Can you hear us now, teabaggers?

[Qutzupalotl]

The people of Oregon just voted themselves two tax INCREASES to fund basic services. Suck on that.


Voters OK Tax Hikes On Wealthy, Businesses

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Voters approved tax increases for wealthy Oregonians and businesses in a decision that will generate $727 million in revenue.

With 85 percent of the expected votes counted Tuesday night, both measures had 54 percent approval. FOX 12 political analyst Tim Hibbitts confirmed that Measures 66 and 67 passed.

Measure 66 raises taxes on household income at and above $250,000 and $125,000 for individual filers. It also reduces income taxes on unemployment benefits in 2009.

Measure 67 raises business taxes.
http://www.kptv.com/yourvote/22350578/detail.html

[MrModerate]

1. I'm an expat and pal around with expats from other countries . . .

And even though the exemptions I get don't come close to what they get (Brits, Canucks, Germans, French), I'm still taxed waaaaay less than they are. And their friends in their home countries are taxed even more. Why is it that people in certain brackets bitch and moan so much?

Get real, Mr. & Ms. quarter-of-a-million-a-year: YOU'RE UNDERTAXED!!

[vadawg]

2. no get real what happens is if you increase the tax burden to much then the wealth leaves

whether that is the tangible wealth or the brains that makes the wealth, who wants to work their ass off and after tax take home $50k when just by moving they can work their ass off and take home $150k, it sounds good to tax tax tax but it gets to a point where people just get pissed...

[depakid]

3. Let's look at the facts of the matter- not the ideology, shall we?

The Legislature targeted the upper 2 percent of individual taxpayers and the businesses with the biggest sales, many headquartered out of state. The increases will be reflected in returns filed this year.

The Democrats also trimmed budgets hard last year and drew on reserves and stimulus dollars as part of a budget-patching package that included the tax increases.

The state's top income tax of 9 percent rises to 10.8 percent on taxable income above $125,000 for single filers, $250,000 for joint filers, and to 11 percent for those with twice those amounts in taxable income.

Prominent among the business tax increases is one that affects many companies: The annual minimum $10 - unchanged since it was created in the 1930s - goes up to $150.

Yep- people and businesses are sure to up and move away to poor low tax southern states, where wages are lower, schools are full of fundies and the quality of life is set to decline year after year.

[DeschutesRiver]

11. This won't affect me at all. But it will affect a lot of people in my rural community

People focus on the businesses in the more populated areas of the Willamette Valley, where work is still more plentiful than in the rural areas in Oregon. And focus on what is to be gained in taxes from the large businesses that you or I could name, as though a small business where the owner gets >250k is unusual, which it is not.

In our rural area, a local guy with his high school education owned an excavation business since he graduated 25 years ago, and does well to extremely well (boom times). Due to the bust, he has laid off 10 employees and is trying to keep the remaining 3 employed (small community, when you fire people, you know them and their kids, and socialize with them). He makes $250-$275k a year with his 4 person business (him and the 3 remaining employees). He does less of the operation of equipment due to the need to be out hustling jobs for him and the employees wherever he can.

I suspect what he will end up doing sooner now rather than later is simply let 2 of the remaining 3 employees go. He can still earn a great living without taking as much time away from his tasks of repair and operating equipment to drum up the volume of extra business he needs for those 2 other employees. He is older, misses running the equipment himself, and would like to slow down on the business generating side.

The economics of this tax increase suggests that a guy like Mr. Excavator Dude might consider no longer spending X for an employee to make Y off that employee when he is going to effectively lose a larger percentage of what he used to make in profit on that employee's labor to this new tax. Esp. when finding clients to feed these extra 2 employees is taking too much time spent away from the labor side (which is how a lot of these small mom and pop equipment businesses are run). Instead of spreading the fewer jobs available amongst all the employees to make some profit for the business owner and give them a way to feed their families, he and the last employee could do it all themselves. Less hassle in the long run.

Might not be earth shattering news for 2 more employees to lose their jobs, but it will be 2-10 all over the place from these smaller businesses, and all over the state, esp. impacting the rural areas. I am not saying the tax increase isn't a good thing in some respects, but it will have some unintended consequences, and for struggling rural communties, it might end up being really bad news.

[Qutzupalotl]

14. Firing an employee based on changes in tax rates would be unwarranted.

We're talking about a change from 9% to 10.8% for two years, then down to 9.9%. That's for the owner's personal income. The minimum tax on businesses will be raised from $10 per year to $150. I seriously doubt significant layoffs will occur as a result.

Compare that to the cost of doing business in a state whose workforce suffers from having had a subpar education, who would not be able to do a better job than those with better education, or afford as many products: all businesses would suffer.

You don't hire or fire based on taxes. You base hiring decisions on one thing: whether people are buying your products.

[DeschutesRiver]

16. Maybe large multi-national corporations don't hire/fire based solely upon taxes

But it is entirely true that mom and pop businesses with far tighter margins, who are stuggling as it is, will add it to the growing list of reasons to not hire/fire, and make the choice to let employees go.

It is simply a different dynamic - two different business models with vastly different outcomes - the marginal mom and pops that support rural communties have different pressures and considerations that larger corporations who have much more room in their budgets to absorb such things do not.

A layoff of 2-10 people per compay would not be significant in Portland. In the rural part of the state, it will be devastating to smaller towns and communities. I am not arguing that the tax increase was wrong in theory, but in practice there will be unintended consequences to applying this increase with such a broad brush.

[Qutzupalotl]

17. I'm sorry, I just don't believe $140 a year is going to break the bank.

Show me the numbers of what you have in mind and how these changes will affect layoffs.

[DeschutesRiver]

18. I will try to pursue those numbers later, although it is evident easily by basic

critical thinking. I have to take my dog in for a vet appt now, so can't go further until I get back.

The job losses in mom and pops are the result of mounting pressures from several directions, not just the individual effect of this particular tax increase. It may be the final nail in the coffin, and now that the measures have passed, we will know soon enough the full effect on everybody, rather than just on the obvious big guy corps who will just add this as a budget line item in an already bloated, inefficient corp. system.

Another unintended consequence, if I am correct, will be that any hoped for gains to the state for this "insignficant" tax increase will be offset by the increased need for state welfare/food stamp/health care services due to the ripple effect on the mom and pops' "insignficant" numbers of layoffs/firings/no hires, a whole new group of people who will now need state assistance. There may be few jobs available in Portland, but there are virtually no jobs in Central Oregon, and I imagine it is the same in Eastern Oregon.

The most likely result of this will be no net gain, and more likely a loss to the state. But it has made people feel good and as though they are accomplishing something, and might take their minds off the reality of our sucky economic situation for awhile.

I felt good about these measures too, until I started talking to smaller business owners, realized how many were on the edge and their plight in decimated rural economies, and then realized this solution might be more problematic for some than most realize. My biggest concern isn't actually for the business owners, many of whom may be able to keep their businesses afloat by canning people, but what I know is about to happen to their employees.

[Qutzupalotl]

19. Without numbers to support them, those are just guesses

not critical thinking. Please hold off speculating until you have figures in hand. Otherwise, you will be tempted to formulate a response that supports your previous assertions rather than letting the facts lead you to a conclusion.

[DeschutesRiver]

25. Yes, I understand. Since you have not run numbers that would support my conclusion

it is natural to assume that you are using critical thinking alone to support your argument that this will not have a profound impact on a mom and pop business.

Once I dug further into these measures, due to people running their concerns by me, I realized there might be merit in their arguments. To that end, I have done my own numbers (hypotheticals and actual scenerios from knowledge gained from former clients). Being a lawyer, old habits die hard and I wished to run through the scenerios again before letting the debate here go further. I work scenerios from both sides and all sides of the argument, without regard to conclusion. Glad to see from your post that you too understand the concept with which you incorrectly assumed I was unfamiliar.

Both my hypotheticals and my first hand knowledge from business owners of actual situations are not speculation, so I am in no doubt personally, but I do like to test such things to see if there is a hole in my arguments. This really didn't require rocket science to figure out, and you could test this easily yourself, by doing even a hypothetical where this possibility exists. If not, then if I am right with regard to this aspect alone, it will become more clear as the months go on.

I've had bad news about my dog which I didn't expect, and that is my focus now, as my heart isn't fully into a debate that is of marginal relevance, at least to me who has certainty about this issue. The measures are a done deal, and it sounds like this won't impact your life, and it will have zero effect on mine (other than watching the unintended consequences in small communities already on the edge).

[alstephenson]

22. Really? Devastating???

[MrModerate]

4. Quantification matters. Being able to live "at home" matters . . .

My experience -- having traveled quite a bit while continuing to pay my US taxes -- is that other developed nations tax their people (and in particular their highly salaried people) much more than the US does. And these people aren't abandoning their countries. On the contrary, their notion of the social contract is that they get good value for their taxes in the form of more robust public sector support of basic human needs. They're willing to pay and proud of what their societies do for their countrymen.

Only in the US (again, among the developed countries I've traveled in) do we have this notion that paying taxes --at a reasonable, nonconfiscatory level -- equals getting ripped off.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Is that you, Rush? Your facts are just plain wrong! The people have spoken.

[cascadiance]

6. Businesses leave to avoid paying $140 more in taxes? STUPID businesses then...

... that don't deserve to survive if they can't do the math that shows that moving away would be WAY more expensive to them!

And the more states that follow Oregon's lead here, the less of an excuse that becomes, unless the businesses in question truly want to show anti-American colors and leave the country altogether. Then we can hit them later with tariffs.

Corporations, sooner or later, the people will win and make you pay for your greed! Those that stand by us, and accept the higher costs of doing business and try to work within the newer economy will be rewarded by our loyalty. Cheap prices aren't everything!

[uponit7771]

10. Link and quote from a nuetral empirical source? TIA

[ericgtr]

13. The reality is that Oregon ranks 45th in highest business taxes

So there are only 5 states these business can go to in order to get a better tax rates than Oregon. If they want to cut off their nose despite their face then more power to them.

[Arugula Latte]

15. No, when your school system crumbles the wealth leaves.

[alstephenson]

21. Your example doesn't even make sense.

And neither does your premise. Folks would have to move a LONG way from Oregon to find a lower tax rate, as both WA and CA are higher.

[Clio the Leo]

7. Clearly Oregon has been infiltrated by the commies....

.... who no doubt got lost during one of their famous fly overs in Alaska. ;)

[depakid]

8. There be commies, alright!

Well, at least there's commie gear...



.....

[Arugula Latte]

26. We're a bunch of arugula-eating, latte-sipping Volvo drivers.

Damn. I have American cars. :( There goes the stereotype. ~Arugula Latte

[mstinamotorcity]

9. the tax cut

is the American folklore that was emphasized during the Reagan Administration it started with that Government was bad and big Government was worse.The fantasy of the tax credit folklore is too tell the people that it does this fictitious thing or the other.When in actuality tax cuts do not produce revenue, period. And the only ones who can truly benefit from a tax cut are the extremely wealthy.What pisses me off is that Americans act like they can't see this magical creature for what it is.Any time you have something that exist in theory only and does not benefit the masses and the only people who do benefit are the extremely wealthy, lets call this s--t what it really is, some s--t that goes back to the time of their beloved Ronald Reagan,a f--king Pyramid Scheme or A Ponzi scheme.But as long as they are willing to believe that some how the mythical windfall to the people is going to appear from no where is absolutely ridiculous.And the only way for wealthy people to stay wealthy is for them to keep control over our incomes and purchases of what ever they are peddling.That is why whenever I can I try and make sure my dollar does not hit their bottom line. On a lot of instances my dollar getting spent in one place eventually may lead to their pockets,but when I can stop that I do that also.If we ever start banning together with the power of our money what a strong voice we would represent.

[arcadian]

12. Yeah they can hear ya, they got the place bugged.

[ericgtr]

20. The wingnuts are out in force on the internets today over this win

It seems like there are way more blowhards crying on the internet instead of voting because they lost this handily. http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/news/topstories/story/Both-tax-measures-pass/Wi40J6yMxky9SvnFDt4nBQ.cspx?p=Comments It's hard not to laugh at the business owners saying they are "leaving the state" and "laying people off" all over a 1/10 of 1% gross tax. What a joke.

[newtothegame]

23. We're all gonna use those basic services; why can't we all pay more for them?

:shrug:

[newtothegame]

24. We're all gonna use those basic services; why can't we all pay more for them?

:shrug: