No on Mearsure 66 & 67

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MARIS61 said:
It is misleading and inaccurate to refer to the against side as "the business community".

Most small businesses actually support these measures and the bulk of money against is from corporations and millionaires.


BTW, 97.5% of all taxpayers will see no increase.

97% of all businesses will pay $150 or less.
Click to expand...

Link for the bolded part?
 
it's_GO_time said:
Not a tax expert myself, but it sure seems to make sense to live and work in Washington (less property and income tax) and buy all goods in Oregon.

Anyone do this and am I right?
Click to expand...

It does, hence why so many people move to Vantucky.
 
blue32 said:
....

"Integra, headquartered in Portland's Lloyd District, had sales of $683 million last year." Of course I never said it was ONLY Oregon that we do business in, and perhaps I am confusing revenue with sales, but there are conflicting articles that I am seeing..




..of course, we do business across multiple States.....so :dunno:. My previous point still stands; I don't care about the particulars/semantics of these numbers.



http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2009/12/integra_cuts_back_as_recession.html

and how fitting of an article, for this discussion...
Click to expand...

No, you are not confusing revenue with sales in this case. What % of the 683 million is listed as Oregon revenues? That's what they'll be taxed on - "the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax year". Given that they'll most likely have a team of accountants taking every write-off known to man, according to the voters' pamphlet, they'll end up paying $100K in taxes (unless I'm reading the minimum provision wrong).

Now the screwy part - that I agree is screwy - is it is based upon revenues, not sales. But I have a hard time believing that a corp that makes $600 million+ doesn't have more than $100K in pure profit off the top of that. What they actually should be doing before raising the minimum tax is to cut off many, many loopholes and write-offs that are unnecessary...but then again I'm sure some of the same people would be screaming and hollering about how Oregon is killing business and being sneaky by killing loopholes. Everyone's favorite escape is the one they are using.

What people should do immediately following this bill is draft a bill that somehow begins reorganization of some core piece of government for "efficiency" purposes and then every couple of years add another core piece. Then each side could get what they want.
 
Nate Dogg said:
Heres a view from a guy who got laid off from a criminal justice profession position.


These measures don't sound so extreme like people are making them out to be.
Click to expand...

These cuts are not scare tactics like M 66 & 67 opponents would like you to believe. It's real this time.

This is the crux of the problem I have with the measures. I have lived here long enough to have heard multiple times that if a measure doesn't pass they will close down courts and convicts will be let out of jail. I have even watched them close courts on Friday (when one measure didn't pass). . .. 3 weeks later all of a sudden they find a rainy day fund or some other money and what do you know . . . courts are open five days a week, they aren't letting poeple out of jail and public services continue.

Even this writer acknowledges that gov't will throw out a lot of threats to get tax increaes passed. These scare tactics are used every election . . . but apparently this time it is "real" . . . they say that every time!
 
Does this sound familiar:

February 27, 2009, 9:26PM
Oregon's courthouses will close Fridays starting next month to save an estimated $3.1 million by slashing the pay of 1,800 state workers by 20 percent.

The closure, which begins March 13, will affect more than 12,000 trials and other proceedings in the next four months, threatening the courts' ability to meet statutory deadlines and causing long delays in cases.

Landlords trying to evict tenants, tenants trying to protest poor living conditions, businesses trying to collect unpaid debts, drivers fighting speeding tickets, couples going through divorces, and single parents seeking child support will be among the many who will be affected.



Then:



March 12, 2009, 9:19PM
SALEM -- State courts are shuttered today, but they will re-open next Friday after lawmakers and Chief Justice Paul De Muniz struck a late deal to keep courts open five days a week.

De Muniz ordered the Friday shutdowns two weeks ago, saying it was the only way to deal with $11 million in cuts to the Judicial Department's budget ordered by lawmakers.


The agreement struck Thursday shifts $1.7 million from a project to put more court documents and procedures online. The Judicial Department also agreed to submit a plan later this month on other ways it can reduce its budget as the state grapples with an $855 million shortfall this year.
 
Last edited:
The WSJ weighs in on our choice.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...83989209884.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Oregon at the Tax Crossroad
A ballot showdown over higher rates.

A great beauty of the American federal system is that any of the 50 states can offer its policies as an experiment for others. So the nation owes some gratitude to Oregon for testing whether it is possible for a state to tax its way from deep recession to prosperity.

Oregon's unemployment rate is 11.1%, among the nation's highest. But Oregonians are now voting by mail whether to endorse a pair of tax increases passed by the legislature last year: one to raise the state's top personal income tax, to 11% from 9%, and another to raise the business income tax, to 7.9% from 6.6%. Both tax hikes would be retroactive to January 1, 2009.

The legislature and governor argue that only the state's wealthiest 2.2% percent of residents will pay this tab. Nonetheless, the liberal Portland Oregonian has editorialized against the new taxes, which it says would target "the very businesses and employers that Oregon is depending on to lead an economic recovery, start hiring again and pay the wages that support state services."

The battle in Oregon is a case study in the political drama now unfolding in many states. Essentially, it's about whether a state's wealth belongs to its public employee unions or to everyone.

The public unions are the primary drivers behind the Oregon tax hike campaign. In recent weeks, national powerhouses AFSCME and the SEIU have poured close to $1 million into the state campaign to secure passage. Oregon's public employees have one of the sweetest deals in America. Their average pay is about one-third higher than that of private Oregon workers, and Oregon public employees don't have to pay anything toward their health-care benefits.

In the last budget, the Democratic controlled state legislature doled out a $259 million pay raise to the government work force, even as the state was facing a near $1 billion deficit. In the last three years, the state has added 25,000 new public employees while losing 40,000 private sector jobs. The union TV ads say the tax hikes are needed to preserve schools, roads and public services.

The 11% income tax rate will make Oregon's income tax about twice as high as the national average. Businesses in Portland can move across the Columbia River to Vancouver, Washington and pay zero income tax. Oregonians used to argue they didn't have to pay a state sales tax. But the current tax proposal imposes a first-ever "gross receipts tax" on certain retail and wholesalers. This is a disguised sales tax.

Despite the state's well-earned reputation for sympathy with all manner of liberal causes, Oregon voters trounced two major tax-hike initiatives in 2003 and 2004. Now Oregon has reached a crossroads. If Oregon enacts these tax hikes to fund its rising public payroll after a severe recession and amid a slow recovery, we'll revisit the state in the future to see how many private workers are still there to pay the taxes.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18
Click to expand...
 
westnob said:
I am shocked. I can't believe the WSJ would be against a tax raise on the wealthy.:devilwink: OOPS I meant our job creators!
Click to expand...

Okay. Please name for me the entities that should create our jobs.

This country is about an equal opportunity, not an equal outcome.
 
Oregon at the Tax Crossroad
A ballot showdown over higher rates.

A great beauty of the American federal system is that any of the 50 states can offer its policies as an experiment for others. So the nation owes some gratitude to Oregon for testing whether it is possible for a state to tax its way from deep recession to prosperity.

Oregon's unemployment rate is 11.1%, among the nation's highest. But Oregonians are now voting by mail whether to endorse a pair of tax increases passed by the legislature last year: one to raise the state's top personal income tax, to 11% from 9%, and another to raise the business income tax, to 7.9% from 6.6%. Both tax hikes would be retroactive to January 1, 2009.

The legislature and governor argue that only the state's wealthiest 2.2% percent of residents will pay this tab. Nonetheless, the liberal Portland Oregonian has editorialized against the new taxes...

Only a far-right totalitarian isolationist could perceive The Oregonian to be "liberal", although I do believe they editorially condemned the practice of lynching way back in the late 60's.
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine who works for a small/local car dealership says that if this passes it will probably put them out of business. They'll have to pay tax based on what they sold the car for, not what they actually profited from the sale... and the taxes are retroactive, so they'll have to pay taxes on cars they sold last year. Not sure if this is true, just what I was told.
 
BeerBoy said:
A friend of mine who works for a small/local car dealership says that if this passes it will probably put them out of business. They'll have to pay tax based on what they sold the car for, not what they actually profited from the sale... and the taxes are retroactive, so they'll have to pay taxes on cars they sold last year. Not sure if this is true, just what I was told.
Click to expand...

C'mon, it's just "a little more". It's funny that the only entity that can't seem to do with less is the government.
 
Great news for everyone other than the uber-wealthy.
 
OSUBlazerfan said:
Not if your a small buisness and you make 250k/yr in revenue but only a couple thousands of dollars in net income.... sigh
Click to expand...

If that's your situation you are a horrible failure as a businessman and should probably just be working for someone who knows how to run one.

America cannot afford to subsidize your desire to "play" businessman.
 
MARIS61 said:
Only a far-right totalitarian isolationist could perceive The Oregonian to be "liberal", although I do believe they editorially condemned the practice of lynching way back in the late 60's.
Click to expand...

We should all salute this controversial stand the Oregonian courageously took at the height of the psychedelic/sexual/antiwar revolution. What forward thinking.

Was it because Canzano was close to being hanged by his readers?
 
And Oregon will soon surpass Michigan as having the country's highest unemployment rate.
 
OSUBlazerfan said:
Not if your a small buisness and you make 250k/yr in revenue but only a couple thousands of dollars in net income.... sigh
Click to expand...

Sigh indeed. If you are a small business making 250K/yr in revenue and only a couple of thousand dollars in net income, your tax used to be the greater of $10 (minimum tax) or 6.6% of $2000 (income tax). Since 6.6% of $2000 is $132, the tax under the old law was $132.

Under the new law, the tax is the greater of $150 or 6.6% of $2000.

So your tax just went up by $18/year.

Somehow I'm not feeling your pain.

barfo
 
As a wealthy industrialist making $100m/year, I will not be relocating my railroad company to Oregon.
 
MARIS61 said:
If that's your situation you are a horrible failure as a businessman and should probably just be working for someone who knows how to run one.

America cannot afford to subsidize your desire to "play" businessman.
Click to expand...

Says the realtor from La Pine! :biglaugh:
 
barfo said:
Sigh indeed. If you are a small business making 250K/yr in revenue and only a couple of thousand dollars in net income, your tax used to be the greater of $10 (minimum tax) or 6.6% of $2000 (income tax). Since 6.6% of $2000 is $132, the tax under the old law was $132.

Under the new law, the tax is the greater of $150 or 6.6% of $2000.

So your tax just went up by $18/year.

Somehow I'm not feeling your pain.

barfo
Click to expand...

You may not be feeling his pain, but people laid off because of this will be.

Oegon businesses are hurting . . . many feel they have cut as much as they can in hopes of not having to let staff go. But when you are a business on the brink of having to cut staff . . . this measure could and will push some businesses over the edge to the point of cutting staff.
 
Last edited:
it's_GO_time said:
You may not be feeling his pain, but people laid off because of this will be.

Oegon businesses are hurting there . . . many feel they have cut as much as they can in hopes of not having to let staff go. But when you are a business on the brink of having to cut staff . . . this measure could and will push some businesses over the edge to the point of cutting staff.
Click to expand...


Come on. It's just a little bit more. Just a little bit more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top