Beaverton School Board to make MORE Cuts? (Portland, Adams: crime, employment)

[stevehgi]

As reported today on KGW.

Beaverton school meeting turns emotional over more budget cuts | kgw.com | KGW News | Portland, Oregon

I have just one dumb question, maybe I don't get it but didn't "we" just pass measure 66 & 67? Weren't these measures advetised through paid media to "save" our school budget issues, in general? If I read the printed material correctly and in addition to having a friend who is a school principal only something like 3% of the 200+ million in taxes was to go to the schools, state wide. So that's 200 x 3% = 6 million, um 6 million state wide. Maybe it was 10%, but that's only 20 million. Accroding to the above artical Beaverton has to cut 13 million. What was measure 66/67 going to do? Some one please correct me if I am wrong

Dear State of Oregon thanks for being there for us.

[stevehgi]

correction 733 million in new taxes
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_Tax_Hike_Vote,_Ballot_Measures_66_and_67_(2 010 (broken link))

see page 7

http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/docs/economic/presst0610.pdf (broken link)

schools receive 40% of the general fund. General fund = 876 mil x 40% = 350 mil state wide, way cool.

[tablemtn]

The new budget shortfall is due to a reduction in tax revenues compared to previous projections.

The previous projections had been unjustifiably rosy, it seems.

[davefr]

Raising taxes reduces revenue. It's a concept lost on our corrupt politicians. As the cost of business goes higher, those businesses will need to cut costs and payroll is usually the first area.

Reduced employment results in reduced tax revenue and more costs. (unemployment, food stamps, etc). This also triggers a chain reaction.

Increased taxes also creates an incentive for businesses to leave the state, expand elsewhere or not even consider Oregon.

Higher revenue actually comes from a vibrant business climate and low unemployment vs. massive tax rates. A competitive tax climate and business friendly political climate is a catalyst to make this happen.

This state doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a major spending problem that needs to be reined in.

[tablemtn]

Raising taxes reduces revenue.

Well, the current shortfall is from revenues collected before the ballot measure was approved, much less implemented.

[davefr]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

Well, the current shortfall is from revenues collected before the ballot measure was approved, much less implemented.

Not true. The "shortfall" is based on a forward looking forecast. (ie thru next year)

"To add it all up, the outlook report released Tuesday showed the state is facing a $562 million shortfall for the current biennium which runs through next year."

'Shocking' Ore. revenue forecast forces cuts | kgw.com | KGW News | Portland, Oregon

[Leisesturm]

It isn't calculus or advanced algebra to figure that if payroll costs exceed 50% of revenue payroll is going to be cut when revenue's fall. Thing is, does payroll need to be 52% of revenue? Most European and Asian companies operate with payroll at 11% of revenue. The Fortune 500's that would really matter in the overall GDP of Oregon don't pay any taxes into the state. They all have nice sweetheart deals that ensure they get power and light for next to nothing, they get land for well below the going rate and they get to insource H1B's for the intellectual heavy lifting and they outsource manufacturing and all this fails to completely slake the thirst of the Executive Branch for cash. There is nothing more Oregon can do. The present levels of payroll are unsustainable and cutting the low and median wage jobs will never balance things. They will try, however. Let's see how they, and the state, fares under a few more years of flat hiring of new workers, layoffs and productivity squeezes of existing workers and the burgeoning civil problems of hunger and homelessness. The loss of tax revenue is probably the least of these. We can end the pain at any time though. The way out is right at hand if we have the guts to do it. We can continue to scrape together millions in taxes from cash strapped wage earners or we can commit the ultimate crime against humanity and tax the wealthy to 1 million. They wouldn't even feel it. Status quo or a better life for our children, status quo or a better life for our kids, same old stuff or time for something completely different? Can you guess which choice I'd make?

H

[davefr]

Originally Posted by Leisesturm

We can continue to scrape together millions in taxes from cash strapped wage earners or we can commit the ultimate crime against humanity and tax the wealthy to 1 million. They wouldn't even feel it.
H

If you haven't already noticed, cash strapped wage earners pay a small fraction of the total tax burden. Those "greedy" millionairs are paying most of the tax burden but let's go nail them again while the ink from 66/67 is still drying!!

What's better? A company or business paying 10% tax on income of a million and thereby investing in Oregon and/or employing people in Oregon or having those people of businesses relocate elsewhare and pay zilch? You forget that there's no barrier to entering or leaving this state. The state has to be economically attractive to new and existings businesses or we loose.

This state has a major spending problem. The decades of wastful double digit spending growth that greatly outpaced inflation has finally caught up with us and needs to be reined in.

[John Shaft]

I thought building bike trails everywhere in Portland was going to usher in a golden age of unlimited prosperity. Don't tell me Sam Adams isn't being forthright with us...

[sofia76]

John, Sam Adams is the mayor of Portland. Beaverton has its own mayor! I don't like Sam Adams, but he's nothing to do with the Beaverton school district's budget.