Measure 97

[SlyPokerDog]

This old man is educated enough to know you're just jerking our chains now for your own entertainment.......

And the rest of us sure as hell don't want to read about old dudes jerking.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

The AVERAGE CEO makes over 400x their lowest paid employee. The next country down is Japan and they make 11x...

Yeah, i am all for hard work and bettering yourself, but when there are companies with ceos making 20 million + a year while an average worker makes less than 30k.... there is a problem.

 

[dviss1]

Income inequality is a giant problem these days for sure. Its gotten really bad the past couple decades

It's the biggest problem. Money isn't the root of all evil... GREED is.

Greed creates poverty and poverty is the root of almost everything that ails society.

 

[MarAzul]

you're just jerking our chains

old dudes jerking.

Nope! I stated exactly why I opposed the tax. All I see from you is you support it and are taking a stand.

Sly, you can state your case why you like the tax too, if you will.

 

[dviss1]

Yeah, i am all for hard work and bettering yourself, but when there are companies with ceos making 20 million + a year while an average worker makes less than 30k.... there is a problem.

People complaining about Obamacare when they're premiums rise but when Stephen Hemsley made 66 mil last year nobody batted a fucking eye.

THAT'S the reason your premium went up.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Nope! I stated exactly why I opposed the tax. All I see from you is you support it and are taking a stand.

Sly, you can state your case why you like the tax too, if you will.

LOL, love that you quoted two jerking comments.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Nope! I stated exactly why I opposed the tax. All I see from you is you support it and are taking a stand.

Sly, you can state your case why you like the tax too, if you will.

I voted no on 97.

 

[MarAzul]

I voted no on 97.

Oh! Good boy!

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Nope! I stated exactly why I opposed the tax. All I see from you is you support it and are taking a stand.

Sly, you can state your case why you like the tax too, if you will.

I voted yes so you will go broke, have to sell your boat and then I can buy it for a song.....

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Oh! Good boy!

Have you thought about doing some of those memory exercises?

 

[MarAzul]

I voted yes so you will go broke

Sounds honest. I expect you and dviss have something in common here.

 

[MarAzul]

Have you thought about doing some of those memory exercises?

I do, I do.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Sounds honest. I expect you and dviss have something in common here.

Easier to sail a boat that size with two crew members......

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I do, I do.

Do what?

 

[MarAzul]

Do what?

Huh?

 

[MarAzul]

Easier to sail a boat that size with two crew members......

Four works pretty good. One works, single handed is what I do most of the time. But I have to be pretty conservative with the sail sets.

 

[blue32]

People complaining about Obamacare when they're premiums rise but when Stephen Hemsley made 66 mil last year nobody batted a fucking eye.

THAT'S the reason your premium went up.

But taxing them isn't going to solve the problem. They just pass that shit onto us AGAIN and continue to rake in their money.


And I hear these income inequality comments all the time. But I don't understand. You have people making 30K/year because they are uneducated and haven't decided to succeed in life, or they are just starting out their careers, etc.

But to compare them to people who are likely College educated, proficient to run companies and make a ton of money for their business and then scream about them making far to much, totally goes against the American way/dream. People don't start businesses to not make money and If I was the CEO of a Corp that made millions and was responsible for its leadership/guidance to success your damn right I'd be raking in the money my company earned.

I don't get it. If people don't like CEO's making millions of dollars, instead of taxing their company which passes the cost onto the consumer still making them millions of dollars, instead.............. stop buying their damn products, using their services, working for them.

 

[Sinobas]

I voted yes on 97.

So the same people that convinced us back in the 80's that if we gave them tax breaks they would trickle down to the rest of us (utter bullshit) has convinced us that if we raised their taxes that the tax would trickle down to the rest of us....

Jesus help us....

I hear ya. Oregon right now has the LOWEST business tax rate in the nation. Is our food cheaper as a result? No, the truth is you pay just about the same amount for food everywhere in the nation.

Businesses set their prices in such a way as to maximize profit. If they thought they could sell something for more, and make more money they'd already be selling it for that amount. Yet corporate profits continue to soar while the relative income if the working class shrinks because people buy into their propoganda.

If Oregon shrank the coporate tax down to 0, do you think for a second they would pass the savings onto the customers in Oregon. Sorry, the system does not work that way, and you morons who voted no have been duped.

http://news.streetroots.org/2016/10/27/economist-dispels-myths-about-measure-97

 

[blue32]

I hear ya. Oregon right now has the LOWEST business tax rate in the nation. Is our food cheaper as a result? No, the truth is you pay just about the same amount for food everywhere in the nation.

Businesses set their prices in such a way as to maximize profit. If they thought they could sell something for more, and make more money they'd already be selling it for that amount. Yet corporate profits continue to soar while the relative income if the working class shrinks because people buy into their propoganda.

If Oregon shrank the coporate tax down to 0, do you think for a second they would pass the savings onto the customers in Oregon. Sorry, the system does not work that way, and you morons who voted no have been duped.

http://news.streetroots.org/2016/10/27/economist-dispels-myths-about-measure-97

Gotta love the Dems and their Pro-Tax new era (not saying you are one Sinobas). Tax EVERYTHING, in the name of the Schools and Children! Fear-mongering B.S. while Government waste continues in Portland.

I see your economist and raise with this economist:

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/322921-201885-economist-says-no-to-measure-97

And just 18 of the 89 economists cited as supporters of Measure 97 are from Oregon.

If you want real data on this, read this:

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/lro/Documents/RR 3-16 Measure 97.pdf

"Based on the assumption that it takes 5 years for the economy to fully adjust to the new tax, the simulated result is compared with the March 2016 state economic forecast for 2022. Measure 97 essentially acts as a consumption tax, pushing up the price level but only modestly affecting the real economy. It is important to note that these results do not indicate Measure 97 will trigger a decline in Oregon’s current economic activity but rather it will modestly dampen the state’s projected growth in employment, income and population"

"Overall employment is about 20,000 lower in 2022 under the Measure 97 simulation. This has the effect of reducing the projected increase in employment over the next 5 years from 166,000 to 145,000 compared to the current law forecast. Wages and prices are expected to be higher in 2022 under Measure 97. Higher consumer prices reflect the shifting of the gross receipts tax into consumer prices. The higher wage projection results partly from a shift from lower paid private sector jobs (particularly retail trade) to higher paying public sector jobs"


Conclusions
• Measure 97 is expected to generate $548 million in new revenue in the 2015-17
biennium, $6.1 billion in the 2017-19 biennium and $6.0 billion in the 2019-21 biennium.
These estimates are adjusted for anticipated economic and structural feedback effects.

• If it were in place for the 2012-13 fiscal year (the most recent year with complete stateby-state
census data), Measure 97 would have increased Oregon’s per capita state and
local tax burden by roughly $600 to $4,501. At this level the state would have had the
20th highest per capita tax burden in that year compared to an actual rank of 28th. As a
percent of income Measure 97 would have raised taxes from an actual 10.1% in 2012-
13 to 11.6%. This would have moved Oregon to the 9th highest taxes as a percent of
income versus an actual ranking of 26th.

• Because Measure 97 is based on Oregon sales and heavily concentrated on domestic
consumer sectors, it is expected to largely act as a consumption tax on the state
economy. Taxes initially born by the retail trade, wholesale trade and utility sectors are
expected to result in higher prices for Oregon residents.

• Consumption taxes tend to have a more muted effect on economic activity compared to
taxes on income and property which more directly affect the net returns to capital and
labor. Our economic simulation shows that if Measure 97 becomes law it will dampen
income, employment and population growth over the next 5 years, but all three metrics
remain within 1% of the current law 2022 projection.

• The higher gross receipts taxes triggered by Measure 97 are expected to lead to higher
consumer prices and higher wages. Higher wages are partly the result of substituting
higher paid public sector jobs for lower paid private sector jobs, particularly in the retail
trade sector.

• The impact of Measure 97 on consumer prices means that the marginal impact of the
tax on the distribution of the state and local tax burden will be regressive. However,
Oregon’s tax system is expected to remain generally proportional, as it is now.

• Shifting the state’s tax base towards gross receipts while reducing the proportional
reliance on the personal income tax and virtually eliminating reliance on the corporate
net income tax will reduce the instability of state revenue over the course of the
business cycle.

• Both the large size of the revenue increase under Measure 97 and its concentrated
impact on a small group of large corporations add considerable uncertainty to the
LRO # 3-16 20
estimates. Measure 97 would increase total state taxes by approximately 25% and
combined state and local taxes by 15%. There is very little empirical evidence on how
state economies respond to such large changes because they rarely occur at the state
level. The concentrated impact of the measure on a relatively few large taxpayers
creates strong incentives for difficult to predict revenue reducing corporate tax planning
strategies.

• Ultimately the impact of Measure 97 on the state economy will be determined by both its
revenue raising mechanism and the state expenditures funded by the additional
revenue. Our economic simulations account for spending shifts from the private sector
to the public sector but do not incorporate the potential longer term economic capacity
expanding effects of public investments in education and infrastructure.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Gotta love the Dems and their Pro-Tax new era (not saying you are one Sinobas). Tax EVERYTHING, in the name of the Schools and Children! Fear-mongering B.S. while Government waste continues in Portland.

I see your economist and raise with this economist:

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/322921-201885-economist-says-no-to-measure-97

And just 18 of the 89 economists cited as supporters of Measure 97 are from Oregon.

If you want real data on this, read this:

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/lro/Documents/RR 3-16 Measure 97.pdf

"Based on the assumption that it takes 5 years for the economy to fully adjust to the new tax, the simulated result is compared with the March 2016 state economic forecast for 2022. Measure 97 essentially acts as a consumption tax, pushing up the price level but only modestly affecting the real economy. It is important to note that these results do not indicate Measure 97 will trigger a decline in Oregon’s current economic activity but rather it will modestly dampen the state’s projected growth in employment, income and population"

"Overall employment is about 20,000 lower in 2022 under the Measure 97 simulation. This has the effect of reducing the projected increase in employment over the next 5 years from 166,000 to 145,000 compared to the current law forecast. Wages and prices are expected to be higher in 2022 under Measure 97. Higher consumer prices reflect the shifting of the gross receipts tax into consumer prices. The higher wage projection results partly from a shift from lower paid private sector jobs (particularly retail trade) to higher paying public sector jobs"


Conclusions
• Measure 97 is expected to generate $548 million in new revenue in the 2015-17
biennium, $6.1 billion in the 2017-19 biennium and $6.0 billion in the 2019-21 biennium.
These estimates are adjusted for anticipated economic and structural feedback effects.

• If it were in place for the 2012-13 fiscal year (the most recent year with complete stateby-state
census data), Measure 97 would have increased Oregon’s per capita state and
local tax burden by roughly $600 to $4,501. At this level the state would have had the
20th highest per capita tax burden in that year compared to an actual rank of 28th. As a
percent of income Measure 97 would have raised taxes from an actual 10.1% in 2012-
13 to 11.6%. This would have moved Oregon to the 9th highest taxes as a percent of
income versus an actual ranking of 26th.

• Because Measure 97 is based on Oregon sales and heavily concentrated on domestic
consumer sectors, it is expected to largely act as a consumption tax on the state
economy. Taxes initially born by the retail trade, wholesale trade and utility sectors are
expected to result in higher prices for Oregon residents.

• Consumption taxes tend to have a more muted effect on economic activity compared to
taxes on income and property which more directly affect the net returns to capital and
labor. Our economic simulation shows that if Measure 97 becomes law it will dampen
income, employment and population growth over the next 5 years, but all three metrics
remain within 1% of the current law 2022 projection.

• The higher gross receipts taxes triggered by Measure 97 are expected to lead to higher
consumer prices and higher wages. Higher wages are partly the result of substituting
higher paid public sector jobs for lower paid private sector jobs, particularly in the retail
trade sector.

• The impact of Measure 97 on consumer prices means that the marginal impact of the
tax on the distribution of the state and local tax burden will be regressive. However,
Oregon’s tax system is expected to remain generally proportional, as it is now.

• Shifting the state’s tax base towards gross receipts while reducing the proportional
reliance on the personal income tax and virtually eliminating reliance on the corporate
net income tax will reduce the instability of state revenue over the course of the
business cycle.

• Both the large size of the revenue increase under Measure 97 and its concentrated
impact on a small group of large corporations add considerable uncertainty to the
LRO # 3-16 20
estimates. Measure 97 would increase total state taxes by approximately 25% and
combined state and local taxes by 15%. There is very little empirical evidence on how
state economies respond to such large changes because they rarely occur at the state
level. The concentrated impact of the measure on a relatively few large taxpayers
creates strong incentives for difficult to predict revenue reducing corporate tax planning
strategies.

• Ultimately the impact of Measure 97 on the state economy will be determined by both its
revenue raising mechanism and the state expenditures funded by the additional
revenue. Our economic simulations account for spending shifts from the private sector
to the public sector but do not incorporate the potential longer term economic capacity
expanding effects of public investments in education and infrastructure.

Good analysis....though I tend to believe very little of it. Sounds bought and paid for by corporate America. But where you totally lost the the argument is the part about how population growth would be dampened. I'd pay the increased taxes just to stop more people...Californians in particular.....from moving here.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Good analysis....though I tend to believe very little of it. Sounds bought and paid for by corporate America. But where you totally lost the the argument is the part about how population growth would be dampened. I'd pay the increased taxes just to stop more people...Californians in particular.....from moving here.

It disgusts me how brainwashed some people are. Saw a discussion on income inequality a month or so ago. And read online comments on fb of poor people defending multibillion dollar corporations paying them 30k/year while ceos make 20 million.

In no universe does that make sense. In the late 80s it was 20/1 or 50/1 ratios. Now you have 2000/1 ratios.

 

[blue32]

Good analysis....though I tend to believe very little of it. Sounds bought and paid for by corporate America. But where you totally lost the the argument is the part about how population growth would be dampened. I'd pay the increased taxes just to stop more people...Californians in particular.....from moving here.

I must admit it's not my argument, it was just excerpts from the document on the OregonLegislature.GOV site that I copied into here. My apologies if that wasn't clear.

I also hate the Californians moving here, but I fear they come here from destroying their own State w/their terrible tax laws. So it's only going to get worse and IMO this place is going to be little Cali in 15 years.

It disgusts me how brainwashed some people are. Saw a discussion on income inequality a month or so ago. And read online comments on fb of poor people defending multibillion dollar corporations paying them 30k/year while ceos make 20 million.

In no universe does that make sense. In the late 80s it was 20/1 or 50/1 ratios. Now you have 2000/1 ratios.

So what is your solution? To tax the company? Because the CEO is still going to make that amount. Like I suggested earlier, I would suggest that if the American people do not like this that they vote with their wallet and not patronize those businesses, or work for them.

 

[HailBlazers]

It disgusts me how brainwashed some people are. Saw a discussion on income inequality a month or so ago. And read online comments on fb of poor people defending multibillion dollar corporations paying them 30k/year while ceos make 20 million.

In no universe does that make sense. In the late 80s it was 20/1 or 50/1 ratios. Now you have 2000/1 ratios.

Much as changed since the eighty's:

America’s Shrinking Corporate Sector

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Much as changed since the eighty's:

America’s Shrinking Corporate Sector

I am well aware of things dealing with tax as it is my profession.

Does not change the fact that these ratios are absolutely ridiculous.

 

[H.C.]

And I hear these income inequality comments all the time. But I don't understand. You have people making 30K/year because they are uneducated and haven't decided to succeed in life, or they are just starting out their careers, etc.

But to compare them to people who are likely College educated, proficient to run companies and make a ton of money for their business and then scream about them making far to much, totally goes against the American way/dream. People don't start businesses to not make money and If I was the CEO of a Corp that made millions and was responsible for its leadership/guidance to success your damn right I'd be raking in the money my company earned.

...
Define uneducated people. Simply because I know people in their 40's with 4 year degrees making just over 30k a year.
They're not working at McDonalds either. Working at a company that sells shit to NASA/Intel etc.

I hear ya. Oregon right now has the LOWEST business tax rate in the nation. Is our food cheaper as a result? No, the truth is you pay just about the same amount for food everywhere in the nation.

Businesses set their prices in such a way as to maximize profit. If they thought they could sell something for more, and make more money they'd already be selling it for that amount. Yet corporate profits continue to soar while the relative income if the working class shrinks because people buy into their propoganda.

If Oregon shrank the coporate tax down to 0, do you think for a second they would pass the savings onto the customers in Oregon. Sorry, the system does not work that way, and you morons who voted no have been duped.

False, very very False.

 

[blue32]

...
Define uneducated people. Simply because I know people in their 40's with 4 year degrees making just over 30k a year.
They're not working at McDonalds either. Working at a company that sells shit to NASA/Intel etc.

In my opinion, if your in your 40's, with a degree and are under 40K you are doing something wrong, very wrong. OR, you are doing what you love and money doesn't really matter to you, in which case you wouldn't complain about a CEO making millions.

I would think that most people below 40K are un/under educated (no degree, no training, no/lack experience) or are either stuck in a dead-end job, or are unable/unwilling to succeed.

What I don't understand, is this ideology of "fairness" when it comes to ones life and money. Life isn't fair, and unless the person themselves makes a concerted effort to succeed, grow, and expand, then there is no reason why they should make the same amount of money as another person that has done so.

 

[andalusian]

I also hate the Californians moving here, but I fear they come here from destroying their own State w/their terrible tax laws. So it's only going to get worse and IMO this place is going to be little Cali in 15 years.

As a resident in SoCal and a past resident of Oregon - allow me to provide you with some real data.

The terrible tax laws that California established in 2012 has been a huge economic success. The state has gone from a huge budget crisis to having a $9b surplus estimate in 2018. The state is seeing almost $7b increase per year in revenue. At the same time - the CA economy has been either the fastest or 2nd fastest in the nation since 2013.

I would also like to point out that California does not have a problem with population fleeing it's borders, the population continues to grow by around 1% per year, same as it has been since the late 2000s.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/kansas-tax-cuts_b_5589663.html

 

[blue32]

As a resident in SoCal and a past resident of Oregon - allow me to provide you with some real data.

The terrible tax laws that California established in 2012 has been a huge economic success. The state has gone from a huge budget crisis to having a $9b surplus estimate in 2018. The state is seeing almost $7b increase per year in revenue. At the same time - the CA economy has been either the fastest or 2nd fastest in the nation since 2013.

I would also like to point out that California does not have a problem with population fleeing it's borders, the population continues to grow by around 1% per year, same as it has been since the late 2000s.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/kansas-tax-cuts_b_5589663.html

What say you of the housing crisis? And what is the State doing to make the citizens lives better w/that 7b surplus? If taxes are so great, where are the citizens reaping the benefits? Or is it just providing benefits to the illegals coming in droves across the border? I have friends that have lived there and had to move back here because of the cost of living issues. It's all over, so I am really curious where this surplus is going and who its helping.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/pf/people-moving-out-california/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...here-californians-continue-leave-state-droves

 

[andalusian]

What say you of the housing crisis? And what is the State doing to make the citizens lives better w/that 7b surplus? If taxes are so great, where are the citizens reaping the benefits? Or is it just providing benefits to the illegals coming in droves across the border? I have friends that have lived there and had to move back here because of the cost of living issues. It's all over, so I am really curious where this surplus is going and who its helping.

The cost of living in California is very high, at least at the coastal areas near the big cities, there is no doubt about that. I am also certain that there are tons of people that can not afford to live here - again, not a surprise. My understanding however is that the cost of living in Portland (in the desired areas) has also gone up quite a bit in recent years.

A partial solution for housing costs is commuting unfortunately, more affordable housing is available, you have to drive however. In our case, we wanted to live in San Diego, we moved to the bay area first because my wife's company needed her there. Once we decided to buy - it was clear that we needed to either live in a very small place or look elsewhere. We combined our desire for San Diego with the need for space and my wife had to get a different job. We would probably had to pay at least twice as much for a house like the one we bought in the bay area.

As for what the government is doing with the money - that is a good question. I am not an expert on all things California - but I do know that I do love where I live and we are very happy with the quality of public education our kids get, infrastructure seems pretty good here (just as good as or better than where we lived in Portland, for example).

I would not claim that everything is roses and it works for everyone - but the aggregate numbers seem pretty good for California, unemployment falling, GDP rising quick, steady influx of residents.

My experience in the last 5 years is from two areas, North of the bay area (Marin County) and north San Diego county. Both areas were very pleasant to live in, public education was very good in both (it is actually exceptional I think in our current locale) and the infrastructure seems good. I would say it seems a bit better in San Diego than in the bay area - but the bay area has really convoluted local codes that make building there really hard compared to other sections of California.

For the record, since I did live for many years in Portland - I would say that Portland , at least where we lived also had pretty good public education and the infrastructure was good - I also lived in NYC in the past - and both west cost locales seem to be doing much better with public funds than NYC did with when I lived there.

 

[dviss1]

Much as changed since the eighty's:

America’s Shrinking Corporate Sector

Wait what? How come it says you quoted me when you quoted @JFizzleRaider?