March 25, 2005
Click here to download a PDF of this document.
Who's Losing Out From RALs?
Low-income working households are the largest group that would benefit from HB 3163 refund anticipation loan reform
Refunded tax dollars that could help low-income families make ends meet and boost local economies are instead ending up in the pockets of tax preparation companies. That is the result of refund anticipation loans (RALs), short-term and often high-cost loans advertised as rapid tax refunds. Tax preparers often collect the RALs fees out of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) refunds anticipated by low-income taxpayers.
Download a copy of this issue brief:
The federal EITC is targeted at low-income working families and is designed to honor work, keep families together, reduce poverty and offset the payroll taxes of workers in low-paying jobs. In Oregon, nearly two-thirds of RAL customers in 2006 were federal EITC recipients, and 18 percent of federal EITC recipients used RALs.
HB 3163 would establish consumer protections for RALs. The tables below show, by state House and Senate districts, the share of Oregon’s RAL recipients in 2006 who claimed the federal EITC and the share of federal EITC recipients using RALs.
RALs by Oregon Senate District | |||||
| Senate District | Senator | Total # of RALs | # EIC recipients with RALs | % of RALS going to EIC recipients | % of EIC recipients getting RALs |
| 1 | Kruse | 2,703 | 1,766 | 65% | 21% |
| 2 | Atkinson | 2,623 | 1,774 | 68% | 19% |
| 3 | Bates | 2,247 | 1,555 | 69% | 17% |
| 4 | Prozanski | 1,744 | 1,090 | 63% | 15% |
| 5 | Verger | 2,792 | 1,786 | 64% | 22% |
| 6 | Morrisette | 2,286 | 1,528 | 67% | 19% |
| 7 | Walker | 2,001 | 1,266 | 63% | 16% |
| 8 | Morse | 1,610 | 1,029 | 64% | 16% |
| 9 | Girod | 2,388 | 1,438 | 60% | 20% |
| 10 | Winters | 2,312 | 1,497 | 65% | 22% |
| 11 | Courtney | 3,117 | 2,111 | 68% | 22% |
| 12 | Boquist | 2,225 | 1,416 | 64% | 19% |
| 13 | George | 1,835 | 1,090 | 59% | 17% |
| 14 | Haas | 1,405 | 802 | 57% | 14% |
| 15 | Starr | 1,651 | 985 | 60% | 15% |
| 16 | Johnson | 2,392 | 1,324 | 55% | 19% |
| 17 | Bonamici | 1,314 | 761 | 58% | 14% |
| 18 | Burdick | 989 | 528 | 53% | 11% |
| 19 | Devlin | 665 | 351 | 53% | 10% |
| 20 | Schrader | 1,742 | 1,023 | 59% | 17% |
| 21 | Rosenbaum | 1,601 | 892 | 56% | 12% |
| 22 | Carter | 2,285 | 1,495 | 65% | 17% |
| 23 | Dingfelder | 1,738 | 1,076 | 62% | 15% |
| 24 | Monroe | 2,872 | 1,882 | 66% | 19% |
| 25 | Monnes Anderson | 2,443 | 1,495 | 61% | 19% |
| 26 | Metsger | 1,748 | 959 | 55% | 13% |
| 27 | Telfer | 2,700 | 1,620 | 60% | 18% |
| 28 | Whitsett | 2,431 | 1,673 | 69% | 18% |
| 29 | Nelson | 2,819 | 1,820 | 65% | 21% |
| 30 | Ferrioli | 2,690 | 1,849 | 69% | 21% |
| Senate District Average | 2,112 | 1,329 | 63% | 18% | |
Source: OCPP presentation of IRS data for the 2006 tax year compiled and sorted by legislative districts by the Brookings Institution.
RALs by Oregon House District | |||||
| House District | Representative | Total # of RALs | # EIC recipients with RALs | % of RALS going to EIC recipients | % of EIC recipients getting RALs |
| 1 | Kreiger | 1,207 | 792 | 66% | 19% |
| 2 | Freeman | 1,496 | 974 | 65% | 23% |
| 3 | Maurer | 1,396 | 977 | 70% | 20% |
| 4 | Richardson | 1,227 | 797 | 65% | 17% |
| 5 | Buckley | 908 | 634 | 70% | 14% |
| 6 | Esquivel | 1,338 | 921 | 69% | 21% |
| 7 | Hanna | 1,167 | 748 | 64% | 18% |
| 8 | Holvey | 577 | 342 | 59% | 11% |
| 9 | Roblan | 1,490 | 978 | 66% | 23% |
| 10 | Cowan | 1,302 | 808 | 62% | 20% |
| 11 | Barnhart | 843 | 523 | 62% | 15% |
| 12 | Beyer | 1,443 | 1,005 | 70% | 21% |
| 13 | Nathanson | 805 | 497 | 62% | 14% |
| 14 | Edwards, C. | 1,196 | 769 | 64% | 17% |
| 15 | Olson | 1,200 | 772 | 64% | 20% |
| 16 | Gelser | 409 | 257 | 63% | 11% |
| 17 | Sprenger | 1,360 | 854 | 63% | 22% |
| 18 | Gilliam | 1,027 | 584 | 57% | 17% |
| 19 | Cameron | 1,161 | 734 | 63% | 22% |
| 20 | Berger | 1,151 | 764 | 66% | 21% |
| 21 | Clem | 1,662 | 1,127 | 68% | 23% |
| 22 | Komp | 1,457 | 985 | 68% | 21% |
| 23 | Thompson | 1,194 | 745 | 62% | 20% |
| 24 | Weidner | 1,031 | 671 | 65% | 18% |
| 25 | Thatcher | 1,159 | 718 | 62% | 19% |
| 26 | Wingard | 676 | 372 | 55% | 15% |
| 27 | Read | 632 | 365 | 58% | 14% |
| 28 | Barker | 775 | 436 | 56% | 14% |
| 29 | Riley | 820 | 502 | 61% | 16% |
| 30 | Edwards, D. | 832 | 482 | 58% | 15% |
| 31 | Witt | 1,088 | 615 | 57% | 18% |
| 32 | Boone | 1,304 | 709 | 54% | 19% |
| 33 | Greenlick | 462 | 257 | 56% | 11% |
| 34 | Harker | 852 | 505 | 59% | 16% |
| 35 | Galizio | 673 | 398 | 59% | 16% |
| 36 | Nolan | 315 | 130 | 41% | 6% |
| 37 | Bruun | 468 | 254 | 54% | 13% |
| 38 | Garrett | 197 | 97 | 49% | 7% |
| 39 | Kennemer | 794 | 451 | 57% | 16% |
| 40 | Hunt | 948 | 572 | 60% | 18% |
| 41 | Tomei | 971 | 572 | 59% | 15% |
| 42 | Bailey | 630 | 320 | 51% | 9% |
| 43 | Shields | 896 | 568 | 63% | 14% |
| 44 | Kotek | 1,389 | 927 | 67% | 20% |
| 45 | Dembrow | 878 | 565 | 64% | 16% |
| 46 | Cannon | 860 | 511 | 59% | 14% |
| 47 | Smith, J. | 1,420 | 939 | 66% | 19% |
| 48 | Schaufler | 1,451 | 943 | 65% | 19% |
| 49 | Kahl | 1,366 | 859 | 63% | 20% |
| 50 | Matthews | 1,078 | 636 | 59% | 18% |
| 51 | Barton | 994 | 558 | 56% | 15% |
| 52 | VanOrman | 754 | 402 | 53% | 12% |
| 53 | Whisnant | 1,474 | 897 | 61% | 19% |
| 54 | Stiegler | 1,226 | 723 | 59% | 17% |
| 55 | Gilman | 1,179 | 765 | 65% | 17% |
| 56 | Garrard | 1,253 | 908 | 72% | 19% |
| 57 | Smith, G. | 1,268 | 822 | 65% | 19% |
| 58 | Jenson | 1,551 | 998 | 64% | 23% |
| 59 | Huffman | 1,464 | 983 | 67% | 21% |
| 60 | Bentz | 1,226 | 866 | 71% | 20% |
| House District Average | 1,056 | 665 | 63% | 18% | |
Source: OCPP presentation of IRS data for the 2006 tax year compiled and sorted by legislative districts by the Brookings Institution.
Of Note