66 & 67 on the books! Good for Oregon

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Yet another person who can't do math. I guess this tax bill is sort of Darwinian, it weeds out the weak (of mind) from the businessperson herd.

To have measure 67 cost him an extra $5000, he'd have to be making a profit of $634,000, or else have revenue of over $7 million. In neither of those cases could it possibly make sense to close the business due to a $5K tax bill.

barfo

I know he doesn't make that kind of money. But what does it matter? The measure passed. He suddenly owes thousands. He's closed. He's broke. He's unemployed. And the public employees get their wonderful taxpayer retirement indefinitely. That was the whole reason for the taxes.

 

[barfo]

I know he doesn't make that kind of money. But what does it matter? The measure passed. He suddenly owes thousands. He's closed. He's broke. He's unemployed. And the public employees get their wonderful taxpayer retirement indefinitely. That was the whole reason for the taxes.

He doesn't suddenly owe thousands, that's the point. He's either lying to you, or he's misinformed. If he doesn't make that kind of money, he doesn't suddenly owe thousands.

It would be sort of sad if he closed his business thinking that he owed $5000 when he really only owes an extra $140, but given the level of misinformation being doled out on this board, it seems not unlikely.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

He doesn't suddenly owe thousands, that's the point. He's either lying to you, or he's misinformed. If he doesn't make that kind of money, he doesn't suddenly owe thousands.

It would be sort of sad if he closed his business thinking that he owed $5000 when he really only owes an extra $140, but given the level of misinformation being doled out on this board, it seems not unlikely.

barfo

Gee, barfs, YOU wouldn't be lying, would you?

Do you remember a couple of years ago a couple from K. Falls down at a swanky resort, by a pool and each had a drink in their hands on the cover of The Oregonian? They were friends of mine. They met in collage, got teacher degrees, married, worked for 30 years until age 54 as teachers, retired and each got 110% of their $67,000 per year pay for life with full free benefits added to that. THAT'S what the ballot measures were for. The union told the state what they demanded in a retirement, the state caved because they slept together and now that retirement program has bankrupted us. We have to raise taxes to pay for it. And we will again. And again. And again. And again... Had the union and state worked out a nice 401K with the state matching up to 5% or something like that, we'd have no problems at all and many social services and education woujld have substantially more money to work with then they do now.

The whole thing makes me ill. A close friend losing his business over lies. Damn lies. I was a democrat when I was much younger, but the lies and lack of morality drove me to be a moderate and independent. Damn lies.

 

[barfo]

Gee, barfs, YOU wouldn't be lying, would you?

No, I wouldn't be, but if you doubt that it is simple enough to go read the ballot measures for yourself and see what they say.

If you choose to believe nonsense instead of actually looking at the numbers I can't help you. It's literally not possible that your friend suddenly owes thousands of dollars of tax, if the situation is as you described it. This is a question of fact, not opinion.

Do you remember a couple of years ago a couple from K. Falls down at a swanky resort, by a pool and each had a drink in their hands on the cover of The Oregonian?

I do, vaguely.

They were friends of mine. They met in collage, got teacher degrees, married, worked for 30 years until age 54 as teachers, retired and each got 110% of their $67,000 per year pay for life with full free benefits added to that. THAT'S what the ballot measures were for. The union told the state what they demanded in a retirement, the state caved because they slept together and now that retirement program has bankrupted us. We have to raise taxes to pay for it. And we will again. And again. And again. And again... Had the union and state worked out a nice 401K with the state matching up to 5% or something like that, we'd have no problems at all and many social services and education woujld have substantially more money to work with then they do now.

All right, that's a nice rant but it doesn't make the claim that your other friend now owes thousands any less false.

The whole thing makes me ill. A close friend losing his business over lies. Damn lies. I was a democrat when I was much younger, but the lies and lack of morality drove me to be a moderate and independent. Damn lies.

I think you are the one lying here, or repeating lies. Your friend didn't lose his business over this tax. That's a lie.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

I would guess that the friend isn't lying. He's just an idiot who can't do math, and can't run a business successfully, so he blames his failure on this new tax.

I can see both sides--while I think the new tax is miniscule, I also do think that government employees are overpaid. That includes teachers (I hear the conservatives cheering), police, and military (I hear conservatives booing). You could cut all their paychecks in half and you'd still have applicants lined up because of the pensions, health benefits, and security that your employer won't be going bankrupt.

Students are consistently raped on tuition, books, parking etc. Hell, they charge over $700 for a small dorm that you share with another person. It's highway robbery.

I once did payroll for a college department, and I can tell you that professors are paid maybe about $90-100K per year. (Nothing like doctors, who averaged $350-400K when I did their taxes.) But the college department also employees secretaries who ostensibly supervise (babysit) students working there on work-study. If they work hard and ignore the infant sycophants around them, they are fired for being unpopular with you young punks. That's where a lot of nonprofessorial payroll gets wasted.

Someone said his college enrollment is up, then we hear of construction. Cause and effect. I agree that colleges get too many shiny new buildings. The old ones are left 90% empty.

This is just gibberish.

What that means is that NateBishop said that business is booming on college, and asked why must the average tuition increase? Then Sug said that colleges are building new buildings. Obviously, the large enrollment is the cause, and the new buildings are the effect. That explains where the money is going. In economics (if any of you are fortunate enough to last in college) you will find that booming business means a lower unit cost (because fixed overhead becomes overcovered) until expansion of capacity is required to continue the boom. Adding that new capital construction cost onto the operating cost then makes unit costs go up, contrary to your expectations of savings from the economy of scale (which is higher enrollment in this case).

If you don't get it, it's okay. Conservatives are idiots, and liberals must be infinitely patient with your childlike minds. But hey, keep on hollering and giving us a lifetime of entertainment.

As for new buildings causing old buildings to be 90% empty, you should see public college campuses in Washington State. Check out Western WA U in Bellingham. Every couple of years they finish a new useless building with all-glass sides. Then they desert an old one and claim it will be used somehow. I once asked an Olympia auditor who spoke to our accounting class, why the brand new building we were in had a never-used $500 TV mounted to the wall, in every single classroom. He had no answer. If you want to decrease government spending, you'll have to investigate the nuts and bolts, not just whine about every tax measure and expect government to decrease itself.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

Oregon ranks 41st in total tax burden per capita... that's why the schools suck... All the BS arguments I hear about how high taxes are in Oregon are without factual basis...

 

[Natebishop3]

I would guess that the friend isn't lying. He's just an idiot who can't do math, and can't run a business successfully, so he blames his failure on this new tax.

I can see both sides--while I think the new tax is miniscule, I also do think that government employees are overpaid. That includes teachers (I hear the conservatives cheering), police, and military (I hear conservatives booing). You could cut all their paychecks in half and you'd still have applicants lined up because of the pensions, health benefits, and security that your employer won't be going bankrupt.



I once did payroll for a college department, and I can tell you that professors are paid maybe about $90-100K per year. (Nothing like doctors, who averaged $350-400K when I did their taxes.) But the college department also employees secretaries who ostensibly supervise (babysit) students working there on work-study. If they work hard and ignore the infant sycophants around them, they are fired for being unpopular with you young punks. That's where a lot of nonprofessorial payroll gets wasted.





What that means is that NateBishop said that business is booming on college, and asked why must the average tuition increase? Then Sug said that colleges are building new buildings. Obviously, the large enrollment is the cause, and the new buildings are the effect. That explains where the money is going. In economics (if any of you are fortunate enough to last in college) you will find that booming business means a lower unit cost (because fixed overhead becomes overcovered) until expansion of capacity is required to continue the boom. Adding that new capital construction cost onto the operating cost then makes unit costs go up, contrary to your expectations of savings from the economy of scale (which is higher enrollment in this case).

If you don't get it, it's okay. Conservatives are idiots, and liberals must be infinitely patient with your childlike minds. But hey, keep on hollering and giving us a lifetime of entertainment.

As for new buildings causing old buildings to be 90% empty, you should see public college campuses in Washington State. Check out Western WA U in Bellingham. Every couple of years they finish a new useless building with all-glass sides. Then they desert an old one and claim it will be used somehow. I once asked an Olympia auditor who spoke to our accounting class, why the brand new building we were in had a never-used $500 TV mounted to the wall, in every single classroom. He had no answer. If you want to decrease government spending, you'll have to investigate the nuts and bolts, not just whine about every tax measure and expect government to decrease itself.

You know, if you had cut the insults and hyperbole out, that would have been a decent post.

 

[jlprk]

Typical lefty crap.



This is just gibberish.

This guy brings out the fighting spirit in me. You seem better. I'll try to distinguish next time I answer both of you.

 

[blazerboy30]

This guy brings out the fighting spirit in me. You seem better. I'll try to distinguish next time I answer both of you.

It is natural for your defensive, fighting spirit to come out when you are clearly wrong and looking ignorant. Don't feel bad.

 

[blazerboy30]

Yet another person who can't do math. I guess this tax bill is sort of Darwinian, it weeds out the weak (of mind) from the businessperson herd.

To have measure 67 cost him an extra $5000, he'd have to be making a profit of $634,000, or else have revenue of over $7 million. In neither of those cases could it possibly make sense to close the business due to a $5K tax bill.

barfo

Are you claiming that any business with sales / revenues of several million dollars won't have any trouble paying several thousand more in taxes?

 

[barfo]

Are you claiming that any business with sales / revenues of several million dollars won't have any trouble paying several thousand more in taxes?

I'm saying that a business with revenues of millions of dollars is very very badly managed if they have to close due to an unexpected bill for $5,000.

If a $5000 bill can knock down your business, your business is going to get knocked down, tax or not.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm saying that a business with revenues of millions of dollars is very very badly managed if they have to close due to an unexpected bill for $5,000.

It might not mean closing the business, but cutting an employee. Unless, of course, the owner wants to continue taking a loss on his business while keeping extra employees.

If a $5000 bill can knock down your business, your business is going to get knocked down, tax or not.

barfo

Again, looking at everything in a vacuum. Obviously times have been bad for awhile now. Most likely these companies have already cut and cut and cut. Another $5000 bill will just require more cuts.

Unless you think there are no companies continuing to stay in business even while posting zero, or negative profits.

 

[barfo]

Unless you think there are no companies continuing to stay in business even while posting zero, or negative profits.

We were discussing a company that supposedly went out of business due to a supposed $5000 tax bill. I didn't create that scenario for discussion. I find it implausible.

Any rational manager of a multi-million dollar business, whether it is making or losing money, knows that unexpected $5k expenses happen, and not infrequently.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

We were discussing a company that supposedly went out of business due to a supposed $5000 tax bill. I didn't create that scenario for discussion. I find it implausible.

Any rational manager of a multi-million dollar business, whether it is making or losing money, knows that unexpected $5k expenses happen, and not infrequently.

barfo

Gotcha. I guess it is a different argument then, but that $5k extra cost very well could mean cutting another employee.

 

[barfo]

Gotcha. I guess it is a different argument then, but that $5k extra cost very well could mean cutting another employee.

I agree, it could.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

The original claim was that the new tax would cause businesses to move out of state. Then the claim became that a $5000 tax would cause a business to go under. Then Barfo showed that the business would have to make $7 million per year in sales to pay that much. So the claim evolved into, this might cause one layoff.

But $5000 is a small fraction of one full-time equivalent employee. So it might cause one employee to lose 1/6 of his hours, like maybe 5-7 hours per week.

This is a long way from the original claim, that the new tax will cause businesses to move out of state.

 

[blazerboy30]

This is a long way from the original claim, that the new tax will cause businesses to move out of state.

I'll ask you again...

What about a bunch of examples of companies moving into the state BECAUSE of the tax breaks and incentives they received?

 

[jlprk]

Well, why don't you present the list? It will be short, yet expensive to the taxpayers. To get one major company to move here, you have to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, which has to be made up for by all other taxpayers. And it causes other states to have to compete by doing the same, in an eternal spiral of competition, so that later we must give even more breaks to get more companies, on and on forever.

Come to think of it, the tax breaks to a few large companies (that you praise) might be what forced the current small tax increase to everyone else (that you dislike).

 

[blazerboy30]

To get one major company to move here, you have to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, which has to be made up for by all other taxpayers.

This doesn't make sense.

There isn't a negative cashflow from the state by getting a company to move to the state with tax incentives. If the company didn't move to the state, the state wouldn't get any tax revenue anyway. (For now I'll ignore smaller, secondary terms such as increased road wear).

 

[Ed O]

This doesn't make sense.

There isn't a negative cashflow from the state by getting a company to move to the state with tax incentives. If the company didn't move to the state, the state wouldn't get any tax revenue anyway. (For now I'll ignore smaller, secondary terms such as increased road wear).

If tax breaks are given generally, and not just to NEW businesses, then the state could lose money even if they attract new businesses (since existing businesses would pay less, even if new businesses would pay more than the $0 they did before).

I don't live in Oregon. It's not really my business. I do have a long-time friend who has an internet-based company that he plans on moving out of the state.

Ed O.

 

[Sug]

Clearly the Bush tax cuts created a long term financially secure future for the United States, and therefore we should listen to all of these "economists". Economics is a lot like religion, you believe what you want regardless of what you see. It is a faith, a language created by men to try and explain the way things work. In general there is not one economic theory that can actually stand the test of time, and the majority of economics gets turned on it's head and remixed to simply explain away why the original theory did not hold. It is a bunch of garbage that really is based on bullshit.

 

[Stevenson]

Then Sug said that colleges are building new buildings. Obviously, the large enrollment is the cause, and the new buildings are the effect. That explains where the money is going. .

At least get your facts right if you are going to be righteous. The new buildings money is from the stimulus law. Money from taxes or tuition have NOTHING to do with it.

 

[maxiep]

Clearly the Bush tax cuts created a long term financially secure future for the United States, and therefore we should listen to all of these "economists". Economics is a lot like religion, you believe what you want regardless of what you see. It is a faith, a language created by men to try and explain the way things work. In general there is not one economic theory that can actually stand the test of time, and the majority of economics gets turned on it's head and remixed to simply explain away why the original theory did not hold. It is a bunch of garbage that really is based on bullshit.

Spoken like someone who has never studied the field with any seriousness. Thank you for putting the limelight on your own ignorance.

 

[jlprk]

At least get your facts right if you are going to be righteous. The new buildings money is from the stimulus law. Money from taxes or tuition have NOTHING to do with it.

The stimulus is paying for all new college buildings? Even the ones already under construction (and thus previously funded) that were seen by Sug? That would be quite a fast reaction. How did the previous funding get refunded to its previous sources, once the new stimulus funding replaced it? That would be quite a newsworthy accounting transaction. I must have missed it. Please provide a link so I can learn some accounting.

All I know is that for decades, colleges and other governmental entities have maintained capital construction funds, by allocating part of operating inflows to them, such as from tuition. Obviously, there are other sources, like private contributions, special amounts from the state dedicated only to new buildings, etc. But it would answer the question of, with all this increased enrollment, why is tuition still going up? --At least partially because of new buildings, some of which I consider unnecessary.

 

[barfo]

But it would answer the question of, with all this increased enrollment, why is tuition still going up? --At least partially because of new buildings, some of which I consider unnecessary.

Maybe you are right about the buildings, but I think I am righter about the subsidies.

If you have one student, who pays $30 for tuition, and it costs $100 to educate him, and taxes pay $70, then you have a balanced budget.

Add one more student without raising taxes, and now you have a shortfall of $70. You can raise taxes $70, or you can raise tuition $70, but you have to do one or the other - usually both - to subsidize that extra student.

Increased enrollment causes higher tuition.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

You are right. Increased enrollment (without increasing per-student tax income) causes higher tuition. All this posting has been to answer this.

Explain to me how admissions at PCC and PSU are the highest they've been in decades, and yet tuition goes up.

 

[Sug]

Spoken like someone who has never studied the field with any seriousness. Thank you for putting the limelight on your own ignorance.

Economists and faith healers share the same master; fear. If the field was a "serious" subject than we would have gotten it right at some point. It certainly is not nearly as developed as say medicine, construction, design, art, writing, literature, science. All of these fields have been advanced over the last 100 years, yet economics remains a theory without proof of concept. It is actually evident that the definitions that are often used to explain economic situations are constantly adjusted to meet the failures to explain why the original theories were incorrect.

Economists are famous for semantic shifts to cover their ass when everything they believe to be true never comes to be. As a result we have competing theories, false beliefs, and a multilayered theory that only holds itself up by inserting new explanations to why things are the way they are. It is a form of religion, a belief system that is held together by true believers and cynics. It is the language of the wealthy to help justify the way they do business. You can put labels on things like factors of production, capital, labor, trickle down, etc. At the end of the day it is simply a way for people to put their spin on how people should function around the idea of exchanging goods and services.

 

[barfo]

Economists and faith healers share the same master; fear. If the field was a "serious" subject than we would have gotten it right at some point. It certainly is not nearly as developed as say medicine, construction, design, art, writing, literature, science. All of these fields have been advanced over the last 100 years, yet economics remains a theory without proof of concept. It is actually evident that the definitions that are often used to explain economic situations are constantly adjusted to meet the failures to explain why the original theories were incorrect.

Economists are famous for semantic shifts to cover their ass when everything they believe to be true never comes to be. As a result we have competing theories, false beliefs, and a multilayered theory that only holds itself up by inserting new explanations to why things are the way they are. It is a form of religion, a belief system that is held together by true believers and cynics. It is the language of the wealthy to help justify the way they do business. You can put labels on things like factors of production, capital, labor, trickle down, etc. At the end of the day it is simply a way for people to put their spin on how people should function around the idea of exchanging goods and services.

I'm gonna stick up for maxiep here and say that I think you are not giving economists enough credit. It's a hard problem. It's like predicting the weather. The state of the art isn't advanced enough to make accurate predictions on a short timescale [and it has the added problem that, unlike the weather, predictions of the economy can affect the economy]. That doesn't mean the economic tools we have today are useless - they'll be the basis for whatever advances we make in understanding economics in the future.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Economists and faith healers share the same master; fear. If the field was a "serious" subject than we would have gotten it right at some point. It certainly is not nearly as developed as say medicine, construction, design, art, writing, literature, science. All of these fields have been advanced over the last 100 years, yet economics remains a theory without proof of concept. It is actually evident that the definitions that are often used to explain economic situations are constantly adjusted to meet the failures to explain why the original theories were incorrect.

Economists are famous for semantic shifts to cover their ass when everything they believe to be true never comes to be. As a result we have competing theories, false beliefs, and a multilayered theory that only holds itself up by inserting new explanations to why things are the way they are. It is a form of religion, a belief system that is held together by true believers and cynics. It is the language of the wealthy to help justify the way they do business. You can put labels on things like factors of production, capital, labor, trickle down, etc. At the end of the day it is simply a way for people to put their spin on how people should function around the idea of exchanging goods and services.

Thank you for reinforcing my previous opinion of your understanding. It turns out your ignorance on the subject is not only deep, but wide. I'm interested in your explanation to the error of the invisible hand, moral hazard, the Nash equilibrium, the Cournot duopoly, CAPM or even Black-Scholes. Assumptions are made because in the end you're trying to determine human behavior, which isn't always rational. In that sense, it's no different than other social sciences. Your error seems to be that you wish to treat it as a natural science. Like I said, your problem is ignorance in how to use the tools in the toolbox.

 

[Stevenson]

Thank you for reinforcing my previous opinion of your understanding. It turns out your ignorance on the subject is not only deep, but wide..

Yes, yes, we know - everyone is ignorant but you. At least we don't have time to post over 9,000 (!) times on this board. Your alleged intelligence is either strangely prioritized, misused, or BS. I know what I think, but whatever the case, it's kind of a joke given that you spend all day . . . here.