SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
66 and 67 Have Passed. Now What?
After an expensive and often rancorous battle, measures 66 and 67 passed on Tuesday night by a wider margin than expected.
But there are still — there are always! — questions.
First and foremost: Now what? What will these tax measures mean for Oregon? What budget or fiscal measures should the legislature focus on in their upcoming session?
Does this "band-aid," as some have called these revenue measures, mean that a more wholesale revenue restructuring is less likely?
More personally, what will these new taxes mean for your job, or your business, or the state services you use?
And, as OPB's political analyst Bill Lunch asked last night, will Oregon's historic vote have national implications?
Tagged as: income tax · measure 66 · measure 67 · tax
Photo credit: Fatty Tuna / Creative Commons
-
agreed! This was not really about the need for additional revenue - that issue is really not up for debate. The need for additional revenue is brought on by the imbalanced way that revenues are collected - with 130 thousand people losing their employment - sure that has an effect on revenue collection
this vote was about the yes camp spending a tremendous amount of money and the fear mongering that drives people out to vote - there is zero focus in this state on the long term issues
the forecast for the next biennium has an even greater hole in the budget
i personally wanted the measures to fail to bring attention and pressure to make long overdue real reform - hard work i guess is not a compelling message - but stoking genuine fear is
-
The Yes camp's fear mongering?
-
If you think this is the LAST TAX INCREASE, you are self deluded.
The annual budget deficit and the historic accumulated budget of this nation will necessitate tax increases at ALL LEVELS. We feel entitled to public services and programs are removed only with much kicking and screaming.
We have to be smart. Programs must be reduced.
We will pay more taxes. Why not make them Smart taxes? USE taxes to improve society. Tax Liquor, alcohol and ESPECIALLY SMOKING. There are already such taxes--but we should tax them to the pointof regression where customers will seek alternatives and think twice before binging. Shaping healthful behavior is a means to better well being. Fine Cigarette Butt Littering--will promote a green enviorment and prevent runaway forrest fires--each of which would cost millions to extinguish. Increase enforcement of Speed violations will lead to less freeway deaths and accidents, and savings in health costs. Use automated GPS or robotic monitoring systems like they do for red light violations. Enforce with FINES, not smiles, violations for driving while texting. Tax ammunition and gun sales; murders and homicide investigation and trauma are expensive. Increase gasoline and fuel tax to the point that drivers seek carpools and public transit regularly. Tax electricity and utlities that force homeowners to seek solar power and increase their home efficiency. Make them think twice about a 48 inch plasma TV that uses 700 watts. Make customers turn down the thermostat and wear sweaters in the home.
We can have a future where people drink less, are non smokers, drive safely and curteously, carpool and enjoy conversations, take public transit, and live in more efficient homes with alternative power contributions. We will live longer and be a little happier or sustainable.
SALES TAX?
-
Sales Tax? I think we just past one. It's call measure 67. It just wasn't called a sales tax.
-
I already pay enough in taxes as a smoker if we depend on smokers to augment our taxes what happens when people quit smoking....?
-
Passed as predicted.
No surprise; the victors could have spent much less for the same result.
Per OBP reporting the “Cause of progress was advanced”, read that 'the metrovoter was successfully duped' into raising taxes “ON SOMEONE ELSE”, when they feel the bite of this, if the economy has not improved there will be “change”; the proponents have taken a huge gamble.
Interesting that the vaporous “Tax the Rich” psychology failed in the rural areas of the state; where there is a far greater understanding of the effects on small business, simply because there is often only small business in the community, thus you are taxing your friends and neighbors rather then some anonymous "Rich" person.
Per Deschutes County:
66 Failed in by ~9%
67 Failed by ~18%
Minor revenue effect “statistically adjusted up” will be touted through next election cycle after which the incompetence of the legislature and executive having continued unabated; thus serving their political ambitions rather then statesmanship, stewardship will be back with another “need” to raise taxes simply because they are incapable of managing the revenue they have a stake in spending.
Who will you tax next time? -
As an independent (but registered Dem so I can have some say in primaries), I voted for both of these measures very reluctantly. The folks in Salem - and those who want to get there this Fall - need to be very careful of what lessons they take from this result ... Oregonians do NOT necessarily want higher taxes - but they are willing to put public education first. That was the very effective message that pro 66/67 supporters got across. But unless our elected leaders - and more importantly citizens who vote on ballot measures - can change the billions we spend on prisons instead of education AND change our state funding base from primarily the highly volatile income taxes to something that looks, feels, and smells like a sales tax (even though it can't be called that) we are going to face these situations again and again.
-
Hello. I am the evil "rich" person that you decided to tax. My family makes about $300k per year. We make this because I have gone to school and have 3-advanced degrees (and I still owe $40k in student loans). My wife has worked every day of her life to create a successful career and is a VP of sales at a local company. We drive Chevy minivans - no BMWs here. Our kids go to public school. We live in Beaverton in an old neighborhood - no Pearl District or Lake Oswego living for us.
Thank you for punishing us by using class warfare. In response we will make up the extra tax by discontinuing our charitable contributions. Instead of cash contributions we will keep the money ourselves. Instead of donating goods to charities we will sell our items on Craigslist. When my school district comes calling I will let them know that I already gave to the state government and they should go talk to them. Will we survive? Yes. Will we give another dime to charities? No. Will we seriously consider leaving the state. Absolutely.
Good work Oregon. Another nail in the economic coffin for this state.
-
If you and your wife "make" $300K a year (I'm assuming you mean gross, not _taxable income_) I doubt you will be affected at all. If you really do have a taxable income of $300K/year, then your extra burden will be about $5K - but have fun with those craigslist sales!
-
Wow $300K and frugal living... I commend you. That is a great move carrying the low interest $40K in student loans with 2.5% interest really helps. Most people who do not go to college hold debt at 14-19% that was not subsidized and insured by the federal government.
I totally agree with you not giving to charity in lieu of taxes. I mean did your local church fill the potholes on your commute to work, or are they locking up the crack mom in the new mega prisons and keep her meth baby in fostoer care to the tune of $70K/year because of the messed up "get tough initiatives". And if you went to public colleges did they pay for you to go to school (and if they did would they pay to send the meth baby to go to college in the future or would they just rely on the state or fed to fund the education) or if you went to private colleges I bet the financial aid was all state and federally funded.
Finally however, I do not agree with your sales on craigslist. Look at your last years taxes where you itemized... for example that waterbed you itemized for $500 it saved you about $150 in taxes but really you will only get like $50 on Craigslist and the taxes on the income will be what ten bucks. No really you should give last years winter parka to the goodwill and itemize the value it as $300.
-
Sam - little minds like yours are the reason the state is in such a mess. Our income tax bracket pays 30% of all income taxes for the state per the unchallenged stats released during the election. So how can less than 3% of the population carry the rest of those "more deserving" folks like you? By paying close to 40% of our income in state/federal/property taxes. This bond measure will only motivate those like us to move our spending elsewhere and to dissuade others from coming to this state in the first place. Please enjoy your state once those of us are gone and you have no one willing to pay to fix the potholes in your street or the salaries of teachers in your schools. But hey, its great to know that not one government employee will get laid off and that PERS is now fully whole again.
And as far as charitable contributions go, I do not know about you, but we do not LIE on our taxes to goose our deductions. You can only deduct the fair market value of the goods you sell, and the price on Craigslist is the fair market value. Go to college and learn something useful.
-
Darn me and my little mind that just can’t grasp these things… Having a public education it is very hard. I try to listen to Rush, Hannity, et al but they make my head hurt.
Again congratulations: $300K is SOOOO much money. The average US worker with a high school education would need to give up 12 years of their life to make that much and you choke that down in a year, that means that if you can maintain that for just five short years you will make more than those dregs of society make in their entire life ($1.5M)! Truly W00T!!!! IF it is true if you pay 50% in taxes and those high school educated scum do not pay anything then it is going to take you 10 years to make more than them… Wow so if you had started this in 2000… Is this what you mean by class warfare?
Geeze what do you do with all that money… but lets face it, if 300K is it, you are poor compared to the really rich. I mean they get bonuses (sometimes federal bailout funded) that make your 300K look like… well a high school grad looks to you. They get their penthouses in the perl or downtown with a 10 years of tax deferral. We are lucky enough that we have Uncle Phil who is truly rich: when he decides to move money the state budget feels the tremors (Thank You Phil we really do love you!) He can drop $100M in higher education charity more than you will make in 340 years and the high school dropout makes in 4,545 years. Class warfare indeed. Could it be the uber rich pay most of the taxes because 1% of the population controls 90% of the US wealth? should they NOT pay at least 90% of the taxes??? Your 300K wooo… We… er, they have trust funds that pay out more annually.
-
Finally, to restate what number-six said: A few stupid quick numbers $300K filing jointly with federal tax and multiple child deductions ($5K), home and school interest deductions ($18K), and non-juiced charity I can only assume since you have such rigid moral fiber you tithe your full 10% (plus one for good measue $33K) …
Your taxable income would be $244K so you would pay $4,074 + 9% over $50K --REGARDLESS of 66!--
Lets say you are totally dumb and pay on all $300K
Before 66 (see above): $26K
After 66 ($24,537+ 10.8% on 50K): $30K
You will pay $4K more, and if your accountant cant figure out a way to reduce that $4K cause it is going to drive you into bankruptcy (like college savings plan or health saving or deferred retirement or small business selling stuff on ebay) Really just leave. Perhaps California. Some say their taxes are less… I heard... no really leave.
Oregon has real systemic problems, but its minimum business tax rate is not one of them and not why businesses stay away (WA has a higher gross receipts tax and a sales tax, CA has higher all taxes).
I will give you:
1) Fix PERS (no it is still not whole what ails PERS is exactly the same thing that is killing ALL retirement system compounded by the employer only putting IOU's in these personal retirement accounts (read ponzi or madoff)
2) Fix K12 education where the people spending the money are not connected to the ones footing the bill (local district vs. state coffers)
3) clean up the tax structure (Everyone should pay their fair share and grandma should not lose the family home in the perl because her taxes are more than her SS check)
4) Fix the referendum system (but of course this would require that Salem does its job)
4.1) Fix the initiative system so that they cant be unfunded.
4.2) Stop being one of 5 states that spend more on prisons than on College (thanks Mannix )
just to start
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/One%20in%20100.pdf
http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxburdens.html
http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/PERTAX/docs/2009Forms/101-043-09.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_receipts_tax
-
Well...as a 'high' income person, and a stock holder in a 'C' corp...I am in the 'bullzeye....
Oh yea, and I am a smoker...a homeowner...and now the folks who slap on the public feed bag....
I can see the future...small groups who are not liked are 'taxed' by the folks who 'feed' on the system.
How is selecting out a few groups to target 'Fair"????
I noticed that we didn't 'TAX' Lawyers or Doctors, or partnerships or LLC's....hummm....
I should also say...I AM NOT a republican...
But I must say, I am feeling less and less like a citizen of this state...more like beast of burden.
-
The legislature has failed to realize that when buisnesses leave they will osse the property tax revinew adn the executives who realize there are no other executive jobs in oregon leave with their employer the state will loose that income tax revenuew as well.
Any legislator who supported this should be removed from office for incompetancy.
Jon
-
There will never be enough taxes until some real control is placed on spending. The average public employee gets better pay, better benefits and better retirement than the average citizen. The amount of difference increases each year. year after year!! We cannot spend our way to prosperity. We need new legslators who have run businesses and worked for wages sometime.
-
Stop talking about JUST revenue. We need tax reform on HOW, not how much we are taxed. We don't need more revenue.
More importantly, we (and elected officials from both parties) have to address Oregon's dysfunctional spending. Bad initiatives and PERS mistakes have to be amended so that we stop spending more on prisons than on higher ed., and so that we don't let the nation's most absurdly generous pension plan gobble up the revenue we do have.
-
No that we have opened the door to retro active taxes. I think that all the people who moved into oregon in the last 5 years should pay a 10% additional tax for their increase demand on infastructure. I think we should exempt the californians though they should get taxed 25%. for their inceased demand on infastructure and ruinning the envinornemnt in Oregon.
How about that if we are just going to start picking on groups of people.
-
I agree that large corporations should pay their fair share. There is a huge difference between a small individually or family owned businesses and corporations. No jobs will be lost by the minimum tax increasing from $10 to $150. Business owners add employees when they have the expectation of increasing their income, not for the benefits to society of creating jobs.
Alan
-
We need to REFORM the kicker so it doesn't "kick" until revenues exceed projections by at least 10%. The excess up to that point needs to go into a ROBUST rainy day fund that will do two things-- provide the tax money to make up the shortfall from the income tax during recessions, and get rid of any talk of a general sales tax, which is a horrible regressive idea that Oregonians have had the sense to reject time and again.
Also, thank goodness that Oregonians had the sense to reject the Sizemore-ian "government is evil" advertising campaign of the opposition to these measures.
-
If the services that are going to be saved by these tax increases are really that critical to my life and well being, then I would like to help pay for them. I am not a fan of receiving handouts or of singling out a small segment of the population and making them pay for something that everyone is going to use. Unfortunately, the voting population in this state always wants something for nothing, and a fair tax increase of less than one percent across all tax payers would never pass.
When the economy gets better, the state will start more new programs that we don't really need. Then, when the economy gets bad again, they'll put schools and public safety back on the chopping block. Which group shall we single out then? The obese? Bike riders? Working parents? Non-working parents? People without children? People who's income is higher than $20? People who receive hourly wages as opposed to salary?
-
"High-income groups would see their taxes rise on average by a small fraction. However, they still would pay a smaller share of their income in state and local taxes than would middle- or low-income households."
Register Guard Guest Viewpoint: Weighing Measure 66 & 67
-
It will be interesting to track any increased "benefit" to Oregon from passing these tax measures. Will there be a spike that recedes in a year or two? Given the creativity of accountants and tax lawyers, many existing small companies will tune their company structures to avoid state taxes.
Aren't state taxes actually paid deductible from federal income tax?
How many folks whining about the passage of these measures actually leave Oregon. (Come to Washington. No income tax!)
-
Oregon's tax structure has been un-balanced and un-stable since the initiative process capped property taxes and passed the burden to the general fund in the early 1990s. While wrapped in the cloak of populism, the net result of the initiatives changed the relative share of tax burden from 60/40 business to individuals to roughly 40/60. These initiatives were designed to benefit Oregon's largest property owning businesses at the expense of the middle class. Schools and services were gutted, parks and police were starved, and the Oregon Legislature was handcuffed in solving structural revenue problems.
Oregon's business climate can not be improved by confiscatory taxation, but it also can not thrive in a low tax/low service model where workers add little or no value to the products and services we sell to others.
Tax reform is required that will be based on stability and fair progressivity. We can do this by eliminating the kicker in favor of a true reserve, repealing the property tax caps and replacing them with a Homestead exemption, and adding a balanced consumption tax to offset high income taxes.
Phil Knight opined that Oregon has lost it's major employers (banks, forest products, and retail) due to conficatory taxes. Oregon's business tax burden is among the lowest in the country. I would offer that the mergers and consolidations that cost Oregon it's crown jewells of headquartered business had little to do with taxation, and more to do with loosened anti-trust enforcement. Oregon should not participate in this compeitive race to the bottom.
The hard work is ahead of us. We need to have the political will to overcome the monied interests that will resist any effort to reform the tax system. We can have a vibrant economy, quality public schools, and compassionate services for the frail.
Dave Kaplan
Portland -
To suck the productive employers from California years ago it was only necessary for Arizona to offer 10 years free of business taxes and fees. General Dynamics left for Arizona and their fees went from $150,000 a year to zero to have a business in San Diego not to mention the high taxes saved and the employees could afford housing too.
-
It would be interesting if two years from now, our Oregon Flagship Corporation and sole Fortune 500 Corporation of NIKE leaves the state and moves to a low tax state like Texas or Utah.
-
According to COST (as cited by the Williamette Week) both Utah and Texas have higher corporate tax burdens than Oregon - even after the 67 changes.
http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3609/13541/
-
I have lived in oregon since I was 6 months old and I have as long as I can remember being proud to be a part of Oregon. I am tire of this state legislature holding schools and public safety for ransom. I will be moving someplace not run by idiots!
-
Where would that be?
-
As to the complaints about targeting small groups for taxes; let us remind ourselves that for the last thirty some years, Conservatives have targeted and voted in, UNFAIR TAX CUTS for the very small group of wealthy Conservative Republicans.
These votes are a rejection of Conservatism. They are a return towards moderate and centrist policies.
Frankly I hope that Conservatives keep their promises and leave Oregon and move to their mythological ideal low tax Utopian states, whichever those states are.
-
In response to the business owner who claimed we are targeting small groups of people with these taxes, such as smokers and business owners. The gentleman claimed these measures create inequality by singling out small groups.
I wholeheartedly agree, and think we need to take this mode of thinking one step further -
I agree that all Oregonians are created equal, and should not be pigeonholed into small groups based on fiscal qualifiers.
Therefore, by creating a "maximum wage", we can ensure that no Oregonian, such as the 3% of individual taxpayers affected by these measures (that are so obscenely wealthy and privileged as to be separated against their will from their average wage-earning compatriots.)
Let's remove the unfortunate inequality that rich people are constantly forced to suffer with.
MAXIMUM WAGE NOW, EQUALITY FOREVER!
-
Yow! Ha ha ha, I got a good laugh out of that.
But I like the basic premise of more equality and moderation in our wealth redistribution policies. Our current Conservative wealth redistribution scheme has been a disaster for Oregon, the US, and the rest of the world, it has created extremes of wealth and poverty and really hurt the middle class.
-
I voted yes for both 66 and 67 after seriously thinking about voting no. The tax structure of Oregon needs to be fundamentally changed and I was hoping a no vote would force the legislature to begin that process. But I decided that, in the meantime, essential services would suffer greatly. I think that most politicians are basically cowards, afraid to do anything that might jeopardize their chances for reelection. That's the real reason Oregon is in such desparate straits. But the passage of 66 and 67 gives me some slight hope that legislators may now look at fixing the kicker law as a first step in restructuring our entire fiscal policy.
-
For owners of C-corps which claim they have no profit but have to pay business taxes: What was your personal income? Did you pay yourself a good salary and, along with your other business expenses write it all off and end up with no profit / "losing money"? This is a game that some business owners play - declaring no profit while having no problem supporting themselves.
-
all of the comments on this subject seem angry and somewhat misdirected, the measures were crafted well and pitched as somebody else's tax - then the money was spent stoking fear - of course it will pass - it is not responsible leadership - its not leadership at all
I voted NO, I am angry and I cannot believe the voters in thsi state are as gullible as they are but I don't want to lose sight of the real issue - WE NEED REAL REFORM AND LEADERSHIP NOT BAND-AIDS AND PASSING THE PROBLEMS DOWN THE LINE.
-
Every time reform is attempted in any way, the voters of this state are so divided they don't agree on one best way. Education in this state has suffered cuts more and more and more over the past 20 years...my kids have received unbelievably different education programs between then and now. Children and public education are suffering in this state, and adults should be held accountable. The problem is that the adults won't stop fighting and agree on any viable solution.
The only way I see is to brainstorm reform, yet again, then place the 3 best ideas on the ballot. The one with the most votes WINS!
-
I would love to hear, especially from no voters who argued that this was the wrong way to raise additional revenue, what overall tax system they would support, that does get revenue to the level we need.
-
Modify Kicker - instead of returning the excess, divert into a secure rainy day fund
Initiative System - raise the bar to get measures on the ballot. Require any measure that adds services to include a funding mechanism
PERS - convert to defined contribution, not defined benefit. Place any investment gains over guaranteed percentage into a holding fund to cover periods of lower investment gains
THESE ARE ALL DIFFICULT IDEAS THAT MIGHT ANNOY MANY PEOPLE - DOES OUR LEGISLATURE HAVE THE GUTS TO TACKLE?
-
Is the speaker without income because his corp has no income? Or is there "no income" because of the write-offs and loopholes? I think corporations affected by the business tax have had a free ride on the backs of the middle class for long enough! I'm proud of Oregon for surviving this fight!!!
-
I can vouch for my husband's company that they have no income, are actually losing money & in huge debt, but will now have their "income" tax raised by $1500. No loopholes, no huge bonuses. Just a bad economy & an unfair solution.
-
My question was whether or not the speaker himself has no income? Or is it only the corporation that shows no income? Has he joined the ranks of the unemployed middle class who are without any income?
-
To RachelMurfitt: Sounds like the company may not be run efficiently and should make way for a new more efficient company that in the long term will grow to provide more jobs and/or more stable jobs in the economy. Sorry to be brutal, but having a free market economy means that not all companies survive forever nor should they.
-
Regarding the comment that we are singling out particular groups to tax (smokers were used as an example): The tax on cigarettes is the same as the gas tax-you don't drive, you don't pay. Smokers do have more medical problems,and at least some of the cost of treating those problems is borne by the state.
-
What if every small business affected by this legislation was to include an increase to its consumers? Mr. Buckley mentioned if the utilities of a business increased the business would have to adjust? What if I included on my invoices/receipts to my customers a surcharge for what the tax costs my customers? The Democrats have convinced people that taxing corporations is the way to go, but it results in a hidden sales tax if corporations decide to 'adjust' the cost of their products to pay this tax.
-
I think that's a great idea. If voters were to see this tax tacked on to their purchases, they might see it differently.
-
Economic theory tells us that every business WILL increase their prices to consumers to cover some part of the tax. Another part will come from profits of the corporation. Which pays more depends on how consumers will react to higher prices, e.g. will a 10% price increase cause consumers to buy 5%, 10% or 20% less of a product? If 5% then more of the tax is passed on. If 20% then the corporation will end up paying a larger portion. The more consumers would cut back purchases for a given price increase, the more the tax will be paid from corporate profits and vice a versa.
-
While you're calculating how much each customer will pay, I'll just write a check and get on with making my business more efficient and more satisfying for my customers. But have fun with that smallbizguru!
-
Its not about taking the time to calculate the bill, more about 'transparency' and what the costs of a product cover. Consumers should be aware that their price increase is for what they voted for.
-
Ooh, I actually like that idea if you're willing to take it further. How about next time I buy a pair of Nikes I get an itemized bill that breaks the prices down for Phil's salary (including stock!) the athlete's endorsement fees and the sweat shop worker who actually made the shoes? Next time I pay my insurance, I get to see the bill in terms of the CEO's salary and the lobbiest's fees?
-
The results of the election only gives encouragement to our "representatives" 750 Million Dollars is now the new baseline. What disturbs me is how anxious the electorate is to tax other people. It reminds me of the "luxury tax" put on in California on Vehicles and boats over $100,000. It produced many jobs IN ITALY! The boat building industry in California disappeared and the boats produced were registered in foreign ports. Ever wonder why so many ships have Panamanian Registry. Rich people and sucessful people are not stupid. Politicians are. Gotta go check on states without income tax for my next business.
-
I voted no on both 66 and 67. People don’t realize these two measures will impact everyone in an indirect way. How else will business owners be able to make a profit\stay afloat but to pass the cost to the services they provide and or slash jobs - going out of business?
Our State government does not want to make hard choices to balance the budget. It’s easier to use “cut in education, health and safety” as a way to paint the grime picture of our current budget. We should demand a fiscally responsible government now.
-
I agree with one of your previous callers. It’s not fair to tax targeted groups whether I’ts smoker’s or businesses. If Oregonians want these programs, they need to pay for it. Why not have a sales tax; it’s the only fair way to distribute the cost of these programs to everyone!
What does your guest say about that?
-
How do you fix the regressive nature of a sales tax? The poor pay more of their effective income than the rich. You need to come up with a graduated sales tax for it to be fair to everyone, don't you?
Let's say the sales tax is 10% for this example.
$15, 000 = $1,500 sales tax
$150,000 = $15,000 sales taxI contend the person earning $150,000 won't be as negatively impacted as the person earning $15,000. Given the cost of living today whose shoes would you rather occupy?
Assume we have a sales tax. What happens when economic downturns make all people, regardless of income, limit their spending? The sales tax will diminish the state's income and we're back in the tipped over (and full) honey bucket we find ourselves in today.
-
I was one of the voters that waited until the last minute to make a decision. It was agonizing, but I voted "no". I moved to Oregon right before beginning High School. It just happened to be the first year after Measure 5. I couldn't believe that the schools here were worse than where I came from (a state in the south not known for education). So having lived through this and seeing higher education costs increasing out of reach for the middle class more and more each year. I want to help schools and other services, but I do not think these measure were fairly structured, singling people out. But the real reason I voted "no" is because I want a permanent solution (it's going on 20 years people!) and passing these two measures just let's the legislature off the hook again ...
-
In the 1950s and 1960s, California had better schools than Oregon, because Liberals ran things. But Oregon did pretty well under Moderate Republicans. Now both states suffer from the ravages of Conservatism.
-
Two responses to the gas station owner:
1) Individuals who make no money are taxed all the time! Middle income people who are having their house foreclosed or low income people using credit cards to buy groceries. Also if there were a sales tax then everyone who has a negative income would be paying tax...
2) If a company makes $5 million dollars it can pay $4,000 in taxes, yes even if it is running at a loss. The loss should only happen for a year or so what about the past 10 years? How many company vehicles are there, how many principles meeting in Hawaii or Mt. Bachelor are part of that net loss.
-
If you took a poll of gas station owners and other small businesses who operate at a low profit margin, there wouldn't be time to go to Hawaii. I work with small businesses across the Portland area, and nobody, of the 30 companies I work for has been able to take any time off for such a thing. Its a small business, corporation is just a technical label that is bound up in a negative light. These people are struggling to make ends meet and keep their employees employed. Would you say that to your boss' face?
-
Hmm, I have worked for and know many small business owners. One example: a business with about $4M gross the principals all drove $50K company leased cars, and they had the annual shareholder meeting of two weeks in Hawaii for them and their extended family. Oh and the business dinners, nightly $150 per plate at the Met in Seattle... even running at a loss they need to come up with about $3500 for taxes instead of the $10 they pay.
On the other hand I know another small business owner/artisan who scrapes by with about $300K no BMW 700 series for her, but she does go sailing for a month every winter in Baja, but then she will not be subject to these taxes.
Finally if I were smart enough to operate a 5 million dollar business but could not manage to scrape out an income that would put me in the top 1% of Oregon earners, and that business is in peril because of a $4,000 tax bill... I would sell my business to someone who could manage to make that a reality and go get an extremely comfortable job as a business analyst for a large corporation.
-
Why should consurvatives leave before the mid 80's oregon was wonderful and conservative. since then people from all over who never even knew we were alive decide it was a nice place and have flooded in and srewed it all to hell. so maybe they are the ones who should leave.
-
No. Actually Oregon was Moderate and Centrist both in Democrats and Republicans. It is the Conservative Extremists that have ruined Oregon.
Don't let the door hit your butt on your way out.
-
Listening to Brent, I want to ask him where are companies' savings from the pre-recession boom years went? Were they paid in high salaries to himself and other management? Or were profits minimized by unnecessary spending on entertainment and other "luxury" benefits to that are untaxed. If he is losing money now, these types of past inefficiencies that prevented the companies from establishing their own rainy day funds may be the cause.
In any case, we must all remember that in a free market, business failures are necessary to weed out the inefficient ones and make way for more efficient and fiscally sound ones that will in the future, employ even more people than he is now.
-
RE: a "consumption" (aka sales) tax-- the only way it's remotely fair is if it's a goods AND services tax, otherwise it's just a way to foist more of the tax burden on people farther down the income scale. This is well documented. The higher your income, the more likely you are to use services of various sorts. So a GST, as they have in Canada, is the only thing I'd support.
-
another effort to shift the cost of public service. these measures passed because they target "business" and "wealthy".
i think this shows the spineless nature of oregon's legislature, unwilling to face tax equity, and the simple mindedness of oregonians, we seem to think if we change the name of the tax collector we change who pays.
-
Let's see....what else can we cut? As Portland public school parents, we have recently received a color brochure telling us about how we can get free materials through the Safe Routes to School program, which is in part funded by ODOT and federal stimulus money. This is a program designed to encourage walking & biking to school instead of driving. I would propose that most of us can figure this out for ourselves and don't need the government's help. Why isn't this money being diverted to more urgent problems? Why is it always the schools & the poor/disabled who are threatened and held up as poster children when money is tight? The major problem doesn't seem to be lack of funds, but misplaced priorities.
-
And not printing that brochure would save how many $$$millions? That printing provided a few hours of work for a few people. The goal is to encourage sustainable transportation.
Although, if you want to get picky about pennies per sheet of paper, I suppose your family not going out for dinner this year and donating amount that to your child's Portland public school would make a big difference in that school's budget also.
Priorities, budgets, allocating money for this and that, all choices that keep the economy moving...
-
someone just questions where buisnesses proffits went in years past. implying that they should have saved for the future and increased taxes. it is funny I never hear people who are for more taxes never ask that question of the state!?
We get a kicker if the state get more that an extra 2%. What about the years the state gets a .5% or 1% or 1.5% where does that money go and why does that go to a rainy day fund?
-
Actually, Ive heard this question a lot recently, even by the "Yes" side. The state should certainly save as well. I am hopeful that our legislature's next work will to reform the kicker.
My point is that the need to save applies to businesses as well. Instead, I speculate that some businesses may not save enough because they seek in the short term to minimize corporate taxes on profits by minimizing profits that should have been saved for the future. I don't believe that this point has been brought out enough in our discussions of tax policy. Why? Because the complaint that over-taxing will kill businesses is so easy to make and most people are sympathetic to it. We forget, that for new and more efficient businesses to grow, old businesses must often die.
-
I hear the arguments of who to target for tax's (upper income, middle income, etc) but the one group that I don’t hear about is the tax exempt groups. Specifically the churches. If you take a look at it, many churches garner a healthy income, and hold a great deal more than they would admit in assets, but pay “nothing” in state or federal taxes! So why not remove the tax exempt status that the churches have enjoyed for years? When I say “churches,” I’m also referring to the television evangelists. These are the same individuals that typically live in multi-million dollar homes, and drive vehicals with six figure price tags. If these individuals, and organizations were targeted for tax’s I'd venture that we might not necessarily be having these arguments about just “who” gets taxed. Okay, so maybe that's a stretch, but you get the idea.
-
"...So why not remove the tax exempt status that the churches have enjoyed for years? When I say “churches,” I’m also referring to the television evangelists. ..."
Very good idea. And long past due.
-
Tax the unions. They have plenty of money, yet contribute nothing to the economy. Tax all non profits while we are at it. End tax exempt status period.
-
The concept of trickle down economics has not worked. Let's stick a fork in it. We wouldn't be in this pickle had we not deluded ourselves that Reganomics would work in the first place. Let's fix the real class warfare that's been perpetrated by the rich against the middle class and poor since this country's founding.
Let's fix the Oregon tax system so it works fairly for everybody. This is just one vote and there will probably be others in the future. We can learn from this experience that a lot of deception and lies were used by both camps to achieve their objectives. The dishonesty and lack of truth concerning 66 and 67 is scary. Deception is an indictment and it implies that our society is breaking down. I'm more concerned about that than these tax measures.
-
One must wonder why the legislature never considered eliminating the deductions per child that are taken on the personal income tax form to pay for schools. At $176.00 per child staying in the State's coffers, the impact on school funding would be substantial. In addition, repealing exemptions could be done with no vote, and there is a direct correlation on the number of children and the need for school services. This would have also spread the burden more evenly across the state, without affecting our business community. With this plan there is also no raising taxes as the tax tables never change.
-
Thank you... eliminating child exemptions is one of the two greenest tax solutions the state can adopt, the other being a significant hike in the gas tax.
Either one I'd gladly pay and until that time I'll vote against every other tax (or levy) placed before the voters.
-
The sad thing about all of this is that we collectively have more than enough wealth to do well by all the people in the state.
In this light, the problem we face would at first appear to be an organizational one. But that would dismiss the larger perennial problem of 'Rookies'.
People come into this world self interested and short sighted. Enlightened self interest comes easier to some than others. Sadly, we will always have people that are terminally 'Rookies'. And, they will be in every income group.
Capitalism and Christianity both have a strategy, (while no panacea), to deal with the 'Rookie' problem.
Christianity takes the obsessively self interested and gives them a choice of a big carrot or a big stick, then hopefully, once they are selfishly engaged, transitions them to a higher law of conscience, and connection to others.Capitalism takes the obsessively self interested and tells them; you can be as rich and selfish as you want if you 'produce' something 'useful' for others. The more enlighten-able learn to become more connected in this process. This, while the terminally selfish at least have a productive alternative to becoming a common, (or uncommon), criminal.
I don't know how to sort this out. Most of us know perennially selfish people taking cover in the ranks of the deserving poor, the productive rich, and places in between. Beyond Capitalism and Christianity: How do we deal with them, if not individually? With overly generalized state or national solutions there is a lot of collateral damage, and the people you want to tax just move elsewhere.
Perhaps we should, as some suggest, just say 'good riddance'. Still, if all states learn to do likewise, will they become the drug lords we end up fighting in some other country? God knows what Rush L. would be doing if he couldn't make lots of money in this country. -
Oregon voters have spoken and now even more hosts in this increasingly parasitic state called Oregon will personallly veto the bloodfeast with their feet by moving to Washington (or to Nevada or Texas or Florida or Wyoming). Even if you have not yet been tarred and taxed at 11% as "rich", when you do retire and have to rely on some investment income, will you have the luxury of staying in Oregon and paying the 9% "cool tax" for the priviledge of riding in the rolling homeless shelter called MAX and having "gentlemen" like Sam Adams and David Wu for political leaders? No doubt, many PERS retirees are privately snickering as they flee the Oregon ship that continues sinking under their weight after they leave. Even if Oregonians stop being fleeced out of the tidal surge of tax dollars to PERS (and to union sponsored politicians), Oregon's progressive tax policies (highest personal income tax in America, and no sales tax) still have the effect of attracting needy people from other states while repelling the wealth needed to sustain the poor arrivals. Oregon is so progressive, yet so unsustainable.
-
Very well said. PERS is out of control. When they continue to be the majority of voters there is no way to stop the insanity
-
Does anyone know what happened to the money from the lottery and tobacco settlement ?
Both were supposed to pay for education. Actually the tobacco settlement was for programs for victims of their own stupidity and to get people off tobacco. Did the legislature realize how much money they had to waste because of tobacco? Have you seen a no smoking ad recently?
-
I'm new to this online community and don't usually comment online, but I'm so pleased Oregon, and especially Multnomah County, passed these tax measures so convincingly, I can't help but add my thanks and appreciation to all who recognize the necessity of a fairer tax system to save our community.
We all have to pay our fair share for an intelligent, prosperous, compassionate society. Thanks and congratulations YES voters!
-
Hi John Jay
Its nice to know you are happy with the passing of 66-67. Let me take a wild guess. You must be one of the 49% of public employees which the rest of us have to pay for their inflated PERS program. Keep up the good work as Im sure you guys are worth every penny of the rest of our non Pers workers hard earned and over taxed money
-
April Baer's story on January 22 had the lead, "Voter support for Measures 66 and 67 is slipping, according to a poll by Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall. That sets the stage for an extremely tight race." I wonder if this was an accurated characterization of the poll and more importantly what the impacts of the lead were. Today on Think Out Loud, Tim Hibbitts said that the poll did a pretty good job of predicting the results. He said they were a bit low on the margin of victory. Could this story lead have galvanized the "yes" side to work harder for passage. I know it prompted me to make a few calls to secure some yes votes.
-
Comments are now closed.
I have little faith that our legislature will address the deeper problems affecting Oregon's revenue and spending; the kicker and the ballot initiative system for starters. When more budget problems arise in the next 6 months, 12 months, or 18 months, citizens will be loath to open up their wallets again!