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.
It wasn't a state wide victory. If multnomah county alone was taken out it would not have passed.
Its not a good tax. Taxing on gross sales, takes the slim margin lines of businesses where the owners only made a nominal annual salary from it. I know many with jobs that make more then business owners.
I know I budgeted last year with plans for zero income since the political tide changes. I knew that with more liberals in place it would be likely to have further down turn.
I now owe for last year. I didn't make enough profits to cover for my newly increased gross sales tax. 7.9%
Crazy, recession and sales drop. Sales drop but lets stick a tax to them.
I employ 25 people during the summer with full time jobs. Many use them as second jobs since I work only on weekends. It is frustrating to have figured a budget so well then to have this thrown into it.
Gross sales are not real earnings. You can sell things for only as much as people will pay. When suppliers shut down, and things get tight prices rise, profit margins fall. That is common in business.
Now if only the state would implement proper Marketing into the Economics and require a B for passing. Maybe the voters would be more educated.
But it seems the State as a true Geographic majority turned down this tax.
Its because the Portland area basically has control of the entire state. Even ones they have relatively no clue on how that city or place is doing.
I say split this state. I want the State of Jefferson and let Medford/Yreka/Grants Pass be the capitol, and Eastern Oregon can be its own with Bend as a capitol and Sub offices in Pendleton. Then some fairness can come instead of people in Portland who have access to everything making the decisions for all of us in other parts of the state.
Here is hoping that some of your entrepreneurs move to Idaho!
I think many city-slickers would have trouble imagining themselves in Idaho regardless of how good it is for business. That is certainly true of myself.
Regardless, these measures cry out "caution caution" to businesses/entrepreneurs thinking of relocation, expanding, etc in the state. Fairly silly thing to do right now, if taxes truly needed to go up they could have focused on a more broad based tax rather than taxes that target wealth and business.
Truth be told, we need to raise taxes sometimes. Many people felt this was such a time. All I have seen for the last couple decades is tax cuts on the rich. Oregon currently has a regressive income tax. I don't support the "stick it to the rich" mentality, but it seems that most Republicans politicians are very concerned with cutting the wealthy's taxes. Recall Bush II's two tax cuts for the rich and the fine economic outcome of all that? Bottom line to me, if some corporate lapdog is going to do everything to cut taxes on the wealthy, the people can occasionally reinstitute them to a proper level. But what is a proper level?! That is the question.
All this talk about the wealthy creating jobs is true to a degree, but it is also self-evident that the wealthy can pay a bit more than the poor without the same hardship. Many of the posts on this topic seem more ideological than thoughts on a just, sensible tax policy for Oregon. Taxes are one of the prices of civilization. Nobody wants to overpay or overbloat that state government, but they rightfully enjoy and take pride in fine schools, libraries, highways, state parks, etc. A thoughtful discussion of the trade offs is hard to find. I would wager Oregon does not want to be as liberal in social services as California and Washington or as small government as Idaho. So bringing up those states as models seems inappropriate. Oregon is a great state. Folk need to find a system that reflects the values, priorities, and fiscal realities in this libertoliberahippyloggerrancheryuppyforestdesertmo untaincoastalsodamnbeautiful state we love.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 02-01-2010 at 07:16 AM..
I think many city-slickers would have trouble imagining themselves in Idaho regardless of how good it is for business. That is certainly true of myself.
Regardless, these measures cry out "caution caution" to businesses/entrepreneurs thinking of relocation, expanding, etc in the state. Fairly silly thing to do right now, if taxes truly needed to go up they could have focused on a more broad based tax rather than taxes that target wealth and business.
What is silly about this "the sky is falling" prophecy is that the trends are entirely in the other direction. Yes, folks raised taxes...ONCE. Is this the first of 10 tax hikes? I doubt it. Voters rarely raise taxes on themselves, in Oregon or anywhere in the US. I don't see that changing.
Truth be told, we need to raise taxes sometimes. Many people felt this was such a time. All I have seen for the last couple decades is tax cuts on the rich. Oregon currently has a regressive income tax. I don't support the "stick it to the rich" mentality, but it seems that most Republicans politicians are very concerned with cutting the wealthy's taxes. Recall Bush II's two tax cuts for the rich and the fine economic outcome of all that? Bottom line to me, if some corporate lapdog is going to do everything to cut taxes on the wealthy, the people can occasionally reinstitute them to a proper level. But what is a proper level?! That is the question.
All this talk about the wealthy creating jobs is true to a degree, but it is also self-evident that the wealthy can pay a bit more than the poor without the same hardship. Many of the posts on this topic seem more ideological than thoughts on a just, sensible tax policy for Oregon. Taxes are one of the prices of civilization. Nobody wants to overpay or overbloat that state government, but they rightfully enjoy and take pride in fine schools, libraries, highways, state parks, etc. A thoughtful discussion of the trade offs is hard to find. I would wager Oregon does not want to be as liberal in social services as California and Washington or as small government as Idaho. So bringing up those states as models seems inappropriate. Oregon is a great state. Folk need to find a system that reflects the values, priorities, and fiscal realities in this libertoliberahippyloggerrancheryuppyforestdesertmo untaincoastalsodamnbeautiful state we love.
It would seem the fairest tax of all is that everyone pays the same percentage of income... high income earners would pay the same rate as low income earners... the only difference is high income earners would pay correspondingly more in tax dollars...
In a way, it is kind of similar to countries in Europe where I worked... they had high sales (VAT) taxes and everyone paid based on what they bought.
It would seem the fairest tax of all is that everyone pays the same percentage of income... high income earners would pay the same rate as low income earners... the only difference is high income earners would pay correspondingly more in tax dollars...
In a way, it is kind of similar to countries in Europe where I worked... they had high sales (VAT) taxes and everyone paid based on what they bought.
That's a completely bogus argument. Taxing what you buy is in no way conceptually similar to taxing what you earn. We don't get to decide how much money we earn...unless we are among the ultra-rich who can manipulate their wealth on paper. But consumerism is a discretionary gradient that reflects one's ability to pay. So taxing what you buy impacts the rich more than the middle class and much more than the poor.
Flat-taxes always seem fairest to those who are wealthy. But from the very beginnings of tax policy, progressive taxes -- varying the rate based on ability to pay -- is the only tax policy that raises sufficient revenue while assuring that no one will be thrust into a condition of privation of basic needs as a result of taxation. Understanding that economic privilege incurs a higher responsibility for public revenue contributions has always been a part of the social contract in America. If you don't like the consequences of being wealthy, well...wealth is a condition you can easily alleviate yourself from.
It would seem the fairest tax of all is that everyone pays the same percentage of income... high income earners would pay the same rate as low income earners... the only difference is high income earners would pay correspondingly more in tax dollars...
In a way, it is kind of similar to countries in Europe where I worked... they had high sales (VAT) taxes and everyone paid based on what they bought.
I really have no problem with the flat tax on its face. However, there needs to be some level at the bottom where folks in abject poverty are not paying food money in taxes. From the poverty level on up, a flat tax might be fine. Ideologically fair, at least. However, it would need to be set up so no one could get deductions based on "complexity." Such formulas create the absurdity whereby crafty millionaires pay proportionately less tax than the middle class. I get sideways over that one.
Ah, who are we kidding?! Even if Stephen Forbes had been elected and flat taxes were the law of the land, folks would get right to work on making sure their tax was "flatter" than anyone elses!
That's a completely bogus argument. Taxing what you buy is in no way conceptually similar to taxing what you earn. We don't get to decide how much money we earn...unless we are among the ultra-rich who can manipulate their wealth on paper. But consumerism is a discretionary gradient that reflects one's ability to pay. So taxing what you buy impacts the rich more than the middle class and much more than the poor.
Flat-taxes always seem fairest to those who are wealthy. But from the very beginnings of tax policy, progressive taxes -- varying the rate based on ability to pay -- is the only tax policy that raises sufficient revenue while assuring that no one will be thrust into a condition of privation of basic needs as a result of taxation. Understanding that economic privilege incurs a higher responsibility for public revenue contributions has always been a part of the social contract in America. If you don't like the consequences of being wealthy, well...wealth is a condition you can easily alleviate yourself from.
I will have to respectfully disagree... ability to pay is a very subjective.
My family on my Mother's side has a small dairy farm... it was organic before the label even existed... to this day, they still produce just about everything they need and the farm is very small... at the most 25 milk cows...
One year, grandma's peaches had the blight and they never use pesticides... I brought a case of Del Monte Cling Peaches with me on my visit... never did I realize my grandparents didn't own a can opener because they never bought anything in a can... ever... so in other words... they bought very little... some material for clothes, sugar and flour and some diesel for their 35 year old tractor...
The point is, we can control what we buy just as we can control what we earn and my Grandparents are living proof of that... they don't even have a TV... only a radio for the crop reports and weather. They don't own a garbage can... table scraps go to the chickens and hogs... wood and paper is recyled... grandfather even saved the Peach Tins and uses them in his work shop.
My understanding is fairness starts when all people are treated the same...
I don't like tax loop holes for the wealthy anymore than I think grown adults living in house or apartment not filing tax returns because their rent is subsidized by Section 8 and their income comes from the country... I know adults that have never filed a tax return ever... maybe, if we were all treated the same... it would bring us closer as a people.
I work in the medical field and no one is turned away from our doors... everyone is seen that comes through the doors... the reality is the cost of providing service is under-written by those with insurance or Doctors and Nurses giving their time.
Another one of my pet-peeves is living in this throw-away society with so much of the products coming from overseas... a tax on consumption would help to curb it and promote recycling and reusing rather than filling our landfills.
People have more choice in what they earn than in what they spend... a guy I grew up with doesn't earn anything... he had a good job and quit because of a bitter divorce... he now lives off grid somewhere off the radar. He is poor by any definition and has been very successful in manipulating his "Wealth"
What is fair about a society that says... you have something, hand it over when it only applies to one segment of society?
While it is true there is no Oregon State Sales Tax... there are communities in Oregon with Sales Taxes.
My understanding of the effects of a tax is reduction in what-ever activity is being taxed... Gross Receipts Taxes are insidious because there are some businesses with large Gross Receipts and little profit... Just think how large the gross receipts are in a retail environment like a grocery store compared to the profit margin?
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 02-01-2010 at 01:14 PM..
Voters rarely raise taxes on themselves, in Oregon or anywhere in the US. I don't see that changing.
Right, they raise them on the minority instead. Oregonians decided to raise taxes on the wealthy and businesses, but generally speaking not on themselves. This sort of thing is going to make the wealthy and businesses owners uncomfortable.
If Oregon really needed to raise taxes fine, then raise taxes on everyone. Taking aggressive actions against against the group of people that is responsible for job creation does not make much sense. If the taxes were more board based they would not be viewed as so business hostile.
Honestly, though they raised taxes in the worst possible ways! Oregon's income tax is already rather high and combining an income tax/corporate tax with a revenue tax is just plain stupid.
That's a completely bogus argument. Taxing what you buy is in no way conceptually similar to taxing what you earn. We don't get to decide how much money we earn...unless we are among the ultra-rich who can manipulate their wealth on paper. But consumerism is a discretionary gradient that reflects one's ability to pay. So taxing what you buy impacts the rich more than the middle class and much more than the poor.
Flat-taxes always seem fairest to those who are wealthy. But from the very beginnings of tax policy, progressive taxes -- varying the rate based on ability to pay -- is the only tax policy that raises sufficient revenue while assuring that no one will be thrust into a condition of privation of basic needs as a result of taxation. Understanding that economic privilege incurs a higher responsibility for public revenue contributions has always been a part of the social contract in America. If you don't like the consequences of being wealthy, well...wealth is a condition you can easily alleviate yourself from.
Nicely summary of the progressive tax idea. These traditional views are now under relentless attack, but it is obvious that the tax burden hits the poor and wealthy differently. I think it is also important to note that wealthy traditionally felt a responsibility to society. I am sure many still do, but it seems the vast majority use their leverage to avoid rather than shoulder their burden. Of course, many also give back later in life, like Carnegie and the Gates. And I suppose willingness to pay tax presupposes some trust in how the state would spend it. I gather that trust has been declining for decades.
I really don't know what an ideal tax rate would be, but this discussion that Oregonians are chasing the rich with burning torches seems a bit over the top to me. Especially when we have the kicker and no sales tax.
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.
