Oregonians forecast to receive modest kicker refund in 2026

---

Oregon's state economist forecasts about $1 billion in extra revenues, to be refunded to state taxpayers in 2026 in the form of the Kicker refund (which is shown on the Oregon personal income tax form framed above in green border).  The average refund, or refundable Kicker credit against taxes, for each Oregon tax filer with median income would be in a range of $100 to $200, in the 2026 tax filing season.  This last tax filing season, April 2024, Oregon taxpayers had an average kicker refund credit against state taxes of $1,000.

So, the next kicker refund will be quite a bit smaller unless the surplus of Oregon state revenues continues to grow bigger this coming fiscal year (2024-2025).

But still, it is better than no refund.

Here's KOIN news reporting on the this latest 2026 Kicker refund estimate:   Oregon revenue forecast shows Oregon out of pandemic lull, near $1B kicker (koin.com) 

(posted by Elvis Clark on August 29, 2024)

Most Every Oregonian, it is estimated, would receive a cash payment of $750 each year if IP-17 is approved by voters.  EXCEPT that the state of Oregon legislature is desperate for tax monies and is likely to amend IP-17 if approved by voters, keeping the $750 per Oregonian for state government purposes (effectively feeding the government beast, making it bigger at the expense of most Oregonians.)

IP 17 ($750 universal income) would likely attract more homeless people - from other states - to relocate to Oregon for the extra benefits, while not contributing much at all towards their $750 cash payment.  More homeless, more government need for tax monies to support an increased number of homeless.

I think the ballot title in the above blue outlined panel is not likely to garner a majority of yes votes, and so, I believe the ballot title itself will likely cause most voters to vote NO in this coming November's General Election.

Here's what Willamette Week newspaper says about IP 17 ballot measure:    The Chief Petitioner for Initiative Petition 17, Which Would Give $750 to Nearly Every Oregonian, States His Case (wweek.com) 

Here's what a draft assessment by the state of Oregon says about the economic impacts of IP-17:

Indirect Economic Effects The Legislative Revenue Office used an economic model to analyze the effects of the tax changes caused by IP 17 on Oregon’s economy. The model compared a baseline scenario assuming no revenue change to a scenario in which IP 17 passes and looks at the expected changes over a five year period to show the expected difference by 2030. The major findings are summarized below: 

• Personal income in 2030 will be 0.71% lower than it otherwise would have been without IP 17 

• Employment in 2030 will be 0.99% lower 

• Prices in 2030 will be 1.3% higher 

• The measure will have a modest effect on wages (0.5% lower) and population (0.5% lower)

reference for state of Oregon government assessment:   IP 17 Oregon Rebate  

(posted by Elvis Clark on July 26, 2024)

You may have gotten the above notice from PGE electric utility, about a new City of Milwaukie utility tax/fee.  This new fee/tax will show up on Milwaukie electric utility bills partially in July 2024, and fully in August 2024.

Up until 5 years ago, Milwaukie didn't have a Climate Czar/Sustainability director.  But because other cities have Climate Change Bureaucrats pushing paper, I guess Milwaukie City Council can't resist joining this "green fad."  And so now the average electricity customer in the City of Milwaukie will pay an extra $5.41 just to pretend like the City is cooling the earth with its hiring of a Climate/Sustainability Director.

Before, this new utility tax, the City Climate/Sustainability Director (Czar) and his/her consulting contracts (some $500,000 per year in total Climate Czar city expenses) have been funded out of City General Funds.  But the City needs those General Fund monies now because its costs are increasing faster than its property tax proceeds - although part of the blame rests with City Council itself for spending more than need be on some non-basic service items (For example:  Does the City actually need an Equity Director - A city employee position created in only the last four years)?  

So, now the City of Milwaukie adds this new utility tax onto both PGE and Northwest Natural [gas] bills.  The city still has a resolution on the books to force residents to switch from natural gas home heating and cooking to being all electric.  The City Climate czar - that residents will now be taxed to fund - could end up working to take away natural gas utility service from residents, leaving residents totally dependent on one energy supplier - namely, the local monopoly PGE.  How's this for a double whammy.

I argued before Council when it started considering this new utility tax, that the proceeds should be spent to help Milwaukie residents.  For instance, the proceeds of this new tax could instead go towards giving out cash rebates to those city residents who plant and maintain a new shade tree (helping to provide relief for people on those hot summer days).

But nope.  Council wants to pretend it is cooling the temperature of the earth by simply adding a Climate Change czar.

(posted by Elvis Clark on June 26, 2024)

Before the City of Milwaukie resorts to increased fees and/or taxes, it should consider cutting at least two of its non-basic service spending items.  The first is its climate action plan spending.

It appears that the city is spending over $200, 000 per year and probably more like $500,000 per year on its futile attempt to change the temperature of the earth.  I say at least $200,000 per year because the City has been employing two people to do climate action plan paperwork.  I say perhaps as much as $500,000 per year based on previous City Council discussions about adding a climate fee onto City water bills.  I say futile because the benefit and cost of cutting greenhouse gases is a giant black box, depending in substantive part on economic forecasts and we all know how bad economic forecasting is for accuracy.  (Just as one of an infinite number of examples:  Consider that most economic forecasts for the year 2023 called for a recession in the U.S.  But quite the opposite happens.)

The amount that the City takes in from property taxes is nearly $10 million per year, so cutting the Climate Action Plan would help preserve perhaps as much as 5% of the City's property tax revenues for the basic services.  It is vital that the City of Milwaukie ensure that it is getting tangible, highly certain benefits for its residents instead of the rather uncertain, abstract benefits of its Net Zero, climate action plan.

The second item is the City's Urban Renewal allocation, which reduces the City's property tax funds for basic services like police, library and parks.  Currently, the Urban Renewal district drains $200,000 per year from the City's property tax funds for basic services.  And this figure grows sharply each year and will reach nearly $1 million per year by the year 2030.

Much of the Urban Renewal spending is targeted to Downtown Milwaukie and very little to Central Milwaukie.  Some of the Urban Renewal spending will go towards restoring Kellogg Lake and creating an underpass of McLoughlin Boulevard, which will help connect downtown Milwaukie to the beautiful Milwaukie Bay park area.  Now that seems like an awesome real tangible benefit that most Milwaukians would applaud.

But another chunk of the Urban Renewal spending is destined to be thrown out to developers to build their new apartment complexes in downtown Milwaukie.  This is something the council should look to cut by freezing some portions of the urban renewal plan and restoring these taxpayer monies to the City's basic services funds.

Going back to the City's environmental activities.  There are some Climate activities which could have substantive real certain benefits.  This would include helping Milwaukie residents' plant and maintain new trees, providing shade for people on those hot summer days we get here in Milwaukie.  These climate activities could and maybe should be shifted to the Public Works department, which runs the City's water and storm water utility services.

Jon Stoll, former chair of Milwaukie's Budget Committee, indicated at one point when he ran for City Council in 2020, that the City's water utility could save monies by pursuing better financing of its operations.  Along these lines, municipal debt tends to carry sharply lower interest rates than the interest rates the city earns on its cash reserves, at least currently and most normally (I think this is the case).  Currently, the City's water utility is sitting on several millions of dollars in reserves.

If the City's water utility can save money by taking advantage of municipal financing advantages, possibly it could use such savings to set up a program which would refund the cost of a tree(s) for City water and sewer utility customers that plant and maintain a new tree(s).  Another thought is to increase the City's license fee for Northwest Natural and/or PGE.  In the case of Northwest Natural, increasing the percentage fee would be like imposing a greenhouse emissions tax at the City level to offset the greenhouse emissions of Northwest Natural's gas utility service.  (PGE also has greenhouse emissions).  Such utility license fee could go towards funding a City tree planting and maintaining rewards system.

So, there is a need for citizens to get involved and look at what parts of the City budget they value most and how much in additional taxes and fees they might support.  For instance, I am really impressed by some of the City's SAFE fee spending on road improvements.  For instance, 43rd Avenue between Howe and King roads.  The Linwood bicycle and pedestrian pathways.  Lakewood pathways.  So maybe some increase in the SAFE fee (Safe Access for Everyone) would most probably yield real certain benefit. 

(posted by Elvis Clark on March 3, 2023)