After the massive teacher walkout in Oklahoma, the governor and legislature pledged to raise taxes to pay for higher teacher salaries.
Now former Senator Tom Coburn is leading an anti-tax group demanding a referendum to roll back the taxes. Coburn contends that the state can pay raises without raising taxes. If his group Oklahoma Taxpayers Unite! can collect 42,000 signatures by July 18, there will be a referendum. Meanwhile there are legal challenges to the referendum.
Oklahoma Republicans live in a dream world where public services can be funded while the richest individuals and industries in the state get tax cuts.
That’s why some schools in the state operate on a four-day week. The oligarchs of Oklahoma don’t want the children of the state to have a good education. They want teachers who will work for the lowest wages in the nation to teach their children four days a week.
The future will take care of itself as long as the oil and gas industries pay low taxes. Right?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The problem is not just with Oklahoma or just with Republican legislators. I know it is magical thinking, but I would live to see a one-day walk-out of everyone who is an educator, nurse, social worker, firefighter, and so on. The death by a thousand cuts and lies about “govment workers” are obscene. We have a corporate welfare state.
LikeLike
School-choice opponents often like to cite the value of referenda. Like the votes of 51% of the 50% of the citizens (About half of all American do not vote for president, and an even lower percentage vote in referenda/school board/off-year elections). will take us to the promised land.
Oklahomans have every right to roll back their taxes, should they choose to do so.
(Personally, I believe that Oklahoma school teachers deserve a living wage, but I do not vote in that state).
Corporations do not pay taxes, they only collect taxes. Raising taxes on the petroleum industry, will only result in the companies passing on the increase at the gas pump. Only the consumer pays taxes, including taxes on petroleum products.
LikeLike
I expect that the vote will not be what you hope it will be, sir. Teachers are very highly respected across the country, and parents really supported the walk-out in Oklahoma.
I expect that many taxpayers will see this for what it is–a venal attempt to destroy teachers and students–again.
LikeLike
I strongly support school teachers being paid a living wage. If the citizens of Oklahoma, feel that a reasonable salary increase is justified, I will gladly support their decision. I have never said otherwise.
I leave it to the citizens of the Sooner State.
LikeLike
So, you are okay with paying public school teachers with college degrees, $10.49 an hour in Oklahoma.
$10.49 an hour is what Living Wage.mit.edu calculates for 1 adult. For 1 adult and a child it is $23.08 an hour.
For 2 adults (1 working) and one child, a living wage is $21.25 an hour. That must be because the adult that is not working is home to take care of the child while the parent working is at working earning that living wage.
http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/40143
LikeLike
@Lloyd: My definition of “living wage” is not necessarily the same as yours, nor of a website that I have never seen. Furthermore the term “living” is somewhat elastic. A living wage in North Dakota is not the same as a living wage in Mid-town Manhattan.
Let us agree on some things.
-Oklahoma teachers were dissatisfied with their compensation.
-The teachers decided to conduct a strike
-The state government offered a compensation increase
-The teachers found it acceptable, and returned to work.
Although I am not an Oklahoma resident, I am delighted that the results were found to be satisfactory to all parties involved.
I really ain’t got a dog in that (former) fight. So let’s just drop it.
LikeLike
You don’t have a dog in the voucher fight, yet you never stop telling every one on this blog that our taxes should pay for religious schools.
LikeLike
Q You don’t have a dog in the voucher fight, yet you never stop telling every one on this blog that our taxes should pay for religious schools.END Q
Diane, you are mistaken. I am a citizen and a taxpayer. The commonwealth of Virginia, and the US government taxes all citizens, with equal enthusiasm and power, regardless of whether they are parents, or if they have children in the publicly-operated schools. When they take my money, they will accept my input and advocacy as well.
Furthermore, as a member of the public, I have every right to become involved in the determination and implementation of public policy, including education policy. (I am not a farmer, but I may influence agricultural policy. I am not a doctor, but I may influence medical policy, medical insurance policy, etc. I am not an Indian, but I may influence policies on Indian reservations, etc.)
I must live in the society, that is populated by the graduates of our nation’s public (and non-public) schools and universities. When these schools fail to deliver a quality education, I must live with the detritus. When the people who are not able to obtain work, and turn to crime, I must pay the costs of incarceration.
I most certainly have a dog, and my tax money, in the struggle to ensure proper educations for Americas most precious resource. As long as government requires me to pay for education, I will be influencing education policy. I do not believe in “taxation without representation”. Do you?
You are quite correct about at least one thing. I strongly support providing parents more choices in directing the education of their children. If this includes underwriting the costs of educating them at an institution that is religiously-operated, then so be it. If that institution is K-12 or college/university, so much the better. I have never seen anyone here (or elsewhere) opposed to students at religiously-operated colleges, receiving public financial assistance. And no one has successfully explained why there is a double standard.
As for me, I will never be indifferent to the need to support and improve education in this nation. As long as I am contributing to the costs with my taxes, no one will silence me.
“The opposite of civilization is indifference
-Elie Wiesel, Nobel Prize winner, Holocaust survivor.
LikeLike
Charles,
Based on what you wrote here, you should be a ferocious opponent of vouchers. Numerous studies have shown that voucher schools do not provide quality education. Most are evangelical schools whose teachers are uncertified, that use textbooks that teach fake science and fake history. Children who use vouchers learn less from less qualified teachers than their peers in public schools.
You should support the strengthening and improvement of public schools, where 85% of our future citizens are enrolled. You should fight any effort to divert funding to charters, which are unaccountable and of dubious quality.
Really, Charles, follow your own logic and you will fight efforts to privatize public education.
LikeLike
You have your ideas about education, and I have mine. I can support publicly-operated schools, and be in favor of giving parents more choices, simultaneously. Some opponents of direct voucher payments, are in favor of giving parents/children more choices within the public school system. (Arizona has eliminated district lines entirely, for example). Some support “magnet” schools. Some support residence preparatory academies, for gifted/talented. All of these alternatives do not involve direct voucher payments, and the children remain in publicly-operated schools.
I am hesitant to condemn all non-public schools, and I am also hesitant to make blanket statements , like ” Numerous studies have shown that voucher schools do not provide quality education. “. Which studies? And if these schools are as terrible as you claim, then why are parents making the deliberate and conscious choice, to send their children to them?
Are you certain that “most” are evangelical Christian schools? The Council for American Private Education (CAPE) statistical profile of the children currently enrolled in non-public schools, indicate that a plurality are enrolled in Roman Catholic schools. see
http://www.capenet.org/facts.html
This data includes all children enrolled in non-public schools. Some of the families are receiving some public financial assistance, the wide majority are not. Many families make financial sacrifices to enroll their children in these schools, which you claim are substandard. Why would they do that?
Q You should support the strengthening and improvement of public schools, where 85% of our future citizens are enrolled END Q
I am doing this already. The public schools here in Fairfax VA, are uniformly excellent. I am proud to support “strengthening” them, as you advocate. I would like to see quality schools, elsewhere in Virginia, and across the nation. Over 20% of the school children in Virginia live in Fairfax/Loudoun/Arlington. The schools down-state are not as well-financed and not nearly up to the standards of Northern Virginia.
One point: 85+% of school children are enrolled in government-run, publicly operated schools, this is true. Many of the families with children enrolled in these schools are perfectly satisfied. Some are not. Families who have their children enrolled in public schools, and cannot afford to transfer them to non-public schools, or home-school them, are basically trapped. I prefer freedom of choice, You do not.
LikeLike
No one is “trapped” in a public school anywhere.
Enough, Charles. You are hopelessly ignorant and have no interest in learning.
You are a grumpy old white man who hates what most on this blog treasure. I keep you here so people have a daily reminder of Trump thought.
LikeLike
I have learned a great deal here. Partly from reading the links to the various articles. It depends on your definition of “trapped”. Consider this. the state can compel children to attend some type of school until at least age 16, (See Wisconsin v. Yoder). Schools are not prisons, parents can enroll the children at alternate schools or home-school them (Pierce v. Society of Sisters).
But if a family does not have the financial resources to pay for alternate schooling, their children are basically “trapped” into the public school system, with no alternatives.
LikeLike
No one is trapped. Period.
They can homeschool. In most states, they can go to an inferior voucher school. In most states, they can go to a failing charter school.
LikeLike
Why do you keep mentioning the Yoder case?
That ruling was specifically focused on long-term Amish religious practices as applied to how the Amish raise their children.
It had nothing to do with all parents having choices to send their children to any school they want on the public dollar.
” … the court ruled that the Wisconsin compulsory school attendance law was not applicable to the Amish under the free-exercise clause.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wisconsin-v-Yoder
“applicable to the Amish” ONLY
LikeLike
The Supreme Court does not make rulings just for one specific religious sect. The Yoder case, dealt with parental rights, not with public financing of non-public schools. The family wanted to get their child OUT of ANY school.
The S.C. usually goes with parental rights.
LikeLike
When has the SC ruled in favor of public money flowing to for-profit or fake non-profit private businesses with NO oversight?
LikeLike
Charles said, “Corporations do not pay taxes, they only collect taxes.”
Huh?
(This does not apply to professional corporations, however, as they are taxed at a flat rate of 35%.) Charles, if professional corporations are taxed at a flat rate of 35%, that’s paying taxes.
In contrast, owners of sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLCs must pay taxes on all business profits at their individual income tax rates, whether they take the profits out of the business or not.
“The United States imposes a tax on the profits of US resident corporations up to a maximum rate of 35 percent. The corporate income tax is the third largest source of federal revenue, after the individual income tax and payroll taxes, and raised $343.8 billion in fiscal 2015.”
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-corporate-income-tax-work
LikeLike
Charles thinks that corporations are never taxed, and that they are tax collectors. I am stumped. That’s a new twist. Why did they get a big corporate tax cut if they don’t pay taxes?
LikeLike
I suspect he thinks sales tax is all the tax corporations collect without knowing that sales tax is a state tax — not a federal tax — based on purchases consumers make from businesses and some of those businesses are big corporations like Wal-Mart.
Sales tax is state revenue, not federal revenue. I wonder if any states taxes the profits from corporations. If states tax income workers earn and the federal government also taxes that same income, why not tax corporations for profits at the state level too.
LikeLike
It’s a a right-wing talking point. We shouldn’t tax corporations because they’ll just pass the cost on to the consumer, making goods and services more expensive. We’d all be better off if corporations didn’t have to pay taxes, dontcha know.
LikeLike
Maybe he thinks they just find more creative ways to hide their profits. I’m not sure how passing it on to the customer is supposed to eliminate their tax. They can only raise prices so much. They can, however, hide buckets of profit. Not the small business, though. They have to suck it up just like their customers do. It’s only the big guy that have enough clout to work the system. Notice how the tax cuts always seem to favor those who don’t need them.
LikeLike
He is right the corporation is not a living entity or it wasn’t till the Supreme Court recently lost their mind.
But the reality is their taxes are passed on to either consumers as costs or to share holders as a loss of profits. That said those costs used to pick up 30% of the Federal budget and other amounts of state budgets . So effectively I am with Charles eliminate the corporate tax. Eliminate the lower rate on capital gains and tax all as income. I prefer a top marginal rate of 93% .
LikeLike
Economics 101. When a person purchases a widget at a store, he purchases the following:
The raw materials used to make the widget
The labor of the factory worker at the widget factory
The rent on the widget factory
The utilities used to run the widget making machine
The electricity used to light the factory
The transportation of the widget to the store
The salary of the cashier who sold the widget.
AND-
The taxes charged to the widget corporation
Corporation taxes are a cost, like any other cost. All costs incurred in producing the widget, from the raw materials, to the labor, to the royalty paid to the holder of the widget patent, to the salary of the truck driver who brought the widget from the factory to the retail store, are passed on the final consumer in the final cost of the widget.
When a government charges taxes to a corporation, the only place where the corporation can come up with the money to pay the taxes, is from the consumer of their widgets. ALL costs are paid by the consumer, including taxes. Sales taxes are appended to the purchase price at the point of sale, so the consumer can see exactly what was added to the price the store charges.
The only possible exception is when a government charges an “excess profits” tax, like the US government did in WW2, to clamp down on war profiteering. And even that is debatable.
A large part of any corporation, is to serve as a tax collector for the government. Corporations are charged taxes, and then they pass the cost along to the final consumer who purchases their product. Technically, the corporation renders the tax collections to the government when they are charged a tax bill. But the corporation just passes on the cost for the taxes in their products.
LikeLike
“But the corporation just passes on the cost for the taxes in their products.”
You thinking is just semantics and a seriously flawed opinion planted in your mind by the
Alt-Right Deep State Conspiracy.
Of course, all costs of doing business are factored in but consider that corporate taxes are based on profits and losses can be written off. That means the corporation had to make a profit to end up paying taxes on that profit. For every dollar of profit, if a corporation pays the entire 35% flat tax rate, and most don’t and many don’t pay a cent in corporate taxes, then they pay 35 cents on the dollar and still walk away with 65 cents of profit for every dollar of gross profits. Expenses are deducted before profits are determined.
Sales taxes are added on top of the cost of the products or services the consumer pays for. The corporations don’t have to take the sales tax into consideration as part of the cost of doing business because sales tax is the same for all businesses in a state that charges sales tax.
Corporations are not the official tax collectors. Sure, they collect sales taxes and turn them over to the state agencies and the IRS that are the tax collectors, but that is just part of doing business and always has been for as long as taxes were collected that way in any country that does it.
How much do you spend each year on sales tax vs how much do you pay in income tax and property tax? Corporations do not collect income tax or property tax.
What’s interesting is that I’m a combat vet and when I shop at Lowes or Home Depot and show my VA card with its note that I have a service-related disability, I get a 10-percent discount on all purchases. That is more than the sales tax. That means those corporations picked up the cost of the taxes I actually didn’t pay and then rewarded me for my service with anything above the tax rate.
The Corporation figures out how much they have to charge for a product to make a profit and once they make a profit, they might pay a tax on that profit but if they come up with enough write-offs they can avoid paying a tax on profits.
For instance.
Some Key Findings of the corporate tax myth
“As a group, the 258 corporations paid an effective federal income tax rate of 21.2 percent over the eight-year period, slightly over half the statutory 35 percent tax rate.
“Eighteen of the corporations, including General Electric, International Paper, Priceline.com and PG&E, paid no federal income tax at all over the eight-year period. A fifth of the corporations (48) paid an effective tax rate of less than 10 percent over that period.
“Of those corporations in our sample with significant offshore profits, more than half paid higher corporate tax rates to foreign governments where they operate than they paid in the United States on their U.S. profits.
“These findings refute the prevailing view inside the Beltway that America’s corporate income tax is more burdensome than the corporate income taxes levied by other countries, and that this purported (but false) excess burden somehow makes the U.S. “uncompetitive.”
https://itep.org/the-35-percent-corporate-tax-myth/
LikeLike
OK, if a corporation pays taxes, and is not a tax collector, then who does pay? When you buy that widget at your local store, who pays for the raw materials in the widget? Where does the corporation get the money to hand over to the tax collectors? They do not conjure it up from thin air. They do not withdraw it from their bank account in the Cayman Islands. They get the money that they hand over to the government from the consumer who buys their widgets.
Some European countries have a value-added-tax, or VAT. How this works, is the government collects a tax from the lumber mill that took a log, and made usable lumber from it. Then the mill adds this tax to the price they charge for the lumber. The furniture factory that turns the lumber into tables and chairs is taxed on the value that their furniture added to the lumber. The factory adds this tax to the cost of the furniture. Then the retail store which sells the finished furniture is charged a tax on the profit they made from selling the furniture. The tax paid by the lumber mill, the furniture factory, and the retail store is added to the purchase price of the furniture when the final consumer buys it.
Now you tell me. Who pays the tax which was collected by the government from the mill, the factory, and the furniture store. The final consumer, that is who!
LikeLike