No on Mearsure 66 & 67

[maxiep]

This is an awful example. There is a disproportionate amount of stay at home parents in LO because it is much wealthier.

Stay at home parents has little to do with the number of administrators and support staff in the district.

 

[maxiep]

I know nothing whatsoever about the Lake Oswego school district or any other school district, so I'm not taking sides here, but those two statements are pretty hard to reconcile. Does LO have vastly more administrative personnel than other school districts in the state? Do administrative personnel work for less than the minimum wage? The difference between 3% cost and 50% headcount seems striking.

barfo

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the administration at a school, not in total. The district office takes a huge chunk of the budget.

 

[barfo]

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the administration at a school, not in total. The district office takes a huge chunk of the budget.

Well, according to this website (which I'm not vouching for, since I just found it via Ye Olde Google, and I don't even know whose ax they are grinding or whose ox they are goring), you've got it backwards. The central district office costs are 2.7% of the total. In-school admin are 6.6%.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Everyone has to work harder. 60-70 hours a week during the school year isn't unreasonable for these front office people

Why is that not unreasonable? Why should school administrators be expected to work 60-70 hours per week? What would motivate them to do that? Are you going to give them stock options in the school district? A chance at a big bonus at year end? Career opportunities? Or is this just the stick and no carrot? Work 70 hours a week or we'll replace you with random unemployed guy?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Why is that not unreasonable? Why should school administrators be expected to work 60-70 hours per week? What would motivate them to do that? Are you going to give them stock options in the school district? A chance at a big bonus at year end? Career opportunities? Or is this just the stick and no carrot? Work 70 hours a week or we'll replace you with random unemployed guy?

barfo

Interesting. You believe we won't have a shortage of physicians if they have their pay lowered and are forced to see more patients due to health care "reform" because they're motivated by altruism, but school administrators aren't similarly motivated?

They don't work very hard during the summer or during Christmas break. They can work a little harder during the school year. 60-70 hours per week isn't a ton. Lots of people work those hours.

 

[maxiep]

Well, according to this website (which I'm not vouching for, since I just found it via Ye Olde Google, and I don't even know whose ax they are grinding or whose ox they are goring), you've got it backwards. The central district office costs are 2.7% of the total. In-school admin are 6.6%.

barfo

First, you ignored the 4.3% of the total budget for "Business Services and Technology".

Second, in the "Teaching and Student Resources" heading was "Counselors and Health Services" and "Other Student Support Services". I guess I see a lot more fat to cut than do you.

 

[barfo]

Interesting. You believe we won't have a shortage of physicians if they have their pay lowered and are forced to see more patients due to health care "reform" because they're motivated by altruism, but school administrators aren't similarly motivated?

I do? I'm always interested to find out what I believe.

They don't work very hard during the summer or during Christmas break. They can work a little harder during the school year. 60-70 hours per week isn't a ton. Lots of people work those hours.

Lots of people are motivated to work those hours. I know what made you work those hours, I know what made me work those hours. I don't see what would incent every school administrator to work those hours.

barfo

 

[barfo]

First, you ignored the 4.3% of the total budget for "Business Services and Technology".

You can count that as administration if you want. I suspect some of that goes to the classroom, but even if it is all district spending, that only raises the total to 7%. A far cry from the 50% you were suggesting.

Second, in the "Teaching and Student Resources" heading was "Counselors and Health Services" and "Other Student Support Services". I guess I see a lot more fat to cut than do you.

Maybe. Do they do that student counseling in the district office? Or are those in-school services?

I'm still not seeing how LO supports almost as many administrators as students, unless it is a very unusual, very inefficient school district.

barfo

 

[oldguy]

BTW, have you ever noticed that when there's a tax increase on the ballot, it's always schools and prisons that are on the front lines for cuts? Why not the DMV or ODOT or some silly backwater? I'll tell you why: If you can't scare people, they won't vote for the increase.

We all have to do with less these days. Government should be no exception.

Did you vote for Measure 11 in '94? The majority of Oregon did, and it put building and staffing prisons to house the criminals for longer periods into direct competition with schools for state funding. I don't see it as a scare tactic as much as, that's what the voters wanted when they voted for longer prison terms.

It's hardly reasonable to say that school districts haven't felt the pain of bad economic times. Last year the Eugene district cut $20M from their budget. Next year will be more of the same, if the early forecasts are proven to be true.

Unless the state raises revenue, some combination of school kids, prisons, ODOT, health care, elderly care, college students are going to see big reductions in budget, and therefore service.

Go Blazers

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I'm sure schools need money . . . they always do.

The question for me is: is this the right place to get the money? Some corporation or high income earner is expected to help solve the school budget problem. Then the next financial problem they will go next to . . . corporations and high income earners.

Meanwhile there is no sales tax in Oregon (archaic idea. Until there is, this state will continue to try to function by bleeding property tax, income tax and now business tax.

A smart business owner would move their business and residence across the river to Washington. I understand income tax and property tax are much lower there. Is it true?

 

[blue32]

I vote for what will take less from me and the company I work for. Since I work for a large company in PDX with revenue over 600 million, that gets its revenue from small and medium sized businesses I will vote no. I do not want to have that tax passed onto the companies that we make money off of, nor do I want those companies to then raise the cost of a hot dog .30 cents or whatever number it would be to recoup the extra taxes they have to pay.

Basically raising taxes will all come back to you and I paying more money for what we want (goods and services). If things become to expensive, then we stop buying and when we stop buying companies stop hiring or terminate employees. I like my job and I don't want to be in the Oregon unemployment line.

So fuck raising taxes on businesses at this point in time, and on a side note, I would never give more money (then I am lawfully required)to the state and or schools so they can squander the fuck out of it. Those assholes are a leaky god damned faucet... one of the reasons why I avoided Multnomah county when I bought my house.

 

[yakbladder]

I'm sure schools need money . . . they always do.

The question for me is: is this the right place to get the money? Some corporation or high income earner is expected to help solve the school budget problem. Then the next financial problem they will go next to . . . corporations and high income earners.

Meanwhile there is no sales tax in Oregon (archaic idea. Until there is, this state will continue to try to function by bleeding property tax, income tax and now business tax.

A smart business owner would move their business and residence across the river to Washington. I understand income tax and property tax are much lower there. Is it true?

So you would move your business somewhere where it costs you money (i.e. sales tax) to sell each and every item?

What argument do you think does merit a tax increase for corporations or high income earners? Might the fact that high income earners pay about 1/2 what they did earlier this century merit any consideration? Certainly government was smaller then.

And as pointed out in another post, the increase towards corporations is fairly insignificant and for S-corps and joint ownership it is capped fairly low. Single proprietors aren't even affected. So whom are we really talking about here that's going to saddle up across the river?

The problem with said reasoning is that eventually you end up back in the Middle Ages. I mean, if we want to attract business shouldn't we just set the tax to zero, force people to work 100 hour weeks, work every day, and pay them dirt? Relieve them of all regulations, give them money to put plants in everywhere, and then hope to make the money off of the citizens that come here for jobs? Oh wait..then we'd be China.

 

[yakbladder]

I vote for what will take less from me and the company I work for. Since I work for a large company in PDX with revenue over 600 million,

Really? I'm interested what company in PDX makes revenues in Oregon of 600 million. I don't even think that much is spent at any one business in the state. Because that's the only thing being taxed.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

So you would move your business somewhere where it costs you money (i.e. sales tax) to sell each and every item?

What argument do you think does merit a tax increase for corporations or high income earners? Might the fact that high income earners pay about 1/2 what they did earlier this century merit any consideration? Certainly government was smaller then.

And as pointed out in another post, the increase towards corporations is fairly insignificant and for S-corps and joint ownership it is capped fairly low. Single proprietors aren't even affected. So whom are we really talking about here that's going to saddle up across the river?

The problem with said reasoning is that eventually you end up back in the Middle Ages. I mean, if we want to attract business shouldn't we just set the tax to zero, force people to work 100 hour weeks, work every day, and pay them dirt? Relieve them of all regulations, give them money to put plants in everywhere, and then hope to make the money off of the citizens that come here for jobs? Oh wait..then we'd be China.

I would sell the item in Oregon or over the internet . . . does that avoid sales tax?

I guess hitting up corporations and high income earners to solve school problems might be somewhat logical (especially to public employee union). . . but personally I am against tax increases during this time peroid (recession).

My thought with Vancouver is . . . you avoid Oregon's high property tax and high (and increasing ) income tax. All these Oregon funky ways to selectively increase taxes on certain groups to make up for a lack of sales tax. Personally I'm sick of it.

 

[maxiep]

You can count that as administration if you want. I suspect some of that goes to the classroom, but even if it is all district spending, that only raises the total to 7%. A far cry from the 50% you were suggesting.

The spending in the classroom, librarians and materials were all a part of the teacher pie. You can click on the part of the pie and it will tell you what is in each component part.

Maybe. Do they do that student counseling in the district office? Or are those in-school services?

In school. In fact, it counts under teachers.

I'm still not seeing how LO supports almost as many administrators as students, unless it is a very unusual, very inefficient school district.

barfo

I said LO has as many support staff as it did teachers. That means administrators, counselors, front office, back office, janitorial, etc.

 

[maxiep]

Did you vote for Measure 11 in '94? The majority of Oregon did, and it put building and staffing prisons to house the criminals for longer periods into direct competition with schools for state funding. I don't see it as a scare tactic as much as, that's what the voters wanted when they voted for longer prison terms.

I wasn't living in Oregon at the time.

It's hardly reasonable to say that school districts haven't felt the pain of bad economic times. Last year the Eugene district cut $20M from their budget. Next year will be more of the same, if the early forecasts are proven to be true.

Everyone has to make due with less. What's true in the private sector should be true in the government.

Unless the state raises revenue, some combination of school kids, prisons, ODOT, health care, elderly care, college students are going to see big reductions in budget, and therefore service.

That's not necessarily true. They could cut from other areas, ODOT for example. We can live with a few potholes. And teachers should be the last thing that are cut. But that's not going to get the bill passed, so they put the most critical services on the frontline to scare the populace.

Go Blazers[/QUOTE]

 

[blue32]

Really? I'm interested what company in PDX makes revenues in Oregon of 600 million. I don't even think that much is spent at any one business in the state. Because that's the only thing being taxed.

....

"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 . 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...

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The union-funded campaign for the tax measures on the Jan. 26 campaign is building a decided money advantage over the opposition campaign funded by business interests.

Vote Yes for Oregon has just reported receiving another $250,000 from the national headquarters of Service Employees International and another $30,000 from the SEIU local in Salem. Altogether, the union, which represents more employees in Oregon state government than anybody else, has given more than $1.1 million to the Yes campaign.

At this point, the business community - which formed Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes, is lagging further behind.

The totals raised now stand at:

Vote Yes....................$4.55 million
Oregonians Against.....$3.75 million




And look at the cash balance for each campaign:

Vote Yes...................$524,000
Oregonians Against.... $51,000


http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2010/01/unions_building_big_money_lead.html

 

[Eastoff]

Stay at home parents has little to do with the number of administrators and support staff in the district.

I'm sorry i read that wrong. I saw that as volunteers.

 

[Eastoff]

60-70 hours per week isn't a ton. Lots of people work those hours.

yeah they're called ulcer patients and workaholics

 

[The_Lillard_King]

SALEM — When Oregonians dig into their voters’ pamphlets this month, they’ll find that the opening and closing arguments in the section against raising taxes are actually written by the campaign to pass the tax increases.

The group Our Oregon, which is leading the campaign to pass tax Measures 66 and 67, turned in to the Oregon Elections Division the first and last of the 34 submissions on which the “Argument in Opposition” circle was checked off.

As a result, when Oregon’s 2.1 million voters thumb through the official voters’ pamphlet, which is to be mailed out at the end of the month, they’ll find pitches to vote the increase in personal and business taxes in a section where they thought they were supposed to be getting the reasons to vote against them

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/24152253-41/story.csp

 

[Eastoff]

A smart business owner would move their business and residence across the river to Washington. I understand income tax and property tax are much lower there. Is it true?

All profits made in Oregon are taxed by oregon.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

All profits made in Oregon are taxed by oregon.

The business owners own income will be taxed in Washington.

So as business owner, I sell someone an item from my business on Ebay and they live in Oregon, I have to pay taxes to Oregon?

 

[Eastoff]

The business owners own income will be taxed in Washington.

So as business owner, I sell someone an item from my business on Ebay and they live in Oregon, I have to pay taxes to Oregon?

I am not a tax expert in relation to how ebay or general online sales work. If an Oregonian goes to Washington and purchases an item, they aren't suppose to have to pay sales tax.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I am not a tax expert in relation to how ebay or general online sales work. If an Oregonian goes to Washington and purchases an item, they aren't suppose to have to pay sales tax.

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?

 

[MARIS61]

At this point, the business community - which formed Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes, is lagging further behind.

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.

 

[Eastoff]

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?

the problem is you screw over washington.

 

[Nate Dogg]

Heres a view from a guy who got laid off from a criminal justice profession position.

Oregon's Budget Nightmare: Measures 66 & 67 and How You Can Help
By Gil62
December 15, 2009, 3:30PM

I was recently laid off from my job of over 20 years as a criminal justice professional due to Oregon's worsening budget problems. I only mention that to put the following in context.

In January, Oregon voters will decide whether the state budget is bad enough already or whether to make things worse. The legislature came up with a plan to help bridge the money gap. but opponents got enough signatures to refer the plan to the voters, hence Measures 66 and 67. If passed, the measures would:

Increase the $10 corporate minimum income tax for the first time since 1931. The new minimum will start at $150.

Increase the tax rate on corporate profits in excess of $250,000 by 1.3% (above $10 million in 2013)

Increase the tax rate for singles on net personal income in excess of $125,000 (for couples, in excess of $250,000) by 1.8%

Right now, more than two-thirds of corporations doing business in Oregon pay just $10 a year in the corporate minimum income tax. The economic crisis is threatening Oregon’s ability to fund essential services like education, healthcare, and public safety, making life more difficult for all of us.

Will the proposed changes effect you? No, not unless you make over $125,000 or are a couple making over $250,000. Will they effect your business? 88% of businesses in Oregon will only pay $150 so that protects our small business owners. Sole proprietors pay nothing. And for at least three of us on my street of 18 homes, the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits will be exempt from state taxation in 2009.

As a former union negotiator, I routinely reviewed state budget documents and have looked at information on the impacts if these measures don't pass. The cuts to criminal justice and the court system alone are staggering. Here's a sampling:

Close six Department of Corrections facilities with immediate release of over 1800 inmates
Close courthouses at least one day per week (if courts are open 20% less, the current backlog will become huge)
Decrease funding for indigent defendants (if the court can't appoint counsel, the defendant can't be prosecuted or even kept in jail)
Reduce investigations by Oregon State Police of physical, sexual and other abuse of children by 50%

These cuts are not scare tactics like M 66 & 67 opponents would like you to believe. It's real this time. There are some pretty enormous impacts to all state agencies and state services that will ultimately touch each of us in some way.

Passing these measures will not get me my job back. But as an Oregonian, I care about our state and want to see some level of decent livability for us all. And that's precisely what these measures can accomplish. So please, when you get your ballot in early January, consider voting YES for both measures.

(And just to be clear, no one asked or encouraged me to write this letter. It's completely my own idea and effort.)

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

 

[blue32]

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.

Bah, that story sounds like a line of propaganda. And I normally am on the side that says "tax the rich and evil corporations. But that excerpt is just ridiculous......I don't believe it.


And Maris, you're assumption that states "most small businesses are supporting these measures" is just your opinion, you're totally reaching there with that statement trying to back up your argument. I don't see how you know how "most" small business owners will vote already.


The fact of the matter is, our state does a poor job at budget management, hold the state accountable, but do not give them more money to squander. Do not give Oregon businesses whether they be large or small another reason to lay-off more employees, or raise the price of goods and services onto the consumer to cover their newest expense.

One way or another if the tax on businesses succeeds, we the consumer, will pay for it.

 

[maxiep]

Heres a view from a guy who got laid off from a criminal justice profession position.

These cuts are not scare tactics like M 66 & 67 opponents would like you to believe. It's real this time. There are some pretty enormous impacts to all state agencies and state services that will ultimately touch each of us in some way.

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

Thank you for highlighting exactly the phenomenon to which I had referred. Once again, it's Chicken Little and the sky is falling. I call bullshit.