Measures 66 and 67

[theJenchild]

Hey Everyone,

 

I am trying to get the word out about these two measures that will appear on the January ballot for the state of Oregon. I currently work in the human services field and, like everyone, we are tightening the belts to conform to the current economic climate. In an effort to continue providing services to people who need them (low income, MRDD, disabled, and the eldery) and protect the current standard of education in our state, Oregon has brought these two measures to a vote. Sadly, there is alot of anti-legislation propaganda happening right now (you've all seen the "stop job killing taxes" signs).

 

Here's the short version of what these two measures are all about:

 

1. Measure 66: would require corporate businesses to pay a minimum income tax of $150.00. This is an increase from the current $10.00 that they are required to pay. The current minimum was set in 1931 and has not been adjusted since then. This measure would simply account for the cost of living increase and inflation to bring the minimum tax in line with what everyone else is required to pay.

 

2. Measure 67: Would increase the income tax paid by the top 3% of tax payers by 1.8% only on income filed over the predetermined about (125,000 for a single, 250,000 for a couple). So if a couple filed an income of 260,000, they would be taxed the addition 1.8% only on 10,000 of that since it was over the 250,000. This translates to an increased tax of $180.00.

 

 

These two measures will protect nearly $1 billion in services that are vital to our communities, as well as thousands of jobs in the human services and education fields....mine included. So please, read more about these two measures and find it in your heart to vote yes and help create a fairer taxation system in Oregon that does not favor corporations over the individual.

 

For more information: www.defendoregon.org

[JasonH]

With respect, I have to disagree.

 

1) Oregon wastes far too much money to claim that additional taxes are needed to pay for basic services. Before Oregon asks for more of my money, they need to spend what they already have responsibly. Voting for additional taxes just rewards them for poor management of what they have already taken.

 

2) Oregon has the second highest unemployment rate in the country. Second to Michigan. Michigan has an excuse - they car industry has imploded. Why is the unemployment rate in Oregon so high? Because of the anti-business climate in the legislature. Short-sighted people always think that taxing business and "rich" people is the answer, but that's how you end up with the second highest unemployment rate in the country. Every tax raised on business is another unemployed worker. You call "stop job killing taxes" propaganda. I say the proof of the truth of these signs is evidenced in the unemployment rate.

 

Last year - after the recession started, the State of Oregon paid $600K to put artwork in prisons (yes, you read that correctly - art in prisons) and spent hundreds of thousands on statues to put next to Max lines. Some of this type of spending is fine ($600K art in prisons is never okay) - in times of plenty. When you continue to spend like this during a recession - it's just irresponsible and arrogant.

 

Clearly, the State of Oregon has enough of my money. I will vote no on any and every new tax until Oregon is managed with some fiscal integrity and responsibility.

[reef165]

Ya but the big corporations should pay taxes on the $ they earn, weather its spent foolishly by the government or not. I wish they payed more so I could pay less! I know, now I'm living on fantasy island! I for one think a flat tax would be great! 5% of 25k / 5% of 100k /5% of a million

[Byrd]

With respect, I have to disagree.

 

1) Oregon wastes far too much money to claim that additional taxes are needed to pay for basic services. Before Oregon asks for more of my money, they need to spend what they already have responsibly. Voting for additional taxes just rewards them for poor management of what they have already taken.

 

2) Oregon has the second highest unemployment rate in the country. Second to Michigan. Michigan has an excuse - they car industry has imploded. Why is the unemployment rate in Oregon so high? Because of the anti-business climate in the legislature. Short-sighted people always think that taxing business and "rich" people is the answer, but that's how you end up with the second highest unemployment rate in the country. Every tax raised on business is another unemployed worker. You call "stop job killing taxes" propaganda. I say the proof of the truth of these signs is evidenced in the unemployment rate.

 

Last year - after the recession started, the State of Oregon paid $600K to put artwork in prisons (yes, you read that correctly - art in prisons) and spent hundreds of thousands on statues to put next to Max lines. Some of this type of spending is fine ($600K art in prisons is never okay) - in times of plenty. When you continue to spend like this during a recession - it's just irresponsible and arrogant.

 

Clearly, the State of Oregon has enough of my money. I will vote no on any and every new tax until Oregon is managed with some fiscal integrity and responsibility.

 

+1-You would be implying live within their means and only spend money that they actually have-LMFAO

I agree 110%

Sorry Jen, your employer is corrupt and inept

[steveweast]

Measure 67 is particularly lame. It places a tax on gross sales regardless of profits. I'm a small business that sells high dollar items (homebuilder)......this measure will tax me heavily even if I post a loss. I've been struggling to stay afloat where others in my field have gone bankrupt ( Legend, Renaissance). I've been having to sell homes at a loss for the past year.....and now I'm going to be taxed on losses just because gross sales are in the millions ???? Lame !!! This could force several of my contemporaries that employ many hard working folks out of the industry. If this measure were based upon profits....it might be a different story.

[theJenchild]

Sorry Jen, your employer is corrupt and inept

 

My employer is a non-profit agency providing residential and independent support to developmentally disabled people in the Willamette Valley. I do believe that they are far from corrupt or inept. We depend on the dollars that the state puts forth to provide these kind of services so that the feds will match them and allow us to continue to run the group homes that keep these people out of the institutions. If 66 and 67 don't pass, we are looking at a complete annihilation of the brokerage system, which would eliminate 7,000 jobs as well as services for over 2500 disabled people, as well as 10% cut in funding across the board for all disability services. I'm only speaking about the disability services side because that's all I really know. There are however reprecussions for the education side. Just please do your research whatever side you take. Don't rely on hear-say, and don't rely on biased information. Read the measures. Make your own decisions. I just wanted to make people aware that these things are coming down the pike. Thanks!

[Algae]

I also work with both the mentally ill and developmentally disabled populations and If anyone is interested I can personally show how limited their funding is currently. Further cuts would decimate services. These people are not living high on the hog. There has been a history of these populations being on the bottom rung both socially and economically.

It has been said that a country's greatness may be measured by how we treat the least among us.

[JasonH]

Jen and Algae, you guys do noble work and I appreciate that. Jen, I believe that Byrd meant that the govt is corrupt and inept, not your specific NPO.

 

The problem is that the govt wastes so much money, and then when some valuable service comes wanting - the answer isn't to prioritize the budget and take care of our less fortunate/capable citizens - it's to continue wasting money and raise taxes.

 

Jen, your description of 67 makes it sound like it's just going to target those greedy super-rich. But as Steve points out - it's a horrible measure. It will cripple small business in a time when most of them are just trying to survive through to the end of the recession. Something like 90% of American's are employed by small business. This is a tax that will put hundreds of Oregon small business out of business and thousands of workers out of a job - and onto the govt dole - meaning more govt spending and more taxes...

 

The reason the economy is so bad in Oregon, is this exact mentality from our lawmakers. Everyone blames corporations and wants them to "pay their fair share" but when you raise taxes on business, you force them to reduce their greatest expense - labor. When business (large or small) employ people, those people pay taxes - and don't end up on unemployment.

 

If it were up to me, there would be a tax credit for business for everyone they hired. Let them employ more people and pay less taxes - tax the worker - then at least the worker has a job.

 

Look at Boeing - they just went out to build a brand new factory - which will be built in South Carolina. Several states were competing for that business to come to their state. Not Oregon. South Carolina will be getting all the work from building a huge factory, and will then get ~20K jobs, and the business from those ~20K workers, and the construction from the homes those workers will buy. Not Oregon.

[Byrd]

I can never be for more taxes until the State can learn to spend money within their budget, and I have voted in the past were those results if passed would have impacted me negatively-I practice what I preach.

My mistake Jen, and it was not meant to you personally, I had read this as you being employed by the State of Oregon-Whom I say is corrupt and inept. If your funding comes from the State than you are collateral damage, and not guilty by association.

Whichever is the case-our state does not know how to live within a budget, nor do most states. They threaten us with closing jails, shutting down schools, releasing criminals, cutting police numbers etc. playing on our fears and compassion. I am no longer compassionate. I am deeply sorry that there inactions may have an impact on you. That is the terrible part-their inability to "run" the state correctly, it impacts innocent people.

 

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

I am sure you will get your funding, the majority of our state don't vote intelligently they vote on emotions, what feels good, or sounds good, not what makes sense in the big picture.

If you have kids and you kid keeps stealing money from your purse, you don't just keep putting your money back in your purse and hope they stop, you act responsibly and with authority you punish them. If they continue, you figure out what works.

 

Our state is that kid that keeps stealing, we just keep putting money back in the purse.

 

My employer is a non-profit agency providing residential and independent support to developmentally disabled people in the Willamette Valley. I do believe that they are far from corrupt or inept. We depend on the dollars that the state puts forth to provide these kind of services so that the feds will match them and allow us to continue to run the group homes that keep these people out of the institutions. If 66 and 67 don't pass' date=' we are looking at a complete annihilation of the brokerage system, which would eliminate 7,000 jobs as well as services for over 2500 disabled people, as well as 10% cut in funding across the board for all disability services. I'm only speaking about the disability services side because that's all I really know. There are however reprecussions for the education side. Just please do your research whatever side you take. Don't rely on hear-say, and don't rely on biased information. Read the measures. Make your own decisions. I just wanted to make people aware that these things are coming down the pike. Thanks![/quote']

[Algae]

JasonH,

The reason that we are into a recession now is because of LARGE corporations, not small businesses and not government.

 

These are the corporations that pushed for low short term corporate taxes and loopholes so that they could make a quick profits instead of a sustaining growth and manufacturing. They wanted to turn their money over quickly and paid off congressmen to allow them to do so. The result is that we only export 7% of our national trade in balance.

The most infamous of all are the banker corporations selling junk mortgages and stealing from you and me. These corporations lobbied to have less SEC regulations and were successful with Bush. The prosecutions of SEC violations fell to an all time low with Bush. They had a field day and they put our country into jeopardy. I consider these corporations traitors to my country.

 

I don't trust big government, but I trust big corporations even less.

 

The reason the economy is so bad in Oregon, is this exact mentality from our lawmakers. Everyone blames corporations and wants them to "pay their fair share" but when you raise taxes on business, you force them to reduce their greatest expense - labor. When business (large or small) employ people, those people pay taxes - and don't end up on unemployment.

 

 

 

QUOTE]

[JasonH]

JasonH,

The reason that we are into a recession now is because of LARGE corporations, not small businesses and not government.

 

Actually, that is not the case by a long shot. I'd be happy to give a detailed explanation, but it would be long and boring (and require an open mind by the reader*) and I don't want to derail the thread.

 

*But (edit: solely) blaming Bush and big corporations is simply not reasonable (edit: both certainly have some level of responsibility). I realize that these are the favorite bogymen of the left, but as long as we are only capable of blaming the "other side" with no real understanding of the underlying cause, we will simply repeat the same historical mistakes - which is exactly what is happening here with these two bills.

[snowpunk]

Let me start by saying I am by no means rich. I am at best the low end of the middle class as my bank account would show. I think taxing the rich more is something we always jump to because it seems easy since most of us are not rich. The % they pay just keeps going up and up as states(Oregon) need more money for for their agendas. They don't spend the money wisely when they do have it so why give it to them. The things that gets me the most about taxing the rich "just a little more" is that we do it all the time and the state/government doesn't give back. They pay a ton more in taxes then we would ever dream of. Yes they have it and I don't, so we assume they can afford it. What everyone keeps forgetting is that they earned it and I didn't. It seems our tax system is set up to punish our most driven people. The people who lived up to the American dream better then the rest of us. Most of them have payed their dues one way or another. Funny thing is that when this recession hit, and everyone started losing their jobs, the rich got no more help then I did. Some would venture to say even less help. They make 200K a year and suddenly can't find a job after a layoff, they get the maximum unemployment of just a hair over $500 before taxes to try to live on. That is what I get to live on also if I am unemployed. I know it isn't working for them because I am up to my ears in debt now because of it and I make beans comparably. I get the same amount even though I probably put in 1/10 the amount in taxes that they did at best. This isn't fair at all. Also, when this refinancing debacle came about, it excluded people with jumbo loans. Keep in mind, some of these people were probably leaving a little higher then their means but I am sure more of the people who did refinance were doing it then them. I could go on and on but just to keep it from getting any longer I'll end it here. I agree with JasonH that the state needs to do a much better job at allocating the money it has before you give more to them. It's like giving your child some money to buy something and he makes a stupid choice and now needs more money to buy it because he wasted the first amount of money you gave him. Would you want to give him more money to go do it again or would you try to teach him to do the right thing and make him go without until he has learned his lesson? It's sad that programs like the one you work for Jenchild, are the ones that suffer because Oregon can't do the right thing but it has to stop somewhere to get the state back on track. They can't keep looking at us with their hands out with the puppy dog eyes after they did something bad. That works with dogs because they don't know any better.

 

Annnnd, end rant!(Bow) (sorry it was so long, flame on!)

[Twitterbait]

It took a lot of bravery to start this thread

 

i have to agree with most regarding the wasteful spending of the state. it is a tragedy.

 

I have an uncle that has worked in the same line of business with the developmentaly disabled for his whole career so i can understand the need and attachment. your work is great and so necessary. you just have the bad luck to be stuck under an inept state government (for years!). I do hope you keep your funding but i cant vote a payraise for a corrupt government (kinda funny to see them call all these CEO's and execs corrupt when they ask for a raise and then they go and do the same thing themselves IN A RECESSION).

 

oh well,

cheers

[ReefMe]

Taxes and your children's children .......

 

I've read most of these posts and skimmed through some and I direct my post to no one in particular. Taxes are what democracy runs on, that is the long and the short of it. Nothing gets done without taxes. Schools, roads, electrical, power plants, dams,parks, community centers, infrastructure,etc,etc,etc..... it all comes through taxes. Voting is the means to let your representatives know what taxes you think we should have. The representative you voted into office is the one you trust to put those taxes to best use. If you think that she / he won't do the correct thing, call them, email them, write to them, communicate to them or their office, go to a school meeting, town meeting. An unbiased survey would most likely find that within any group of people or a crowd less than %50 of them voted on an issue or less than %50 plan to vote when the time comes. No one's opinion matters unless it is backed by a vote, plain and simple. I think it's great that so many people are aware of this issue and voicing what they believe and hope that when the decision has been made - they will be able to say they voted on it. An opinion is only an opinion until it's put to a vote, that's when it matters most.

[steveweast]

For most of the years in the last decade, I've paid more in taxes that most people make in a year.....while I have no problem with that in particular, I do have a problem paying taxes in a year where I have a loss (just because I have sales))......this would be the result under 67. Change that aspect of it, and I might be onboard....until then, No on 67.

[jgf86123]

im sorry, but, if i lived in oregon, which thankfully i dont, no offense to all of you folks living in oregon, i would vote NO on any bill or measure that wants to increase taxes, on ANYBODY, regardless of how much they make. im sorry, but even those folks, yes, even the big corporate ceo's that we all love to hate, they busted their butts to get to that point so that they could make that money. yes, they are, on average, more corrupt than the former roman emperor caligula could have ever been, but, they did work their butts getting to that point. they just let the power go to their heads. do i feel they need to take a pay cut, YES, do i feel they should pay more taxes because they have lived up to the true american dream, no, not a single bit. i personally dont agree with paying any taxes at all, the IRS, as shown in numerous studies and numerous published research, is an illegal institution, income tax is against the law, but, since our "GREAT"(massive sarcasm here folks) government has given them so much power that anyone refusing to pay taxes is immediately labeled a criminal and sent to jail. to me, that is wrong, WE the people, supposedly, are supposed to run this country, not a powerhungry group of elitists who's only goal is to make us all their personal little slaves. im not going to get into who i wanted to be elected, but i can tell you this, their name was not barrack obama or john mccain, if i had to choose between those 2, im sorry, i personally feel mccain would do a better job, obama is an inexperienced lieing POS who's too full on himself to ever, EVER, do anything he even hinted at promising us, THE people, during his campaign. just look at the new medical reform bill, they're slowly working their way to over-turning roe v. wade, which i feel is a huge travesty and should never, EVER be touched. yes, im a guy, yes, my gf has had an abortion, i supported her 100% and will gladly do so again if she does get pregnant again, neither of us wants kids, especially in this day and age. i am ashamed of the, not MY, but the government, and want nothing to do with them, end of story.

 

sorry for the rant, hope i didnt upset too many of you.

[Byrd]

Jen I applaud you and those like you who help!! I am sure you share in everyones frustration of what I feel are mishandled funds that creates bills like these-especially when it hits so close to home

[steveweast]

Hopefully this thread will stay specifically on the two measures 66 & 67 and not wander into dangerous (although related) territory....or else this thread is destined for closure.

[nwcoralfarm]

Cheers to everyone here, I just wanted to stop in and make a quick point. I know I don't live in Oregon so I'll keep it short.

 

The biggest problem with adding new taxes when money already attained is poorly spent is the fact that they add all kinds of new taxes every year, however they don't get rid of old taxes that were added and are no longer needed. Correct me if I am wrong.

[finch6013]

hurry! Everyone storm the government with torches and pitchforks! That'll show em!

It worked back in the day didn't it? We have the right bear arms for a reason.

[Byrd]

Hopefully this thread will stay specifically on the two measures 66 & 67 and not wander into dangerous (although related) territory....or else this thread is destined for closure.

 

Agreed and noted-revision made-very passionately

[finch6013]

oops.......

[snowpunk]

I read over my post and it came off a little harsh I think. I didn't mean to shut you down Jenchild. I think the funds you are looking to potentially get for the job you do are most definitely needed and should be given out no problem. It was more of a rant towards our state. I hope you took it that way. Fortunately for you, the masses of people who are ill-informed will always want to tax the rich and corporations. They won't read anything about it and just vote to make it happen. I know my girlfriend is no exception either. I try to explain some things to her to let her be informed before she votes, but every year she goes over to her parents house(also ill-informed, and 110% republican) and copies her moms ballot. it is so sad to see so many people with a chance to change things based on how they feel, and they give it up. What did all that fighting that our country has done mean to these people if they won't even use the rights they have been given? Blood was shed, lives were lost, and all to protect what we are supposed to hold dearest, but we give it up like we want to live in China and not have a choice at all(enforcer). So much for not ranting again... I do believe in your cause, and I am sure you'll get the funds your looking for. I just wish it was coming from them making a surplus by correcting the mistakes they have mad thus far...

[theJenchild]

Thank you everyone for such great debate and conversation, this is what free speech is designed for.....to encourage open and honest discussion of controversial issues.

 

I thank those that recognize that work in the MRDD field is sometimes rough, but please understand that it is also some of the most rewarding work that I have ever done. It is for these people that I felt the need to post on a public forum about these measures that will protect their funding. I realize that there are many sides to any subject, and I am thankful that people here are so willing to present their concerns in such a constructive way.

 

I would like to address 2 points specifically. The first is one that was made about increasing taxes on small businesses. This posting was made in response to a similar thread that I started on my local craigslist, and I think that it is relevant here:

 

"Actually, the new personal income tax (#66) kicks in above $125k for singles, but not until $250k if you're filing state taxes jointly (including domestic partnerships). Also, this year's unemployment benefits will receive a small tax break.

 

#67 does not effect a corporation if it is solely owned. Otherwise, if it is an S-corp/LLC/partnership, or has less than $250,000 of taxable income, it goes up from $10/year to $150/year. I'm sure opponents will point out that that is an astonishing percentage jump, but not really, if you take in to account the $10 tax level was set in 1929 ($10 in 1929 money = $316 in 2009 money). Those above $250k require more math.

 

There's a flowchart and more facts about the proposal at OCPP - http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=nr20091103DeTree

OCPP is slightly left-leaning, but at least fact-based rather than knee-jerk "they took our jobs" R&R posters.

The "Stop Job Killing Taxes" Organization (yes their real name) site doesn't argue with these facts, they simply add on perceived dire consequences: http://www.stopjobkillingtaxes.com/faq/ "

 

The second point that I would like to address is the concerns over increasing taxes to fund government programs instead of "living within the means." Although I realize that government often overspends on sometimes seemingly ridiculous projects, I feel that it is unreasonable to expect that taxes remain unchanged forever. As the state grows, and the general population is aging, there will be more and more demand for state funded benefits and programs. These things cost money. In order to provide for the people of this state, the government must have funds coming in that match the need. Yes, there are problems with how the budget has been managed, but I don't feel that it is fair to play the "clean up your own mess," game when it is ultimately the very young(children) or underprivileged of the state that will pay the price. Changes need to be made, but changes cost money. If we can't afford to maintain programs like food stamps, medicare (current Oregon poverty level is 300% of the national standard, without 66&67, one proposed change is going to 100% of that standard....which would deny government food and health assistance to people who make more than $750.00 per month), and residential services for people with developmental disabilities.....how are we going to pay to have the work groups to reform the budget? I just feel like these two measures create a more fair taxation system, and not the opposite.

[steveweast]

JEN....this from the measure....

 

10/21, 12:20 BALLOT TITLE - MEASURE 67

RAISES $10 CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX, BUSINESS MINIMUM TAX, CORPORATE PROFITS TAX. MAINTAINS FUNDS CURRENTLY BUDGETED FOR EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, PUBLIC SAFETY, OTHER SERVICES.

RESULT OF “YES” VOTE: “Yes” vote raises $10 corporate minimum tax, 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. Raises tax rate some corporations pay on profits by 1.3 percentage points. Increases certain business filing fees. Raises estimated $255 million to maintain funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services.

 

 

This clearly states that the minimum tax is based upon sales (revenue) and is independent of income (profit). Not all corporations are subject to this tax...it depends on how the corporation is set up ( C - corp).....but, both large and small are affected depending on how the corporation was established.

 

There are many corporations that can have high revenues and little or no income (or a loss) in tough economic times. The minimum can be met with just one home sale.....or at a car dealership in a day.....or at a yacht dealership on the sale of a single boat.....or how about any bank in Oregon who have taken huge losses by having to liquidate non proforming assets for pennies on the dollar.

 

These liquidation sales are revenue and will be taxed under 67.....even though no income was realized. Even though some of these corporations have a public persona of being able to "afford it".....no corporation should be taxed without income realized.

 

This measure should have been based upon income alone. I have no problem with the $150 minimum though.