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:
By January 26th you'll be voting on two tax measures. The Oregonian has a handy calculator to see how each proposed tax could affect you.
Measure 66 would raise income taxes for families that earn more than $250,000. It would raise nearly $500 million to balance the current state budget.
Measure 67 would raise the minimum tax corporations pay from $10 to $150. It also changes the way some corporations are taxed. It would raise more than $250 million to balance the current state budget.
The race is very close according to a poll (pdf) by OPB, Fox 12 and the Portland Tribune.
As you read and watch the ads from both campaigns, what questions are you left with? How will you vote on these measures? Why? What are the deciding factors for you? If you're still undecided, what would sway you in one direction or another? What do you want to know before you vote?
Please note: this program will be recorded in front of a live audience in OPB's TV studio on Thursday January 21st. All are welcome, but seating is limited. Doors open at 6 pm. Show begins at 7 pm. Please join us! Or help get the conversation started online now.
GUESTS:
- Pat McCormick: Communications coordinator for Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes
- Steve Novick: Policy analyst for the Vote Yes for Oregon campaign
- Peter Buckley: Oregon state representative (D-Ashland) and co-chair of the Ways and Means Committee in the 2009 legislative session
- Bob Wiggins: Managing partner for Mount Hood Equity Partners
Tagged as: election · measure 66 · measure 67 · tax · taxes
Photo credit: sillydog / Creative Commons
-
I basically agree with RichardK's assessement of Measure 67, and am similarly against adopting it as written. The legislator did a poor job in my opinion in the wording of the house bill that was the origin of this measure. The adverstisements sponsored by the OEA and AFLCIO are ludicrous. If you could take the word "misleading" and multiply it by a billion, you'd be in the ballpark. The $10 corporate minimum tax is a tiny sliver of the impact of this measure. The tax is on gross sales in Oregon (regardless of profitability, or lack of), and capped at a level that results in ONLY impacting small to medium sized businesses in the state. In other words, the biggest corporations with headquarters in Oregon, which sell most of their goods outside of the state, are off the hook. The few that do (PGE, Northwest Natural Gas, and possibly one or two others) have revenues over 1 BILLION dollars annually, yet their tax would be paid only on the first $100M of revenue the way the ballot measure is worded. Who's left to take the brunt? The smaller companies.
This junk on the pro-66 and 67 TV ads about getting back at the evil Wall Street corporations is a load of bunk. Bottom line: they won't notice ANYTHING. It's like swatting a mosquito to them, and just try to think of one that's based in Oregon anyhow. Small businesses are the catalyst for economic growth in the US, and in Oregon, and always have been. Entrepreneurs create jobs, and are the core of the economic growth engine. Punishing them for just staring to get off the ground to the point of being able to hire a few warm bodies is not only counter-productive, but I firmly believe that if BM 67 passes, the net income tax revenue collection by the State of Oregon will DECREASE within three years due to job losses. The OEA should be ashamed of themselves for lining their members' pockets at the cost of decreasing job opportunities for graduates.
Legislature: go back to the drawing board and come up with something that makes more sense. I have zero respect for those who think it's OK to pass OUR generation's debts along to our kids. Not in my book!
Dan - Hillsboro
-
Richard K uses a lot of numbers and words to argue semantics. Could he be doing this to raise the ghost of sales tax opposition that has haunted this state for too many years? I'm sure that the 2.5 percent of corporations affected by these ballot measures would cheer his arguments. Richard K is missing the big picture. Oregon's tax system is a broken stool with only two legs to support it - income and property taxes. Any change to our state's lop-sided tax system which solely depends on income and property taxes is a broken model. So even a sales tax would be an improvement. Vote yes on Ballot measures 66 and 67.
-
For what it's worth, rjbphoto has responded to most of the anti-tax measures. Is (s)he on staff with the campaign?
-
In print and electronic discussions of Measure 67, I often see "business can just pass through the extra tax to customers". This is a dangerously wrong assumption. My company services utilities in 11 Western states, providing 50+ family wage jobs in Oregon. However, none of my major competitors are based in Oregon. When I bid a project, I cannot include these extra Oregon taxes, as I must remain competitive with non-Oregon businesses.
I support thoughtfully revising the Oregon business tax structure - Unfortunately Measure 67 is not the correct revision.
-
Where was your voice when the legislature was debating this isssue? They hashed out all of the pros and cons of these ballot measures in Salem like we elected them to do. The people of Oregon have already given tacit approval to both of these measures when they elected a democratic majority in Salem. Your views are too little, too late.
-
The people of Oregon have already given tacit approval to both of these measures when they elected a democratic majority in Salem.
-----------
You mean like the people of the USA gave approval to Obamacare when they elected a democratic majority?
-
I glad that rjbphoto has all the answers to any legitimate concern about these measures - perhaps I'll forward him the weekly influx of resumes I receive and he can find these people jobs in government.
-
After listening to a debate about the tax measures last night, I felt more than ever if you care about providing services for Oregonians you'll vote yes on the tax measures. . I personally don't want to see an increase in cuts in social services . I don't want to see the 1 in 6 people who receive food stamps having to do with even less nor the measly mental health programs being cut even more or the program for seniors whittled away to nothing. The rich can pay the higher taxes easily, and our tax base has favored the big businesses for a long time, they can afford paying more.
-
We cannot afford to cut our already lacking mental health system. Please watch our documentary subcity: out of sight, out of mind to learn how dysfunctional and underfunded it really is here in Oregon.
www dot subcityfilm dot com
-
Let me see if I understand this line of thought.It is better to keep as many people on food stamps As possible. then It is to provide a job for them? And we need to Make sure that we keep the unemployed on as Many Government programs as we can?Well I have a different way of looking at this. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, then He will Come back tomorrow with his hand out and the day after and so on. Put him to work and he will eat, feed his family’ Pay taxes. And feel better about himself For Life. A business tax is a business expense, A business expense is passed on to the consumer. The guy that is out of work and on Food stamps Is a consumer. Why Do you want to tax people That are out of work. Do you still believe your helping them?
-
give everyone a fishing pole--not fish-- it never works they only ask for more fish--- from those who do fish.
it is not the rich who will be impacted--it is everyone --us
-
I agree. Go Rachel!
-
If you vote to increase the corporate minimum tax aren't you effectively voting yourself a thinly-disguised sales tax? Won't businesses and corporations pass their taxes onto their customers?
What happens when education begs for more money in two years because Oregon's economy has not improved appreciably?
Plenty of students graduate from university to face a paucity of jobs. How will corporations, governments and individuals work together to fix this problem?
I voted for the measures even though I told TOL I wouldn't. I think I've made a mistake.
The measures were pitched to appeal to the emotions of a pissed off and disgruntled mass of which I include myself. I initially thought I was voting for tax fairness but now I think I've out-thought myself.
The question remains: do governments and education use tax money as effectively as possible? I doubt it.
Oregon's education system seems to be deteriorating no matter how much money we throw at it. State government costs more and services are still being cut. Meanwhile potholes in the roads get bigger.
I don't think the unemployed should pay taxes on unemployment benefits.
I think the materially well off are insulated such that they can afford to pay a bit more.
Corporations should pay more than a $10 minimum tax. That anachronism needs to be rectified.
-
You can thank the OEA (of all people) for MIS-educating you. Sorry to hear you voted before doing your due diligence in researching the facts. That's exactly what the sneaks pushing for the yes vote are counting on, assuming all they have to fool is the majority of the products of their work, the graduates of the over-funded and under-performing Oregon public education system who have now become the voters.
If BM 67 was truly targeting the largest corporations getting away with minimal tax burdens as the TV ads characterize it, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately that's NOT what it is. There is good cause for being angry at self-serving executives who flat out lied to their investors about risk levels, received taxpayer subsidies for outsourcing jobs, drove their companies into the ground, and rewarded themselves handsomely in the process, but BM 67 does absolutely nothing to address that problem.
BD
-
Thank you for your yes vote. You have come out of the dark and into the light. Don't second guess your vote. You have started to build a third leg onto Oregon's broken tax stool which has only two legs. No voters have no leg to stand on!
-
I think you can change your vote until the day of the election. Can someone validate (or not) if that is true and then what the process is to change your ballot.
-
I am impressed by the prior comments, they are accurate and informative. My perspective is from the grass roots, I am a small residential general contractor in Oregon, seven years in the buissness and struggling to survive, 2009 had at least a 35% decrease in gross revnue and there is only a small indication of improvement. The government impossed costs of any type continue to stifle growth, employment is reduced or not considered and expansion of various types are hampered. If you believe the state ought to have the money they seek thru these measures ( and I do not) at least reduce the tax to the lower income levels the amount proposed to be gained from them. Why? if the new proposals are fair the government has no buisness increasing taxation in a downturn economy.I also have a problem with the basic idea of increasing revenue to our public servants in a time when the rest of us are doing what we can with what we have and there is little we can do to change this, certainly not increasing our cost to the consumer.
Some things on these bills may have merit but at best this is some good at the wrong time!
-
I am a small business person who has seen fewer sales in the past year. So, I feel your pain. However, there are many more people out there that have it worse than us. Measures 66 and 67 shift the burden from the middle and lower classes to the upper income classes. Most public servants do a good job (I audited many during 27 years with GAO). But, without funding you're not giving them a chance to improve.
-
The opposition is airing a TV ad about a couple of small business owners who have to close down their business because of the onerous taxes of Measure 67. As far as I can make out, this ad is a complete lie. If they have sales of $500,000, the .1% tax is $500. They need to close their business because they have to pay $500? Give me a break!
-
I saw the ad again and realized I had misunderstood it. My apologies! I still haven’t managed to record it to take a really close look. Now I see that the couple in the small shop is laying off their employee, and then her husband comes in stating he has also been laid off. Fortunately misreading the action does not alter my conclusion. It still strikes me as a lie. If they have sales of $500,000, the .1% tax is $500. They need to lay off their employee because they have to pay an additional $42.00 a month in taxes? I still say give me a break! A business would have to have sales of upwards of $18,000,000 to make it worth considering laying off one employee, and a business that size would probably have many employees. Sure, it’s conceivable that such a business might choose to lay off an employee, but I doubt there would be very many, and it is certain that if 66 and 67 fail, many personnel would be laid off in education, public safety, and other services.
-
Thanks for doing the math.
-
Folks,
So we're all on the same page, here's the ad that (I assume) Donangelo is talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRmwgMwbCNM&feature=player_embedded
-
I hope when Think Out Loud folks air this show they get people talking about RichardK's research. I'm surprised those against the measures aren't talking more about 67 being a back-door sales tax. But that's a comment about such a characterization's emotional appeal.
"Massive deception" by TV ads or robocalls is not a reason to vote one way or the other. The TV ads are great for local TV channel revenue but they are worthless when it comes to understanding what the measures are about; some are more deceptive than others, but all are a waste of time and money. And while I would vote against a sales tax, I'm not opposed in theory to a back-door sales tax on companies as long as it doesn't fail either of two litmus tests.
For me, the two litmus tests for Measure 67 are this: does it make the state less attractive to the small businesses that create the jobs we want, and does it make the state's tax revenue stream more stable.
Although RichardK led with the "massive deception" point that I discounted, I don't discount his subsequent analysis. Richard's analysis is confirmed by remarks from Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle here: large companies like his are "not affected by the corporate minimum, and can certainly live with overall increases in the corporate rate....The change in the corporate minimum, with its focus on sales, not profits, hurts just the type of businesses that the state claims to covet, start-ups with high revenues but little or no profits at their early development stage.
Willamette Week supports both measures with the most compelling chart about Measure 67 here. To me this suggests that we could in theory come up with increased taxes on business without making us unattractive to the kinds of businesses that bring jobs to the state.
I remain undecided about 67, and look forward to Think Out Loud's live audience forum on the topic to helping me decide.
-
Tony, I'll tell you what makes businesses attractive to Oregon. It's an educated workforce with great schools. If these measures fail, the school district where I'm working as a substitute teacher will lay off 90 teachers or reduce our school year by 16 days. I read the Willamette Week article too and it makes a strong case for yes on both measures.
-
I'm a physician a few years out of residency and will be affected by measure 66. I will be voting "no" on the measure.
In order to get to my current income I worked 80-100 hours per week during residency and continue to work long hours including nights, weekends and holidays. I don't live extravagantly and put a substantial percentage of my income each month towards paying off huge student loans.
I am sick and tired of hearing how I’m so “rich” and “don’t pay my fair share” of taxes. I pay more taxes, both state and federal, than most of those who will vote in favor of measure 66. Additionally I don’t qualify for may tax deductions (cash for clunkers, student loan interest credit) because of income cut-offs. Yet somehow I’m not paying my fair share?
Those in favor of measure 66 claim that professionals and employers won’t really leave the state if this passes. They’re wrong. I’ve already started looking. Think of that the next time you can’t get into see your or your child’s physician in a timely manner.
-
Your letter implies that you make more than $125,000, assuming you are single. The 1.8% surtax only applies to more than that if you are single. If you made as much as $250,000, you would have to pay an additional $2250, leaving you with only $247,750 for other expenses. I have heard that residency requirements turn all MD’s into supermen, so it seems to me this is a challenge you might be able to handle with some measure of understanding and grace. You complain of your huge student loans and I agree completely. I think that all education should be free, since educated citizens are a boon to society, and there should be no such thing as student loans. But just because you are suffering the injustice of student loans, why take it out on the Oregon public education system and other services? What is the path of love here?
-
We've already heard this. Measure 37 in what year was it, 2002? "If we don't get this passed, we'll move". Well, it passed, capping the punitive liablility for malpractice. We were told that this passing would improve access, and lower costs. It didn't lower ours. Access is still available, for 10-15 uncaring minutes at a time, and only if you're rich or have insurance.
You've had your cost cutting break. How many do you need?
America. Love it or leave it. Gonna leave? I guess I see where you stand.
The U.S. allows you to get rich. Count your blessing. After taxes, even if 66 and 67 pass, you'll still be better off than most of us. You'll still be able to afford your janitorial service, who employs a janitor for mininum wage. And you'll stay in your 2400 sq ft home. And you'll still be able to vacation in Hawaii or the Bahamas, or Europe, while the rest of us go camping in the Cascades (if we can even afford that), not to mention those in the third world who live in grass huts and drive donkey carts. By third world standards, you live like a god! And here you're so oppressed, you gotta leave because if you get a two percent increase in taxes, it's just not fair.
I didn't hear doctors threaten to leave when taxes were imposed on unemployment benefits.
You pay more taxes than most of us do? Well, most of us, collectively, pay more taxes than the few who have loopholes, 2400 sq ft homes, and fabulous vacations out of state and even out of country.
Threaten us, will ya? Timely manner? Okay, leave in a timely manner. Yesterday was a great time. Tomorrow works for me too.
-
Sorry, doc, but your bedside manner stinks! Go to Haiti, I think they need doctors there.
-
Good riddance we don't need selfish people in this state go to Cali and deal with all there taxes and still lacking social programs. need me to help you pack?
-
How can opponents of 67 (Phil Knight and the editors of the Oregonian) seriously suggest that Measure 67 shows Oregon's anti-business bias when in fact business pays such a tiny amount of Oregon's tax burden? Business pays a lower % of state taxes in Oregon than in almost any other state in the whole country, and by far the lowest in the West. Business pays about 5% of Oregon's tax burden, which is ridiculous.
Business is forever saying that we need a better-educated work force, and that we need better roads. Do they think schools and roads are free?
Maybe Oregon's personal income tax wouldn't be so high if business were paying it's fair share.
Opponents who suggest that Measure 67 will just pass the cost along to customers are wrong. Tax increases (or any other cost increase) can be paid in three ways: Passed on to customers, reduced profits to owners/shareholders, or reduced wages/benefits to employees. To the 70%+ of Oregon businesses who pay the minimum tax, it's hard to imagine how 43 cents a day in state taxes is going to make a real difference in the business's profitability. Most businesses spend more money on paper clips than the minimum tax that Phil Knight's gone so crazy about.
-
Lets not forget just who’s supporting this tax. Government employee Unions and the Teachers Union Wasn’t it just last year we had News coverage about Those Unions Fighting for Pay raises? And whining about Loss of benefits. Talk about Special Interest Groups! Of coarse the Unions Are all in favor of raising taxes! That way next year while The rest of us are still out of work there cushy jobs will Be safe! While all the time hiding behind; we have to save the children. Why don’t you at least be honest with your self? More taxes will only hurt the pour and line the pockets of Big Government and there Union employees!
Love for your fellow man? Tell the truth its realy about Union Greed!
-
The Oregonian has a handy ... no wait, make that two handy editorials that came out squarely against Measures 66 and 67.
Both editorials were mentioned in the "spadea" that wrapped last Sunday's Oregonian (boy howdy, did that ever get some knickers in a twist).
You may have also noticed Nike's Chairman, Phil Knight's op-ed column ran this weekend. Phil tells it like it is with two notable quotes: "Measures 66 and 67 should be labeled Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law II." and "There are words to describe what we are doing with 66 and 67: It is called a death spiral."
Throw in a dozen respected economists who say both measures will stall Oregon's economic recovery and thwart job creation... a host of other anecdotal evidence that jibes with those point-of-view... and I don't think it's even close. Vote No on both Measures 66 and 67.
-
You sound like you either work for Nike or went to the University of Nike (Oregon). I have an economics degree from the Wharton School of Business and I'm voting yes on both measures.
-
I have already mailed my ballot, so I can't change it and I wouldn't if I could.
I voted yes. An additional 2% on income over 200,000 amounts to 4000 per year. That isn't going to lay off anybody.
A minimum tax of $10 for a corporation is ridiculous! This has to change! A minimum tax of $150 is inconsequential forthe corporations, and substantial for the welfare of everyone.
EVERYBODY needs schools and police protection and all other government services. Oregonians have blamed the government for years! They say it is bloated. Well, perhaps it is, but then again, year after year of this has gotten us where? Nowhere!
It's time! If companies are making it here, they should give something back. Protesting higher taxes is the norm, but in reality, if it weren't for taxes, you wouldn't be able to make it here. Do you want schools and police protection? Then pay taxes. We all do.
I don't think that this tax hike is gonna hurt anyone so badly that they need to threaten moving out of state. Where are they going to go? To another state, where taxes are already higher? Find one that is lower. Go ahead. Find one. If you do, pretty soon, they'll raise their taxes. That is inevitable. You can go, then complain in that state!
So enough already. Just buck up and pay the tax and stop complaining. If you're making that much money, be grateful for what you have left over. Most people make far less than that.... far less. Be grateful that you don't ride the bus, like more and more people do.
Now go and buy your gadgets -- the LCD TVs for every bedroom in your house. And go take your vacations out of state, as most of the rich do. And be gratefful that you don't live in Cuba, where you can't be rich and do these things. Count your blessings, not your burdens. Your blessings far outweigh your burdens. And if you can't make it here in Oregon and are going to go, then go. Shut up and go. Just do it, either way. Either shut up and pay the tax, or shut up and go to avoid 'em.
I make less than 18000 per year. I don't go around complaining about my income and my tax burden. I make it, and I'm happy that I make it. Oregon is a nice place to live. I'd hate to see it turn into California!
-
Amen, brother.
-
I would love to support education and social services but....I have a real issue with how our state manages the kicker; how the teachers union has a strangle hold on how education is delivered; and the lack of accountability and poor government efficiency.
To the teachers I say lead us into the 21st century of education and stop beating the same drum. How we deliver education MUST change...STOP with the summer breaks...STOP with protecting seniority. START adopting proposals put forth by thought leaders in education - who are professing facts that challenge current practices...START paying higher saleries for our math/science teachers so you will get good ones!...START paying higher salaries and decrease benefits/retirement packages. Once teachers unions start to show the ability to adapt to changing times (other than cutting printing costs, text books budgets, art and music) then I will be in solidarity with them. At this point I feel used as a parent, PTA officer, and district budge committee; something HAS to change and it starts with the unions.
As for the kicker - my government is irresponsible - a rainy day fund needs to be established and private & business tax dollars should go into this. I dont appreciate the peanut butter approach where a bumper crop of taxes gets distributed back to all citizens.
Lastly government must get lean like the private sector. I am struggling giving gov more of my hard earned dollars without some accountability and transparency. I have a young friend newly employed at an Oregon county office - she runs circles around her predecessors; however, with each budget cut she finds herself getting "bumped" by someone with greater seniority whose skills are clearly inferior to hers. This is irresponsible use of my tax dollars! There is clearly a double standard and it is time to put a stop to all of this.
Originally I was going to vote YES but now my vote is NO for 66 and 67...painful as it is. I think this is the only way to get the changes I am asking to happen. Accountability and transparency need to be evident. The private sector has certainly done so...now its time for government to transform and this will take several years so lets get going.
-
Measures 66 and 67 don't address the kicker law, so save those comments for your state legislators. Regarding accountability in education, the Oregon State Department of Education just submitted a grant application to the federal Department of Education that would make Oregon teachers more accountable for student test scores. It was a joint effort between Union and Management. You say you want government run more like private industry? Like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, GM, Bank of America? Are those good role models?
-
Kicker - Article IX, section 14 OREGON CONSTITUTION. Damn who put that in the Constitution?? - oh yeah, WE THE PEOPLE. Wow those politicians, they get you to vote for any old thing - must be the governments fault WE voted for it. Maybe we need MORE teachers so people can actually READ their ballots.
Civil service - oh yeah there were those abuses of political power in the early 1900's so put in all these laws about public employment to stop corruption and graft. It must be government's fault that corrupt politicians got elected.
-
Why is it that every time we vote on a tax measure we are threatened with cutting needed services? Wouldn't it make more since to cut government and keep the services. Don't we need the prison inmates to stay where they are, the police officers on the street, the mental and health facilities operating, etc. more than we need to give our state government approximately $250,000,000 dollars of these new taxes in the form of pay increases? What do they do to deserve the increases but give us, their supposed boss, more grief and more taxes and put more people out of work. If I had that kind of employees working for me they would be out of work immediately. We need to shrink the size of government in a responsible manner and live with what we have. How can they keep growing and those supporting them keep getting to be fewer and expect this state to survive. I'm sure someone with common sense could take a good unbiased look at our state government and make cuts that would reduce our tax burden instead of needing to increase the tax burden. If you need an example of what it is going to take just look at the election that just took place in Massechussetes. The tax and spenders need to be gone from office as soon as possible. For now we need to vote no on all tax measures and look forward to those that have our intrests at heart. The measures in question will put many small business' out because the taxes will be based on gross income not net income and we will all pay for it one way or another. no tax is just paid by someone else. It will be paid by all of us. Poor, rich, elderly and the unemployed alike will pay for others to get pay increases. Our state constitution guarentees our children an education. This education is based on Fed. standards that must be met by the state in order to recieve government funding. Is the state of Oregon going to jeopardize that by making cuts to our education system. If they insist on letting prisoners out, put them in the politicians homes or backyards. That is where they want to put them, in your backyards. They want to put the mentally ill on the streets. Put them in homes in the politicians neighborhoods. I think it is high time we quit coddling our state representitives and show them we are not going to stand for it any longer. They either need to shape up or ship out. We don't need any of their tax and spending, It is time to put a stop to it.
-
We're not threatened by government. They warn us that services are threatened.
The govt doesn't insist on letting prisoners go. They can't afford to keep 'em!
"We don't need any of their tax and spending". Have you a better way?
You villify government when it's clearly TRYING to work for you. And time and again, new taxes are voted down. And if they are passed, some people move their assets into hidden accounts, or create bogus loopholes so they can avoid their taxes.
Quit villifying the necessary! Anarchy isn't going to work. And think on this -- If you vote the incumbents out, the lobbyists salivate and wring their hands, saying "Oh boy! Fresh meat!"
Who pays for these lobbiests? The rich and the unions. Well, the unions wouldn't exist if the rich were willing to pay livable wages. And lets not ignore the unions that the the rich have. They have their pools of money so that they can hire the lobbiests. Doctors have the AMA. The timber industry has the Timber Association. Many sectors have their own 'union', but they don't call them unions.
The U.S. is where people came to escape the tyranny of aristocrats, so that they can have the opportunity to become aristocrats. And now that they are aristocrats, they don't want to show their appreciation by paying an additional 2 percent in taxes. They don't appreciate what they have. They want even more, and tell us that it will hurt us all if they gotta pay more taxes. And they tell us that they pay more than we do, while we, collectively, pay a lot more than they do.
So don't blame government. Don't blame the unions. Blame those who say that more tax is oppressive while they live in 2400 sq foot homes and have many tax loopholes, granted them by their 'unions'. Its time for them to pay what's necessary to "provide for the general welfare". Let them balance their budget! Let them reorganize. They have overfunded beaurocracies so that they can widen their tax loopholes. Let them pay this time, instead of the govt!
The government is trying to do you good. The corporations are trying to do themselves good, and who manages them? CEOs that make ungodly amounts of money -- far more than your congressmen, and amounts that are warranted for demi-gods.
Hercules, anyone? I say it's time that Hercules pays for the opportunity to be Hercules. Nike, for example, who recently (we tend forget) was running sweat shops in the far east.
-
When faced with a situation like the one facing the legislature, getting government to fit within a budget, that invariably means making cuts in services and/or raising revenue. The mix of actions this legislature decided to make was #2 billion in cuts and raising $733 million in revenue. If the voters reject that approach, that leaves making $733 million in cuts - and they're going to hurt.
-
If you have specific examples of state government waste, fraud and abuse, maybe you should call the Secretary of State's office. They have auditors who check out allegations such as yours. Also, you could contact your state representatives about such matters and they could schedule a hearing about your examples. Maybe you want the state legislature to set up a watchdog agency like GAO to monitor state spending? That's already been proposed by Sarasohn who writes for the Oregonian. Maybe he could help you. I can only speak for Oregon teachers and instructional assistants who I have worked with during the past 8 years. For the most part, they are hard working, intelligent and inspirational people well worth their salaries and benefits.
-
because that is what your taxes go towards.......... duh
-
I am supporting a Yes vote on both of these measures and am supporting them through blatent political parody with my own hyperbolic visual spin. All with mininal expence, through the wonders of YouTube video, Facebook and other free Web-based means! Indeed, the only expense has been by all the hoops I had to jump through simply to become an "annointed" PAC, (Assumed business name, Business Bank Account with minimum deposit). We are a "Parody PAC."
~EIEIO!
RD Frederick
The MacDonald Group
-
Right on!
-
http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=Measure6667
Consider the facts. The Oregon legislature met for months early in 2009, and finally arrived at what's before voters now - no other proposal had enough votes to pass. If the voters reject the legislature's solution to the $733 million shortfall, it is highly unlikely this same legislature, meeting in a short special session this coming February, will try another income raising measure. They will most likely make cuts to balance the budget. These cuts are most likely going to come from services to children, seniors, and to keep our communities safe. My State Representative, Sara Gelser, is not looking forward to making these cuts. I hope you don't want to see this done too - vote "Yes" on Measures 66 & 67.
-
I couldn't have said that better myself.
-
I encourage you to read all of the posts on this issue. Some present facts and logical arguments; others don’t even seem to know what the bills actually say. Can you tell which is which? Some heap calumny on their opposition, like their mothers never told them that honey attracts more flies than vinegar. Unfortunately the quality of this debate is an embarrassment to intelligence.
One could say our public education system is to blame. Up until the mid 1980’s the high school at which I taught and I believe all high schools in the state required seniors to take a course titled “Modern Problems,” which taught how to think logically about political issues. It was then replaced with “Personal Finance,” as if learning how to handle our credit cards were more important than becoming an educated voter.
I have two grandkids attending Redmond High School. The Redmond School District is so strapped for cash that all schools meet only four days a week. Is your personal sacrifice if the measures pass really worse that this educational catastrophe, which will only get even more severe if the measures don’t pass?
-
If we're truly sincere about the need to maintain or expand services, we'd agree to collectively tax ourselves as the benefits are being positioned (more or less) collectively.
We need to ask ourselves, if this were instead a referendum on a $0.25 per gallon gas tax hike, would we still vote 'yes'? If not then our beliefs aren't sincere and we're merely picking on two of the few remaining minorities it's still acceptable to pick on.
Whether "they" can afford it or not is immaterial, affordability is a value judgement and, in this case, dependent one one's current economic situation.
-
There are so many things in conflict about this it's hard to know where to start. 1. What irony to say to "stop threatening to cut services and cut government instead" Who do they think provides services? IT IS GOVERNMENT! WE elect the reps who set policy and funding levels, it's not someone else. The reps do what the most voices tell them the people want. Many complaints come from people apathetic to the process after decisions are made.
There is very little wasted in schools and government offices. Workers take public service seriously, recycle, rarely get paid for all the time put in, and there is a grossly erroneous sense of waste in schools and government. The legislature HAS considered the options and M66/M67 are the best result., It HAS made substantial cuts where possible/reasonable with the least impact on essential services. To MAINTAIN more revenue MUST come from somewhere. It is logical it comes from where the revenue is, the most wealthy. This was set as the top 2 1/2%. A tiny fraction of the population. Anyone resenting this re-distribution of wealth for the common good should feel lucky and priviliged to be in such an elite of wealth owners, not resentful of sharing it. Even those businesses w/ gross sales over 1/2 million will pay a comparative tiny amount more.
Oregon still is in the bottom third of total tax burdens for commercial tax payers as a state. We have a modest tax burden as citizens. It may seem large as income tax because other states have a third source of revenue we have been able to access...the dreaded sales tax. Still the NET tax burden here is modest in Oregon. If protecting & promoting high end wealth was good for everyone why has there been a horrific widening of the gap between the rich and poor since the Reagan began advocating trickle down economics?
The bottom lines of arguments on this are these: 1. Is more state revenue truly needed to provide essential government services? and 2. If so, HOW should this needed revenue be generated? In reply to 1. YES. the legislature cut where it could, is doing what it can to spend and use savings wisely and 2. It is seeking revenue where it can be raised with least impact on the most people.
Nobody likes taxes, but as has been observed; taxes are the price we pay for civilization. A YES vote on both measures is a vote for the greatest good for Oregon society.
-
My apologies in advance, but I neither trust nor respect the budgetary expertise of our elected representatives... the budget they've come up with is the best compromise they could pass... not the best budget.
-
It's sad that people out there can always complain and second guess the government, but they never want to make the hard decisions at the time when they had to be made. They let someone else make them and throw a fit. That's a cynical cop out. It's easy to sit back and be a naysayer, but nothing ever gets accomplished this way. The best budget budget compromise that could pass is, by definition, the best budget, because budgets that don't pass are not budgets. Grownups understand that "compromise" is not a dirty word.
-
Then we agree to disagree... my philosopy is simple, either do it right or not at all... compromise is just politics as usual which generally means turning good ideas and principles into hamburger.
If folks aren't willing to demand something better from their government, nothing will change and politics as usual isn't going to solve our problems... I'm no longer willing to accept it. Being grown-up also means discipline and learning to say 'no' :-)
-
People in the state of Oregon who still support Reagonomics and his trickle down theory of economic growth favoring the rich over the poor in tax policy, are the same ones that watch FOX news and swallow the baloney they broadcast day in and day out. The Nobel economist Paul Krugman has writtten a book of economic history that clearly shows that the only way our economy is to recover is for the middle class and lower classes to increase their wealth at the expense of high income individuals and corporations. Measures 66 and 67 are a step in that direction. Vote Yes on both measures. If not for public services, then for the health of our economy.
-
Lest one think that the many comments from opponents of these measures spring from informed criticism, the Taxpayer Defense Project of Oregon Freedomworks is sending e-mail to people, urging them to attend this program. This is an attempt to "stack the deck" on the program with opponents of the Measures. It even provides them with an almost scripted argument against the Measures.
Freedomworks is the Tea Party lobbying group headed by Dick Armey. Armey is reported to have received $250,000 per year in 2008 from this organization for 18 hours per week of work. Matt Kibbe, the CEO of Fredomworks, is reported to have received $121,417 in 2008 for working 17 hours per week for Freedomworks.
The canard that this is a "grass roots" organization is laughable. OPB will find its "Think Out Loud" broadcast studio filled with "know nothings" from the Tea Party movement.
http://enews.taxpayerdefenseproject.com/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100052920.60082.273&gen=1
-
IT would be better to have "know nothings" carrying NEA scripts?
There are discrepancies on both sides and it feels like independents are being asked to choose sides is what feels like a battle of faiths... frankly I trust neither side to tell me the truth.
-
As an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ who has spent his entire adult life working on issues related to homelessness, housing and health care, I can testify that these are trying times for all Oregonians. For the common good of our state, it's time to set aside partisan political labels and ideologies so that together we might embrace a higher purpose: the health and future of our Oregon.
Religious leaders from the Roman Catholic Church to the United Methodist Church to the Episcopal Church USA to the United Church of Christ (churches that sometimes disagree on profoundly important theological issues) have come together now to say that our faith compels us to hear God's call to protect the "least of these" by voting yes on Measures 66 and 67. Scriptures tell us: "... if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be like the noonday ... you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to live in (Isaiah 58 NRSV)."
The passage of Measures 66 and 67 will set Oregon on the road to recovery and offer hope to many who live now in fear.- Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com
-
Based on this response, I assume that the Churches mentioned wouldn't mind being taxed in order to protect "the least of these"? The scriptures you quote were an individual call and didn't assume corrupt and incompetent institutions layered in between the individual in need and individual giving. Personally I'm much more willing to give to the "least of these" one to one, without institutions (that I don't trust) in the way.
-
This is incredible, your saying God wants us to vote Yes, that is truly absurd. You have NO direct line to god. This is your opinion. really how dare you
We need complete separation of church and state, ahm I thought we had that, how dare you, use your position of esteem and authority to tell people what God wants.
It is obviously debatable what 66 & 67 will do.
FYI I think God would reject this money grubbing.
-
Mahalu- What I said – quite clearly – is that leaders of Oregon’s faith community are supporting Measures 66 and 67 because we hear God’s call to protect the “least of these” in society and thus are voting for these measures. I freely concede that people of good faith can come to different conclusions on difficult issues like these. However, it is noteworthy that evangelicals, mainline Christians and Roman Catholics have all endorsed these measures.
In regards to the separation of church and state…I’m a strong supporter of the U.S. Constitution and agree with what the United Methodist Church has stated in regards to this issue:
“Separation of church and state means no organic union of the two, but it does permit interaction…We believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital separation of church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life.”
Separation of church and state does not mean the church should be silenced on public policy issues.
Rethomas – With all due respect, you misunderstand Holy Scripture. Jesus and the Prophets were not talking about individual responsibility alone but also the responsibility of societies and governments. After all, the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Christian New Testament) spoke to the kings and the wealthy and warned them that unless they governed in a manner that lifted up the poor and powerless their societies would crumble. Jesus said quite clearly that he came to lift up the words of the Prophets.
And as you can read at the link below, churches and the larger faith community are doing quite a lot to help those who are poor and homeless in our community.
Churches need help in fighting homelessness
We need Measures 66 and 67 to pass to help us get the job done.
Best wishes,
- Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com
-
The Archdiocese of Portland has endorsed both measures 66 and 67 (Catholic Sentinel) because it is the right thing to do and serves the common good that Rev. Chuck talks about.
-
To the individual above who voted "Yes" before he realized that "No" is the correct answer.
Please, I believe you can repeal your ballot and vote again. There's still time.
-
Well, I just learned that you can't.
What's done is done.
Let's hope for the best.
-
Answer: NO. NO.
The current Salem legislation has proven their financial ineptness over and over. Their only answer raise taxes. Instead of outlawing duck liver, approving a state fossil, undermining measure 36, they should have been working and doing their jobs; working for the good of the state and its citizens. Salem is out of touch as is the congress and senate of the US.
-
Why don't you take action and run for public office and see if you can do better. Actions speak louder than words.
-
I wish to speak from my experience as a therapist for children and families.
I work daily with children and families who are struggling to address mental health challenges. One example of this is a young woman I worked with who had anxiety so severe she often hurt herself and felt unable to control her actions. She received therapy support from Multnomah County because her symptoms were self-injurious.
Another example of this is a family of six I work with; I see the parents and children in therapy sessions. Both parents grew up with abuse and neglect, and are now struggling to find ways they can bring their children up without resorting to violence. They work daily to support their children, and are able to continue the therapy for their family because of public service funding for mental health treatment.
A final example is a little boy who was sexually abused by members of his family, and is now in foster care with a family who wishes to adopt and care for him. The foster family is surprised and confused by the way the boy does not respond to tenderness and affection, but instead acts as if he does not care if he ever receives affection again. In play therapy, he often uses toys to depict scenes of trickery, deception and abandonment.
I appreciate the opportunity for a forum to talk about these stories, because I believe it is these people I work with who will most be affected by the passage of these measures.
-
I am a special education teacher who sees these children in the schools and I share your concern about the effects of cuts to mental health services if Measures 66 and 67 fail.
-
Speaking from the 4th legislative branch…this “Special Election,” will show if Oregon schools are actually teaching their students. The state employee unions & OR district atty. assoc. are appealing to the less intelligent citizens by trying to minimize questions with their unfair $10 min. tax claims. To influence educated voters, use facts & full explanations. As with most gen. public ads they have to appeal to the bulk of folks with IQs less than 90. Yeah, give me a break too! If Measures 66&67 are such great thinking problem solvers, why did those who wrote the ballots insure they were one-sided. The measures the state has come up with over the last 2 decades have so fooled the public with exaggerated claims & is the reason the state is in the financial mess it is in now. Measure 11…how many of our children have spent 6+years imprisoned for going through puberty. For violent crimes it was said & repeat offenders. BULL! Deny them counseling. Don’t let them better themselves through special programs or out sooner to get on with legally lived lives. Have none of you have ever made a childhood mistake. Just never got caught? Yet grew up, learned from the mistake without undo punishment. Costs of these mandatory sentencings have near bankrupt Oregon. Why was it the legislature put off enacting Measure 57? 20 yrs. ago this state put a vendetta upon our children’s education. I urge a vendetta against the State of Oregon VOTE NO on both these ill conceived measures. Let us next take on the DA Assoc. who want these tax measures so they can continue to get paid big bucks to make our children into felons just for being children. It’s the under IQ’d running this state and those who vote into law these ridiculous measures. What was that I heard in the news yesterday? Blond haired blue eyed terrorist? Well, at least the State of Oregon made sure to employ enough guards to train them last year. Pardon me I was “Thinking Out loud.”
-
Why punish children, schools, mentally disabled and the elderly because you have a beef with the correctional system? A NO vote is like killing a fly with a bazooka. It's overkill. vindictive and misguided. I would trust the people working in state, county and city governments over your tortured logic any day.
-
I was initially a bit torn on Measure 67, being both a voter with kids and a part-owner in a successful, high-tech small business (an S corporation). However, I voted YES last week. And after hearing an interview on January 20th on KEX radio with GOP Chairman Bob Tiernan, I am now more convinced than ever that this was the right vote. Speaking for the NO campaign, Mr. Tiernan said the following during the interview: “You know, the private sector is the only area where you can increase a job that is going to create wealth. A public sector job is only going to create more debt and more taxes.”
I’m sorry, but he’s dreadfully wrong. Tax dollars go back into public services, including K-12 and higher education, and other services that affect the well-being of our local communities. Apparently Mr. Tiernan does not understand (or won’t acknowledge) that the taxes which go to public services are an investment in our community. I would like to say this to him: “Mr. Tiernan, step out of your house for a walk. Look at your house, then walk to your local school. Do you like where you live? Does the school define the character and quality of the community you live in? Should we be investing in that school, or not?”
I suspect Mr. Tiernan knows that the responsibility of individuals and businesses to pay taxes is a civic duty that is for the well-being of our communities. But I gather he won’t say this because he is influenced by corporate money coming from outside our community and outside our state. In contrast, I have a responsibility to my local community, including those individuals – kids – who can’t vote, but whose educational environment will likely suffer from the outcome of a NO vote. It is clear that the political will does not exist in the legislature, nor with the voters, to reform Oregon’s tax system anytime soon. But the simple fact is that without reform and without these ballot measures, education services will be reduced at a time when many people more than ever need quality education at all levels (particularly in high school, community colleges, and universities) to help them not only get through this recession, but also to be prepared with the skills they need to be employable in the future. I suggest that voters first walk through their neighborhoods for some fresh air before casting their ballot.
-
Rather than debating whether low taxes will create jobs IN Oregon, shouldn't we be debating whether low taxes create jobs FOR Oregonians?
Many new jobs in Oregon are taken by in-migrants, and in-migrants tend to have more education than Oregonians. The evidence that Oregon's schools are ranked 49th in the country, suggests that Oregonians are not competitive for many of these jobs.
So perhaps we be asking whether Oregon's schools should be average or above average, rather than asking whether they should stay ranked 49th out of 50?
-
Too many people who know too little about economics have waded into this debate, contributing only misleading figures and incorrect calculations. The two economic facts that are of overwhelming importance in this debate are 1) propensity to spending of government versus private sector and 2) the balanced budget requirement in Oregon's Constitution. The very tenor of the debate reflects the selfish ideology and "me first" culture that has come to replace civil discussion of true merits in the public sphere.
In a fiery and polemical rant against 66 & 67, the Oregonian Editorial Board claims "there were, and still are, better ways than Measures 66 and 67" but doesn't even point to these alternatives. A measure to increase taxes is a soft target when the crucial services these dollars would fund are not even mentioned. The message that this is the wrong time for our economy echoes hollow to the critical reader who skims the remainder of the article in the vain hope of finding any arguments whatsoever of an economic nature. Instead one finds a reactionary whine against "class warfare".
The right way to analyze this economically (with respect to job creation) is to estimate the path that these dollars would follow under either alternative. One must find the difference in total employment created in both the public and private sector from both alternatives. It is clear that when refunded to the taxpayer rather than collected in taxes, a portion of this money is saved, that is, not used to create jobs. In contrast - the entire balance collected in taxes will be spent within the biennial budget of the state, thus leading to job creation. Therefore these measures are good for the economy.
The Oregon legislature does not have the option to explore alternatives at this juncture. The balanced budget requirement will force immediate cuts if these measures do not pass. Our state has long struggled with difficulties in stabilizing its revenue, and it is far right business interests like Nelson and Sizemore that have stood in the way of every step of progress, including these ballot measures. It is their organizational allies that have created the funding crisis for our schools. It is their ideological allies that put the wrecking ball to our economy in the first place. Lets make this a referendum against corporate crooks.
A healthy economy in the United States can only come about through a vastly larger Government.
-
I recently received my voter pamphlet with the arguments for and against measures 66 and 67. It was most revealing to notice that the Secretary of State had put an argument for the measures as the first argument against. This kind of tricky abuse of the system was a fraudulent move on her part, undermining the very integrity of the democratic process. It shows what lengths a public official can go to in order to manipulate the system by using her position to influence an election. I would not be surprised to see a state or federal investigation of this matter. Surely if these measures pass, the voters will consider their judicial recourse to invalidate the election.
-
Pat33 -- By law, the arguments are included in the voter pamphlet in the order they are received. The Secretary of State has no control over this.
Individuals can submit "no" arguments for the "yes" section and vice versa. And individuals can say anything they want in these arguments, fact or fiction.
-
Like Phil Knight, I graduated from the University of Oregon and co-founded a business right here in Oregon. And that’s where the similarity ends.
In the Jan. 17 OREGONIAN, Phil Knight wrote an opinion column opposing Measures 66 & 67 and bemoaning the high rate of taxes on Oregon businesses. He’s just plain mistaken. The Oregon Legislative Revenue Office (non-partisan support staff to the Oregon House & Senate) found that Oregon ranks third from the lowest in taxes paid by Oregon businesses, right behind North Carolina and Connecticut (Research Report #6-09 which can be found at www.oregon.gov ). Even with the passage of Measure 67, we will only shift to fifth lowest, slipping past Delaware and Utah.
Knight predicts that businesses will flee Oregon in droves. He claims that our neighbor Washington State has a more friendly business environment – but if he’s right it's in spite of the fact that Washington’s taxes are higher than Oregon’s! And he reminds us that Washington has no income tax. What he fails to mention is that pair of $120 Nike shoes is going to cost at least an extra $8 in Washington sales tax.
I am going to continue to support Oregon and vote YES on both Measures 66 and 67.
-
At the Archimedes Movement we are trying to get people informed and engaged in this debate for the long haul, not because shrinking revenues aren't important, but because we don't see this measure solving Oregon's long term budget woes. So, whether this passes or fails, what happens the day after the election, when Oregon, like many other states, is still facing declining revenue and possible shortfalls? We believe we need to get Oregonians to understand the relationship between general fund revenues, where that money comes from (taxes) and how it is used - providing for public safety, education and health services. What do the panelists recommend happen the day after the election?
-
Tax the rich for they are not us!
-
Haven't the rich people benefited the most from society and do they not owe something back to society? Or do you believe that all rich people are just naturally smarter and harder working than everyone else? Did they really succeed with no help from anyone else in society and now they owe nothing back to us?
-
I oppose both measures, but my comments are about Measure 67.
Measure 67 will hurt me immensely as a small business owner, though, and the choices I make and other small business owners make from it hurting us could hurt all Oregonians.
I am a middle class oregonian, and I own 6 rental houses. For liability reasons, I hold each in an LLC. After all the expenses, most of these barely break even or lose money, especially with falling rents in this recession, so my net income on all these together is low or possibly negative. The minimum tax will mean I would have to pay $150 times 6 (one for each LLC) every year, plus an extra $50 times 6 for the increased filing fees. This means I now have to PAY $1200 per year for LOSING MONEY.
I and other business owners in this situation may choose to change things in my business to stop paying that tax, and you may not like the results in the economy.
One change I could make is I could get rid of the LLCs and run it all as one big sole proprietorship that wouldn't have to pay those taxes, and many business owners may choose to do just that. The goal of these measures is to raise a certain amount of money based on a certain number of businesses, yet I think many business owners will choose to eliminate their business entities to stop the outrageous tax, and the revenue taken in could be far smaller than expected.
My other choice to avoid paying all this tax is to sell my properties and then close the businesses. Many business owners like me could do just that also. In real estate, if lots of landlords do the same, that will flood the already depressed real estate market with houses for sale, further driving down property values. Many landlords can't afford an extra $1200 per year in tax on money they didn't make and would lose their properties to foreclosure, which would further drive down property values.
Other businesses would be hurt by landlords who stop running rental properties as they stop spending money on repairs (contractors and building supply stores), property managers, realtors, banks, etc.
Measure 67 would tax me heavily on money I didn't make, and would hurt everyone.
-
First of all, most "middle class Oregonians" don't own 6 rental properties. You also mention that you could reorganize as a sole proprietorship and avoid this tax, so it sounds like it won't actually "hurt you immensely" like you claim at first. Measure 67 was not designed to hurt small businesses, so reorganizing them to avoid the tax is what the measure was designed to allow. However, the really big corporations will not be able to convert to sole proprietorships and avoid the tax, so this is where the real money will be raised from this measure. This is a good thing, because it's ridiculous for a company like Best Buy to only pay $10 a year to the state of Oregon because they claim they have make no money (after they pay their CEO millions). Corporations need to pay their fair share like the rest of us, so this reform is long overdue.
-
Tekno26, Changing to be a sole proprietorship is a tough choice to make. This would cause a very risky exposure to frivolous lawsuits, and such lawsuits which would mean complete financial ruin. It's just a risk that struggling businesses may be willing to take.
Also, you are making the assumption that people who own multiple rental properties are mostly or all wealthy. The LLC is a very common way to hold a rental property, and many rental properties are far from profitable.
-
Too bad you didn't mention the fact that your losses are a tax write off and reduce your overall state and federal taxes. When you crank those numbers together, I'll bet your tax hike won't even be felt.
-
There's been a shift if in the social language in this country in the past couple of decades. Perhaps it began with Reagan's presidency. The word "TAXES" has become a "dirty word" - like the word "Communist" used to be when we were kids in the 1950's, or "Liberal" has become in the past couple of decades. A "dirty word" is - an enemy; a danger- something to be fought against. A threat.
In tandem has been the legitimization of the "ME FIRST" thinking. It's become okay to be totally self centered. Those protected under the umbrella of "Big Government" and ... TAXES.... uh, the ones who who don't have a voice in social discourse: (the children, the elderly, the disabled) - they'll just have to fend for themselves.
So let's return to "US citizenship 101:"
"TAXES" are not some kind of "enemy" to be avoided and fought.
TAXES are a fundamental civic responsibility for ADULTS in a CIVIL SOCIETY. "Every man for himself" is NOT the credo this country was based upon! If we allow our emotions to be hijacked by those whose mantra is "Fight Taxation" as some kind of "evil" - the cost will be a depravation in the quality of life - FOR ALL!
To those who wish to threaten us by saying they'll take their money and run (elsewhere) - I say: "Good riddance! Take your "me first" mindset and addiction to consumerism with you!"
There will always be others ready to come here; ones who will appreciate the uniqueness of what Oregon has to offer- not monitarily based, that which should be cherished and protected. And, yes, that which deserves to be paid for: a decent education. (even if your OWN children HAVE finished THEIR schooling.)
-
writerjoe,
I believe in taxes. I don't believe in giving alcholics more drink and that is what we are doing when we bow once again to our inept gov't officials and just give them more money.
Part of the problem is that an education delivered by government is bogus. The antiquated lecture style is still the predominant mode of inprisioning, ahm holding our children, in our k 12 system. The whole thing is designed for the benefit of a people that died and now is being perpetuated by the benefactors of the system, not for the needs of the people. Have you talked to a current student lately? for most kids schools is a drudge or a place to be bullied.
We need education/prison/government reform. Feeding the monster is wrong.
-
It's easy to talk about cutting spending and cutting taxes, but shouldn't voters be asking the anti-tax folks to explain why they want to cut school days for our kids, and vital public safety services, like police and firefighters, just to give tax cuts to the rich?
Can anyone really believe that corporations will cut jobs just because their taxes go from $10 to $150 per year and are we willing to make 98% of Oregonians suffer just so the wealthiest 2% don't have to pay a few hundred extra dollars?
-
I was at the event.. and listened to both sides.. I have already voted No to the Tax measures.. According to the Yes Campaign I would not be taxed anymore if the measurs pass. But I was interested on what the Pro group would say on a public airwave forum.
But I see statments like the person just ahead of me and I wonder.. "make 98% of Oregonians suffer so 2% of the wealthists don't have ot pay a few hundred extra dollars"
What if that 2% has to pay MORE than a few hundred? How is it that we let the Oregon Legislature TRICK us into this game... Tax the Rich.. and then put a tax on Gross Sales on large buisness.. Not Profit, but Sales.. One business owner in the crowd told me that if you base his profit last year.. he will end up paying $1500 more in taxes on his business on what he made in 2009... That is a bit more than a few hundred dollars. How is it was are basing our state government on taxing the few and declaring cuts if it dose not pass?
I was sad that No one pressed Representative Buckley about his statement that they cut the essential services budget by $2 Billion dollars.. in his phrase "to balance the budget". Essential services are like state patrol and education.. Education that the Oregon State Constitution sates must be adequately funded under Article 8, Section 8 Paragraph 1. But he made it sound like it was no big deal to cut education funding.. That dose not make sense to me.. if you care about the children.. then Education would be the #1 funding Priority.. but apparently not in the stae of Oregon.
Mr. Steve Novick in one of his statements at the event stated that there is not enough income redistribution in the Oregon Economy.. THAT is the basis of these two measures, to redistribute money from people who are either sucessful or attempting ot be and putting it in to the State Coffers.. Not the pockets of all Oregonians..
-
I agree with Steve Novick's comments. He knows what he's talking about, unlike some of the people who have chimed in on this blog.
-
Oregon’s Legislature, Judicial, & Governor realize there is a small % of us that are statisticians. Fewer of us have time to take off making a living to do the math required to make a well informed decision. Oregon is transparent in its statistics in all but in 2 areas, the expenditures of The DOE. and The DOJ. Yet these Depts. are telling you what matters to get you to vote yes. Believe those agencies that are least transparent & supply the least actual facts? Because of the hidden stats of these agencies, even statisticians have to vote blindly. If you close your eyes while compiling your yearly state tax returns vote yes! Or open your ears & eyes to the deception that The State is presenting. If you wish to evaluate whether I am right or wrong go to this website: http://egov.oregon.gov/DOR/STATS/exp09-11toc.shtml; Facts: Corporations are our 2nd largest source or revenue; Oregon spends the 2nd highest % of budget on corrections in the nation. Over I billion per yr; ODOC spends about $30,000. per inmate per yr; About $10,000. per k-12 student is spent per yr by the DOE; Oregon’s difference between education revenue and expenditures is: -$87,789,793. The national average is: +$135,590,065. This includes federal funds. See these sites, do simple math, & ask yourself, "Where is the money going?" http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/sresult.asp?mode=short&s1=41 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/sresult.asp?mode=full&displaycat=2&s1=41 Oregon's not found the $ to fully pay for its correctional system. What's our priorities when it comes to children? If Oregon's to gain any of the new AR&A Fed. funds we have to make an exchange of these numbers. Yes won’t do it! Are our children and grandchildren going to pull out of this recession on top through higher spending on education or shall we send our children to prison to wallow at the bottom of the pile? All of you must choose wisely! I VOTE NO!
-
Beware of statistics! (Remember that old saying, Figures can lie and Liars can figure!)
Of course corporations are our 2nd largest source of revenue! That's because INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS are #1!
If Bill Gates and I were the only two people in a room, Yes, I would be the second wealthiest in that room -- even though his assests are vastly more than mine. But most would agree that the truthful statement that I am the second wealthiest in the room is sort of silly.
Same thing with saying that corporations are the second highest taxpayer in Oregon. What a crock!
Vote YES!
-
People need to stop drinking the kool aid. A society, nation, state, county, city - has two primary obligations to the respective constituent public: to provide essential protection, and assure a reasonable distribution of necessary goods and services to all constituents, regardless of Income level. That is why we have a tax base: to assure that we all get to share the benefits of roads, schools, the fire department, water and sewage and other public services that are essential to a reasonable standard of living for everyone. Without this, there would be no cohesiveness, and anarchy would result. The wealthy - individuals and corporations - have been reaping oodles of money since Reagan's ... and then Bush's huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and the burden of taxation has fallen increasingly on the middle and lower economic rungs. These measures will, at last, at least at the State level, begin to remedy that.
-
If it's not Kool Aid, it's probably the tea served by those Fox News sponsored tea baggers.
-
Tax the Rich!
I wish every success to Proponents,. Organization, and Associations of the proponents of these taxes! I bid you hurry and succeed in passing them for the greater good! I believe that they can be passed by at the least the margin of the Portland-metro areas population in relation to the remainder of the state, perchance greater! Success is yours for the taking God Speed!
Why would I wish success to an unjust tax based upon a failure of the legislature to do their job?
When this tax passes, within a short time the still sleeping, preoccupied, middle class realizes just how quickly this tax trickles down to them to pay, then there will be finally “Change” in Oregon! Then there will begin the same sweep as we just witnessed on the other end of this once great nation, where Ted is rolling. Change may only be new faces in the halls of power, or perhaps, and for the greater good, Jefferson!
Red or Blue what a short sighted pack of fools, may you succeed beyond your wildest dreams! -
I know that I am nothing to any party involved, yet I am a regular voter. I began in naievety; soon I grew up and learned that I cannot trust some statements. What can I use to make my judgments? I have only my own knowledge, but when I seek to find out the truth, I find parties lying through their teeth. If you can't find the truth, how can you make a real, effectual decision?
It is a huge privilege to vote, yet how many of us are using that power reasoned by lies that we have believed? I am brought nearly to despair.
-
Don't despair. Just vote Yes on both measures. It will do your body and mind good.
-
I am tired of the state of Oregon holding tax payer ransome by paying for things we dont need or cant aford and then saying if you dont rais taxes we can fund shcools or public safety.
For decades Oregonians have said schools and safety first!
Also did the previouse gentleman recament our tax structure should be more like California! The bankrupt California!
If I want to live in California I will move there
-
Don't forget to close the door when you leave.
-
I want to vote NO so that we can talk about the changes needed in education and how the public powers that be fight a lot of good changes, like charter schools, like on line schools and other alternatives. I would like students AND teachers to have more choices.
Public schools are where they tell you what to think, not how to use your own mind.
Also I want to see the state deal with the studded tires in the Portland area that ruin roads every year to the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and don't work well in the majority of our winter weather anyway.
I want to see gov't have to learn/be incentivized to work with the different levels of gov't so we don't have jail space at one level underutilized and at another level crowded.
Public employees are just out of touch and more taxes are not the way to go. We need to open up to our real problems.
-
Change and choice in education need money. Vote yes on both measures to see effective change.
-
I sympathize with those who will have to give up some of their profits. It is hard to give up money which you have justly earned, however, my husband and I are both post-graduates, but early disabled and living entirely on disability: 1100 per month. That is our problem and no one elses.
State medical is not given free to us, even though we pay nothing. We signed our home over to them. Now we can no longer even get glasses, or proper dental care. Where is the answer to this?
-
According to your poll there's a 10-11 point advantage for yes votes. How is this a "close race?"
-
For thirty some years, Conservative Republicans have promised us that if we De-Regulate their Corporations and give tax cuts to the wealthy they will create lots of jobs and small businesses.
So we De-Regulated their Corporations and gave them all the tax cuts they asked for and look at what they have done; they sent our jobs overseas, they created extremely large monopolistic Corporations that have driven small business-persons out of business and into less than poverty level wages at big box stores.
This has been a massive Wealth Redistribution scheme that has created extremely wealthy Conservative Republicans, extreme poverty, and extreme destruction of the middle class.
We need to Re-Regulate Corporations and reverse our tax cuts for the wealthy and take our state and nation back to the moderate center, back to moderately wealthy people, back to supporting and promoting small businesses, back to limited Corporations, back to family wage jobs for the middle class, and back to a good safety net to catch those who fall into poverty.
Conservatism has failed our state and our nation miserably and it is far past time that we reject it and return to moderatism, to centrism.
-
Thumbs Up!!!
-
This from an actual technology entrepreneur: Many local investment people appear to think that the rich/they are responsible for all entrepreneurial activity...and they perpetuate that idea through the pernicious notion that *any* tax on the wealthy/investment class is damaging to the economy. That's just wrong. The biggest factor in creating a vibrant entrepreneurial economy is not more weathy people, it's more/better/better educated middle class. Further, local investors don't create anything...and their investment history is *unbelievably bad* in this state.
-
Main Street will bring this country back not Wall Street.
-
I bet that if the beginning income rate for sceems like this started at the pase income level of state legislators we would never see them proposed
-
State legislators don't make that much and they work very hard to earn their money. Some people consider politics a dirty word and public service to be something trashed. It's not. Politics is the art of making compromise and requires dedicated and intelligent public servants. They represent their constituents and don't stay in office very long if they fail. Support our elected officials and vote yes on measures 66 and 67.
-
After years of planning, I got my cabinet shop up and running in December of 2007--the same month the recession started. I managed to pay myself about $20,000 last year. But if you subtract the additional debt I incurred, it's more like $15,000. Under measure 67, I will pay more taxes. Yes, it's only $150, but that's $150 that I can't take home to my family.
In the advertising, you never hear about the micro-businesses like mine. Maybe that's because we don't have a union or an association. We're just scratching and clawing, trying to make it through this downturn so that we'll be able to grow when things get better.
I work very hard and I put in long hours because I'm confident that I have a viable business idea and someday I hope to have full-time family wage employees. But for now, I'm not making much money and I resent being called rich.
If you're in favor of measure 67, and you're able to pay your bills, why not consider giving a struggling small business owner a check for $150? I guarantee that such a gesture would be a great encouragement, and might even prevent a sleepless night.
I'll let the truly wealthy people wage their own battle, but I urge you to vote no on measure 67.
-
I'm a substitute teacher who has seen his workweeks decline from 4 days a week to 1 or 2 days a week because of budget cuts in my school district. At $18/hr, that comes out to less than what you're making a year. I won't take no for an answer. Vote Yes on measures 66,67.
-
@rjbphoto I'm sorry to hear that you're work weeks have been cut to the bone. The good news is that you have the option of picking up some hours on the weekend or in the evenings. I know the job market is tough, but you've gotta do what it takes to pay the bills.
When you run a small business, it's a different story. I can't even consider looking for another job. Like most business owners, I took great risks to get to this point and failure really isn't a financially viable option. Three years from now, I expect to be making good money and paying taxes based on my success. But I'm not there yet. For now, there's always plenty of marketing and maintenance to do if I don't have enough production work. I work about 50-60 hours a week to make my 20K a year. I'd work more but I stay home with my toddler some days so that my wife can work to make ends meet.
My dad was a teacher for most of his career, and I remember the fear that was instilled in us every time a tax measure came up for a vote. I'm not a detractor of public schools.
The point here isn't about comparing incomes or arguing about the funding levels of schools. It's about voting down a law that takes money away from struggling families. Vote your heart on measure 66, but those of us who are working our tails off to try to achieve our dreams urge you to vote no on 67.
-
It doesn't appear anyone understands the additional tax on "GROSS REVENUES" Conider your local coffee shop or restaurant. If they have been in business for 3 or more years, it is very likely they have a gross revenue in excess of $500,000. This means before they ever calculate profits, they need to give up $7500 (1.5%). From my experience, this is being paid to a college student trying to suppliment their cost of living. Let's not forget that most of Oregon employeers are made of up small businesses. Leave them alone and listen to President Obama, "Now isn't the time to tax".
-
I don't understand the arithmetic. First, only C Corporations will pay the tax on gross revenues. Local coffee shop prolly not one of those. But even if it were, the tax is .1% on gross revs. If our friendly coffee shop has GRs of 500,000, then that tax is 500 bucks only. Where did the 7500 come from?
-
In some part this is the people or the state of oregon fault some ten or fifteen years ago when they said the sate should pay for schools instead of the counties and passed a bill to do so.
It took the responsability of the countie to rais money away and stuck the state with it and now schools all over the stat have to compete rather than passing a local bond.
-
And we can thank Bill Sizemore and Bob Tiernan for that and all of the other corporate shills and misguided voters in this state.
-
Taxes are a symptom. Surprise retroactice taxes suddenly needed for a previously defined/approved budget are even more so.
How is the spiraling impact of government and education pension costs (I have heard numbers ranging from 25% to 50% of every education dollar goes to pension) going to be addressed?
If what Oregon needs is a bigger dial - a way to fairly increase/decrease government/education budgets - why are we so afraid of a sales tax? Put that out for a vote. Assuming you can get the lobbyists out of the room long enough to write it down.
I am not a supporter of short term band aids. Nor the approach of using the fears bred by the recession to make a permanent disproportionate tax hike.
-
How is shifting the tax burden to the high income earners disproportionate? Measures 66 and 67 are attempts to balance the tax burden between middle and higher classes. Individual income taxpayers in this state have borne the brunt of raising government revenues in the past. It's time that corporations and small businesses that can afford it pay more than $10 in taxes per year. A band-aid is better than nothing and it's a step in the right direction.
-
Why tax sales and not profits?
We have to generalize somewhat in order to function. But, one of our goals should still be to approach the ideal of ability to pay as closely as possible. I fear the legislature didn't come close enough to this ideal because of an over-generallized belief about businesses in general, and even about the subset of businesses that have large sales, in particular.
Collataral damage from over generalize tax catagories is probably inevitable, but surly we could minimize some of this by just taxing profits.
-
Let's pass something now and stop the bleeding of public services. You can always amend this law later.
-
This is RichardK back again to clairify my previous post and to add some more information.
The expected revenues compared to the total did not account for two years budgeting and an allowance for profitable corporations avoiding the minimum tax. Analysis by the Oregon Center for Public Policy indicates that 5,136 profitable corporations paid the minimum tax with 4,900 of these using carry forward losses and 216 using credits. Subtracting 5,136 from 20,803 would leave 15,647 C corporations paying the $150 minimum annually for a total of about $2 million without adjusting for C corporations being taken out of the $150 minimum by the $500,000 sales threshold. 54,419 S corporations at $150 would equal about $8 million annually and $7 million from partnerships would bring the total to about $17 million, or about $34 million for the 2009-11 budget.
The most likely reason for C corporations paying the minimum tax is that they can deduct compensation to corporate owner-officers who declare the income from their corporations on their personal returns like owners of S corporations. Oregon Department of Revenue statistics break down the C corporations paying the minimum tax by 20 sectors and they all show most of them payiing the minimum tax. Besides the largest 275 corporations who are less than 1% of 33,130 total C Corporations, but paid 65 percent of the total excise tax, 3% of the total paid 85%, and 4% paid 91% of the total excise tax. The top 4% of C corporations were in the taxable income range starting at $500,000 per year. This is a total of 1,443 returns. Therefore, it is not likely many "big" corporations paid the minimum $10 tax.
Measure 67 expected to raise $255 million for the 2009-11 budget, leaving at least about $221 million to come from a minimum excise tax on gross sales over $500,000, an increase on corporation taxable income over $250,000, doubling the annual report fee to $100, and other fees.
-
Vote no on measures 66 and 67.
I appreciate that the statistics are confusing but I can share a scenario that should be clear to everyone. I am a physician in central Oregon and provide excellent and compassionate care to my patients. If measure 66 and 67 pass, my wife and I will likely move back to Washington state. The state of Oregon collected $50,000 from us in taxes last year. That revenue will be lost and the 6 people that we directly employ will have to look for other jobs. A good friend has a very portable business and employs 24 people. If the measures pass, he will strongly consider moving his business to Seattle and who can blame him??
-
The Hippocratic Oath that all doctors take is First, Do No Harm. By not stepping up to the plate and paying your fair share of taxes you are doing a lot of harm to those less fortunate in this state-elderly, mentally ill, low income school children and others. Also, if you leave the state, you are leaving 6 people unemployed. Living in such a beautiful area as central Oregon and doing such good work should more than compensate for your monetary loss.
-
Could you possibly find any bigger microphones to use in these discussions? Because at times, I was able to see some light peaking out in the background, and I could see the top of Steve Novick's head on two or three occasions.
Don't you guys have some kind of monitor and see what the viewers can see? Or do you have to put your token blind guy in the control booth?
When I am trying to determine whether or not someone is telling the truth, I like to look at the person's face. Didn't see a whole lot of it during this show.
Yu0u You (how do you backspace?) know they make microphones today that fit behind a **button**- no bigger than the head of pin. The microphones you used reminded me of the scene in "Brother, where art thou?" when George Clooney was "singing into a can"- a trick to hide his lips so it looked like he was doing the singing (sorry to break the news, if you thought he was).
You might also consider some folks don't hear so well and they pick up what other people (especially in a talk show) by watching lips.
Come on, OPB, I know money is tight but get rid of the frisbees.
-
YES! What's with the gigantic microphones? Even tho T-O-L is a radio show, this was a TV broadcast, and I know that it is possible to get microphones that are more discreet (like for instance the clip-on type that have been around for a decade or so.) It was distractive to not be able to see the guests as they spoke. Puh-leeze!!
-
I think that both campains have use misleading ads. I would like to know the truth about the whole situation. My question is: How can they justify the claims that they make?
Donald Davis
-
Unfortunately, you are right. Campaigning for ballot measures is an ugly business and wasteful. However, in Oregon, where ignorant people trust radio and TV shock jocks rather than the government leaders they elected to do their job, we must put up with this mess. Oregon has a great tradition of legislative accomplishments like the bottle bill, public beaches, and land use planning. The tax hikes included in measures 66 and 67 were passed by state leaders we put in office. They did their job and pissed off the conservative Republicans in this state. Out of state interests who subscribe to the conservative agenda bankrolled the process of getting measures 66 and 67 on the ballot. Once that was done, each side had to spend millions to out shout the other side, hence the misleading ads. Since you distrust the misleading fight over these important measures, I suggest you forget everything that you have read, seen or heard during the course of this campaign and trust that this issue should have never been brought to a public vote in the first place. If you do that, you will vote yes not because of any misleading ads, but because you trusted that your state of Oregon legislature did the right thing in the first place after hearing all of the arguments that are being dredged up again in this campaign.
-
How do you justify these taxes when as found out from school finance dept. The super of the school distric cost us 3 years ago $250,000.00 which has now come down to $231,000.00 per year. How many of us cost our employers this much. Also remember that retired os social security are now frozen for next 2 years.
-
I liked the show's format of challenging the ads. Obviously trying to say a lot within a short span of time without distorting the truth is a challenge, and while I'm biased, I believe our Yes campaign did the best job.
I also thought the questions from the audience showed part of the problem. You had folks get up and ask questions that had already received an answer. No wonder ads make outrageous claims, that may be what it takes to get some folk's attention.
Ultimately, though, there's no excuse for false advertising.
-
I don't like either side in the measure 66-67 debate. The argument that busness makes, that it will cost 70,000 jobs rings hollow with me. I can't buy that business is concerned about jobs when I see illegal immigrants being hired in preference to Oregon citizens. What about those jobs? Just look at Lincoln City that us flooded now with Hispanics who can't speak English all working in service industries. Out here in Polk county, Oregonians have a hard time finding empolyment unless you are fluent in Spanish as well as English. Not only are jobs being given to Illegals, but the money is sent back to Mexico, out of our economy, which by the way is facilitated by Bank Of America.
And then the Oregon Corporations that send jobs out of Oregon to China and elsewhere. Example, Nike, Pendleton, Danner Boots. What about Those jobs? Do I think that business is concerned about jobs? No way. Not only do they cheat Oregonians out of jobs, but also out of contributions to Social Security and Medicare that those jobs done by US citizens would generate.
On the other side, I see the Oregon Health Plan spending gobs of money on the children of illegal immigrants. The mothers come here illegally and are impregnated by illegal imigrant men who feel no compunction to support their child (who is now according to the 13th amendment a US citizen). And yet we cater to this situation by lack of specific laws and enforcement.
And the OEA who pretends to be so concerned about students and education until contract time when teachers walk off and leave the students to fend for themselves. And the cadillac health plans that the public sector has while the rest of us go without. Or the Holidays and time off that teachers get while the rest of us are working. Example: after a week off during Spring Break, they need another day without class which they call a teacher work day.
I am so disgusted with both sides, I think I might tear up my ballot and say to hell with it.
Len - a native Oregonian of 3 oregon generations.
-
Comments are now closed.
I am voting no on Measure 67 and here is my reason. The campaign is based on massive deception.
Voters are being given a sales pitch which sounds very good and a lot of well-meaning groups have endorsed it. The main theme is that the $10 minimum excise tax is outmoded and big corporations are avoiding taxes by paying the $10 minimum, but no one is apparently checking the numbers. I went to the Oregon Department of Revenue for more information.
If you check out the numbers you will find the impact of the $10 minimum tax is small compared to what this measure is about.
As of 2006, the most recent figures, there were 54,419 S corporations and 20,803 C corporations paying the minimum tax, with the largest 275 C corporations paying 65 percent of the total excise tax. A total of 75,222 returns paying the minimum tax times $150 equals about $11 million. Measure 67 is expected to raise $255 million, so where is the other $244 million coming from?
Besides S corporations and C corporations, Measure 67 is targeting LLCs and partnerships. LLCs already file either as a C corporation or an S corporation. Partnerships previously did not have to pay excise tax due to the partners paying taxes on their personal returns. S corporations function the same way as "pass-thru" entities.
As of 2006, there were approximately 49,000 partnership filers. Multiplying 49,000 times $150 equals about $7 million. Measure 67 also would double the corporation annual report fee from $50 to $100. There were a total of 87,901 of S and C corporations and multiplying by $50 would raise about another $4 million.
So, if you add up $11 million from the minimum tax, $7 million from partnerships, and $4 million from the annual report increase you have a total of approximately $22 million. It would probably be less due to the $500,000 gross sales factor reducing the number of minimum tax payments. This leaves at least about $230 million to be obtained from a sales tax on C corporation gross income over $500,000. A sales tax starting at $500,000 annual sales reaches down to small and medium-sized corporations, not just the "big" corporations.
Bottom line is that since most of the money proposed to be raised by Measure 67 is by a sales tax, a main selling point based on the $10 minimum tax is deceptive advertising pure and simple.