Oregon's "other" assisted suicide

[tlongII]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...11983339590.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

It's not often that citizens vote for higher taxes, but 54% of Oregonians have done precisely that. In a rolling month-long referendum by mail that ended Tuesday, they approved some $700 million in tax hikes on business and wealthy residents.

The highest income tax rate in the state moves to 11% from 9%, which will give Oregon close to the highest rate in the nation. (New York City residents pay 12.6%.) This ballot outcome runs contrary to the current public mood about spending and taxes, so it's worth exploring how it happened.

First, a deluge of money. Local and national public employee unions bankrolled the "yes" campaign, with a $6.5 million blitz in TV and radio ads. That was $2 million more than the business community and taxpayer advocates raised. The cash helped the tax increase roll up a 71% margin in the liberal precincts in and around Portland, even as it lost in most of the rest of the state.

The union message was also as clever as it was disingenuous: All of these taxes will be paid by someone else, such as Wall Street bankers, out-of-state credit card companies, CEOs. Only the richest 2.5% will pay a little more in taxes, the unions also claimed.

The reality is that these taxes will be absorbed by employers who sign worker paychecks—from Nike Inc. to the corner grocer. Two-thirds of those hit with the new 11% tax rate are small and medium-sized business owners. Phil Knight of Nike dubbed the tax initiatives Oregon's "assisted suicide" for business. The real victims of these taxes won't be wealthy business owners, who can always move away or shelter income, but less mobile Oregonians who will find it harder to get or keep a job.

One national consequence of the Oregon vote is that we are likely to see unions finance more of these tax-the-rich campaigns in other states with big deficits. Public employee unions have a lucrative racket: They essentially leverage the tax dollars they receive in dues from the salaries and benefits of their members to lobby for more tax dollars to secure even fatter pensions and pay.

The teachers unions exulted yesterday that Oregonians voted to "protect our schools and vital public services." What was really protected was the $83,402 a year average in pay and benefits to Oregon state workers, 30% higher than what private workers receive. This is bankrupting states like Oregon, California, New York and New Jersey. On the other hand, Oregon's folly will be some other state's gain.

 

[blue32]

Precisely why I voted against it. Too bad it doesn't matter now. Oh well. ) /grab popcorn

 

[tlongII]

I'm wondering what state job barfo has?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It was very clear that this was a public employee union bailout tax. The first of many.

 

[blue32]

and I cursed the new taxes as I saw the increase in food prices today at the Lloyd Center. Hasn't changed in at least a year, and after the tax, voila, 1 dollar increase in Chicken Kabob's.
Coincidence? or Chance? /shrug either way, I'm now paying more money for the same shit, the cost of this new business tax appears to now be passed onto the consumer.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

and I cursed the new taxes as I saw the increase in food prices today at the Lloyd Center. Hasn't changed in at least a year, and after the tax, voila, 1 dollar increase in Chicken Kabob's.
Coincidence? or Chance? /shrug either way, I'm now paying more money for the same shit, the cost of this new business tax appears to now be passed onto the consumer.

Seriously? You really want to go with your kabobs price went up a dollar because of a corporate tax increase that passed last week? OK....

 

[Colonel Ronan]

I'm wondering what state job barfo has?

Where is that guy?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Where is that guy?

Spending his new tax money from us.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Here's to hoping that some Portland area business's move to Vancouver because of this tax, but the people stay on the Oregon side of the river!

 

[blue32]

Seriously? You really want to go with your kabobs price went up a dollar because of a corporate tax increase that passed last week? OK....

Why couldn't it? Do you know the reason why they spontaneously rose in price when they haven't been changed for a year or more? You could argue inflation, possible but highly unlikely in this economy, you could also argue that they weren't meeting their numbers, but then you have to ask yourself, why would any business raise the price suddenly of a product? To make more money, and why? Because they're spending more money, and why are they spending more money? Because they are being taxed more money.

I mean my argument is not a long shot. It's definitely something I will think about now when I see the menu prices go up on smaller businesses that I frequent.

Why do you think it can't be the new tax imposed on businesses for the reason of product increases?

 

[barfo]

I'm wondering what state job barfo has?

I don't have a state job. I pay taxes, and, not having kids, I consume very little in services. Your tax bill is lower because I exist.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Factless, fluff.

The wsj couldn't even find Oregon on a map, let alone have any insight into how our economy operates our why our citizens vote for certain things and not for others.

Stating "It's not often that citizens vote for higher taxes" demonstrates they are completely ignorant of how our political system works, since the great majority of tax increases are approved when they make it to the ballot. All raises in taxes are voted on by citizens, or their elected representatives.

In Oregon, the voters often start the process themselves with a ballot initiative.

 

[barfo]

Why do you think it can't be the new tax imposed on businesses for the reason of product increases?

Because a $1/kabob price increase is inconsistent with the amount of the tax, unless you are the only one who buys kabobs from them.

If they'd raised prices by a fraction of a penny, then you'd have a decent circumstantial case that it was due to the tax increase.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

If every price increase soon after the tax vote is due to the tax, then every raise in wages must be due to it too. So everyone in private industry who gets a raise in the next few months should get down on their knees and thank the tax collectors. I prayed to them at last night's church service, right before we bled the cow.

 

[MARIS61]

Because a $1/kabob price increase is inconsistent with the amount of the tax, unless you are the only one who buys kabobs from them.

If they'd raised prices by a fraction of a penny, then you'd have a decent circumstantial case that it was due to the tax increase.

barfo

This is the greatest danger from this tax.

Any effect it has on raising prices will be so tiny that we'll all have to cut pennies into fractions of a cent, which could tear my trousers pockets.

 

[MARIS61]

In reality, all prices are determined soley by supply and demand, not at all by taxes.

 

[maxiep]

In reality, all prices are determined soley by supply and demand, not at all by taxes.

Three words: Dead. Weight. Loss.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

Why couldn't it? Do you know the reason why they spontaneously rose in price when they haven't been changed for a year or more? You could argue inflation, possible but highly unlikely in this economy, you could also argue that they weren't meeting their numbers, but then you have to ask yourself, why would any business raise the price suddenly of a product? To make more money, and why? Because they're spending more money, and why are they spending more money? Because they are being taxed more money.

I mean my argument is not a long shot. It's definitely something I will think about now when I see the menu prices go up on smaller businesses that I frequent.

Why do you think it can't be the new tax imposed on businesses for the reason of product increases?

The problem is it's the ONLY thing you seem to be thinking about. How much do you think your kabob place is going to pay in extra taxes per year?

 

[maxiep]

C'mon Blazer Hippie, just a little bit more...

My issue with the two measures is that they weren't taxes as much as a wealth transfer. The whole pitch was, "You won't have to pay for it, someone else will."

I'm in favor of tax progressivity, but if I were Grand Poohbah of Oregon with unlimited dictatorial powers, I would make any tax increase shared by everyone, even if it were just a dollar a month for those on the lowest end of the tax-paying spectrum. Only when everyone sees the tax is it a fair one. Taxing people just because some politician thinks they make "too much" is nothing more than legalized theft.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

C'mon Blazer Hippie, just a little bit more...

My issue with the two measures is that they weren't taxes as much as a wealth transfer. The whole pitch was, "You won't have to pay for it, someone else will."

I'm in favor of tax progressivity, but if I were Grand Poohbah of Oregon with unlimited dictatorial powers, I would make any tax increase shared by everyone, even if it were just a dollar a month for those on the lowest end of the tax-paying spectrum. Only when everyone sees the tax is it a fair one. Taxing people just because some politician thinks they make "too much" is nothing more than legalized theft.

I guess I don't see the moral argument that people are making "too much" anywhere. I don't think that at all. I don't dislike high income people... I also don't really see it as a "wealth transfer"...except maybe to people enrolled in PERS...I sure don't see any of the money...

I'm sure they considered how they could craft a measure that had a chance of passing...the way was to focus on higher income tax payers and business. I think this is a function of the referendum that required tax increase measures to be referred to a vote, right? I think more "fair" tax measures could be crafted in the legislature but they aren't likely to pass because they'll hit everyone...so in order to secure required funding they have to write measures that aren't as fair that have a chance to pass... that's why the original referendum requiring a public vote was short-sighted.

 

[oldguy]

The teachers unions exulted yesterday that Oregonians voted to "protect our schools and vital public services." What was really protected was the $83,402 a year average in pay and benefits to Oregon state workers, 30% higher than what private workers receive. This is bankrupting states like Oregon, California, New York and New Jersey. On the other hand, Oregon's folly will be some other state's gain.

I would be very interested in where the $83K came from. I don't work for the state, but to my knowledge, very few state employees make that much money. I'd also like to know where the 30% higher than what private workers receive came from. Are they comparing skilled jobs of state workers to similar skilled jobs in the private sector, or to private workers flipping hamburgers? If it's the former, that seems like a problem that needs to be dealt with. If it's the latter, that's just smoke and mirrors.

Go Blazers

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

I would be very interested in where the $83K came from. I don't work for the state, but to my knowledge, very few state employees make that much money. I'd also like to know where the 30% higher than what private workers receive came from. Are they comparing skilled jobs of state workers to similar skilled jobs in the private sector, or to private workers flipping hamburgers? If it's the former, that seems like a problem that needs to be dealt with. If it's the latter, that's just smoke and mirrors.

Go Blazers

Well, PPS is about to go on strike in 30 days and their top salary is about $70k (for 9 months) + their $10k of free health benefits for their families that they would be responsible for some or all of if they worked in the private sector...but I'd love to see the details of that study for sure...

 

[maxiep]

I guess I don't see the moral argument that people are making "too much" anywhere. I don't think that at all. I don't dislike high income people... I also don't really see it as a "wealth transfer"...except maybe to people enrolled in PERS...I sure don't see any of the money...

You haven't noticed Wall Street being demonized? You haven't heard anything about "spreading the wealth"? What do you think saying "I'll have the other guy pay for it" is? It's a wealth transfer, plain and simple.

I'm sure they considered how they could craft a measure that had a chance of passing...the way was to focus on higher income tax payers and business. I think this is a function of the referendum that required tax increase measures to be referred to a vote, right? I think more "fair" tax measures could be crafted in the legislature but they aren't likely to pass because they'll hit everyone...so in order to secure required funding they have to write measures that aren't as fair that have a chance to pass... that's why the original referendum requiring a public vote was short-sighted.

So, if Government can't sell the idea that the majority of people should pay for a tax increase, then the Government should do with less and shrink. Instead, they say, "it's only fair these people should pay just a little bit more". Okay, I think posters with the word "hippie" should pay more in taxes. After all, it's only "fair".

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

You haven't noticed Wall Street being demonized? You haven't heard anything about "spreading the wealth"? What do you think saying "I'll have the other guy pay for it" is? It's a wealth transfer, plain and simple.

So, if Government can't sell the idea that the majority of people should pay for a tax increase, then the Government should do with less and shrink. Instead, they say, "it's only fair these people should pay just a little bit more". Okay, I think posters with the word "hippie" should pay more in taxes. After all, it's only "fair".

People always find someone to blame and "Wall Street" is an easy target. But I don't ever see anything about "redistributing wealth"...but then again that's probably because I don't listen to conservative talk radio.

This is just a situation where the anti-tax folks thought they had a great idea to block all taxes...they didn't think it through, so now you will occasionally see tax measures passed by the majority of people on the minority.

The majority of voters approved new taxes to maintain a certain level of services. I am OK with that because that is the system we are dealing with. I don't think it will continue too far, though. A lot of people made a reasoned decision that this was an acceptable increase. I am one of those people and in no way am I trying to "redistribute wealth" or punish the rich. I would not vote for a tax increase if I deemed it ridiculously large or arbitrary. I think there are enough people like me that would and have defeated other tax measures if/when they go too far.

 

[maxiep]

People always find someone to blame and "Wall Street" is an easy target. But I don't ever see anything about "redistributing wealth"...but then again that's probably because I don't listen to conservative talk radio.

You don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh to know who "Joe The Plumber" is or Obama's plan about increasing taxes on only those individuals who make $200K or families who make $250K. That's wealth redistribution.

This is just a situation where the anti-tax folks thought they had a great idea to block all taxes...they didn't think it through, so now you will occasionally see tax measures passed by the majority of people on the minority.

The majority of voters approved new taxes to maintain a certain level of services. I am OK with that because that is the system we are dealing with. I don't think it will continue too far, though. A lot of people made a reasoned decision that this was an acceptable increase. I am one of those people and in no way am I trying to "redistribute wealth" or punish the rich. I would not vote for a tax increase if I deemed it ridiculously large or arbitrary. I think there are enough people like me that would and have defeated other tax measures if/when they go too far.

Yep. Just a little bit more. Those other people can afford it, and they should pay more so others can get more government. So, let's make it concrete since you and I don't agree in the abstract. Why should I pay for more services and you shouldn't? I don't even live in the state full time, yet I'm now subject to this increased tax.

 

[barfo]

I would be very interested in where the $83K came from. I don't work for the state, but to my knowledge, very few state employees make that much money. I'd also like to know where the 30% higher than what private workers receive came from. Are they comparing skilled jobs of state workers to similar skilled jobs in the private sector, or to private workers flipping hamburgers? If it's the former, that seems like a problem that needs to be dealt with. If it's the latter, that's just smoke and mirrors.

Go Blazers

Yeah, I would too. It would certainly be sad if the WSJ stooped to publishing outright lies to back up their right-wing viewpoints, but it sure appears they did in this case.

Their number is off by more than a factor of two, according to this source.

In Oregon, the average earnings for public-sector employees were more than $43,000 in 2008. While this figure is about $3,000 higher than the average wage for private-sector workers, it is significantly influenced by the high average wage ($62,700) of federal government workers. Oregon's state and local government workers had average earnings much closer to those of private-sector workers (about $41,300 and $40,600, respectively).

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

You haven't noticed Wall Street being demonized? You haven't heard anything about "spreading the wealth"? What do you think saying "I'll have the other guy pay for it" is? It's a wealth transfer, plain and simple.

So, if Government can't sell the idea that the majority of people should pay for a tax increase, then the Government should do with less and shrink. Instead, they say, "it's only fair these people should pay just a little bit more". Okay, I think posters with the word "hippie" should pay more in taxes. After all, it's only "fair".

[video=youtube;ByUOFV5TusE]


If this was the first day of taxation in our country, maybe you would have sort of an arguement here, but any extra tax on the wealthy at this point is merely a fractional return in the direction of balance. They have paid less and less and less and less. The poor have paid more and more and more and more. Reagan slashed the overall tax for the wealthiest by more than half and nearly doubled the median taxpayer's bill with his smoke and mirrors tax "reform". What followed was the largest deficit in American

The uber-wealthy in America have never paid a higher percentage in taxes than they used to. The graph has always gone the other way due to credits, deductions, write-offs, depreciation, loopholes, offshore accounts, outsourcing of jobs, foreign bases for American businesses, bribes, tax debt amnesties, tax fraud, healthcare deductions weighted in favor of the wealthy, excused property tax debt like the $45 million transfer of Facebook's Prineville property tax onto the backs of the mostly poor citizens.

You could double all taxes of any kind actually paid by the wealthy without affecting their absurdly lavish lifestyles at all.

They'd still be paying less than they were 50 years ago.

 

[MARIS61]

You don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh to know who "Joe The Plumber" is or Obama's plan about increasing taxes on only those individuals who make $200K or families who make $250K. That's wealth redistribution.

And Bush's TAX CUTS for the wealthy were also wealth redistribution. Don't remember you crying about that.

And if I pay to see a movie, THAT'S wealth redistribution.

Being a capitalist you should be happy, as wealth redistribution is the very definition of capitalism.

Without it, we'd be communists or socialists.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

You don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh to know who "Joe The Plumber" is or Obama's plan about increasing taxes on only those individuals who make $200K or families who make $250K. That's wealth redistribution.



Yep. Just a little bit more. Those other people can afford it, and they should pay more so others can get more government. So, let's make it concrete since you and I don't agree in the abstract. Why should I pay for more services and you shouldn't? I don't even live in the state full time, yet I'm now subject to this increased tax.

I disagree about your wealth redistribution...I don't believe it is.

You should pay more because you reap more benefits from the country in the form of greater income than I do. Additionally, in order to maintain an economy that can produce wage earners like yourself we need a strong economy, which is built in part upon an educated workforce which these taxes are being used to help provide.

 

[Ed O]

Yeah, I would too. It would certainly be sad if the WSJ stooped to publishing outright lies to back up their right-wing viewpoints, but it sure appears they did in this case.

Their number is off by more than a factor of two, according to this source.

Another way to get close to the WSJ number (although I'd be shocked if this is how they derive it) is this:

1. Take the 2009 State and Local Total Compensation hourly rate from the chart in your source.
2. Multiply by 40 (work week)
3. Multiply by 52 (number of weeks)

1. $39.90
2. $1596
3. $82,992

Compare that to the statement you call off by a factor of two:

"What was really protected was the $83,402 a year average in pay and benefits to Oregon state workers"

It looks like it's off by about $500 to me, and that includes local workers.

Ed O.