No on Mearsure 66 & 67

[blazerboy30]

you clearly have no idea what the taxes were like under clinton's "AWFUL depression" or even Reagan's.

Were revenues taxed during either of those instances?

 

[Eastoff]

Were revenues taxed during either of those instances?

I was referring more so to the income taxes, not the corporate taxes.

 

[Eastoff]

All of the above aside...

Do you really think companies should be taxed on REVENUE in addition to profit?

No, I think they should be taxed on profit. But how do you stop the company from just raising the wages of their C(*)O's, and thus not worrying about profit tax?

 

[blazerboy30]

No, I think they should be taxed on profit.

Then voting for this bill isn't very smart.

But how do you stop the company from just raising the wages of their C(*)O's, and thus not worrying about profit tax?

Why would you want to? If the company pays their C(*)Os higher wages, that will come back in personal income tax.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

The sentiment that big companies will want to leave this area with more taxation is so very true. Our own little silicon valley in hillsboro has been taken a hit last few years with some companies leaving the area.

I work at a prestigious engineering company and more taxes means more cuts of employees and possible relocation.....so help a brother out and vote NO

 

[jlprk]

In Washington State, the B&O Tax on businesses is a percentage of revenue, not profit. That's because it is much, much easier for the tax agency to verify revenue than it is profit. Besides ease of verification, a second reason to tax revenue, not profit, is that that's how it's done for most individuals (those not claiming a business or Schedules C or D or E, etc.) as opposed to businesses. The Standard Deduction replaces business deductions for nonbusiness (i.e. most) taxpayers. So to make it easy in Oregon, just tax sales, and allow a standard deduction to replace the easily manipulated deductions. In effect you'll be taxing profit, but also making it easy to verify for the tax agency.

As for whether businesses are leaving the state due to taxes, that same claim is made for every state. It can't be true for all states. There must be "from" states and "to" states. Does anyone have a link to a list of all states, and how many jobs were lost in a certain year due to taxes? There should be many states on the list showing job gains, because the jobs supposedly emigrated from some states to others. (I think this stuff is made up, but a credible link might convince me otherwise.)

 

[oldguy]

One thing that doesn't seem to get much notice when voters go into 'not in this economy' mode, is that, if the individual tax measure passes there will be no income taxes on the first $2400 of unemployment benefits in 2009.

Go Blazers

 

[bintim]

One thing that doesn't seem to get much notice when voters go into 'not in this economy' mode, is that, if the individual tax measure passes there will be no income taxes on the first $2400 of unemployment benefits in 2009.

Go Blazers

I can live with that, but I would rather there be no taxes on any unemployment. I can tell you from experience that you need all that and more to get by in today's economy. I can't feel too sorry for big business when they are talking about taxing my health insurance when I do get back to work. We pay high premiums now to cover the uninsured, and now they want to tax it besides? Bull Shit.

 

[barfo]

All of the above aside...

Do you really think companies should be taxed on REVENUE in addition to profit?

Isn't that exactly what a sales tax is?

barfo

 

[barfo]

This is the most idiotic, bind-boggling dumb tax measure I have ever seen. Taxing REVENUE?? Are you absolutely kidding me?

If Oregon wants to stimulate business, gain jobs, and help small business, they better do away with this. I don't see how any moron could vote to tax REVENUE in addition to profit.

Small businesses will hurt. Starting a business will become so much harder if you have to pay taxes even if you don't make any profit. It is just utter stupidity.

Yes, it would be so hard to start a business that has over $500K in revenue if you have to pay one tenth of one percent as tax. So if your startup had $1 million in revenue it would have to pay $500. Oh my god! How can they afford it? For that kind of money, they'll just move to Alabama. I mean, $500! Wow. Think how much cheaper it would be to move out of state than pay that $500.

barfo

 

[Paxil]

Yeah... Portland is so business unfriendly that one of the worlds largest complex machining plants in the world owned by Boeing out in near 181 in Gresham somehow pays zippo in taxes.

 

[tlongII]

I'm voting No on both.

 

[blazerboy30]

Yes, it would be so hard to start a business that has over $500K in revenue if you have to pay one tenth of one percent as tax. So if your startup had $1 million in revenue it would have to pay $500. Oh my god! How can they afford it? For that kind of money, they'll just move to Alabama. I mean, $500! Wow. Think how much cheaper it would be to move out of state than pay that $500.

barfo

Just a little bit more. Just a little bit more. Ah, come on. Just a little bit more.

 

[blazerboy30]

Yes, it would be so hard to start a business that has over $500K in revenue if you have to pay one tenth of one percent as tax. So if your startup had $1 million in revenue it would have to pay $500. Oh my god! How can they afford it? For that kind of money, they'll just move to Alabama. I mean, $500! Wow. Think how much cheaper it would be to move out of state than pay that $500.

barfo

Interesting that 1 tenth of one percent of one million is $500.

 

[bintim]

Just a little bit more. Just a little bit more. Ah, come on. Just a little bit more.

I'm voting YES on both of them.

 

[Sug]

That's a great theory. Who will those "lower class" work for when businesses leave, or don't come to Oregon?

LMAO this is the oldest argument in the book. Bush lowered taxes on all those people, in turn they made silly investments with the money and dam near bankrupted the country. Now we have record unemployment with the lowest taxes in over 70 years. Where did that get us?

 

[bintim]

LMAO this is the oldest argument in the book. Bush lowered taxes on all those people, in turn they made silly investments with the money and dam near bankrupted the country. Now we have record unemployment with the lowest taxes in over 70 years. Where did that get us?

DAMN....... I was just starting to calm down and you had to post this. That is so true. I am going to have to stay left of center, but don't push me too far, it's scary over there, and I would still shoot you if you attacked my home.

 

[blazerboy30]

LMAO this is the oldest argument in the book. Bush lowered taxes on all those people, in turn they made silly investments with the money and dam near bankrupted the country. Now we have record unemployment with the lowest taxes in over 70 years. Where did that get us?

That's some good comedy right there. Thank you.

 

[barfo]

Interesting that 1 tenth of one percent of one million is $500.

It's not that interesting if you read the bill. The maximum payment is one tenth of one percent, but not everyone pays that much.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Just a little bit more. Just a little bit more. Ah, come on. Just a little bit more.

Sorry, I'm not interested in you in that way.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

So none of you conservatives, who (in whichever state you live) always claim that your state is taxed more than most states, can show me a link to the list of states, showing how many jobs each lost due to their taxes?

I think it would be put out by the organization that claims that all your income up to about April 15 each year goes to taxes. Only then each year, supposedly, do you start working for yourself instead of the government.

See, here in Washington, we have no state income tax. Yet we hear the same propaganda every other state does--that we are a business-unfriendly state because we have something like the 6th highest taxes in the nation.

It's all made up by conservatives and always has been.

As for whether businesses are leaving the state due to taxes, that same claim is made for every state. It can't be true for all states. There must be "from" states and "to" states. Does anyone have a link to a list of all states, and how many jobs were lost in a certain year due to taxes? There should be many states on the list showing job gains, because the jobs supposedly emigrated from some states to others. (I think this stuff is made up, but a credible link might convince me otherwise.)

 

[maxiep]

So none of you conservatives, who (in whichever state you live) always claim that your state is taxed more than most states, can show me a link to the list of states, showing how many jobs each lost due to their taxes?

I think it would be put out by the organization that claims that all your income up to about April 15 each year goes to taxes. Only then each year, supposedly, do you start working for yourself instead of the government.

See, here in Washington, we have no state income tax. Yet we hear the same propaganda every other state does--that we are a business-unfriendly state because we have something like the 6th highest taxes in the nation.

It's all made up by conservatives and always has been.

I think the greater point is that if you want to encourage employment growth in your state, you don't raise taxes on businesses. After all, the more the government takes from the company, the less the company is able to hire.

 

[blazerboy30]

So none of you conservatives, who (in whichever state you live) always claim that your state is taxed more than most states, can show me a link to the list of states, showing how many jobs each lost due to their taxes?

I think it would be put out by the organization that claims that all your income up to about April 15 each year goes to taxes. Only then each year, supposedly, do you start working for yourself instead of the government.

See, here in Washington, we have no state income tax. Yet we hear the same propaganda every other state does--that we are a business-unfriendly state because we have something like the 6th highest taxes in the nation.

It's all made up by conservatives and always has been.

Is the only place for companies to move, or grow in another state? They can't grow in other countries?

 

[blazerboy30]

Yes, it would be so hard to start a business that has over $500K in revenue if you have to pay one tenth of one percent as tax. So if your startup had $1 million in revenue it would have to pay $500. Oh my god! How can they afford it? For that kind of money, they'll just move to Alabama. I mean, $500! Wow. Think how much cheaper it would be to move out of state than pay that $500.

barfo

It isn't hard to find many, many small businesses that had multiple millions in sales this last year, but made zero profit, cut wages and laid people off.

Where do you think that extra X thousands of dollars in tax will come from?

 

[maxiep]

Again, focusing on the larger issue, does anyone ever ask why companies aren't hiring? Given the nature of our company, we get an unique view of what many different companies in disparate industries think of the future. Our verdict? They're terrified. Why? They can't begin to plan for the future due to government policies. What if health care goes through? What if cap and trade goes through? How do we pay for all this spending? Are we going to be allowed to compensate our employees as we see fit? What if unions get card check? How are consumers going to be able to afford our products?

Firms are wringing every bit of productivity they can out of their workforce. Hiring employees is expensive. They're trying to lower expenses--including the size of their facilities--across the board. There is a huge anti-business wave right now, and companies are hunkering down. Raising taxes on these firms will only cause them to retreat further in their shell.

 

[bintim]

Again, focusing on the larger issue, does anyone ever ask why companies aren't hiring? Given the nature of our company, we get an unique view of what many different companies in disparate industries think of the future. Our verdict? They're terrified. Why? They can't begin to plan for the future due to government policies. What if health care goes through? What if cap and trade goes through? How do we pay for all this spending? Are we going to be allowed to compensate our employees as we see fit? What if unions get card check? How are consumers going to be able to afford our products?

Firms are wringing every bit of productivity they can out of their workforce. Hiring employees is expensive. They're trying to lower expenses--including the size of their facilities--across the board. There is a huge anti-business wave right now, and companies are hunkering down. Raising taxes on these firms will only cause them to retreat further in their shell.

The reason we are in this mess is idiotic greedy lending practices. Banks won't lend money for construction or business. Meet in the middle and get this shit back on track. I guess I'm a moderate.

 

[maxiep]

The reason we are in this mess is idiotic greedy lending practices. Banks won't lend money for construction or business. Meet in the middle and get this shit back on track. I guess I'm a moderate.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what do you mean by "idiotic greedy lending practices"? Banks are in business to make money. Why should I make a loan that's going to lose money?

I understand your issue. Hell, I'm in real estate. I know the problems the industry is facing, but lending businesses more money isn't going to increase construction. Why build when there's a sufficient inventory?

If you want an idiotic lending practice, make a loan that you know won't be repaid.

 

[bintim]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what do you mean by "idiotic greedy lending practices"? Banks are in business to make money. Why should I make a loan that's going to lose money?

I understand your issue. Hell, I'm in real estate. I know the problems the industry is facing, but lending businesses more money isn't going to increase construction. Why build when there's a sufficient inventory?

If you want an idiotic lending practice, make a loan that you know won't be repaid.

Why would you give an adjustable rate mortgage to someone who can barely make the low interest initial payment? Seems like an idiotic lending practice to me.

 

[maxiep]

Why would you give an adjustable rate mortgage to someone who can barely make the low interest initial payment? Seems like an idiotic lending practice to me.

Then I think we agree.

 

[blazerboy30]

Why would you give an adjustable rate mortgage to someone who can barely make the low interest initial payment? Seems like an idiotic lending practice to me.

I think most would agree with you on that. You're forgetting that without government intervention, all of those banks would have had incentive to make safe, secure loans in order to make the most money for themselves.

Perhaps you can start with the CRA (community reinvestment act).

a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[65]

Does that make it sound like MORE government intervention would help?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act