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.
The jobs that are most likely to be lost through minor tax increases are those that pay minimum wage, offer no benefits, and have a high turnover rate. Oregon will never be able to compete in the financial incentives market with states like Arkansas, Nebraska or Ohio. But businesses that depend on skilled labor have to balance the cost of doing business with the available workforce. Many well educated people don't want to settle for living just anywhere. We've seen this with NCR Corp's decision to relocate from Dayton, OH. It may have been a less expensive area to do business, but it was a difficult place to attract top talent.
Generally, West Coast states can offer a quality of life that other states cannot. Businesses that attempt to relocate to less livable states know they would incur a high risk in doing so. Increasingly, Oregon can offer a quality of life that eludes all but the wealthy in California. We're at least as business-friendly as Washington. We don't have to mortgage our soul to attract/retain business. A family-friendly civic climate makes for a business-friendly economic climate. Maintaining high livability, good schools and a clean environment is the best incentive we can engineer. Yes, we'll lose some of the minimum-wage employers, but that's a sensible trade-off in a long-term cost/benefit analysis. Eventually, we'd have lost them anyway.
The facts just do not bear this out. Why then would Texas and Colorado (for two examples) have such a consistently lower unemployment rate compared to Oregon over the last 10 years? Those are two states that Oregon is really competing against - not Arkansas or Nebraska.
Where are the facts behind the statement that only minimum wage jobs are leaving? That makes no rational sense. If companies are small enough to not offer benefits or not employ white-collar workers then they are likely unaffected by the new tax measures. The new tax measures specifically affect C-corporations who in many cases employ people across the income scale.
Just look at what Oregon's tax policies have created on a macro scale. The "Silicon Forest" is essentially a myth at this point. Were those start-up tech firms offering minimum wage jobs? Were the Intel staff reductions minimum wage jobs? There is a decided lack of white-collar employment in this state and quite frankly there is a lack of talent as well. The bulk of people that Oregon attracts are the underachievers, not the overachievers.
What are the liveability statitistics you are referring to? Oregon's schools are nothing special, generally considered below average nationally and the university system is average at best. That is not attracting anyone either. The myth that the pretty coastline and lovely hiking trails will attract businesses from far and wide is a pipe dream - it hasn't happened in the past and won't happen in the future. There are a few that have moved here but not enough to dent Oregon's attrocious unemployment rate that has persisted for years.
The one and only fact that matters for a state who has based the majority of their state revenue and budget on an income tax is employment rate and Oregon's employment track record has been poor. The budget deficits will only get larger unless a complete overhaul of the state's fiscal policies and tax strategies occur. Trying to rationalize it with hopes and wishes instead of facts just digs a deeper hole.
How about for retirement? Is southern Oregon a good place for an aging,happy kayaker?
Had lunch today with a colleague that retired last year... they have family around Medford and had plan to retire there... she told me today, they decided against moving... mostly based on financial considerations... Property and Income Tax...
Good point and that is the crux of the problem-employers not living up to their end of the bargain. Trust me- I'd much rather be dealing in Real Estate than what I now do for a living, but that isn't going to happen. You mention that only 15% of retirees have a defined pension. What was the percentage in the '50s, 60's and 70's and why the drop off? The 80's were when all the leverage buy outs and hostile take overs started, so I'd guess it's simple corporate greed. When the 401Ks were brought out, employees were promised matching contributions and profit sharing if they would switch over-we now know it wasn't totally true. I suspect my employer will drop their pension plan for new hires within 2 years.
So what's the answer? Every man for himself, keep working until death, 100 million people selling Real Estate? When the Baby Boomers start to leave the workplace en mass, we'll find out and it's not going to be pretty. Like it or not,most people aren't wizards when it comes to saving and investing for retirement. If we were, we'd all be millionaires.
To those who are concerned about having to foot the bill for government employees-most public employees get a fraction of the Social Security benefits that private retirees get (I know I will) even if they've paid into it during their entire working years. I'm NOT saying only public employees should have a defined pension-I think things were much better when the majority of working people could participate in one.
I guess I do not understand why individuals shouldn't be responsible for saving for their own retirement. Is it too much to ask for people to be reponsible and put 10% of their pay away each week into a 401(k) account? How is this corporate greed? I do not know why a person's employer has any more responsibility than to pay a market wage for work performed.
Many, many employers still offer matching contributions. Mine still does. That is part of your compensation. If your company is not matching than find another job where they do match. It's a free country, for now at least.
I for one would have LOVED to have social security privatized so that the social security funds taken from my paycheck each week go into my own account that I have control over. Unfortunately as it stands, I do not expect to see any of the social security money I have paid in all these years. Social security will be bankrupt long before I retire.
If you took the 8% social security takes plus another 10% you contribute, that is 18% of your salary that could be going into a retirement account. If you did that every year, most people would have a great retirement fund. However, many people are not responsible and expect the government, their employer or taxpayers to be responsible for them. It is an unfair expectation IMHO. The lack of individual responsibility in this country is staggering and it just keeps getting worse and worse.
Many, many employers still offer matching contributions. Mine still does. That is part of your compensation. If your company is not matching than find another job where they do match. It's a free country, for now at least.
I've had the worst luck doing that... my track record so far is four companies that provided match or defined benefits dropped them within 24 months of my hire date...
Plan to never retire... just like all the male members of my family... we just keep working till we drop.
It has been real eye opening to see the retirements I am paying for in the Public Safety Sector...
I think its funny how these brainwashed posters tell us not to watch Fox news and strictly follow programming approved by the establishment . These people remind me of the old Stalinist techniques used to convince the masses . Its obvious what state governments have had the most success and which ones are the worse . The states that overreach have caused economic failure and the people will migrate to greener pastures .
It is a bit smarmy to advise people to dump employers that do not match their pension contributions in an age of increasing numbers of employers cancelling pension plans outright forget about matching an employees contributions. There is still time for this to become universal. As long as I have been alive it has been the law that the security deposit that you pay a landlord should be returned to you with interest. I am sure it has happened but it has never happened to me or any other individual of my acquaintance that this actually happens. Employers created a Ponzi scheme to offset salaries that were not keeping pace with inflation and enviegled workers to save for their retirement with the employers assistance. This was not something workers demanded. Workers wanted higher wages, employers offered them shares in the company. They should have thought about how they were going to pay the growing numbers of retired workers on company backed annuities. Given the bath that investments of all kinds both private and public have taken in the last decade beginning with the Enron debacle and the mini-crash that followed up till the Great Recession I am bemused that anyone can scold American workers about retirement investiture. I am saddened to realize that all of the anger and frustration unleahsed in this thread on the part of those who lament the direction of public opinon on these measures has nothing to do with jobs or business climate. It has everything to do with the previously unassailed provinces of wealth and privilege being encroached upon even a tiny bit. Just seems wrong, doesn't it.
I think its funny how these brainwashed posters tell us not to watch Fox news and strictly follow programming approved by the establishment . These people remind me of the old Stalinist techniques used to convince the masses . Its obvious what state governments have had the most success and which ones are the worse . The states that overreach have caused economic failure and the people will migrate to greener pastures .
Ah, but that's the rub isn't it. When you allow the general voting population to decide an issue, then the results are the choices the majority makes. And should the majority disregard your arguments, reject your point of view, and vote not the way of your liking, then somehow this democratic majority are brainwashed?
And as far as Stalinist techniques, ah, exactly how are you 'reminded' of them since the totalitarian government tactics of Stalin took place in the 1930's and 40's, so that makes you in your 90's now or something? And Stalin, from what I know, didn't have democratic elections, his were rigged by imprisoning any opposition. Are you saying you were captured and imprisoned before the January Voting by posters on this board? Were there any banning of the anti-tax advertisements? Police in riot gear breaking up anti-tax rallies? Before the voting, were there physical violence at any speaking engagements or were any anti-tax speaker beaten and physically abused for voicing his opinion? No? Well that seems to be the tactics used by Stalin, isn't it?
You see I think you were trying to implying that those opposed to your point of political-economic rhetoric used some sort of unfair debating, or public opinion swaying, tactic that gave my side in this issue an unfair advantage and caused a large block of voters to be convinced a "wrong" vote was correct. Ah, but that tactic is not Stalin, or even of the former USSR. Technically, brain washing was a mental torture tactic used by Communist China and North Korea. Term was coined I think during the Korean War, during the last few days of Stalin's reign. Not exactly a Stalinist thing.
That unfair debating tactic which I think you are referring to was developed and fine tuned for political use by an Advertising Agency in the USA. Aside: that Ad Agency (J Walter Thompson?) also was the Ad agency that created the ad campaign for several cigarettes. It is all documented by author Joe McGinniss' book Selling of President, Republican Richard Nixon's 1968 election. You may be old enough to remember that, I am sure. The tactics you seem to be addressing were blatantly employed to great success then and also in 2000 when some of the same advertising people from the Nixon era were brought in by Cheney for the Republican victory.
One last point... Fox news is biased. Very biased. And that is a business decision by the Fox News management in order to maximize profits. Corporation profits. We of the liberal point of view prefer news that is not vetted or re-written to fit the profit mode of the corporation. Tell us the facts, we are adults. If you want to editorialize, fine, but label it as such. Fox News is all about editing, ignoring, fitting, and forcing news to maximize profits. I am not alone in thinking Fox News management will change political views if the profits were better supporting middle of the road politicians.
IAs long as I have been alive it has been the law that the security deposit that you pay a landlord should be returned to you with interest. I am sure it has happened but it has never happened to me or any other individual of my acquaintance that this actually happens.
H
Huh? This isn't Oregon law. Landlords are under no obligation to invest that money. You can read Oregon landlord tenant laws here at the ORS. http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/090.html
You might be confusing this with the requirement that if the landlord DOES put the security deposit into an interest bearing account, then yes that interest belongs to the tenant, BUT they have no obligation to put it in an interest bearing account and most don't.
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.
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.
