Oregonians pay less in state and local taxes than the U.S. average -- but taxes take a slightly greater-than-average-share of their income because they make less money.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/Burdens_2014_Final.pdf
That's the bottom line of a new study from the Tax Foundation, which said that Oregon has the 16th highest state and local tax burden as a share of income. On a per-capita basis, Oregon is 20th in its tax burden.The drop from 16th to 20th is due to the fact that Oregonians make less than the national average in per capita income: $38,219. Oregon is in the bottom half of the states (29th) in per capita income.
So, Oregon drops near the upper middle of the pack in tax status per capita only because Oregonians make quite a bit less per capita than its northern and southern neighbors and $200/month less than Wisconsin square in the middle at 25th. Washington averages $46,456 (11th), California $45,254 (15th), and Wisconsin $40,741(25th). Here's the breakdown:
1. Connecticut - $60,287
2-6. New Jersey-Wyoming - $54,422-$50,805
7-27. Virginia-Iowa - $48,498-$40,147
28-50. Nevada-Mississippi - $39,947-$31,067
4 comments:
Hard to believe that folks in Iowa make more than we do. And we don't even have their weather-related boom/bust cycles.
The reason, as you have pointed out so well in a host of different posts, is that Oregon doesn't really care about good jobs. Not attracting them. Not keeping them. Which is why the timber industry (good paying jobs) went south with nary a peep.
It's also why they're considering selling the entire Elliott state forest. The legal hassles whenever the do try to make a timber sale have made it such a drain that the thinking is that they might be better off to just get out from under it.
Yes, we have lots of great natural resources and not the understanding or will to use them wisely. The big leaders think staring at them is the best use (tourism) which brings low paying jobs at best.
Post a Comment