SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Measure 66
With the New Year comes resolutions, best wishes and, this year, ballots in the mail. If you haven't heard by now, January 26th is election day in Oregon for two controversial tax measures — Measures 66 and 67. They're both designed to fill a state budget shortfall by increasing taxes. If you haven't seen the ads on TV yet, you certainly will soon.
Today we'll focus on Measure 66. It proposes to raise taxes on incomes above $250,000 for households, $125,000 for individual filers. Proponents say tax increases are necessary in order to support education, health care, public safety, and other state services that are currently underfunded by the state. Opponents say raising taxes discourages investment in the state — a particularly bad thing during a recession.
We've discussed taxes many times on Think Out Loud, and we expect to do so at least twice more this month. On Thursday we'll discuss Measure 67, which would increase the state's corporate minimum tax. And keep checking the blog and listening on air for more information about a special program we'll record in front of a live audience here at OPB shortly before election day.
But until then, get the conversation started now about Measure 66. What do you think of the proposed income tax increases? Are they good or bad for you? For the state? How will you vote, and why?
Tagged as: measure 66 · measure 67 · taxes
Photo credit: Phillip / Creative Commons
-
It's almost unthinkable that 66 and 67 won't pass. The majority will notice the burden is directed away from them. These measures, however, are antithetical to democracy, giving the majority the power to make decisions for the minority.
-
You are right on! Those who think they won't pay these taxes are idiots we all will pay in higher costs and or lost job raises or jobs. Businesses don't pay taxes consumers and workers do. Jobs will move where there are lower taxes. California is losing population while Texas booms.
-
If you chronicle the economic woes Oregonians are currently enduring (one-in-five can't find full-time work, 650,000 on food stamps, record school-aged poverty, record mortgage defaults, etc) you have to ask yourself about the fundamental soundness of the state's economy. Why is it that we lag the rest of the nation in so many key economic indicators? Why are Oregonians suffering more than our neighbors across the country? It's a question that deserves thoughtful discussion. Here are three links to add to the public discourse:
-
On the surface, just like the politicians in Salem believed, it should be easy to vote to tax others. Neither of these measures would affect me directly. However I see how our state is controlled by corporate/Democrats single interest politics of protecting their own as the primary driver in everything they do. And then most of the state workers feel resentful,unappreciated and underpaid, constantly broadcasting how hard they work.
There is so much waste and abuse through out government. Downsizing seems like the best idea. The way the governor held onto his gifts to the energy providers, does anyone not expect him to go to work for them at the end of his tenure?
Abuses of power are entrenched in the state and prevent improvement and transformation. This year the teachers union has worked hard to shut down Charter schools. Holding them to standards they don't hold themselves. Now through legislative rules the teachers union is also conniving to force the death of the growing on line charter schools. They are creating death by paperwork by establishing deadlines that are impossible to meet.
Oh and should we expect to again see the state take a part of The Oregon Cultural Trust funds, the money that people donate under the idea that it is for specific purposes, again be taken to fill their own wishes.
So it is with this despair at the extent of the failure of our leaders that I will vote against these additional taxes. Giving more money is just enabling those in power.
Lots of families suffer now under the tyrannical out dated education system we have. Teachers by allowing their Union to destroy alternative ways to educate have failed themselves. I don't even see teachers having a meaningful voice in their own representation. Alot of the changes that citizens try to enact into the education system would benefit teachers by giving them more avenues to practice in but the powers that be are too entrenched.
We need to downsize the bureaucracy. The sky will not fall down if Salem doesn't get more money. Relax, breathe, everything is going to be ok and we can hope to have less folks interfering with reinvention and alternatives.
-
Both of these tax increases will cost us some money, but I totally support them, primarily because it will enable the state to continue to provide barely adequate support to local school districts etc. We need to keep in mind that, unlike most states, we have no sales tax. (Thus, the statement that we have some of the highest taxes in the nation may be correct if you look at only income taxes, but not necessarily so if you consider the total tax burden.) Further, the limitation on increasing assessed values of property (a max of 3% a year) means that counties, cities, and special districts have steadily slipped behind in being able to cover their costs. Thus, if we are going to provide even a minimal level of support to our governmental entities, it needs to come from the income tax. Note also that a significant portion of the staewide mayors, city council, and directors of special districts serve as unpaid volunteers. We all need to do our share in one form or another.
-
Both of these tax increases will cost us some money, but I totally support them
http://foodpreservatives.spruz.com/ http://foodstuff.webs.com http://kidslong.doomby.com/
-
Measures 66 and 67 are a false step in the direction of patching a system that is severely broken. If our elected officials truly want to fix the taxing system they must put the needs of Oregonians above the needs of business organizations to which our Governor wants to cater. Our elected officials need to quit using the tax code for social engineering. We need to repeal all tax credits, simplify the tax code and use the tax code, and all other revenue producing laws, to obtain enough revenue to meet the needs of the residents of Oregon in the provision of education, public safety, human services, transportation infrastructure and those other activities whose provision is truly required to be done by the state and other governmental entities.
-
There is something conceptuallly wrong about a tax system that guts individual disposable income and yet depends on spending for most of it's income. This tax proposal still puts Oregon behind most states in business taxes. This should be the start of an update of our tax system. Some of the income models are seriously out of date. A prime example is taxes for the highways. It is unfortunate that it is almost impossible to discuss the sales tax in this state. We can issue "Oregon Trail" cards. Why couldn't we have a card that knows how to deduct sales tax on people below targeted incomes.
-
What many people don’t realize is that the state education budget for THIS 09-10 school year, was written DEPENDENT upon measures 66 and 67 passing.
In other words, every school district in the state is counting on these measures passing in order to receive funds this spring. If these measures don’t pass, every school district in the state will be forced to make additional cuts. Sadly, there is no “fat” left to cut in school budgets, we cut it all last year (I’m a teacher in the Beaverton School District).
If measures 66 and 67 do not pass, my district and many others will be dismissing school in May rather than mid June. The trickledown effect will be that parents will be forced to find and pay for additional child care, some students could have difficulties in meeting graduation requirements, and teachers, assistants and administrators pay checks will be reduced by the number of days we don’t work.
We can certainly argue the fiscal irresponsibility of state government making a budget dependent on future tax increases, but that is what was done. I worry about what the spring will look like for our kids and families if we do not pass these measures.
-
I do realize that the budget is based on that. I have a daughter in a Portland high school and two children graduated. There is fat in the budget. It is called >$20,000 health insurance and guaranteed income for life (PERS). These two budget line items have been eating up every additional dollar for a long time now. I am a CPA and have studied the school budgets in detail.
The retired public employee clients in my office are the most affluent of all. The rest of us are pinching pennies to pay for our $5,000 deductible insurance and hoping Social Security will still exist.
It is time for government to get real. I will vote no on these measures eventhough I will not personally be affected by their passage. I am not greedy. I am ready to pay a significan t tax increase for health care and secure retirement fo all (not just teachers).
By the way, what kind of budget is based on a revenue source that is not guaranteed? Ludicrous!!
-
Do you let you children spend their allowance before the earn it? When you spend your household budget do you spend money that you have not yet received? If you owned a business, would you pay your expenses this year with next year’s revenue?
Perhaps we should start the reform process by acknowledging that we shouldn't spend money before we are in receipt of it and we certainly shouldn't spend someone else's money before we have asked and received their permission to receive it.
-
As a teacher in the Beaverton School District, I have to point out that what many people don’t realize is the state education budget for THIS 09-10 school year, was written DEPENDENT upon measures 66 and 67 passing.
Every school district in the state is counting on these tax increases in order to receive funds this spring; if these measures don’t pass, every district will be forced to make additional cuts. Sadly, there is no “fat” left to cut in school budgets, it was all cut out last year. If measures 66 and 67 do not pass, my district and many others will be dismissing school in May rather than mid June.
The trickledown effect will be that parents will be forced to pay for additional child care, some students could have difficulties in meeting graduation requirements, and teachers, assistants and administrators pay checks will be reduced by the number of days we don’t work.
We can certainly argue the fiscal irresponsibility of state government making a budget dependent on future tax increases, but that is what was done. I worry about what this spring will look like for Oregnian families if we do not pass these measures.
-
Merit pay six weeks summer break and better education all are needed if we are going to compete with the world teachers unions are against education and for incompetent teachers continuing to ruin the US
-
It was irresponsible of the Beaverton school board to write a budget without guaranteed funds. Most school budgets don't face cuts, they just don't increase as much as union members want.
-
"It proposes to raise taxes on incomes above $250,000 for households, $125,000 for individual filers."
Isn't it cute how the tax increases will start right above the income levels of the higher-end public worker's salaries?
Odd coincidence.
-
I will vote for the measure, however, I am offended by the pro ads to put in the category of "rich". I am a single mother, with one child in college and one almost there--with a minimalist ex-husband.
The cut off for single filers should not be half of double. It costs a lot of money to run a household, and when two people are doing it, their expenses are much lower and split between them...ie one cell phone account, one house payment, etc. For example, for single filers it should be $150,000 or something, not $125,000.
-
The practical effect of the measure in my business is that coupled with City of Portland and Multnomah County special taxes over the last few years and constant double digit increases in the cost of employee health care (15% this year) and a down economy we have been unable to raise prices and have had increased tax overhead. This year we had to offer the hourly staff an option, health care or a 2% raise. We left certain positions unfilled as they became vacant so avoided layoffs. We outsourced the work done by those in the vacant positions. That is something we resisted for ten years but had finally to give in. Those jobs went out of Portland and out of Oregon. We had to put these measures in place before the vote because we have to assume the measures will pass. The thought that this is only a tax increase on high wage earners or on "big corporations" is sophistry. The bite comes out of the middle class worker, like it or not. It has to. That is where the money is. The question for the middle class worker is "Do you want your employer to distribute the burden or do you want the State to do it?" The employer is likely the better choice so I favor the measure.
-
highest taxes California, worst education California, I know I went to school there 20 years from first grade to University. Problem Shit government and illegal immigration
-
I always find it kind of odd when tax opponents say taxing discourages investment in the state/country and that we need to trim the fat. I have a really hard time believing that the sum total of a state in the eyes of corporate interests is its level of taxation.
I am more than willing to pay more taxes to fund schools, infrastructure (roads, public transportation, etc.), and social services (anything from public day care and after school programs to unemployment).
I am willing to bet corporations are too. Who wants to move to a state with horrible schools, poor public transportation, and poor social services? How do you attract employees to that kind of location?
Granted, high taxes do not automatically mean good schools, etc. But, good schools, etc. need money. There's no magical formula that will allow you to run excellent schools with almost no budget.
-
Examples of Measure 66 Marginal Tax Increase on Households (Joint Filers)
Household Taxable (Net) Income
2009, 2010, and 2011
2012 and thereafter
$ 250,000
None
None
300,000
900
450
350,000
1,800
900
400,000
2,700
1,350
500,000
4,500
2,250
600,000
6,500
3,150
750,000
9,500
4,500
1,000,000
14,500
6,750
1,500,000
24,500
11,250
3,000,000
54,500
24,750
-
Seems reasonable to me.
-
Thank you, Robert. So, a household earning $300,000/yr. has to pay about $1,000 more in taxes. If you are in that position...instead of complaining, you should be so very, very grateful about your circumstanstances. How lucky you are...
Reasonable is an understatement when it comes to the tax increase. The word dance that the opposition engages in is simply an attempt to distract us from the basic morality of this issue of fairness.
-
I'll vote 'no' on both measures...
When times get better will these increases sunset? Probably not, the extra income will likely then be used to fund additional personnel or programs that won't want to be cut in the next downturn, so an additional tax increase will be requested that again won't sunset when times get better... ad nauseum.
Not in favor of cutting teachers, but very much in favor of slashing administrators. Don't blink... Schools and law enforcement are always placed at the forefront of potential budget cuts to frighten the public, insist the cuts come from another source.
The only tax increase I favor is one on gasoline as there are a number of long-term benefits and I can mitigate them to some degree by becoming more efficient. The only way to mitigate income or corporate tax increases is to spend less in the local economy (personal promise) or move.
-
Procedural question. Since both these measures already passed (I believe Governor signed them in July 2009) and therefore this is a referendum rather than an initiative, why are they worded as yes to pass tax increase and no to reject increase in the voters pamphlet?
I would have thought they would have been worded inversely. Yes to reject passed increase, no to retain passed increase.
-
My husband is a professional who works 60-70 hour weeks to provide for his family and his employees' families. He keeps 15 people employed, and we paid over $50,000 in state taxes last year. If this measure passes, we are seriously considering moving to another state in which there is no income tax (there are still several.) This would put 15 people out of work, and would also affect all of the service providers we patronize - the hairdresser, house cleaner, lawn mower, child care, etc. Yes, we could afford to pay an extra $12,000 or so, but this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. We already pay nearly half of our income to the government, with the self-employement tax, social security, and 33% federal tax rate. When the opponents talk about job-killing taxes, this is part of that argument.
-
What are you doing in Oregon? 11States beckon and you can move your employees too.
-
If the chart above is correct, then you must have a NET, taxable income of between $750,000 and $1,000,000 to have an increase in your state taxes of $12,000.
If you're only paying $50,000 now out of that income in state taxes, you're paying at a real rate of 5-7%.
Paying $62,000 instead of paying $50,000 in state taxes would make your tax rate between 6-8%.
Is that really such an unfair burden? You count on the State educational system to provide you with 15 reasonably well educated people. Your business makes more use of the police, fire, etc. that keep the community safe and healthy enough for people to support your business.
-
"What are you doing in Oregon? 11States beckon and you can move your employees too. billedell — Mon Jan. 4th 9:30a.m."
Yes, they are. Perhaps she should take her clearly talented tax generating self and follow Boeing to N. Carolina or even better yet maybe she should follow Think to Indiana. That will make the tax pool of paying patrons even smaller and the pool of people on unemployment and welfare after she lays people off even larger. Billedell, what was your tax contribution to Oregon last year? How many people are dependent upon you for their jobs?
-
We are raising the tax on small business that employ 80 percent of the public this easily puts many of them in the top income bracket. This makes it difficult to run or grow a business it's obvious vary few of our legislatures have ever had to make payroll, pay medical insurance for employees and provide a retirement program. This puts Oregon at huge disadvantage when states like Washington have no income tax.
-
How many, and what percentage of small businesses in Oregon have a NET, taxable income over $250,000?
-
When the law says, "incomes above $250,000 for households, $125,000 for individual filers," I'm assuming these are TAXABLE incomes, not gross incomes. I'm also assuming that the increased business tax is a tax on taxable income, not gross income. Is this a valid assumption. It would be helpful if you would be very clear about the difference.
When people simply use the expression, "income," or "earn" it suggests that the total income will be taxed. Deductions decrease the incomes of many high earners, avoiding taxes on substantial chunks of income anyway.
For the 'farmers' and other small businesses who are standing up against this bill, when you say, "People who earn..." they misunderstand and think you are talking about increasing taxes on gross incomes.
-
You are confusing the two bills (guess the writers of the bills achieved their goal). Measure 67 does tax GROSS receipts.
Cut and pasted directly from state's website
"...establishes $150 minimum tax for most businesses or minimum tax of approximately 0.1% of total Oregon revenues for some corporations with over $500,000 in Oregon revenues."
So you pay the greater of a minimum of $150 OR .1% of TOTAL REVENUES. So, if you own a business that has high cost of goods (e.g. think grocery stores, gas stations, manufacturing-interesting that these are all businesses that cannot be easily exported to other states or countries) you will likely pay the higher .1%. For a business with $500,000 in gross receipts this would mean paying an additional $500 to the State of Oregon regardless of whether or not you have a profit. This tax is in addition to the others that businesses pay. Note that the very few businesses that are supportive of this measure are service providers (e.g. travel agents).
These measures will prevent manufactures from locating in Oregon. The most recent of these is Think, an electric car manufacturer that just announced that they are taking their $450 million dollar green investment money and accompanying 450+ full time jobs to Indiana rather than Oregon.
During the past year, there has been a lot of discussion about keeping manufacturing jobs in the US. While services are important, they are easily moved. As a state, do we really want to less attractive to manufacturing? Especially during the next decade when huge amounts of investment will be spent on creating green technologies?
-
To increase taxes in Oregon and not balance budget by reducing government size and spending is INSANE
-
I am voting NO on both measures on principle for two basic reasons: 1) It is a fact, over the long-term, overall taxes have increased while real income has declined. 2) Fundamentally, tax revenue is generated by private business that EXPORTS product and services. Increases in revenue need to follow this wealth generation not borrow it like the Feds.
Taking more money out of the private sector will erode the investment and revenue enhancement potential that generates tax revenue in the first place. The measures are a short term patch. The State needs to do more work to prioritize services that will enhance the economy while cutting those that do not. The legislature needs to go back to working on making hard cuts just like businesses have had to make to survive. Businesses have made cuts in benefits salaries, jobs, capital expenditures etc.
I am a middle income earner with zero tax deductions. I have two children in public schools. The Public Schools sent home lobbying information ("facts") printed - no doubt with public shool funds - advocating a yes vote on the measures by threatening with cuts in school days and materials.
What is wrong? While the proportion of overall public funds (taxes and fees) to incomes has steadily increased throughout State history. Tax Freedom Day has trended farther into the Spring over the years. Have we improved such major services such as education? I see that we are not doing a better job and our standing internationally has steadily declined.
Why is the State pushing the taxes on the wealthy earners? People don't realize that per IRS figures for 2006 (released in 2008) the top 1% of earners paid 95% of all income taxes. I am not wealthy but THAT is NOT fair.
-
What Jon Chandler failed to mention is that Oregon Government also creates jobs and that if this measure fails a significant number of jobs would be lost.
-
Government doesn't create jobs never has never will
-
Yes, apparently it creates them too well. According to the Oregon Employment Department, Oregon tends to have a higher concentration of state and local government employment than the nation. Oregon's employment is 20 percent more concentrated in state government than the nation as a whole.
I appreciate government workers. I've played the role as state worker and teacher myself. However, as a taxpayer, I want my government to utilize my hard earned funds efficiently. Why does it take 20% more state and local government employees in the state of Oregon to provide the same services offered in other states?
-
I'm blown away by the argument that state government still needs to reduce its spending. What do people want to give up? More public education? More health care? More jobs? If these taxes don't pass, many more Oregonians will surely lose their jobs. I don't work for the state, but my insitution receives some state funding (far less this time around than in the previous budget), and we may have to cut more jobs if these taxes don't pass.
By pooling our resources, we as citizens are able to accomoplish more than we can as individuals. That is the purpose of taxes. The legislature did the right thing in creating these taxes, and I hope Oregonians support the power of working together by voting to retain this important source of revenue.
-
I'm blown away by argument that you don't think Oregonians should demand a tighter rein on government spending and continue to support double digit budget increases. Oregon's Legislatively Adopted Budgets have grown 64.2 percent between the 2001-03 and 2009-11 biennia, while the state's population has grown only 10.8 percent between 2001 and 2008.
-
Of course we need to coloe the budget gap. Doing that with bad legislation is not the right thing. This Measure 66 tax is similar to the much-maligned Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in that it is not referenced. Referencing would consist of having this proposed tax be X% times the Oregon median income. That number could be set to equal $125,000 in 2010 dollars. Failure to do that turns this tax into a ticking time bomb. We need to do better.
-
I would like for Steve Novick to address the Business Energy Tax Credits and all other give aways provided by the legislature? Why does governor Kulongoski and the legislature reward some businesses and punish other businesses. The tax system has no equity. What about all other inefficiencies in Oregon State government?
-
The DEVALUATION of the DOLLAR
The advertisements against these measures, show charts that use the nominal dollars to show the steadily increasing costs of government. This is seriously misleading.
The cost of government must go up every year just to keep up with inflation, or the devaluation of the dollar.
-
Government in Oregon has increased expenditures 37% in the last three years, the dollar has declined by a few percentage points except for our Obama year. Has your income increased 37% recently?
-
The change in the value of the dollar over the past three years is a minimum of 8% and may be as high as 35%:
If you use the same CPI calculator that was used for decades, before serious jiggering was done to the measure about 1997, the dollar value has dropped almost 1/3 in 3 years. (See ShadowStats.com.
Even using current methods (see MeasuringWorth.com), In 2008, $100.00 from 2005 is worth:
$110.24 using the Consumer Price Index $108.48 using the GDP deflator $109.89 using the value of consumer bundle $110.76 using the unskilled wage $111.07 using the nominal GDP per capita $114.27 using the relative share of GDP
-
So your point is well taken. However, using real rather than nominal growth and assuming that all 10.8% of Oregon's growth in population arrived in 2001, that still only projects a budget growth of 35% from 2001-2008. Am I missing something? To what then do you ascribe the rest of the budget increase during the period from 2001-2008?
-
Examples of Measure 66 Marginal Tax Increase on Households
Household Taxable (Net) Income
2009, 2010, and 2011
2012 and thereafter
$ 250,000
None
None
300,000
900
450
350,000
1,800
900
400,000
2,700
1,350
500,000
4,500
2,250
600,000
6,500
3,150
750,000
9,500
4,500
1,000,000
14,500
6,750
1,500,000
24,500
11,250
3,000,000
54,500
24,750
-
The idea that it's only people making over 250,000 a year who start small businesses is not born out by my experience. Everyone I know who started a business started it with an idea and hard work, not money. Money is the third part of the equasion, and it's usually gathered from friends and family - we're talking about most of the businesses around us!
-
I have to say that the anti 66 & 67 folks have yet to craft an argument rational enough to convince me to vote against them. There's a lot of "I assume", "I feel" and "this might" arguments. No real hard facts.
The last two decades have seen a lot of tax cuts for people earning a lot more than the median income, which is way below the single or family threshhold so 66 & 67 do a little bit to fix this imbalance. I mean really, if you got a "hummer tax break" i'm not sure I can empathize with your pain for paying a little more when when people who don't live such a privleged life are having a tough time of it.
-
how did we get in this situation in the first place?
-
Years of anti-government activists working to destroy the state's infrastructure and funding mechanisms. I moved to Oregon prior to Measure 5, when the schools had a national reputation for excellence. It's been downhill since then.
-
In response to mcnamarm "Years of anti-government activists working to destroy the state's infrastructure and funding mechanisms. I moved to Oregon prior to Measure 5, when the schools had a national reputation for excellence. It's been downhill since then."
Hmmm...so by passing Measure 5 and equalizating the funding between school districts so that funds are now given to districts based on the number of students in each district rather than the value of homes in the district is destroying the state's infrastructure. I'm confused. I thought the concept of "equal access to education for all students" was a liberal platform. How is ensuring that all children be educated to a minimum standard and ensuring that costs of education are born at the state level rather than the local level be tearing down our infrastructure? So you think that it is better that the costs of education are paid for at the local level so that rich kids get to go to schools with highly paid teachers and nice buildings while poor kids get poorly paid/trained teachers and attend schools without funding for heat in the winter?
And really, according to the Oregon Dept. of Education own publication, page 91 of the Oregon Statewide Report Card, from 1992-2008, the "average actually salary" if a teacher has increased 45.2%, the salary of a principal by an increase of 60.5%, and that of a superintendent by an increase of 72.8%. To be fair their report does employ actual figures rather than CPI adjusted figures. But, even adjusted for inflation, school administrators seemed to have benefited from Measure 5 which passed in 1990 because superintendents and principals received inflation adjusted increases of 14.3% and 6.2% respectively (not including their benefits).
-
My concern is that the focus is on cuts in service if the money is not raised. My focus is on the inexorable shift of wages and benefits to the individuals in public service, while private employment increasingly lags. I would like to see a reversal in the trend toward an auto-industry-like bloat in wages and benefits. To cut them marginally and stem the disproportionate growth would be a great thing and would cut the gap. Consider the high pensions, exemption from state income tax, comparable wages to private industry, and difficulty in firing that accrues to state employees, with only increases on the horizon. I can't support more taxes to maintain this momentum.
-
It's astonishing to me that these trickle-down charlatans have any credibility at all. Since Reagan we've watched public institutions and infrastructure decay while wealth concentrates more and more at the top.
-
Not passing this tax will extend the recession by causing more school districts to trim their budgets further by the lay-off of school teachers. I am a substitute teacher who has made her living for nearly 20 years in this capacity. My work has been cut from 4 or 5 days a week down to 3 and sometimes less. I am fortunate as many teachers ask me to work for them. I do know many new teachers who cannot even get one day a week. If education is not funded further by passing Measure 66, then even more full-time teachers will be layed off, further swelling the ranks of substitutes. I know of other teachers who are leaving the profession. I would not look forward to subbing in a classroom of 3rd and 4th grade classroom with 35 - 40 students! There will be lots of children left behind academically.
-
taxes pay for the services we want from our government and are nessicary. I will be voting yes on the increases. Living in wasco county with a sister in law that is a teacher in the area I have seen what has become of our local school system.... it is terrible.
I would propose to remove tax credits for children as well. Afterall the people who are causing the burden on our government and lives are also the ones getting the tax breaks. remove the tax credits for children and ensure it only goes to education and these taxes would not even being discussed.
-
Long-time Oregonians remember when our taxes were stripped by Measure 30, I think it was, in the 80's. The profits of many Oregon businesses depend directly upon infrastructure like working roads and public transportation. Their investment in the infrastructure returns more to them, than, say to a single middle class resident. Why shouldn't they contribute more, since they benefit more, especially in difficult economic times?
Thank you,Anne Tillinghast
-
Oregon Ballot Measure was defeated in 2004 not in the 1980s.
-
"37% increase in government spending" FAILS to take into account the devaluation of the dollar.
Please catch these comments. At least ask if they are using real or nominal dollars.
-
my husband and I are disabled, and earn(thanks to disability pension) 12,ooo or so per year. We just now lost our optical coverage (no eye exams, no glasses), because of cuts. We know that, no matter what good budget management means, there are times when one must use poor techniques to survive, such as borrowing to buy food. This is truly unsustainable, and those who make 250K or more may say, Well, we just can't ethically use poor budget technique, but, I can't. That argument applies to the "fluff" in society. Perhaps I am just a poor ignoramus, although both my husband and myself have graduate degrees.
-
First of all thanks for opening this discussion up, it needs some real attention VS. what we see in tv ads. My wife and I will both vote NO on both of these measures. As a liflelong Democrat I find it frustrating that the legislature chooses to target a minority tax base simply because of the fact that it's a minority. Notably the ads I've seen in favor of the tax measures have been a product of the OEA. I'd like to point out that our failing education budget is in no small part the result of faulty management by the government. Oregon teachers have the 2nd shortest school year in the nation. This year they will work 184 days and receive and annual compensation of $50,044 for just a little over 6 months of work. This is salary and doesn't take into account their benefit packages which are considerable. Based on that formula if teachers worked a full year they would awfully close to being considered "rich" by their own labor associations definition. As for the implications of 67, I think people should realize that it's not the Nike's of the world that bear the brunt. It's a corporation like the one I work for, we have 5 employees, hardly a huge corporation. Under the new law we would pay taxes on sales eventhough our gross profit is less than 3%. These measures are not only unfair, they are a result of lazy legislation and a lack of creativity by the folks making the money decisions. Do'h and what about that bad economy!
-
There are 5 work days in a week, making a work 'month' 21 days.
184 divided by 21 equals 8.76 MONTHS, not "6 months of work."
Every teacher puts in countless additional hours preparing classrooms, making teaching materials, preparing lessons, correcting papers, talking to parents, supervisors, attending continuing education classes.
When you start out with nonsense numbers, the rest of your argument falls apart.
-
These Measures are about fairness. With my modest income, I pay a higher tax rate than a household that makes over a quarter of a million dollars. We need to take this first step toward making our tax system more fair.
Vague statements about "there are other things we could do" are the equivalent of a magician re-directing your attention--no specifics are given, and the immediate, painful effects that will be borne by the majority of Oregonians are treated as if they're not real.
The sad thing is, the cuts will be felt most deeply by those of us who already pay more than our fair share.
-
Voting for them. The apprehension I have: that the state has to pick up the slack because the federal funding isn't adequate. It seems like the feds are able to escape scrutiny because the states act like enablers. Sometimes, I do wonder, if it would be better to let the states hit rock-bottom, so it would force the feds to fund programs adequately. But, what to do in the meantime? Do we take the risk? Take the gamble?
Yes, decentralization. Whatever that is! How small would you like your piece of pie? I think national consistency would be a better option. We don't need to Select Comfort-ize education and health-care---leaving the funding up to the whim of the states and the local voters. Is this how we want to live?
-
I don't get prompt return calls or response times from the police and our public schools are a shadow of what they used to be in the 60's, 70's and 80's. I'm glad I attended school in Oregon before Measure 5 hit. Our public services need a steady income stream.
I lost my job at the beginning of last year and pulled myself up by my bootstraps. I didn't take a nickel from unemployment.
I now run a small business--S-corp. with 3 sub-contractors--that is successful enough to be taxed by this measure. Guess what? The extra $200- 500 I'd be paying with this tax would have NO affect in my personal spending, reinvestment in my business, or my hiring practices. It would take a small portion of my earnings stashed in savings and securities investments and transfer them into Oregon's economy.
I would support Measure 66 in hopes of having a better society. I can afford it, easily.
On another note, I also support smarter state spending and want reform of PERS, the state’s overly-generous retirement fund which is too heavy of a burden for the state budget.
-
Since the time of Cicero and beyond, the wealthy have not wished to pay a tax. Today we have the same situation, the wealthy do not wish to pay a fair tax, however, because of their money to influence politicians, they propose ideas to tax others for the problems they cause, fore the DNA of Rome's wealthy class is the same as the wealthy of America. Not paying a fair tax is elitism, and elitism ruins societies. Cutting educational programs in order to evade paying taxes is a wealthy elitist type of program that should never be allowed. Education is the benchmark of a quality society. Just because one donates to arts, like the ballet company of Oregon does not cut it. The lesser classes whether in Oregon or the rest of the country can't afford to attend the expensive ballet, opera or other classical events. The wealthy just don't get it. The wealthy must pay more than a fair tax.....period!
Raoul, Bend, Oregon
-
Hey, the "wealthy" already pay their fair share. The top income earners in Oregon pay a comparable amount to all other income brackets combined. If the state needs more money then we should all pay for it. The problem is that voters prefer to make people other than themselves pay for state services. We should all pay for the state services.
-
The wealthy pay more because they have more; it's called progressive taxation. If we followed your "flat-tax" reasoning, then someone making $50,000/yr would pay the same tax as someone earning $500,000/yr. There are many in the latter category who would be just fine with that system. That's called...being incredibly selfish.
-
To the businesswoman who talked about increasing healthcare costs - she well knows that healthcare costs for employess are deductible and would therefore have no effect on her tax liability under the new tax laws.
-
Depending on the business structure, healthcare can be taxed as income.
-
klb, please indicate which business structure you are referring to. I would like to research this. Thanks.
-
If we want to live in a Society worthy of our children, we have got to be willing to pay for it. Now buck up and show your Patriotism rich people. You can afford this tax increase and you know it.
-
No doubt our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at the "patriotism" comment... this country was founded (in part) as a revolt against taxation.
-
I'm a software entrepreneur in Portland and have a family.
I'm totally disgusted by the assertion of your guest and others that measures 66 and 67 will hurt 'small business owners' or 'entrepreneurs'. This is a red herring, based upon the assumption that only the wealthy can be small business owners or entrepreneurs. This assumption is a 'big lie'...propogated by both the wealthy and intellectually irresponsible economists to justify self-interested and socially irresponsible taxation policies.
The truth is that the local wealthy *do not* generally re-invest in local businesses...if you want painful confirmation of this just try to raise local money for an innovative new business...as we have a non-existent local angel investor community, and weak local venture capital.
Maintaining quality schools, and essential social services (police, fire, etc) does a lot more to support local small/new businesses than depending upon the wealthy to reinvest.
As Steve Novick
The REAL entrepreneurs (i.e. the technology people that know how to
As STeve Novick asserted earlier,
-
Of course efficiency is a goal. Is underfunding schools and cutting essential services really the best way to achieve government efficiencies? My experience is that underfunding puts programs and schools into survival mode. In survival mode we fall into band aid solutions and actually reduce efficiency.
I will vote yes. And yes, I will be paying more taxes.
-
To those wondering about govt spending and waste, the waste is in the lavish defined-benefit plans for govt employees. Interestingly, lavish retirement benefits is what brought down the auto companies. I believe it will bring down our state and local govts next.
-
We pay parking meter readers $50K-$60K here in Portland, and the top bureaucrat in charge of the parking patrol makes $171,000 a year. Those numbers do not include the massive benefits packages the public employee unions have negotiated for themselves (including a guaranteed 8% return on contributed pension funds, even when the fund itself loses, as it did last year (-27%)). As for job security, short of pedophelia, most of these people are guaranteed employment for life. I can only hope the current system does collapse under it's own weight. That is the only chance we have of starting over and doing it right.
-
For 30 some years we have Deregulated and have given tax cuts and tax breaks to the already wealthy because they have threatened to ship our jobs out of state and also they have promised that tax cuts will grow the economy, and just look at where we are now. Our jobs have been shipped overseas, great numbers of small businesses have been killed off by UnRegulated and or Deregulated Corporations which have grown in essence into monopolies in their sectors, our schools are underfunded, our infrastructure has fallen into disrepair, and we are still in The Great Recession.
Isn't it time to finally and totally reject Conservatism and return to the effective policies of Liberal economics that made Oregon a great state in the past under both centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats, when we did fund our schools and our infrastructure, we did Regulate businesses and so had huge numbers of owners of small businesses still in business providing local Oregon based jobs which supported Oregon families.
Conservatism has failed us miserably, let's reject it and return to the commonsense center of moderation in our politics and economics!
Let's pass both of these measure and rebuild our great state of Oregon!
-
I went to school in a place and time when the kids and parents did not have to do any fundraising (auctions, theme dances, sales of Entertainment Books and gift wrap, etc., pleas for donations). We also did not have to buy any school supplies. Citizens paid for everything via their taxes. And we got a superb public school education.
People understood that, in a democracy, everyone contributed to the pot according to his or her ability, and everyone benefited with an educated and employed populace.
I was appalled when my own children started school, just as Measure 5 was going into effect. Already, we had to buy all of their school supplies at the beginning of the school year, with requests continuing throughout the year. Then we had to start pleading parents and neighbors to buy junk and to contribute to various other fundraisers, and on and on. It seems as if the parents and kids spend more time raising money than on education. When will the citizens of Oregon realize that everyone needs to chip in according to his or her means, that everyone benefits at some time or other. When people are educated, they are much less likely to be the ones hanging on street corners, collecting unemployment, or mugging someone because they can't get a job.
-
This is all about taxing OTHER people's money rather because you don't have the guts to contribute yourselves. I should know as a Washingtonian paying taxes in Oregon.
-
Live where you work and shop where you live selyab. Oregon won't miss you. And, I would be contributing MY money, as I mentioned in my first comment. $500 out of my large savings account would have NO impact on my life or business. It could cut back on Porcella's hours of prep for a school auction so her kids can have pencils and an art class.
-
Deleting extra post.
-
There are two comments made by tax opponents that are constantly overlooked in the discussions.
1. "30% of the taxes in this state are paid by the rich" - The people that make this statement are hoping you think it means that the rich pay 30% of their income. That's not the case!
example: Suppose I'm rich and I pay $1.00 in taxes. Then 10 middle income people pay $.05 in taxes. That makes $1.50 in the tax pool and I can say that I pay almost 70% of the taxes.
Butttttt! Here's the part that is always left out. The dollar I paid in tax is about 1% of my income. I don't even notice the "missing" dollar I paid. However, the 5 cents paid by the middle income worker is half of their income. That hurts!
Please stop the tax opponents from misleading us with their slight of hand tactics.
2. "If you tax the rich they will no longer invest and then we all loose our jobs" - Those that invest make their money by investing. So if they don't invest they'll have to get jobs. My guess is they'll stick to investing.
"What if they take the jobs somewhere else?" - Go ahead and try! If you take your business elsewhere, where the taxes are low, then you are in a place where education is not valued and not supported. Your work force will not be able to add and subtract. Try making your computer chips there!
-
I don't know about anyone else but I am sick and tired of people like Jon Chandler threatening, like some extortionist, to ship Oregon jobs out of state unless we give him and his rich buddies some generous tax cuts or tax breaks or DeRegulations.
If he likes living in Oregon let him contribute a fair share to the state that provides a wonderful place to live and do business and if he wants to act like some thug gangster and extort tax preferences for himself and his already wealthy buddies let him move to some state where that is the accepted way to live and do business.
We don't want or need business men like him in Oregon, we want business people who like being here and who feel like a contributing part of our Oregon population.
-
My understanding is that the tax base has gone down significantly this year. Job losses have decreased the amount of income tax the state is receiving. However, schools still have the same monetary requirements as they did last year. After all, the population of Oregon has continued to grow this year. Anyone with a child in a public school can attest to the fact that there is no surplus spending to be cut in education. In fact, because of the economy, schools have been hit again in that families have been less able to contribute to the schools. This is how art teachers, music teachers, librarians, and any "extra" staff has been paid for to date (by contributions from families and community members not by taxes paid). To pay for education at the most basic level (which is all taxes was supporting anyway), we need to make up for that lost revenue somewhere. These measures are what the legislature has deemed the most appropriate.
I'm not happy about paying more taxes, who is? We are likely to be affected in that my husband works from home in a business that is organized as a "S" corporation. Believe me, we are just getting by. No vacations or dinners out or savings. We can just pay our bills so any additional taxes on "S" Corporation distributions will affect us directly. However, I do view education as worthy of support. Each of us had the opportunity to receive an education, and we need to pay this back by giving new generations the same (or hopefully) better opportunities we have enjoyed.
-
Thank you Steve!!! John Chandler keeps skewing how S-corps work and misrepresenting how this tax would affect small businesses. I am involved in a family business that is an S-Corp in Oregon. We offer consultant and freelance services. We bill for our services and pay our wages and the associated social security and business side of our income taxes out of the billed money received. We also pay for our business expenses (equipment, gas, etc.) out of the corporation's income. At the end of the year, any additional profit (which we aim to have very little of) is paid to us as a one time "bonus," which we are then liable for personal income taxes on. To say that taxing people's personal incomes above $125,000 would hurt business is a ridiculous anti-tax scare tactic, not reality.
-
Oregon Loses Out To Indiana For Electric Car Plant
Don't think tax policies play a role in attracting new employers to Oregon? Think again, literally. According to Gas 2.0 blog, the Elkhart city council voted to give Th!nk a phased in tax credit that should provide about $3 million dollars in savings to the company.
The Portland Business Journal reported that the news ends nearly nine-months of speculation as to whether Think would build its all-electric Think City vehicles in Oregon, which was one of three finalists for the plant.
Oslo-based Think said it will invest $43.5 million in building improvements and equipment in Elkhart County, where it could begin assembling vehicles in early 2011. The investments will support a manufacturing capacity of more than 20,000 vehicles per year.
That loss just cost Oregon 415 new, full-time jobs and countless secondary jobs
-
Having done the laborious research (made as difficult as possible by our state employees charged with reporting the hard costs of maintaining our state government) I am appalled but not surprised that these measures have been put forward. For one thing, the state has to find a way to come up with the hundreds of millions necessary to make up the difference between what the PERS pension fund actually earned last year (-27%) and the guaranteed return of 8% our public employees believe they are entitled to receive. If you read the economic analysis provided by the state, one of the assumptions they make in determining the impact of government programs is that government jobs actually contribute to the economic health of the state. Another consideration: if we try to cut back the state bureaucracy, the public employees unions here will very likely do what they are now doing in California, sue to force the state to pay them what they believe they are owed.
One last point: despite the dismal performance of our public schools turning out students equipped to compete in global markets, the teacher's unions are highly intolerant of competition. In spite of the fact that the Internet offers a quantum leap in the efficacy and efficiency by which billions of children might be educated, the established purveyors of anachronistic but sacred educational paradigms have succeeded in prohibiting the growth of on-line charter schools in this state. If anyone has any doubts as to why these measures have been put forth, one need only look at the long list of organized labor and sundry private organizations which feed off government waste to get an answer.
-
I will probably be voting for the business tax, but I think a lot of people are being disingenuous about it. If we were honest we'd call it the Walmart tax and admit it is to stop them from gaming the energy tax credit loophole too well. The better solution, of course, is to close the loop hole, but special interests, legislators, and the public like to feel good about being green... we just don't like the idea that Walmart is the prime beneficiary.
-
I'm a little late onto this conversation, but will respond to the whole. Yes, the wealthy can afford this tax increase. And no, it is not only the wealthy. Small companies are incorporated such that the income is attached to their personal taxes and the increase is going to hit the families of the owners of those businesses. It was poorly written and they knew that when they wrote it and did nothing to amend this.
And though I work in social services, and am fully aware that my income is dependant on these taxes passing, I'm left with the resentment of this bind. Where's the representative taxation? Why don't we have a sales tax? It's ludicrous that a decade+ ago, when measure 5 eliminated the funding for schools, that a steady, representative method for taxing all was not created. Oregon has behaved in an ingnorant, short-sighted manner in all things regarding taxes and social services (including schools).
I'm tired of having to assess bandaid solutions that surely cause more problems than they resolve. While it would be impossible to get the politicians out of government, it would not be impossible to make them get out of government after a shorter period of time, so that once they've been bought by a corporation they are out and can no longer adversely influence the decisions of the governement. Also, why aren't citizens asked to advise them. They simply do not have the capacity to know all they need to know to make the decisions they are making.
It's a sign of ignorance to continue in this manner without being willing to ask for help and get the information to make sound policy.
-
Yes - term limits for state (and federal) elected officials, and moving more appointees into the ranks of the elected. I'd even take it a step further, and develop a short list of rules for the rulemakers. If a legislator (or congressman/woman) violates the trust of the constituents after bamboozling them effectively during a campaign, their powers of lawmaking are immediately suspended for a period of time based on the degree of the offense (such as being "bought" by a corporation, union, or lobbyist group). Repeat offenders' seats become open for replacement by the runner up in the most recent election. Otherwise we continue to operate under the best legislature (or Congress) money can buy.
BD
-
I happen to catch Bob Tiernan on the radio today while driving across town. He touched on the extravagant, gold-plated state healthcare benefits that the public employees unions are spending millions to defend. He opined that if State of Oregon workers would agree to accept benefits on the level of State of Washington employees, we'd see hundreds of millions of dollars in savings in the state's budget. All good thoughtful points. Couldn't agree more.
But then the conversation turned to a specific example of how M66/67 would impact small employers and their businesses. Apparently a small town doctor had called into the program yesterday, talking about how he has been forced to shut down his clinic because skyrocketing expenses had made it unprofitable.
The clinic grossed about $1M in revenue. After all the expenses are paid for (payroll, malpractice insur, taxes, ect) the doc took home about $1,700 for the entire year... no hidden perks, nada. He was subsidizing the practice out of his own pocket. Not only is he forced to close his doors, but he gets to pay retroactive taxes on the gross receipts. Enough to vote no on this point alone, right?
While in this instance, shuttering the doctor's practice was not directly caused by M66,67, the example is indicative of the challenges small businesses across the state are going through. Simply put, a small business owner can show millions in revenue and be flat-out broke. This fact, in and of itself, is reason enough to vote down the measures.
But this still doesn't capture broader, more harmful impact that a change in business behavior has on a community. Individuals, subcontractors and small companies depend on medium and large company spending as their lifeblood.
What's the evidence? You know the stats all too well: 1-in-5 can't find full-time work... 650,000 Oregonians on food stamps... and the list goes on. Behind those stats are small business folks who USED do work for larger businesses; who USED to pay their mortgages; who USED to be able to afford health insurance, who USED to contribute to the food banks instead of depending on them, who USED to employ other Oregonians.
-
come on folks lets be real. Ipay more in state income tax than the company I work for. But thats neither here nor there, The problem is that I lost ten thousand dollars of income this last year,as compared to last year and I've had to tighten my belt and not go on vacation, but the state has not reduced spending and in fact has increased spending in this very bad economy. If I have to tighten my belt then I don't see why the state and public employees should not have to tighten theirs as well
-
I agree that the things haven't been easy. Being a college student in this economy isn't easy; my parent's have both taken multiple furloughs. But I don't think cutting the state's budget is the way to solve the problem. I'm voting yes on Measures 66 and 67; the potential revenue it has to generate for education and healthcare system is great. And we have to remember that we don't pay a sales tax, so our state funding for schools and things has to come from somewhere.
-
Comments are now closed.
I'm in the air but leaning toward voting against measures 66 and 67. I assume they will affect me indirectly and directly. Companies that can raise their prices will do so to diffray new tax expenses so I will end up paying their "taxes" through increased cost of goods and services.
I haven't worked for an employer since returning to Portland in 2007 so I don't put much weight behind those who cry the new measures will "kill jobs". Jobs in Oregon are dead already.
Not impressed with how Oregon uses tax revenue. Seems like the paid-in taxes are never enough and Oregon's infrastructure continues to deteriorate.
Dissatisfied that wealth is redistributed from poor to rich in the form of higher salaries and bonuses for corporate executives. Rich executives then threaten to move their corporations elsehwere if they cant extort concessions.
The rich have always had methods to shield their wealth from taxation because they have the ability to hire cagey specialists that the non-rich don't have access too. This is unfair and the inequity is never fixed.
The majority of us don't want to pay taxes at all. Many of us believe we don't receive services tax payments purportedly provide. We also want cheap or free services without acknowledging how much these services cost to provide. I call this the Walmart Effect.
I continue to vote no on corporate proxies where executives seek to give themselves big salaries and bonuses.
I intend to vote no on 66 and 67. Oregon's economic and tax systems are inefficient. I'm unconvinced that 66 and 67 band-aids will work because long-term corrective surgery is required.
It's troublesome that 66 and 67 are what I want on their surface merit, but I suffer a disconnect. Prices for services and goods continue to rise while good jobs, fair wages, and healthcare access for the majority continue to erode.
So shouldn't we do something even if that something is compromise? Nope. Not going to do that this time. The sooner our system breaks down the sooner we can fix it so that it more equitable and transparent all around.