There are several legitimate reasons for this. 1) Jobs pay more in the city than in rural areas, therefore more income tax is collected. Example, a local rural hospital is now advertising to hire Registered Nurses. The top pay they offer is about 60% of what RNs makes in Portland, according to my cousin that is an RN in Portland. 2) Many services are provided by volunteers in small communities. Example, salaries for firemen take up a large part of Portland’s budget. In small communities we have volunteer firemen. What is amazing, when we have a local forest fire, our volunteer firemen are the first to respond, and the last to leave. They often work very long hours, for weeks, without pay. Locals do a lot of volunteer work to maintain public lands, such as local parks, that cities pay high salaries to maintain.. 3) Property taxes are much higher in the city, because the cost/value of land is much higher. You keep comparing apples to oranges.
School funding in Oregon. Per student target about $7000 per student. State funds per student are calculated and the local funding available is deducted from the districts total students x 7k. A sample of districts in what the State provides per student in addition to their local funds. La Grande $5198./student Oregon City 4725. Beaverton 4651 West Linn 4283 Lake County 4169 Eugene 3913 Bend 3823 Bandon 3751 PPS 3441 (Portland Public Schools) By far the largest industrial tax base in the state. Oswego 3262 Source 2015-16 State School Fund Estimates It looks to me like your high density residential areas with in the urban growth boundaries that are doing most of the sucking. I don't know what is up with La grande except it is farm land all around which is not taxed much. But why the big difference from Lakeview?
Gotta figure out a way to pay for all that unnecessary infrastructure. Simply because you pay more for living in town doesn't mean you're subsidizing other cities. In some cases, sure, it's true. But as a blanket statement, that is way incorrect.
Don't come in here with your logic! My child is in an after school program. 3 hours per day, everyday after school. $320 for the year (that's right - that's the annual cost, not the monthly rate). The first hour is dedicated to students completing their homework, the second is essentially PE, and the third is games/painting/low-key activities. This program is essentially run by the local education majors from the local college. It's funded by the nominal fee we pay, as well as a big annual dinner and auction in which the entire community essentially contributes one way or another. Why? Because it takes a village, and there are still communities that recognize if we lift those around us up, we lift ourselves up as well. There's 30,000+ people in our community, and this program is offered at each of the elementary schools. I don't know why more districts and communities can't make a program like this be successful. Everybody benefits from it.
Yes, there are. I don't dispute that. Nor do I mind paying more taxes for less services than my rural brethren get. After all, I have the freedom to move to the country should I so desire. However, I do object to rural people claiming to be paying to support the cities, when the reverse is true. Agreed. This effect actually reduces the need for tax money - but rural people get more in tax supported services despite having these volunteer services. Yep. Not sure why you say that. Metro people pay more taxes than they get in government services; rural people get more in government services than they pay in taxes. Hence urban people subsidize rural people. barfo
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Urban areas pay most of the tax into the system. Then Bandon takes more out of that pot, per pupil, than Portland. Seems to me that's Portland supporting Bandon. barfo
Correct, but that's not what we are discussing. The situation is that rural people get more in state and federal services than they pay in in taxes. That's a subsidy. barfo
Or maybe smaller communities get more services for their money because they have less government (which costs money) and have people spending the money more wisely. And we have a higher percentage of people willing to give back to the community. There's a big difference, too, if we're talking smaller city Oregon versus smaller city Oregon Coast. For a number of reasons, the coast is generally more expensive. MarAzul's graphic doesn't show me a whole lot, to be honest. it's rather all over the place. Look how much money is being spent in Beaverton, West Linn, Oregon City schools per student. And you've got a lot of money flowing into those areas (especially West Linn - we were paying $11K/year in property taxes before leaving). In general, property taxes are Oregon cities' single biggest revenue stream. If that's true, which is what several Oregon websites would indicate, including the "State of the Cities" report, I have a hard time believing I'm being subsidized by the granola-munchers of Multnomah County.
The way small towns most commonly receive big subsidies are for infrastructure projects (like the Newberg/Dundee bypass). Which, for those living out in Yamhill County, very few wanted. It's been pushed upon us (mostly by the city folk). That's like me being pissed when some of my tax dollars went to the Sellwood Bridge, or the tram on the waterfront. So yeah.... if that's your context of Portlanders subsidizing small towns, then by all means, you would be correct. The city folk pushing a project upon us so that they can have an easier commute to the coast.
More government services, paid for with tax dollars. No question that small communities also benefit from volunteer services, and that's great, but not the point here. Income taxes are quite substantial in Oregon. Those taxes get collected, and they get spent. And they get spent, per-capita, more in rural areas than urban. For a variety of perfectly good reasons. barfo
So, I should have said "Portland Metro" rather than Portland, since Washington County also pays a lot of tax. But otherwise, it's pretty accurate. barfo
Many big corporations pay less in state income taxes than low income families do. Two independent reports, one by Ernst & Young and one by the Anderson Economic Group, found that Oregon has the country’s lowest business taxes. I work for a small company that pays nearly 40% income taxes. Oregon has the lowest effective business tax rate in the country. Only 7% of Oregon's income tax revenue come from corporations, and it's been well-publicized that many of Oregon's biggest companies pay far less than their fair share of tax revenue, and are often subsidized (hello Nike and Intel). By that rationale, I would say we small folk are subsidizing many of you Portlanders.
I think you might have a point about big projects like that. However, there's tons of smaller stuff too. If any of your taxes went to the Sellwood Bridge, it was a tiny amount. The vast majority of the costs were paid by Multnomah County and Portland. Or maybe you used to live in Portland? Not sure how you'd have paid for the tram otherwise. barfo
I was living in Mult Co. at the time the Sellwood project plans were being wrapped up or I wouldn't have used that example, not that you'd have known where I was at the time (I don't think a lot of state funds went into that, and didn't Clackamas County refuse to contribute?). I've only been out in small town USA for about 8 months. Had to leave because of the traffic, and the hipsters, and the lack of community.
I'm not following you. If business taxes are a small portion of the overall pie, then the business taxes that you are paying can't be much of a subsidy for anyone. barfo
Makes sense. At some point I will move out myself. If I had a long commute that point would come a lot sooner but I can walk to work downtown if I want so traffic isn't a big factor. barfo
Companies like Nike and Intel receive subsidies and special tax breaks. Every taxpaying individual in the State of Oregon is technically subsidizing them. And we're subsidizing the individuals who work for those companies.
Yes, that's true (at least the first part - I think the individuals do have to pay their own taxes so I don't see how we are subsidizing them. If they didn't have those jobs they'd be paying less tax, not more). But where are the taxpaying individuals in Oregon that are subsidizing Nike? Mostly in the Metro area. barfo
If the employees are working for a company, the employees themselves are being subsidized by taxpayers. Nike can afford to pay employees more, offer better benefits, etc, because they're saving money elsewhere. And companies threaten to move if you don't offer them breaks. So, tax dollars essentially go to big companies to keep them where they are, which provides jobs. If city governments are getting state tax dollars, all taxpaying Oregonians are paying one way or another.
