Conservative Oregon cities? (Beaverton, Bend, Beaver: unemployment rate, income, sales tax)

[Dual Citizen CA-OR]

Originally Posted by metaljaybird

Used to be, you had to be a large property owner to vote. There is something to say about a nation that allows massive amounts of dependents vote. Not saying I'm against it, but of course, certain liberal enclaves are going to have higher taxes against the middle class and wealthy if the majority of their constituents fall under the poverty line.

A country that would only allow the wealthy to vote says a lot more.

No, while liberal enclaves may have higher taxes on the wealthy, it’s the conservative enclaves who’re going to have higher taxes on the middle class. And btw, while they may no think so, people earning 250K or above are way beyond the middle class.

[metaljaybird]

Originally Posted by Dual Citizen CA-OR

A country that would only allow the wealthy to vote says a lot more.

No, while liberal enclaves may have higher taxes on the wealthy, it’s the conservative enclaves who’re going to have higher taxes on the middle class. And btw, while they may no think so, people earning 250K or above are way beyond the middle class.

You see, I'm not for taxing one person higher than another. I think that's very un-liberal in the classical sense of the word liberal.

I guess it depends where you live. In Northern NJ, where I live, 250 is a nice piece of change, but it's not exactly extreme wealth.

A democracy (of which we technically aren't) serves the few against the many.

[BendBeav]

Originally Posted by metaljaybird

Used to be, you had to be a large property owner to vote. There is something to say about a nation that allows massive amounts of dependents vote. Not saying I'm against it, but of course, certain liberal enclaves are going to have higher taxes against the middle class and wealthy if the majority of their constituents fall under the poverty line.

Yes, and around that same time, other "dependents" who were responsible for doing all the yard work for the landowners were also not allowed to vote. We called 'em slaves.

And it's interesting that you think poor people voting will result in the tax burden shifting to the rich. The poorest states in the union (Alabama, Mississippi, Alaska, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, etc.) all vote Republican, every year. And the GOP does anything but tax the rich.

[BendBeav]

Originally Posted by metaljaybird

You see, I'm not for taxing one person higher than another. I think that's very un-liberal in the classical sense of the word liberal.

I guess it depends where you live. In Northern NJ, where I live, 250 is a nice piece of change, but it's not exactly extreme wealth.

A democracy (of which we technically aren't) serves the few against the many.

Yes you are. At least if you support right-wing economics you support taxing the poor and middle class disproportionately over the rich, who use their lobbying power to game the political system in their favor, and institutionalize loopholes and oil company subsidies, etc.

We tax the rich more because it's easier to sell of your timeshare in Florida than it is to sell the only family car and go without heat. It's called being a decent human being.

[Dual Citizen CA-OR]

Originally Posted by metaljaybird

You see, I'm not for taxing one person higher than another. I think that's very un-liberal in the classical sense of the word liberal...

That may be true, but not taxing one person higher than another is very conservative in every sense of the word.

Originally Posted by metaljaybird

...I guess it depends where you live. In Northern NJ, where I live, 250 is a nice piece of change, but it's not exactly extreme wealth...

Granted 250k may not be extreme wealth, but considering that only 2% of American households make that kind of money, it puts them in a very exclusive group.

[Mr.SmithW]

Sure take all the money from those who give the poor their jobs and then the poor won't have anyone to leach from.. Mom and pop businesses can barely survive with a 500k income these days. Some bozo with government assistance is guzzling down booze, snorting meth and receiving food stamps for the family of 10. THat is what we call "POOR" in this country and these people need the money much more than an owner of a shoe store or pizza shop. Yeah, anyone who has a decent car or house should be taxed heavily on those items so the poorer guy/gal can get his share.

Unfair!! Karl Marx would be proud of me for saying this ..LOLOLOL

Is it any wonder why Portland is considered the most anti-business city on the whole Earth? This is the mentality of that city. Is it any wonder that many businesses are jumping ship and now moving over to Vancouver across the border? I would bet that in 10 years, all the IT businesses and, maybe even some multi-national corps like Nike will delegate all their resources to the FIsher's Landing area, which is now becoming the new Silicon Forest of the PDX area. Businesses in Oregon cannot foot the bill for large number of homeless and welfare-recipients forever and ever.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by metaljaybird

Reading some of these replies, you would think that conservatives are backwards, uneducated people. The types of conservatives I know are typically wealthier, more cultured, and more educated than the liberals that I know. That said, I'm a libertarian, so my type of conservatism is more of the Ron Paul type.

The type of conservatives I know are in both camps; well-off, educated, selfish. Or near (or more frequently under,) the poverty line and dumb as a rock.

On the other hand, we're both generalizing too. There are plenty of Conservatives in other groups.

[BendBeav]

Originally Posted by Mr.SmithW

Sure take all the money from those who give the poor their jobs and then the poor won't have anyone to leach from.. Mom and pop businesses can barely survive with a 500k income these days. Some bozo with government assistance is guzzling down booze, snorting meth and receiving food stamps for the family of 10. THat is what we call "POOR" in this country and these people need the money much more than an owner of a shoe store or pizza shop. Yeah, anyone who has a decent car or house should be taxed heavily on those items so the poorer guy/gal can get his share.

Unfair!! Karl Marx would be proud of me for saying this ..LOLOLOL

Is it any wonder why Portland is considered the most anti-business city on the whole Earth? This is the mentality of that city. Is it any wonder that many businesses are jumping ship and now moving over to Vancouver across the border? I would bet that in 10 years, all the IT businesses and, maybe even some multi-national corps like Nike will delegate all their resources to the FIsher's Landing area, which is now becoming the new Silicon Forest of the PDX area. Businesses in Oregon cannot foot the bill for large number of homeless and welfare-recipients forever and ever.

What kind of rambling nonsense is this? Yes, we get it, let's support the myth that the rich are all waiting to get their tax refunds back so they can support job-creation.

Unfortunately, facts and statistics do not support your claim that, if left untaxed, business will create job opportunities for the poor and middle-class. During the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the top income-tax rate was between 70 and 90%, yet unemployment was typically low, the middle class was strong, and the chasm between rich and poor was relatively small. And guess what? Rich people still did okay, too.

Since the massive tax cuts for the rich in the 1980s, the wealth disparity in this country as increased 10- and 20-fold (CEOs used to make around 25x what workers made, now they make about 500x what workers make), unemployment has skyrocketed, and the number of families in that middle-class bracket has decreased as a percentage of the population.

The middle class is the consumer class. They're the people that buy the stuff rich people sell. Ergo, rich people need that middle class to stay rich.

YOU seem to claim that all of the poor and those on public assistance are booze hounds and meth-addicts. I can make the more fact-supported claim that rich people are wealth-hoarders who DO NOT create jobs. Why? Because statistics about wealth-disparity, unemployment, the shrinking of the middle class, and the decrease in the tax rate for the rich over the past 30 years actually supports my statement.

What sort of facts/statistics support your claim that rich people create all the jobs with their tax breaks?

[kapetrich]

Originally Posted by BendBeav

What kind of rambling nonsense is this? Yes, we get it, let's support the myth that the rich are all waiting to get their tax refunds back so they can support job-creation.

Unfortunately, facts and statistics do not support your claim that, if left untaxed, business will create job opportunities for the poor and middle-class. During the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the top income-tax rate was between 70 and 90%, yet unemployment was typically low, the middle class was strong, and the chasm between rich and poor was relatively small. And guess what? Rich people still did okay, too.

Since the massive tax cuts for the rich in the 1980s, the wealth disparity in this country as increased 10- and 20-fold (CEOs used to make around 25x what workers made, now they make about 500x what workers make), unemployment has skyrocketed, and the number of families in that middle-class bracket has decreased as a percentage of the population.

The middle class is the consumer class. They're the people that buy the stuff rich people sell. Ergo, rich people need that middle class to stay rich.

YOU seem to claim that all of the poor and those on public assistance are booze hounds and meth-addicts. I can make the more fact-supported claim that rich people are wealth-hoarders who DO NOT create jobs. Why? Because statistics about wealth-disparity, unemployment, the shrinking of the middle class, and the decrease in the tax rate for the rich over the past 30 years actually supports my statement.

What sort of facts/statistics support your claim that rich people create all the jobs with their tax breaks?

Some sense added. Thanks!

Mr. SmithW's talking point/partisan rhetoric doesn't get us anywhere. The idea that this issue is that black/white is is disingenuous. The issue of taxation, welfare, trickle down vs trickle up economic theory is complex and multi-dimensional. As such, a conversation regarding these issues should be given reverence not contempt.

These are serious issues our country are facing. Not unlike any in our history. If we have an open and honest debate we are more likely to point in a better direction.

[Larry Caldwell]

Just a comment about taxes. Mom and Pop businesses are not taxed on business receipts. All business transactions are 100% tax free. They don't even pay sales tax on their office supplies like they do in other states. Oregon recently increased the minimum corporate tax from $25 a year to $150 a year. Corporations pay income tax on their profits, but not on wages they pay, so mom and pop can just take a paycheck and pay the same rates everyone else pays. Corporations also enjoy a list of Oregon tax credits as long as your arm. Department of Revenue: Business Taxes Home Page 2010 Corporate Credits