RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
csheketoff's comments:
on Wage Woes
Not only is poverty a topic the business community does not address, but also income inequality. Work alone, is not a path out of poverty for many working families with children.
The best investments we can make to boost overall income and address income inequality are investments in education -- pre-K through higher ed -- that benefit ALL Oregonians, not just the wealthy. And that takes tax dollars.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Wage Woes
"Staying and making it work" is another example of a good trait that contributes to lower per capita personal income and why per capita personal income should not be getting the attention it is getting.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Wage Woes
Also, per capita personal income (PCPI) RELATIVE TO THE NATION --- which is Tapogna's report's measure --- is NOT a measure of whether Oregon can afford the state spending Oregonians want. Over the long term per capital personal income has gone up, not down, as alleged by some. Tapogna and the business community are wrong to be focusing so much on income relative to the nation.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Wage Woes
Per capita personal income is one of many, many indicators and the business community is giving it too much attention. As noted in a recent report by economists at the Oregon Employment Department on per capita personal income (http://www.qualityinfo.org/pubs/pcpi/pcpi.pdf), many causes of our lagging the national average are beyond Oregon's control, and raising it might not be an attainable goal. They note "if Oregon attracted 10 companies, each with 1,000 jobs, and all of those jobs paid $100,000 per year, Oregon’s PCPI would rise from 91.2 percent of the U.S. level to 91.8 percent. An improvement, to be sure, but also evidence that it would take a tremendous number of new, highwage jobs to close the gap."
Notably, the business community offers no solutions to reducing Oregon's stubborn poverty rate, which is an economic indicator related to state spending.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The 2010 Election Divide
Tim has talked about cross-tab results -- such as the differing answers among Repubicans and Democrats. Please make the cross-tabs available, as well as the entire survey if not done already.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Question Time
Because Oregon has not been able to reduce the poverty rate for many years, with our increase in population we have more poor in Oregon than when you were first elected and income inequality is greater as well. Despite this, neither your economic plan nor Mr. Dudley's plan even mention poverty or the related problem of growing income inequality in Oregon. As you know, the number of poor effect our fiscal situation, not the poverty rate.
Why is your economic plan silent on poverty and income inequality, and can you commit to making poverty reduction a goal of your administration? If so, what will you do to make sure its always front and center?
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on End of the Special Session
Not only did the leg punt on dealing with Oregon's crazy law that requires us to spend, not save, unanticipated revenues, making it next to impossible to have an adequate rainy day fund for the inevitable downturns in the business cycle, but they also failed to address two easy, related issues. They didn't even hold a hearing on SB 1027, which would have returned Oregon to the practice of giving households a credit, instead of a costly check, when sending back unanticipated revenues. And they could have taken the symbolic, but nevertheless important step of increasing the size of the rainy day fund given that we just hit a 100 year flood that the 2007 legislature never anticipated. While the fund wouldn't actually grow, they would have sent an important message that we need to save more for the next downturn.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Measure 67
Given that the vast majority of businesses will pay nothing or just $150, the "retroactive" argument is specious. The only reason the measure is now so retroactive is because the opponents petitioned for referral. That's like a coach complaining that the other team is slowing down the game while also calling for every available time out.
And don't swallow the low profit margin argument hook, line and sinker. Put the figures in perspective and you will see that they are bunk.
If a grocery store really is subject to the minimum tax (in mid-2009 it was reported that Kroger, the owner of Fred Meyer stores, was having a good year because people were not eating out as much during the recession), that would mean that on a $50 grocery purchase the tax would be at most $0.05 (5 cents is one-tenth of one percent of $50). That's about the price of a paper or plastic bag (at least that's the discount they give you when you use your own) and will not result in raising the cost of food.
And remember, the Oregon Business Association is the group that pushed a minimum tax based on sales. ...OBA's plan started off higher than $150 and ended lower than what the legislature chose. Associated Oregon Industries had a flat tax, but it was also greater than $150. And both the OBA and AOI had across the board increases in the profits tax (not just on companies with $250,000 in profits) and both would have taxed all taxpayers (AOI's would have exempted only the few taxpayers who aren't in the 9% bracket). But the legislature chose to protect small businesses and picked a minimum tax rate (about one-tenth of one percent) that was well below the rate in Washington and that was only a 5 cents on a $50 purchase. When you compare that to a tip on a $50 meal at a restaurant ($15-$20) or the cost of the grocery bags on a $50 purchase at the grocery store you realize the legislature made the right decision.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Measure 67
You are wrong when you write "For most businesses this means a change from $10 to $150."
Most (about 2/3) businesses in Oregon are proprietorships which will pay nothing more under Measure 67.
Businesses that pass profits through to owners -- partnerships, limited liability companies (LLCs), limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and "s-corporations" (corporations with a limited number of shareholders that elect to pass through profits to shareholders instead of being subject to the federal corporate income tax) -- pay just $150, and only S-corps had been paying $10 - the other pass through entities had no entity tax when filing their partnership return.
And among c-corporations, those corporations that are subject to the federal corporate income tax, about 70 percent will pay either $150 (about 49 percent of C-corps) or will pay no additional profits tax under Measure 67 (about 21 percent of C-corps).
Put another way, only about 30 percent of C-corps will pay more than $150 minimum tax or some additional tax under the new tax rate for companies with profits greater than $250,000.
It is also wrong to say that "The measure would also raise tax rates by 1.3 percent on profits over $250,000." It adds 1.3 percentage points to the rate, it doesn't increase the rate by 1.3 percent.
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Tax Referrals
We need more journalists getting the accurate information out. As noted at <a href=http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/09/accountants-and-journalists-get-the-facts-straight-on-the-revenue-measures-and-stop-scaring-people.html>BlueOregon.com, too many journalists are not asking the right questions.</a>
And as noted at <a href=http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=nr20090925YesMea>www.ocpp.org, voters need to say "yes" to the tax measures</a>.
posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Jobless Recovery
Yes, it is going to be a "jobless recovery" and as noted here it is going to be many years before we have enough jobs for working age adults.
As noted here, Congress needs to enact extensions of unemployment insurance. That should have been the first order of business after getting back from the August recess.
The last recovery bill also used a carrot (money for state unemployment programs) to get states like Oregon to modernize their unemployment systems. They should continue to do the same so that more improvements can be made, such as helping part time workers can get benefits.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Taxing Questions
Talk about this with Russ Walker: The plan that Hass favors, the Or. Business Assoc. plan would increase the personal income tax rates to 6-8-10 fron 5-7-9 -- that is a tax increase on everyone!! That's not something Russ Walker would accept or voters. The House-passed version only taxes 2 percent of Oregonians, the most wealthy taxpayers.
posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context
on Taxing Questions
Fairness is paying taxes based on ability to pay, and is based on Luke Chapt. 21:
"A few pennies from a poor woman's purse cost her more than many pieces of gold from a rich man's horde."
Based on:
"1: He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury;
"2: and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins.
"3: And he said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them;
"4: for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had."
Luke, chapter 21
posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context
on Total Tax Makeover
Don McIntire's ideas have been soundly rejected by Oregonians -- M47 failed in all 35 of Oregon's counties.
We have a revenue problem that calls for revenue solutions.
I don't understand why you give Don McIntire a platform given that his ideas have been so soundly rejected by Oregonians.
Frank Morse is correct that we need to be more rational and save for rainy days, and his concern about initiatives driving up state spending (McIntire refuses to acknowledge that). But each of his proposals for a sales tax is flawed. The idea of bringing in more money but "reducing the net net tax burden" doesn't hold water.
Oregon needs to put the income back into the corporate income tax on profits and tax those households with the greatest ability to pay who today pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than the lower income households.
posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on The Art of Hard Times
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Budget Cuts Are Coming
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
on Budget Cuts Are Coming
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
on Tax and Stimulate
Paul Krugman at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/getting-fiscal/ explains why Randall Pozdena is confused when he says Romer and others would like only monetary policy now.
Simply put, with "Today, however, with expected inflation roughly zero and a recession that is the fruit of past irrational exuberance, conventional monetary policy has run out of room." As Krugman notes in the column and his talk last week in Portland, if you run the monetary policy calculation we'd need a negative interest rate.
Just as Randall Pozdena was (and is) wrong to argue that social security ought to have been privatized, he's wrong to oppose fiscal policy at this time. He's not credible and its an insult to your listeners to rely upon him. There's a reason ECONorthwest does not allow him to use ECO's name when he publishes trash for Cascade Policy Institute, and that's because it is not credible and would directly tarnish their reputation.
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
on Tax and Stimulate
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's economy.com has calculated the "bang for the buck" of different strategies (tax cuts and spending choices).
See chart on page 8 of http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/The_Economic_Impact_of_a_$750_Billion_Fiscal_Stimulus_Package.pdf.
You will see that spending increases that get money flowing into the economy work better than each of the tax cuts.
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
on Black and White and Googled All Over
Oregonlive.com is horrible...The O uses Advance.net to create the site because the Newhouse Corp owns them, as well.
Not only can you not find stories, when you do find them online they have a different date than the printed date, you have to print the comments as well as the story.
When I need an article, I go online to the library and get the story via Newsbank - because the Oregonian's search engine is so bad and the short life of online stories both combine to undermine the concept of being the paper of record.
I get early each morning a list of all stories in the Statesman-Journal, but the O can't seem to do that 7 days a week -- why it can't go out on weekends escapes me.
It's not surprising that the paper is in financial trouble.
posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context
