’s not just that though.

-It’s texas doesn’t have a restrictive, massive, state constitution.
-Penn square bank busting
-the Dallas Cowboys, which helped brand Dallas
-their homegrown companies becoming massive
-it’s the airport
And a million other factors

It’s not just that though.

-It’s texas doesn’t have a restrictive, massive, state constitution.
-Penn square bank busting
-the Dallas Cowboys, which helped brand Dallas
-their homegrown companies becoming massive
-it’s the airport
And a million other factors

I won't disagree it was many factors, which can be summed up as saying Texas was more business friendly, but Penn Square bank was long long after Dallas left OKC in its wake. Penn Square was 1982.

Texas got hit hard by that early 80's oil bust and the following Savings and Loan collapse, but their economy was already more diversified. Dallas was a financial center and then they've got ports, which gave them more international business appeal. Ports are why Phillips and Conoco moved to Houston.

The Cowboys arrived after Dallas had gone on a growth spree , also.

Good info RedDollar. Thanks for the input.

Just looked it up, Texas became a right to work state in 1947.

Also, I've heard over the years, that at one time OKC and Dallas were about the same size, but the pro business policies in Texas allowed them to grow at a much faster rate.

Populations since 1890 (did every 30 years plus 2018)

1890: 38K / 4K
1920: 159K / 91K
1950: 434K / 243K
1980: 904K / 404K
2010: 1,199K / 579K
2018: 1,345K / 649K

Looks like to me it was 8 times over in 1890. Now it's only 2 times greater. We've been catching up.

lol

^^^ I think OKC could easily and likely surpass Dallas proper population. It’s metro area is where OKC, less some extraordinary series of events happen, likely won’t surpass. OKC would need to grow to engulf Ada, Weatherford, and Chickasha as having those cities on its outskirts with a massive freeway system winding through. It’d be like leaving Tulsa and entering the OKC metro in 15-30 mins. Granted I personally would love to see that happen and hope it does, but I won’t be holding my breath. Especially with the anti-growth sentiment and lack of forward thinking entities in Oklahoma.

Just looked it up, Texas became a right to work state in 1947.

Also, I've heard over the years, that at one time OKC and Dallas were about the same size, but the pro business policies in Texas allowed them to grow at a much faster rate.

First time I went to Dallas early 70s pretty sure it was smaller than what OKC is today. Austin was quite a bit smaller than OKC and San Antonio was a little smaller than OKC.

According to worldpopulationview.com which for the US uses stats from the US Census Bureau, the closest OKC ever got to Dallas proper in population was the 1910 census when Dallas had 92,104 and OKC had 64,205. After that it has never been close. The 1970 census had Dallas with 844,401 and OKC with 368,164. Dallas really pulled away by the 1950 census and doubled OKC's population.

According to worldpopulationview.com which for the US uses stats from the US Census Bureau, the closest OKC ever got to Dallas proper in population was the 1910 census when Dallas had 92,104 and OKC had 64,205. After that it has never been close. The 1970 census had Dallas with 844,401 and OKC with 368,164. Dallas really pulled away by the 1950 census and doubled OKC's population.

Its always been my impression, and I can't tell ya where it came from, but I thought DFW growth was during the post WW II boom years.

And during that post WW II period, Oklahoma's oil fields were depleting but new oil discoveries in Texas kept their oil industry growing. It continued to grow up to circa 1970 , when US production in total peaked.

I grew up in an Oklahoma oil town that boomed in the 20's and 30's and was depleting in the 50's and 60's. It was common in my grade school years, for parents of friends who worked in oil to be transferred to Texas. Outside of the Sooner Trend field in the Enid / Hennessey area, that was pretty much common across the state.

^^^ I think OKC could easily and likely surpass Dallas proper population. It’s metro area is where OKC, less some extraordinary series of events happen, likely won’t surpass. OKC would need to grow to engulf Ada, Weatherford, and Chickasha as having those cities on its outskirts with a massive freeway system winding through. It’d be like leaving Tulsa and entering the OKC metro in 15-30 mins. Granted I personally would love to see that happen and hope it does, but I won’t be holding my breath. Especially with the anti-growth sentiment and lack of forward thinking entities in Oklahoma.
I'm not going to say there's absolutely no anti-growth sentiment in Oklahoma but to say that that's a large or influential contingent in Oklahoma is disingenuous. It's just more negativity about Oklahoma and talk about how Oklahoma and Oklahomans are backward. Which seems to be a frequent sentiment on here by many when something doesn't go the way people think it should.

I don't see OKC ever catching up with the Dallas metro because of what you said; For it to have the same type of footprint, it would have to take up much of the state. That's just not realistic in a state the size of Oklahoma.

When traveling south from Oklahoma into Dallas, by the time you hit Denton, you're in the greater Dallas metro. It used to not be that way. Denton used to be quite a ways from Dallas. Now all of these small towns that used to be their own entity have been engulfed by the greater Dallas metro. In a state the size of Texas, the greater Dallas metro is just one part of the state. They also have large cities in Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. They also have lots of small towns in addition to those big cities because of the sheer size of the state. For OKC to compare with that, more than 50% of our state would have to be one large metro area. It's not really feasible.

^^^ sorry if I worded that in an unconstructive manner. I just meant I would the state to be more forward thinking than it is. Texas always has a go big or go home mentality.

Private financed billion stadium.

Fort Worth stockyards arena knocks our proposed fair grounds one out of the park.

TxDOT able to widen I-35 through Austin to 14 lanes with a series of tunnels and OkDOT claiming I-35 can’t be expanded more than six lanes and refusing to build mass transit of quality.

Texas pushing to HSR between Dallas and Houston while we can’t even get conventional train service between the two largest cities in the state. It’s second largest city is virtually void of any connected mass transit other than planes and a couple bus routes.

The education system in Oklahoma is a joke.

It appears developments in general just go above and beyond what is status quo in Oklahoma. I don’t know what is to be done about these things. Oklahoma is changing for the better I believe. The pace is the only issue. While Oklahoma is catching up Texas is improving as well.

It would be nice to see OKC get a more can do mentality. Instead of the streetcar and semi quasi BRT line, we need a 15 billion dollar 7 year mass transit package that adds many BRT lines and a county wide light rail system. Instead we waiting for a commuter train that won’t even operate for another decade.

Many factors at work IMO. A few include:

Dallas is about 50 years older than OKC, IIRC. And in that context it doesn't seem we are doing a bad job of keeping up with someone who got a half century head start.

Texas joined the US as a sovereign nation. And I think that affects land ownership and taxing structure in some unique to America ways.

Oklahoma joined with a differently unique structure related to the Native American tribes and their ownership of land, resources, etc.

Oklahoma City sits in the area called "Unassigned Lands", and I think that means no tribes can claim ownership of the area.

I think north Texas and Oklahoma from the OKC metro going south are closely aligned socially, politically and geographically. Both areas are respected and seen as vital to each other.

I'm about 60, so I am starting to think the "airport" story OP heard was commonly told to people during my youth, because I have heard a version of it. What I recall being told by my sainted father was along the lines that Braniff Airways was based in OKC in it's early history, and Mr. Braniff wanted OKC to build him a new headquarters (possibly shortly after WWII). The City refused and he went to DFW, where they agreed. And that was supposed to be what set in motion the explosive growth of passenger aviation in DFW.

^^^ sorry if I worded that in an unconstructive manner. I just meant I would the state to be more forward thinking than it is. Texas always has a go big or go home mentality.

Private financed billion stadium.

Fort Worth stockyards arena knocks our proposed fair grounds one out of the park.

TxDOT able to widen I-35 through Austin to 14 lanes with a series of tunnels and OkDOT claiming I-35 can’t be expanded more than six lanes and refusing to build mass transit of quality.

Texas pushing to HSR between Dallas and Houston while we can’t even get conventional train service between the two largest cities in the state. It’s second largest city is virtually void of any connected mass transit other than planes and a couple bus routes.

The education system in Oklahoma is a joke.

It appears developments in general just go above and beyond what is status quo in Oklahoma. I don’t know what is to be done about these things. Oklahoma is changing for the better I believe. The pace is the only issue. While Oklahoma is catching up Texas is improving as well.

It would be nice to see OKC get a more can do mentality. Instead of the streetcar and semi quasi BRT line, we need a 15 billion dollar 7 year mass transit package that adds many BRT lines and a county wide light rail system. Instead we waiting for a commuter train that won’t even operate for another decade.

Agree with pretty much all of that, and lack of money and lack of will seem to be what keeps OK just OK. OKC doesn't even have the money (or will?) to restripe all the missing lane markers on the highways and surface streets, keep the streetlights on, and keep all the burned-out traffic lights replaced (saw about 5 out yesterday in just a half hour drive around from about 23rd/May to Britton/May), and I can probably extrapolate that to the entire state. So how do we get all the money that we need in order to just keep day-to-day sh*t running properly, much less improve on it? We can have all the forward thinking we need to have, but if the money isn't there to back it up, then ..............................................

^^^ correct but I would also argue forward thinking would mean making the maximum use of current situation and in this case Oklahoma could stand to raise its taxes a bit. Not quite so much like California lol but more than current levels. But as you said lack of will seems to be something preventing that and I can understand why some would hesitant to raise taxes.

I'm about 60, so I am starting to think the "airport" story OP heard was commonly told to people during my youth, because I have heard a version of it. What I recall being told by my sainted father was along the lines that Braniff Airways was based in OKC in it's early history, and Mr. Braniff wanted OKC to build him a new headquarters (possibly shortly after WWII). The City refused and he went to DFW, where they agreed. And that was supposed to be what set in motion the explosive growth of passenger aviation in DFW.
I believe the story about Braniff Airways is true.

OKC has a larger population than Atlanta.

Agree with pretty much all of that, and lack of money and lack of will seem to be what keeps OK just OK. OKC doesn't even have the money (or will?) to restripe all the missing lane markers on the highways and surface streets, keep the streetlights on, and keep all the burned-out traffic lights replaced (saw about 5 out yesterday in just a half hour drive around from about 23rd/May to Britton/May), and I can probably extrapolate that to the entire state. So how do we get all the money that we need in order to just keep day-to-day sh*t running properly, much less improve on it? We can have all the forward thinking we need to have, but if the money isn't there to back it up, then ..............................................

Well then, MAPS 4 is not going to fix those lights either and its a full 1 cent tax on social programs without long term funding. Meaning once MAPS 4 money runs out (if passed, I am voting no) the city will need to increase taxes to pay for these new programs. Meaning less money for other needed operations.

If one looks at every city equal to or larger than OKC they each have their own problems only amplified. Higher taxes does mot make a city better either in fact most large coastal cities are taxing their populations into moving. Every city has problems we are not alone. Its how you spend what you have without overtaxing that matters. MAPS 1/2/3 were great and transformative but 4 is a bad 10 year tax that will hamper our ability to do other projects as we change.

Lets look at SC, we built it yet for 10 years minimum we cannot expand it. So lets add other non long term funded items in MAPS 4 so they too will be unfunded in 10 years. What then happens to SC in 10 years when our downtown core expands west and north and even south? It loses more riders (already small ridership) and eventually the costs of just upkeep are no longer supported since we have new districts other than Bricktown fighting for money and projects. And if one wants an Aquarium it will be at least 10 years before you can even decide to vote to build one.

This MAPS locks us out of bigger potential and like I said the road stripes and lights are not part of this MAPS tax.

We need to regroup and reprioritize what we need. This MAPS will limit new growth ability.

OKC has a larger population than Atlanta.

Fort Worth has a larger population than OKC

This conversation is asinine, comparing city populations rather than MSA. OKC is a relatively small city that would never have caught or outpaced DFW in population regardless of an airport. Others have documented other factors in previous posts. OKC is in Oklahoma a State whose politics and business acumen don't lead to an economic explosion and by extension hyper population growth.

Another thing to keep in mind is that OKC just has nothing unique to market ourselves on. When looking at other formerly mid-sized cities that have boomed in the last few decades, they all seem to have one or more well-defined brands. I'm thinking specifically of Denver (outdoors), Nashville (music), Portland (counterculture), and Austin (music, tech). OKC doesn't really seem to have anything similar to speak of. The tech scene here is just about nonexistent. It's way too hot and humid here for about 2-3 months per year for this city to ever become any sort of an outdoors-oriented hub (not to mention all of the good recreation areas are at least an hour outside of the Metro). While there are honestly some truly wacky pockets of counterculture in this city due to the low cost of living, it seems very doubtful that things will ever reach a critical mass in that regard, a la Portland. The local music scene is certainly on an upward trajectory, but that also seems like a long-shot to every truly define the city, given the current lack of any OKC-based record labels that have established themselves on any sort of national scale.

When people think of OKC right now, the first thing they probably think of is our crazy weather, which, while unique, isn't really anything that you can market a city on. Things could always change, and maybe 5-10 years down the line we'll have established a strong foothold in something I haven't even thought of, but barring that, I think OKC's best hope is probably to rise to the level of other relatively nondescript cities such as Cincinnati, Charlotte, and Kansas City. And honestly, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The four cities I mentioned in the first paragraph all have an extremely high cost of living. IMO, there's absolutely a niche for OKC even if this city never truly has a period of rapid growth.

First time I went to Dallas early 70s pretty sure it was smaller than what OKC is today. Austin was quite a bit smaller than OKC and San Antonio was a little smaller than OKC.

It was never Dallas. Oklahoma City and Ft. Worth had been roughly about the same size for decades with OKC sometimes bigger, until around 2000 when Ft. Worth started growing twice as fast than Oklahoma City. The populations are no longer close.

^^^ sorry if I worded that in an unconstructive manner. I just meant I would the state to be more forward thinking than it is. Texas always has a go big or go home mentality.

Private financed billion stadium.

Fort Worth stockyards arena knocks our proposed fair grounds one out of the park.

TxDOT able to widen I-35 through Austin to 14 lanes with a series of tunnels and OkDOT claiming I-35 can’t be expanded more than six lanes and refusing to build mass transit of quality.

Texas pushing to HSR between Dallas and Houston while we can’t even get conventional train service between the two largest cities in the state. It’s second largest city is virtually void of any connected mass transit other than planes and a couple bus routes.

The education system in Oklahoma is a joke.



The state legislature should restore all funding for education it's been cutting for years. Maybe in doing so, tuition costs can at least stabilize and not increase further. As a result, college enrollment figures are declining in Oklahoma. Construction on a mid rise apartment complex planned to be built near OSU was canceled. If we want a more prosperous economy with higher paying jobs, what is needed is more college students not fewer of them. If Republicans want to respond with an income tax as a solution next session, then they are still highly advanced idiots.

I believe the story about Braniff Airways is true.

Enid also missed out on the new aircraft industry. The bankers there wouldn't loan Cessna money to built a manufacturing plant, but they did in Wichita.

One more thing, which happened after DFW's growth out paced us, but when we screwed GM by promising a property tax exemption and then Mid Del Schools went to court and the court found it invalid, then word went around the country to not move your business into Oklahoma. I recall that happened in late 70's. Did not help Oklahoma's reputation in the business world, which was not very good to start with .

I may have some insight here. At that time, there was a group of businessmen running the Oklahoma Industry Authority. That group was charged with expanding industry in the State. Mostly, that group engaged in a bunch of self-benefitting deals and one might consider them to be highly corrupt. To this day, the OKC underground connects courthouses and buildings owned by the members of the Oklahoma Industry Authority. Presbyterian Tower was built with taxpayer money and sold to members of this group for a pittance.

And yes, they promised GM that they would be tax exempt, but they didn't have the authority to make such promises.

And still, the ghosts of the OIA were able to convince County voters to give the GM property to the USAF even though GM was still on the hook for property tax. All of these things involved low information voters voting against their own interests.

Enid also missed out on the new aircraft industry. The bankers there wouldn't loan Cessna money to built a manufacturing plant, but they did in Wichita.
Sounds like another typical Oklahoma story.

The state legislature should restore all funding for education it's been cutting for years. Maybe in doing so, tuition costs can at least stabilize and not increase further. As a result, college enrollment figures are declining in Oklahoma. Construction on a mid rise apartment complex planned to be built near OSU was canceled. If we want a more prosperous economy with higher paying jobs, what is needed is more college students not fewer of them. If Republicans want to respond with an income tax as a solution next session, then they are still highly advanced idiots.

Education funding has not been cut, its higher than its ever been. Just look at the budget.

And the legislature only appropriates a portion of education funding. Approximately 45% of public school funding comes from property tax. And other earmarked funds, such as GPT, go directly to education without being appropriated.

When someone says the legislature has " cut funding " , that's not entirely true. Legislature only appropriates 40% of the total state budget.

And it would take a large team of auditors a good year or two to sort out all the funding sources.

I may have some insight here. At that time, there was a group of businessmen running the Oklahoma Industry Authority. That group was charged with expanding industry in the State. Mostly, that group engaged in a bunch of self-benefitting deals and one might consider them to be highly corrupt. To this day, the OKC underground connects courthouses and buildings owned by the members of the Oklahoma Industry Authority. Presbyterian Tower was built with taxpayer money and sold to members of this group for a pittance.

And yes, they promised GM that they would be tax exempt, but they didn't have the authority to make such promises.

And still, the ghosts of the OIA were able to convince County voters to give the GM property to the USAF even though GM was still on the hook for property tax. All of these things involved low information voters voting against their own interests.

And it took a court of law to determine they did not have that authority.

The problem was the timing. This challenge in court could not occur when the deal was ANNOUNCED ? OHHHH noooo, lets wait for GM to be totally committed, then spring this on them.

No, it wasn't the sweet little innocents over in the Mid Del School District that screwed GM, not those people.

I really didn't intend for this to turn into yet another bash OKC thread. I just had a question, that's all. To those of you that directly addressed my question, I truly appreciate it. Thank you for the information and insight.

Education funding has not been cut, its higher than its ever been. Just look at the budget.

And the legislature only appropriates a portion of education funding. Approximately 45% of public school funding comes from property tax. And other earmarked funds, such as GPT, go directly to education without being appropriated.

When someone says the legislature has " cut funding " , that's not entirely true. Legislature only appropriates 40% of the total state budget.

And it would take a large team of auditors a good year or two to sort out all the funding sources.
I most had in mind higher education funding. When the state in 2016 cut funding for higher education by nearly 16% that was a cut. Since 2009 Oklahoma cut funding for higher education than most other states. Your only come back, partial at that, is that some of the funding, especially for new buildings, comes from private sources, such as the new McKnight Center at OSU, along with higher tuition.

I would hope you would agree that declining university enrollment is not a good sign for Oklahoma.

There are so many advantages that Dallas has with a sister city like Fort Worth just 31 miles away on I-30 approaching 900,000 residents.

The Metroplex encompasses more than 7.6 million. There are 8-9 cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex with more than 100,000 urban inhabitants--Arlington has an estimated 400,000 along with 4 of those 9 cities with 100,000 or more residents.

OKC has only 1 city in its metropolitan area (Norman) with 123,000 people & Edmond approaching 100K residents with an estimated 93,000.

Cities with the size like the DFW area (7.6 million) has a wealth of highly educated residents, resources and a world airport (DFW) & inner city airport (Love Field) with destinations to & from that gives it more advantages than living in a metro like OKC that has roughly 1.4 million.

Surprised that Dallas didn't obtain the second Amazon Headquarters. Dallas is truly a great American city; yet it isn't on a major waterfront or port to support it location.

I most had in mind higher education funding. When the state in 2016 cut funding for higher education by nearly 16% that was a cut. Since 2009 Oklahoma cut funding for higher education than most other states. Your only come back, partial at that, is that some of the funding, especially for new buildings, comes from private sources, such as the new McKnight Center at OSU, along with higher tuition.

I would hope you would agree that declining university enrollment is not a good sign for Oklahoma.

Nope, I don't agree, but I'm gonna respect Traxx's thread and let it drop.

Education funding has not been cut, its higher than its ever been. Just look at the budget.

And the legislature only appropriates a portion of education funding. Approximately 45% of public school funding comes from property tax. And other earmarked funds, such as GPT, go directly to education without being appropriated.

When someone says the legislature has " cut funding " , that's not entirely true. Legislature only appropriates 40% of the total state budget.

And it would take a large team of auditors a good year or two to sort out all the funding sources.

From your handle of from Governing magazine from less than 2 years ago:

"No state has suffered more than Oklahoma when it comes to education funding over the past decade. As it has struggled to balance its budget in the face of declining oil revenue, spending on schools has declined further than anywhere else. Oklahoma now spends $1 billion less on K-12 education than it did a decade ago."

Education funding has not been cut, its higher than its ever been. Just look at the budget.



When adjusted for inflation, next year’s budget remains 10.2 percent ($906 million) below the budget of FY 2009 and 14.9 percent ($1.398 billion) less than the peak year of FY 2007. No wonder I used the word restore, but did come across as outdated about funding cuts. So Oklahoma still has some catching up to do. There are probably more students in 2007 than in 2019.

^^^ careful there, Bunty, you are arguing with facts! LOL

If Traxx will forgive, you're talking about appropriations. Evidently, you did not read my first post on this.

Appropriations.

And you got you're info from here

https://okpolicy.org/fy-2020-budget-highlights/

And these people are going to err to the side of government needing more money, constantly. OPI funded by George Kaiser, FWIW.

And the baseline year used is 2007 or 2008 is really the year I hear more often. And that was a particularly flush time for state revenues. Oil was over $100 and NG was near $10 per mmbtu. And we had yet to experience the Great Recession of 2009.

Considering the headwinds faced by the state economy due to the Great Recession, the crash of NG prices at about the same time, and then the crash of oil prices in 2014, and we spending more money than ever before on education............... I would think maybe you should feel lucky and move on down the road to another issue.

You've seen cold hard financial reality ........... and lived to tell about it. Lotsa folks not neary so fortunate.

And I'm going to edit this to point out , that OPI is talking total appropriations adjusted for inflation, not just education funding.

And the total state budget is around 24 billion, the legislature is appropriating about 8 billion, that seems to be lost on some people.

And you have earmarked funds that are not included in appropriations.

And you have tuition increases which also are not included in appropriations.

And you've gotten four increases in the GPT tax that are earmarked and not appropriated.

And you're not including property tax increases .

To make statements for political purposes about state funding , is very very simplistic.

https://okpolicy.org/another-year-goes-oklahoma-still-leads-nation-cuts-education/

https://okpolicy.org/report-despite-gains-from-teacher-walkout-oklahoma-school-funding-is-still-way-down/

First two results from a simple google search: Oklahoma education funding.

Some people just ignore the damage our lack of funding education does and what our history is. Everyone knows the story of our radical right conservatives on 23rd street having failed to fund education properly and place us at the near bottom in the US. We are reddest of red and share this lack of commitment to education with such advanced states like Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas.
Anyone who believes we are in any way properly funding or managing our education responsibilities just has their head in the sand.

^^^^ +1

I'm gonna make this real simple ...........

You can't drive a Cadillac on a Chevrolet economy.

You live with the revenue generated by your economy. And you get in real trouble, by trying to adjust your tax rates in economic downturns. And doing that also never provides an incentive for govt to find efficiencies . It also gives state money managers a carte blanch to spend, because they know if the economy goes down, they are protected by tax increases.

If you want more money for your particular area of state government, grow the economy. As our tax rates are pretty much average. Just demanding tax increases without factoring in the underlying economy , is not good policy.

That's it ..............I'm done.

I'm gonna make this real simple ...........

You can't drive a Cadillac on a Chevrolet economy.

You live with the revenue generated by your economy. And you get in real trouble, by trying to adjust your tax rates in economic downturns. And doing that also never provides an incentive for govt to find efficiencies . It also gives state money managers a carte blanch to spend, because they know if the economy goes down, they are protected by tax increases.

If you want more money for your particular area of state government, grow the economy. As our tax rates are pretty much average. Just demanding tax increases without factoring in the underlying economy , is not good policy.

That's it ..............I'm done.

But if you cut the hell out of your taxes, therefore impacting education funding massively, you should probably do something to raise them back up again, or find some other source of revenue for education funding, it's not just "growing the economy".

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/30/whats-the-matter-with-oklahoma

"The roots of the fiasco are not hard to determine. As in Oklahoma’s northern neighbour, Kansas, deep tax cuts have wrecked the state’s finances."

"Since 2008 general state funds for K-12 education in Oklahoma have been slashed by 28.2%—the biggest cut in the country."

But if you cut the hell out of your taxes, therefore impacting education funding massively, you should probably do something to raise them back up again, or find some other source of revenue for education funding, it's not just "growing the economy".

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/30/whats-the-matter-with-oklahoma

"The roots of the fiasco are not hard to determine. As in Oklahoma’s northern neighbour, Kansas, deep tax cuts have wrecked the state’s finances."

"Since 2008 general state funds for K-12 education in Oklahoma have been slashed by 28.2%—the biggest cut in the country."

If not for the economic downturn, the less than 1% income tax cut would've not been a problem.

And the idea behind it was good. It was an attempt to move our tax code closer to Texas. State's with low income taxes or no income taxes have great economies, that's not a coincidence.

But this was not the way to achieve that, the only way it could be done is with a constituitional convention, which will never happen. That opens up pandora's box to everybody who wants to make major changes.

And there's so much wrong with your article from the Economist, I won't waste my time trying to address all of it. I did not read far at all, till I threw it in the trash.



lawmakers gave a sweetheart deal to its oilmen, costing $470m in a single year, by slashing the gross production tax on horizontal drilling from 7% to 1%


The GPT tax incentive was created in 1994, that article makes it sound like it was some gift to the oil industry. 1994 could not have been any more bleak for the oil industry or Oklahoma's economy.

And even with that incentive, it did nothing for oil production in Oklahoma, which continued to decline. It was not until circa 2012 when horizontal drilling was combined with new hydraulic fracturing techniques, that our production began to increase. We went from 150,000 bbl a day and dropping ( in spite of $125 oil ) to 500,000 bbls a day. ( and everything I'm reading , says that's gonna begin to drop , it may have very well been fools gold )

Come on, I believe none of the economist numbers ........... its bullchit that was written for effect.

Here ya go, look what that incentive did for production in the 1990's . A big fat nothing.

And pay close attention to what happened in 2014 when the oil price crashed and drilling rigs were stacked, you see how fast production dropped ? That's due to the extreme depletion rate from these shale wells. It dropped like a rock and if not for OPEC supporting the price at $50 a bbl, it would've economic disaster .

https://i.imgur.com/ZQTYKqk.png

I'm gonna make this real simple ...........

You can't drive a Cadillac on a Chevrolet economy.

You live with the revenue generated by your economy. And you get in real trouble, by trying to adjust your tax rates in economic downturns. And doing that also never provides an incentive for govt to find efficiencies . It also gives state money managers a carte blanch to spend, because they know if the economy goes down, they are protected by tax increases.

If you want more money for your particular area of state government, grow the economy. As our tax rates are pretty much average. Just demanding tax increases without factoring in the underlying economy , is not good policy.

That's it ..............I'm done.
Except Oklahoma’s “Chevrolet” economy has the potential to be a Cadillac economy. The right wingers of the state are stopping that from happening.

If not for the economic downturn, the less than 1% income tax cut would've not been a problem.

And the idea behind it was good. It was an attempt to move our tax code closer to Texas. State's with low income taxes or no income taxes have great economies, that's not a coincidence.

But this was not the way to achieve that, the only way it could be done is with a constituitional convention, which will never happen. That opens up pandora's box to everybody who wants to make major changes.

And there's so much wrong with your article from the Economist, I won't waste my time trying to address all of it. I did not read far at all, till I threw it in the trash.




The GPT tax incentive was created in 1994, that article makes it sound like it was some gift to the oil industry. 1994 could not have been any more bleak for the oil industry or Oklahoma's economy.

And even with that incentive, it did nothing for oil production in Oklahoma, which continued to decline. It was not until circa 2012 when horizontal drilling was combined with new hydraulic fracturing techniques, that our production began to increase. We went from 150,000 bbl a day and dropping ( in spite of $125 oil ) to 500,000 bbls a day. ( and everything I'm reading , says that's gonna begin to drop , it may have very well been fools gold )

Come on, I believe none of the economist numbers ........... its bullchit that was written for effect.

Thanks for replying with all the additional info, but I was only posting about your claim that "If you want more money for your particular area of state government, grow the economy." and how much tax cuts and cuts to the education budget over years have put us in last place for that (now we're a bit better, but we still most likely suck in education funding, haven't checked recently) and we can't just "grow the economy" to get out of the huge hole our legislators dug for education. As far as the Economist article, I didn't read all of it, I just needed that one quote, so I didn't sign up for their site to read the entire thing. Since this has been rehashed in other threads and this one isn't about education funding, I'll just leave you with this. Cuts to education funding were massive, ongoing, and will take us years to correct (if we ever do), and it was due to tax cuts and other doings of the legislature, and we can't just "grow the economy" to get "more money for [education's] area of the government".

This chart is from okpolicy.org, which PluPan references above.

15671

Thanks for replying with all the additional info, but I was only posting about your claim that "If you want more money for your particular area of state government, grow the economy." and how much tax cuts and cuts to the education budget over years have put us in last place for that (now we're a bit better, but we still most likely suck in education funding, haven't checked recently) and we can't just "grow the economy" to get out of the huge hole our legislators dug for education. As far as the Economist article, I didn't read all of it, I just needed that one quote, so I didn't sign up for their site to read the entire thing. Since this has been rehashed in other threads and this one isn't about education funding, I'll just leave you with this. Cuts to education funding were massive, ongoing, and will take us years to correct (if we ever do), and it was due to tax cuts and other doings of the legislature, and we can't just "grow the economy" to get "more money for [education's] area of the government".

This chart is from okpolicy.org, which PluPan references above.

15671

What tax cuts ?

My memory on the income tax cut, is that it would be a full one percent, implemented annually in 1/4% increments. To my memory, the last two 1/4% were never put in place. That is the only tax cut I know of.

Property tax is going to differ from school district to district, but I'm paying three times higher property tax than 10 years ago. If the County Assessors are doing their jobs and reassessing property values annually, then that pretty much makes up for any inflation adjustment. Considering that on average across the state, 42% of school funding comes from property tax. And reassessing real estate values, does not take into account millage rate increases we have voted upon ourselves.

And evidently the Assessors were doing their job, because we put a cap on how much they can increase our valuations in a one year span, something like 4% . We've probably not averaged a 2% inflation rate over the past 10 years, if we've had any inflation at all.

We are spending more money today on education than we ever have. That's fact. Now the OPI wants to talk about whether appropriations by the legislature, then adjusted for inflation , are less than 10 years ago. But that ignores funding from sources other than appropriations. And the increase in the GPT tax alone, make up for their inflation adjustment.

What is so hard about this ? I think some of you fellas, need to spend some time educating yourself on state spending.

IMO, we need to change how we fund schools entirely. This old property tax system was put in place around statehood, because its in the constitution , but highly inefficient. I think schools should be funded mostly at the local level, with very little state funds. But changing that would be as difficult as rewriting the tax code.

You fellas don't impress me much.

^^^ I don’t think anyone here is trying to impress you.

Once again, here is a wealth of knowledge I pulled in 10 secs from google:

https://okpolicy.org/the-cost-of-tax-cuts-in-oklahoma/

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/08/584064306/tax-cuts-put-oklahoma-in-a-bind-now-gov-fallin-wants-to-raise-taxes

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/4/9/17214924/oklahoma-teacher-strike-tax-cut-rich-charts

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/03/29/oklahoma-tax-cuts

It is quite simple: and Oklahoma has cut spending on its education. It’s education system is among the most underfunded in the US. Majority of other states are increasing their per pupil and overall education budget. Most other states that are extremely successful and booming have great education systems. Those are facts. Not opinions. I’ve already cited sources for some of those claims and if you are unable or unwilling to fact check the others I’ll be more than happy to do it for you.

Also, for your idea funding schools mainly through local means, what districts today do this? I think that is a horrible idea and will lead to unfair funding situations in schools located in communities without means. That is especially true in communities that suffer from lack of services and are forced to shop in other communities that have them. Not a good idea, IMO.

What tax cuts ?

My memory on the income tax cut, is that it would be a full one percent, implemented annually in 1/4% increments. To my memory, the last two 1/4% were never put in place. That is the only tax cut I know of.

Property tax is going to differ from school district to district, but I'm paying three times higher property tax than 10 years ago. If the County Assessors are doing their jobs and reassessing property values annually, then that pretty much makes up for any inflation adjustment. Considering that on average across the state, 42% of school funding comes from property tax. And reassessing real estate values, does not take into account millage rate increases we have voted upon ourselves.

And evidently the Assessors were doing their job, because we put a cap on how much they can increase our valuations in a one year span, something like 4% . We've probably not averaged a 2% inflation rate over the past 10 years, if we've had any inflation at all.

We are spending more money today on education than we ever have. That's fact. Now the OPI wants to talk about whether appropriations by the legislature, then adjusted for inflation , are less than 10 years ago. But that ignores funding from sources other than appropriations. And the increase in the GPT tax alone, make up for their inflation adjustment.

What is so hard about this ? I think some of you fellas, need to spend some time educating yourself on state spending.

IMO, we need to change how we fund schools entirely. This old property tax system was put in place around statehood, because its in the constitution , but highly inefficient. I think schools should be funded mostly at the local level, with very little state funds. But changing that would be as difficult as rewriting the tax code.

You fellas don't impress me much.

https://okpolicy.org/the-cost-of-tax-cuts-in-oklahoma/

"Due to these cuts, Oklahoma’s top income tax rate has been slashed by almost a fourth, from 6.65 percent before 2004 to 5 percent beginning in 2016. The annual revenue loss from these cuts has now reached $1.022 billion, according to an analysis prepared for OK Policy by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. If a pre-approved tax cut that could take effect as soon as 2018 lowers the top rate again, to 4.85 percent, it will add another $100 million to the annual cost of tax cuts."

Later in the article, it clarifies that $356M of that $1.022B would've gone to education.

I don't believe anybody is saying that the entire reason education funding sucks in OK is tax cuts, but it's a huge part of it. I do agree with you that the property-tax-funds-everything, can't-use-income-tax-for-certain-things mentality needs to change drastically.

You fellas don't impress me much.
Then what would impress you? For Republican legislators to resume cutting the state income tax, preferably in greater than 1/4% increments, and don't worry about any need to make up for lost revenues? They will eventually make a comeback. If you think education is over funded a downturn shouldn't matter much to you. And with you not worrying about fewer college students having a negative impact on Oklahoma economy, higher education funding cuts will be appropriate.

All of that totally ignores the economic downturn from 2009 to 2017. It all sounds good, but doesn't say a thing about the price of oil crashing in 2014, or the price of nat gas crashing in 2009. Or how many oil and gas workers have lost their jobs or have taken huge pay cuts. You can't quantify the impact of a tax cut without somehow factoring in your slower economy.

I'm paying more tax now than in 2009. My property tax increases were far larger than that little income tax cut. And I greatly doubt that I'm the Lone Ranger. Which the brilliant analysis you've linked, totally ignores.

Paying higher property tax and lower income tax, moves our tax code closer to Texas. And their tax code has proven to be very effective for attracting business. And its my understanding that their schools are mostly locally funded through very high property tax. That's why some of those high schools can build football stadiums that are better than small colleges, just to point out an obvious difference.

And we have some districts in the state now, that are totally or almost completely funded by property tax. I believe Konawa is one of them, because they are a small district with an OG&E generating plant in the district. There are some in western Oklahoma, which has high land values, that are near totally funded from property tax. We attempt to equalize that with the state school funding formula. I think each district should be able to tax themselves to improve their schools without the state constitution telling them how to spend their money.

Then what would impress you? For Republican legislators to resume cutting the state income tax, preferably in greater than 1/4% increments, and don't worry about any need to make up for lost revenues? They will eventually make a comeback. If you think education is over funded a downturn shouldn't matter much to you. And with you not worrying about fewer college students having a negative impact on Oklahoma economy, higher education funding cuts will be appropriate.

Well, believing everything you read from the NPR, Vox, or some liberal think tank ................. doesn't impress me at all. Its being spun for political purposes.

And college is not for every body. In fact, a degree may be as over valued as its ever been. Evidently, there's thousands of young people out there with huge student loans to pay off and a degree that's not gonna be worth much.

I think that entire process is time to be rethought.

Oklahoma’s economy actually was billed as recession proof during the economic downturn, IIRC, and didn’t experience the downtown until 2014 or so.

Well, believing everything you read from the NPR, Vox, or some liberal think tank ................. doesn't impress me at all. Its being spun for political purposes.

And college is not for every body. In fact, a degree may be as over valued as its ever been. Evidently, there's thousands of young people out there with huge student loans to pay off and a degree that's not gonna be worth much.

I think that entire process is time to be rethought.

LOL. You must be a tea party legislator. This is their logic... who needs a stinkin edukashun? Ignorance was good enuf for me in the good ole days, it's good enuf for our kids. Who needs to learn to think, reason, and explore? That just leads to lefty liberal elitist thinkin. An educated work-force... not needed for workin the fields and puttin mufflers on cars. It's Oklahoma, remember, we're OK.

It is incomprehensible to me how anyone can defend Oklahoma's education system. It is historically bad and too many here fail to see a problem with that. Just keep taxes low. Well, guess what.... if you don't earn much money you don't have to pay much taxes. LOL.
This is exactly why OK is consistently under performing.

in order to be a "Business Friendly" state, you need to have a population that can actually read.

Well, believing everything you read from the NPR, Vox, or some liberal think tank ................. doesn't impress me at all. Its being spun for political purposes.

And college is not for every body. In fact, a degree may be as over valued as its ever been. Evidently, there's thousands of young people out there with huge student loans to pay off and a degree that's not gonna be worth much.

I think that entire process is time to be rethought.
Then I hope Oklahoma Legislature is also increasing funding for State Career Tech. Training it does is sometimes needed for jobs at new manufacturing plants. Learning a trade skill is still very much needed.

...

And college is not for every body. In fact, a degree may be as over valued as its ever been. Evidently, there's thousands of young people out there with huge student loans to pay off and a degree that's not gonna be worth much.

I think that entire process is time to be rethought.

I do agree with you here, have said that not everybody needs to go to college for years now. Some people just aren't cut out for college-type classes/careers, for many reasons. Trade/vocational schools need to not be looked down upon, and college degrees are not the end-all, be-all means to success. The number being thrown around is $1.5 trillion in current student debt, and that's absolutely ridiculous. If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably still get my degree, but maybe not in today's world because of the insane cost of higher education. I went to CSU (now UCO) from 83-89, was on a scholarship for my first year, paid my own way the 2nd year, and middle of my junior year I got on the co-op education program with the DoD and they paid for all my school from then on out, so I had no debt when I graduated. I'd have loved to work with wood/houses/buildings in some fashion (not plumbing) instead of waggling my fingers over a keyboard to make magic happen, and that would've probably ended up making me as much money as I do now. I believe that in Europe they do assessments and help students figure out which path to go down, not sure they do that as much here, but schooling in Europe seems to be smarter and more well-done than it is here in a lot of ways.

I think for most kids going to a traditional 4-year college right after high school is not the best option unless your going into a field that you know will take up 4+ years of your life in education like a doctor or lawyer. You still have your physical health at that age and should do more of the manual labor at that point in your life. Probably more mentally happier too instead of being tied to a desk plus you are working to help pay for a college education.

I hate to say this but, American college educated are over valued in this current global economy. Why would an employer want to hire a worker who needs a higher salary because of their student loan debt when they can hire someone from India or China who does it for far less.