Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-27-2010, 01:29 PM
 
927 posts, read 1,939,973 times
Reputation: 1017

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by inspironmini View Post
.....And no, not every poor household is made up of lazy black people that don't work and collect welfare for crack money. It is all races, all ages, and some of the people who work the hardest and most strenuous jobs who are the ones that are hurting right now....
This is so important that it bears repeating. Some or much of the knee-jerk opposition to obligation increases to fund basic social and educational services is based on the false assumption that those who are poor deserve to be because of of poor choices and self destructive attitudes. Some of that exists but the proportion of those who are "welfare queens" or other wastrels compared with the total population of the poverty stricken is so small that it isn't even worth mentioning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall View Post
...So...I know someone who is in that tax bracket (the over $250000 annual salaries, I presume). Has a child with autism and has a parent they support in assisted living. So while YOU think they are rich...seriously they are not....
No, perhaps not. But they are far more capable of taking care of their families than some folks I know who are doing the same thing on a quarter of that income. I am not unsympathetic to those who have such financial burdens - regardless of means and having all too much familiarity with autism myself, I can certainly identify with the pain and struggle your acquaintence is going through. But much of the expense your friend incurs is deductable on the federal level at least and I think some elder care and medical expenses would qualify for tax breaks on the state level as well. Nothing in either ballot measure specifies abolishing deductions, so those now on the books would still apply.
I support your assessment of the OP's position and conclusions and I appreciate your post of 1:56PM today but I also believe we can not continue to pursue this Hobson's Choice of either continuing to cut back on essential services that are now underfunded or continue to run indefinitely in the red. Requiring the wealthy to pay a little more this April (and it really isn't all that much more) is only fair and reasonable since these are the one most capable of paying.

 
Old 01-27-2010, 01:41 PM
 
927 posts, read 1,939,973 times
Reputation: 1017
One more point then I will go away.

A hot button issue like tax adustments are bound to generate strong arguments on both (or many) sides of the issue. I would hope those arguments remain friendly, or at least, civil.

I have visited many state forums and have found this one to be one of the better run ones out there. We can disagree - and on this topic we certainly will - but let's not be disagreeable while doing so and let's not let this degenerate into a point-scoring match.

Last edited by Cornerguy1; 01-27-2010 at 08:13 PM.. Reason: Use DM for moderation concerns
 
Old 01-27-2010, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Salem, OR
15,509 posts, read 40,231,078 times
Reputation: 17383
Quote:
Originally Posted by FVWinters View Post
This is so important that it bears repeating. Some or much of the knee-jerk opposition to obligation increases to fund basic social and educational services is based on the false assumption that those who are poor deserve to be because of of poor choices and self destructive attitudes. Some of that exists but the proportion of those who are "welfare queens" or other wastrels compared with the total population of the poverty stricken is so small that it isn't even worth mentioning.



No, perhaps not. But they are far more capable of taking care of their families than some folks I know who are doing the same thing on a quarter of that income. I am not unsympathetic to those who have such financial burdens - regardless of means and having all too much familiarity with autism myself, I can certainly identify with the pain and struggle your acquaintence is going through. But much of the expense your friend incurs is deductable on the federal level at least and I think some elder care and medical expenses would qualify for tax breaks on the state level as well. Nothing in either ballot measure specifies abolishing deductions, so those now on the books would still apply.
I support your assessment of the OP's position and conclusions and I appreciate your post of 1:56PM today but I also believe we can not continue to pursue this Hobson's Choice of either continuing to cut back on essential services that are now underfunded or continue to run indefinitely in the red. Requiring the wealthy to pay a little more this April (and it really isn't all that much more) is only fair and reasonable since these are the one most capable of paying.

Yes they are capable of paying, and they do. And no, they don't get any federal deductions because they make too much money...I guess that is my point and reaction to the other post. Not all people making that kind of money go out and spend it on fancy cars and houses. They aren't complaining. They are thankful they have the means to help their child.

For people who aren't familiar with autism
"A study by Harvard professor Michael Ganz puts the lifetime cost of caring for an autistic child at more than three million dollars" You can find that talked about in this article.


We have some serious woes in Oregon and these measures are just bandaids. We have some long term problems to solve here, and if the nasty bickering that occurred during this ballot is any indication, we aren't going to get them resolved anytime soon.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
2,514 posts, read 5,002,469 times
Reputation: 2924
To all those crying about the taxing of revenue instead of profit:

1. That's how taxes work for me - the government doesn't care how high my expenses were, only my income. Why should corporations be any different? If corporations want to have the same rights as people, they have to share the same responsibilities.

2. Revenue is a number that's hard to fudge. In contrast, corporations decide how much profit they want to report. Their accountants can make the numbers come out any way the boss wants. If we taxed profits, we'd suddenly find that many companies aren't making any profits. The premier example of this is in Hollywood, where the studios can prove (on paper) that no movie or TV show in history has ever made a profit.

It's not surprising to see the kind of reaction exhibited by the OP and others - those who have been benefiting from an unfair situation never like it when their advantage is taken away.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Still in Portland, Oregon, for some reason
890 posts, read 3,686,115 times
Reputation: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilegirl View Post
Turn off the Fox news network, and step away from the keyboard! You have been brainwashed!
If they managed to convince you that businesses only pay $10 a year in taxes...YOU are the one who has been brainwashed.

Annoy a liberal; think for yourself.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Salem, OR
15,509 posts, read 40,231,078 times
Reputation: 17383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Allen View Post
To all those crying about the taxing of revenue instead of profit:

1. That's how taxes work for me - the government doesn't care how high my expenses were, only my income. Why should corporations be any different? If corporations want to have the same rights as people, they have to share the same responsibilities.
That's not completely true. People that fill out schedule A pay taxes on taxable income not gross income. Individuals get to deduct mortgage interest, Child care, charitable donations, on and on. For people that just fill out the regular 1040 with no schedule A, then yes, this would be correct.

Doh...forgot about 401 and Roth contributions...those come off the top too, which is why people do them. To bring their taxable income down.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 02:34 PM
 
50 posts, read 134,840 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosecitywanderer View Post
I'll be leaving as soon as I can.

This is an absolutely awful state with a Socialist government and Socialist residents that do stupid things like increase taxes on businesses during a recession. Measures 66 and 67 which increase taxes on those earning over $250,000 and for all businesses just passed. This state completely discourages any sort business to come because they will just take all your money and give it to people who don't do jack squat.

Because of 66 and 67, the wealthiest residents will pack up and leave as will businesses. Unemployment will continue to skyrocket and the state will be bankrupt with no income because they are against any sort of business.

I have lived here my whole life and can't wait to leave. This is an absolute crap hole of a state run by corrupt politicians voted by Socialists. If you have a shred of sense in your brain, don't come to Oregon. They will take your hard earned money and give it to those who believe they are entitled to what you have earned.

To Hell with Oregon. I'm gone.
WAIT!! Take me with you!! I hate this state. Although I'm proud to say that Central Oregon and Southern Oregon said No in a mjority. Even with Bend and Ashland, we still got the No vote! It's so typical of Oregon to do this. The dips in Salem must love unemployment, because that's all that is coming out of these 2 bills. I can't wait until I'm 18 and I can get out of here. I think I'll go live with my aunt and uncle in Nebraska, which by the way has under a 5% unemployment rate. Probably because they support small business! If Multnomah County would have been temporarily not able to vote, it might not have passed
 
Old 01-27-2010, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Sherwood, OR
666 posts, read 1,839,247 times
Reputation: 679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Allen View Post
To all those crying about the taxing of revenue instead of profit:

1. That's how taxes work for me - the government doesn't care how high my expenses were, only my income.
Have you ever filled out a tax return? If so, I don't even understand how you can say that. Taxing a businesses revenue would be like not allowing you to claim any deductions on your tax return, itemized or standard. Until that starts happening, you're right...its unfair.

I do agree that profits can be fudged, just like taxable income is fudged on personal tax returns. However, profits are the only valid way to determine how much a corporation is making. Very simplified example:

Business A sells cars at $20,000 a piece. They sold 360 last year, so revenue would be $7,200,000. They pay $19,000 per car. Their net profit for the year is $360,000.

Business B sells engagement rings at $2,500 a piece. They sold 360 last year, so revenue would be $900,000. They pay $1,250 per ring. Their net profit for the year is $450,000.

Since both business are over $500,000 in revenue, they are subject to a tax based on percentage. Why should Business A have to pay eight times more than Business B when they made less money?
 
Old 01-27-2010, 08:18 PM
 
4,282 posts, read 15,715,611 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by FVWinters View Post
One more point then I will go away.

A hot button issue like tax adustments are bound to generate strong arguments on both (or many) sides of the issue. I would hope those arguments remain friendly, or at least, civil.

I have visited many state forums and have found this one to be one of the better run ones out there. We can disagree - and on this topic we certainly will - but let's not be disagreeable while doing so and let's not let this degenerate into a point-scoring match.

Moderator's Note:

The above post expresses my sentiments exactly -- discussion is distinctly encouraged, but personal attacks will not be tolerated.

I only wish this subject had emerged on the forum several months ago rather than after the issue had been decided.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Bay Area - Portland
286 posts, read 519,915 times
Reputation: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall View Post
I don't think they consider themselves middle class, but they are fortunate to have the funds to pay for what their family needs. I have a kid on the autism spectrum too and you have no idea how much it costs to take care of one of those kiddos, or you wouldn't be saying this. If you think families with kids on the autism spectrum get any meaningful help from government programs, you are the one in denial. We private pay for 90% of what our kids need.

Not all these folks drive Lexus and have big houses. I bet by the time you take out all their expenses to pay for these things for their family, you'd be surprised at their bottom line. Are they poor, no...not by any stretch of the imagination, but they aren't going to Hawaii either.
I don’t mean to belittle the person you know and I can only imagine the added stress and heartache that comes with having that kind of responsibility but can you imagine having the same responsibilities without the resources?

I believe your claim that they’re not rich, might ring hollow to the vast majority of Americans with a median household income of 50K. Given that over the last decade the income of the upper 1.5 percent soared while everyone else’s stagnated or lost ground, IMHO, they’re in no position to complain about a 2 percent increase in their taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top