SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
The Oregon House passed bills yesterday that would raise taxes on individuals making over $125,000 a year, and on corporations. You can read all the details about the bills here and here.
The next political step is up in the air. Anti-tax crusader Russ Walker has vowed to fight at least one of the tax increases at the ballot box. And these aren't the only revenue increasing measures of the year. The beer tax may be dead, but the health care provider tax, part of the mammoth HB 2009, is still alive (although under fire). And a gas tax seems to be on the fast track to passage.
In some ways the issues at stake here aren't new. On this show alone we've touched on them in a series of shows about revenue (divided up into conversations about the kicker, sales tax, and the corporate minimum tax) and in our recent show about the proposed Ways and Means budget.
Still, they're too big to ignore. Bill Kennemer, a Republican representative from Oregon City, was quoted by The Oregonian as saying that Democrats are interested in taking from the rich to give to the poor: "It smacks a little of class envy and redistribution."
Is he right? And is this "redistribution" — a term freighted with 2008 presidential overtones — a good thing, or a bad thing? Are wealthy Oregonians paying their fair share of taxes? Are corporations? How much is too much?
If you personally make more than $125,000 a year, your household pulls in $250,000 annually, or you own a business — how do you feel about the possibility of paying higher taxes?
The most basic question, I think, is this: What does tax "fairness" mean to you?
UPDATE, THURSDAY, JUNE 11:
Well, the "expected passage" in the Senate didn't happen. We'll obviously discuss the next political machinations and options in today's show.
UPDATE, THURSDAY, JUNE 11:
The state Senate has worked out the problems and both tax bills have been approved along party lines. As part of the deal, a separate bill was rewritten to divert a portion of the increased corporate taxes collected to the state's Rainy Day Fund after four years.
And in a related story, Republicans filed an ethics complaint against two Democratic lawmakers, claiming they violated the public trust by assuring a Republican earmarks for his district. Rep. Greg Smith wanted the promises of support in writing before voting for the income tax bill earlier this week. Reps. Dave Hunt and Peter Buckley agreed to back millions of dollars for projects Smith supported.
Tagged as: income tax · tax
Photo credit: pixieclipx / Flickr / Creative Commons
-
Another important challenge facing Oregon business is the inability to recruit and hire the best employees. These challenges are in part because public universities are underfunded and struggle to bring and keep the best students; they are in part because potential employees want great schools for their children.
Oregon has some of the lowest business taxes in the nation - clearly that alone is not enough to attract a dynamic, vibrant business community.
-
Yesterday's shenanigans in the State Senate demonstrated the hold special interests and big business still have on Oregon politics.
Is it fair to assume that his friends at Nike have a job waiting for Sen. Mark Hass -- erstwhile TV airhead turned "brand manager" -- or at least some good leads for Cappelli Miles in exchange for this betrayal of the public trust in the name of "Oregon values?"
And, now that he has invoked the V word, exactly when did fairness become a temporary value in Oregon?
"You can call me a Boy Scout," Hass said in his remarks on the floor of the Senate chamber.
Senator, you are being called lot of things by Oregon's young and elderly and parents and working poor today, but I promise you "boy scout" is not one of them.
-
The high wage earners I've known got there by either accepting greater responsibility within a corporation or by accepting greater risk with their own company. I have yet to hear a coherent arguement as to why this entitles the general populous to attach a greater tax burden. Can anyone defend this "fairness" with something other than "because they can afford to pay"?
-
Fairness is "Sharing the Wealth" with the Country that made your prosperity Possible. Fairness is helping your less fortunate neighbors. Fairness is realizing that you make 10x as much money as the lower wage workers under you who do the Real Work. Fairness is realizing that if you have more money than you can reasonably spent in your entire life, maybe you oughta share alittle.
Fairness is Paying Your Taxes... Not paying H&R Block every year just to look for another loop-hole to keep you from paying Your Fair Share!
-
To earn a good living I have had to work work full time to aford higher eduction and incur tens of thousand in debt. In turn my work week is far more than 40 hours a week, placing tremendous demand on personal relationships. Last, I have had to make significant investment risks, some of which have paid off, others that did not. Yet Atrthur S says I should share this wealth. With whom? Are these same people I am suppose to share my welath also willing to share the cost. I too would love to be agreat golfer and win the Masters, should Tiger share that with me? Until I am willing to put 50 hours a week at the driving range and expend $100,000+ in training expense for the next ten years, I have no right to to expect anything from the PGA or Tiger
-
""Sharing the Wealth" with the Country that made your prosperity Possible. "
Really? Methinks the person responsible for the wealth is the person who took the investment risks and got the education to command a higher salary. My husband and I make decent wages and well over the median income in Oregon. We make plenty of donations each year. We pay our fair share of taxes; why should we or anyone else be penalized for our hard work. I have lived in poverty and clawed my own way out. I don't owe anyone for that and no one owes me a thing because of the circumstances I was born in to.
-
We need to Tax The Rich! Just like it is supposed to be. [Elvis was PROUD to be in the 90% tax bracket!]
Minimum Wage workers and Low Wage workers pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the Rich. The rich get deductions for interest on their Mortgages, New Cars, Tuition, and their Dependants.
Poor Folks just budget into there finances that about a third of their income is gonna go in taxes. As a single male, if I make $10/hr, $400/wk... I will take home about $270. I can deal with that. Decades of Republican Tax-Cuts have left our government Broke, our Roads in Dis-Repair. Social Security and Medicare are broke because the Republicans have been borrowing money from it for years and not paying it back. Oil Companies don't pay for their Leases. And the Republicans started a War because they thought that they were gonna get the Oil.
If the Rich Folks would just give the same share as the Poor Folks do (about 33%), the government would have the money for Health Care and Infrastructure. In the rest of the Industrialized World (read; "Europe") people pay 50% of their income in taxes and they don't snivel about it! Why? Because they have government Health Care, College, and Retirement. And the Trains Run On-Time! (all over the continent at 120 mph)
Americans are Just Greedy! Y'all want something for Nothing. Pay Your Taxes! Quit giving Businesses and Rich Folks Tax Breaks. Get rid of the Kicker Refund (and put it in a Rainy Day Fund) and Hold The Banks and Investors responsible for their Criminal Behavior.
-
Just to correct a few of your statements: Making $125,000 a year does not make you rich. And when you reach $75,000 a year you can no longer deduct interest on things like student loans/tuition.
I have basically no deductions and pay a large part of my income in taxes. I do pay my fair share. If you add up all the taxes I pay it is close to 50%
I would be willing to pay 50% of my income if I knew it would stop there. Are you willing to pay 50% or is that unfair too?
-
65% of Oregon Big Business -- including PGE -- paid $10.00 in income tax.
Ten bucks a year.
Many wealthy taxpayers have lower actual rates than the custodians ditch diggers and clerks who work for them -- as Warren Buffet famously pointed out -- because so much of their wealth comes from investment, taxed at a lower rate than income.
Now (alleged) Democrat Mark Hass has sided with these good folks in preserving their tax havens.
Meanwhile Oregon burns.
Re-think your vote, Senator Hass.
Please.
-
Hass, Deckert Put Wealthy Ahead Of Children, Poor
$733 million in additional state budget cuts – impacting public safety, schools and critical human services – may be coming down the pipe after the Oregon Senate failed to pass legislation increasing taxes on the wealthiest Oregonians. A two-thirds vote was needed to pass the increase. Senator Mark Hass (D-Beaverton) joined Republicans in killing the proposal after being lobbied by the Oregon Business Association, headed by former state senator Ryan Deckert (D-Beaverton). In effect, Hass and Deckert put the interests of the wealthiest Oregonians ahead of those Jesus would have called the “least of these” in our state. If more budget cuts are forced by their actions the moral responsibility will rest with them. The tax increases were responsible and needed. One of the proposals, for example, would have forced companies like PGE and Qwest to pay more than the $10.00 now required under the state’s minimum tax law.
- Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com
-
What are your qualifications to to determine for all of us what is moral responsibility, especially when you are determining it based
on MONEY. Does paying money equal moral responsibility? Bernie Madoff paid LOTS to charities, for the "poor". Does that make him
a morally responsible person? These kinds of arguments do nothing to solve the real problems. They are only divisive,
not contsructive.
-
If the state imposes higher taxes on Oregon companies, this increased burden will slow the creation of jobs and discourage corporate growth. We need to make Oregon an attractive state in which to do business so more companies will relocate here or start up here.
Regarding taxing the higher wage earners in Oregon, this will encourage them to leave the state. When will supporters of higher taxes realize that it's people with money that start companies that create jobs?
Our state has plenty of money, it's about how it's allocated and spent. Cut the waste!
-
That's a Scam... Companies do not relocate to Oregon because of Tax Breaks. If that is their motivation, they relocate to India, China, Korea, Samoa or The Phillipines. That is a Corpo-Rat lobbyist Lie. If that were true there would be NO businesses on Pennsylvania or New Jersey, and a BUNCH of them in Washington and Wyoming.
The Lobbyists give money to the Politicians, and they vote the way the money tells them!
Uh... Poor People Don't Give Money To Politicians.
-
If you don't like your income level, try to do something about it!
Get trained for a higher paying skill. Get educated. Work two jobs. Plan better. Save and invest (even $25 a month) in a mutual fund.
There will always be those with physical or other limitations that need support. But the majority of the population is capable of working hard, and progressing up the ladder.
I have a pretty good income, but have risked it all and had to rebuild from nearly scratch two times. It was NOT easy, but if you are determined with a little luck, it can be done.
"Just Do It!"
-
Another piece to this is when people talk about helping those that are less fortunate which immediately implies those making a good salary are more fortunate.
Sometimes it's just about hard work. I see so many people around Portland sitting around at coffee shops at all hours of the day and wonder why these people aren't working? And this was when the unemployment rate was around 6%.
-
If an Oregon business chooses to leave this state because its ten dollar income tax went up a few nickels, one wonders what sort of business this is in the first place.
Many in the business community agree that the $10 tax is ludicrous, especially in light of the straits Oregon is in.
As for wealthy individual taxpayers, when tax loopholes you could drive a truck through are closed, then we can revisit allegedly high marginal rates on the long-suffering wealthy.
Until then, the only people suffering from Hass's inexcusable tax flip flop are the poorest and weakest among us -- the ones who don't have the sort of access to Hass that (clearly) Deckert and his well-heeled clients have.
Change your vote, senator!
-
Oregon has a right to expect more from its legislators than
contiuing to rely on the simple "good" vs "evil" concepts of
"wealthy" vs "poor". Poorest and weakest, grandmothers, widows versus evil greedy wealthy. Class warfare diversions.
IS that really helping?
-
Both the personal income tax and the permanent corporate minimum tax based on gross receipts is flawed and should not be passed. Besides the unfairness of the both taxes, each presents a further erosion in Oregons ability to attract business. Oregon leads the country in dependency on income tax, by a large margin. There are plenty of studies showing that states with high income tax have faired much worse in tough economic tiems then those with low income tax. One only needs to see Oregon's unempolyment rate vs. the rest of the country to see this. Second, the corporate tax does not make adjustmetns to profitability. Most s-corporations in oregon are small new business struggling to make a profit and/or hobby type organizations. Why should a gross receipt tax be applied to them? Go ahead and raise the $10 limit but be sure that any tax increase is based on profit.
-
Fairness is paying taxes based on ability to pay, and is based on Luke Chapt. 21:
"A few pennies from a poor woman's purse cost her more than many pieces of gold from a rich man's horde."
Based on:
"1: He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury;
"2: and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins.
"3: And he said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them;
"4: for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had."
Luke, chapter 21
-
The devil also quoted scripture to Jesus in Matthew 4, twisting it to try and tempt Jesus.
To be clear, the poor woman was giving money to support the operation of the temple (that is, the church), not the government (which was run by Romans at that time, not the Jews).
A forced gift is not a gift. Forced charity (via the invasive arm of the state) is not charity. Notice that the poor woman did not take someone else's money to give to the temple. Rather, she took responsibility for her own conscience, and gave what she could.
Forcing your neighbor to fund what you personally feel is right, does nothing to alleviate your own responsibility, and simulatenously robs your neighbor of her own freedom to follow her conscience with those earnings.
-
The widow was supporting the community and it's need. Chuck, I'm going to have to invite you over to preach someday.
Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com
-
As an Oregonian who has had to slash his budget and live within his means HIS WHOLE LIFE, fairness is expecting our legislators to do their job, follow the state constitution, and live within the state's means.
Fairness is NOT driving productive citizens and good businesses to neighboring states. That is STUPIDITY.
Maryland tried the same thing last year and they raised NO NEW REVENUE. Better cut now before you realize you'll have to cut later anyhow.
If Oregon passes these bills, when the economy turns, it won't be here....it will be in some other state that's not trying to gouge the productive engines of the economy.
-
Mark Haas' argument that the tax increases are necessary as an emergency response is specious at best. Oregon's public education sector was struggling and debilitated long before this latest financial crisis. We need to increase the corporate tax permanently, suppress the kicker at least temporarily but with the overall goal of overthrowing it, and consider other ways to shift the burden from a small pool of individuals to bigger groups (yes, we should review the idea of a sales tax).
I will not support any further cuts to education. Those who are against revenue increases should come up with some good solutions.
-
Here's my alternative proposal on a temporary tax:Statistics show tall people make more money than short people.We should tax tall people more.
-
The fairness of taxes is defined by sacrifice.
If you earn one million dollars a year and are taxed 18% that is $180,000. Anytime anyone sees $180,000 go anywhere they cringe, and think that it is unfair. Maybe if we hadn't had a century of inflation and cars could still be bought for $200 than smaller numbers mean less revulsion.
A parent who earns $25,000 is taxed at a higher percentage but pays a smaller number has to choose between necessities even without a tax. A parent who earns $100,000 could be taxed 50% and would only have to choose a more modest house a more modest car and maybe create a food budget. Though a rich man pays a higher number they pay nothing in sacrifice.
I advocate a flat tax!
-
In a recent Willamette Week article, Mr. Novick suggested that the shortfall could be alleviated by closing tax loopholes, including the mortgage interest deduction. Perhaps he could elaborate on this.
-
Walker is WRONG - millionaires NOT fleeing Maryland http://www.marylandpolicy.org/
-
The opposite side of the tax question is the state budget question. when ever I hear a government representative speak they frame the issue around the significant budget cuts they will need to make. I would like some clarity on this. It is my understanding that the General Fund & Lottery (GF&L) budget for 2005-07 was $12.425 billion; the legislature approved GF&L budget for 2007-09 was $15.131 billion (a 22% spending increase in just two years). Over all ther has been a 50% increase over the last ten years. The current Govenor budget is requesting another 11% but I think the legislative request is around 4%. So is it when they are talking about cuts is it from the previous budget (true cuts) or the higher proposed budget? And why cann't we live withiin inflation factor and not the double digits Salme has been incurring?
-
I am extremely disappointed in Sen. Haas' vote against the tax package. His arguments are ridiculous. (If my neighbors don't have a flashlight for that storm, I am more than happy they keep it for the next storms that inevitably come, if they truly need it -- if I gave it to them to begin with, I can do without it.) AND, there are indeed more storms coming, including facing and factoring in TRUE environmental responsibilities, consequences and costs; large population increases; stunning shortfalls in education; infrastructure, transportation, prisons, and I could go on and on. Do the organizations that forever bang the drum of NO MORE TAXES ever see a day when they pay their fair share into a system that benefits them greatly?It is high time we Oregonians have realistic tax rates to deal with the sadly insufficient funding mechanisms we have in place now. It is just plain SPECIOUS, this rationalization of many business owners and organizations, corporation spokespeople, and political ideologues that any tax increases will ruin our economy and drive business and the wealthy away.Quality of life -- and the many, many contributors to it -- are far more important to both people and busniesses that reasonably increased tax rates (like the ones proposed). This is NOT class envy -- just fairness; and there are many of us who have who are quite happy to contribute to our civil society. I find myself wondering what sort of deal Sen. Haas cut with business in his jurisdiction....
-
So during the next storm you would be willing to give up a blanket, and then your food, and then whatever else is asked for?
My problem here is that the government just continues to come and ask for more. Why is it the government always needs a greater percentage? The governor now wants to increase the gasoline tax to "create" jobs. But by taking money away from other businesses where we might spend this money if it wasn't going out in taxes. When will it be enough?
I agree with the senator. If you help me in an emergency I should have the decency to pay you back because I shouldn't expect you to bail me out. I shouldn't just assume you will be obligated to support me.
-
Tax fairness?
Ask that great lawyer question, Cui Bono, Who Benefits!
The rich receive the most benefit from taxes and they ought to pay a fair share for those benefits. The current system is set up to take from the lower classes and redistribute it to the already wealthy. Let's change the system from Laisez Faire Capitalism to a more moderate regulated system of capitalism that lessens the flow of wealth upwards and leaves more money in the hands of the workers who created that wealth by their work.
-
Don't get me wrong - I'm in favor of a more equitable distribution of wealth - but Capitalism is named for the capital that the wealthy invest to give the workers something to work on. It is not only the workers who create wealth; it requires initial and continuing investment as well. Those investments will not be made unless a reasonable return is offered. Investors deserve to make money on their investment of capital, just as workers deserve to make money on their investment of labor - but the two need to be proportionate.
-
My S Corp is taxed low, sure. But when I pay myself a salary, I have to pay "normal" taxes on that, just like any other employee.
Taxing a company's income, and then taxing the employees/officers is double taxing.
-
Talk about this with Russ Walker: The plan that Hass favors, the Or. Business Assoc. plan would increase the personal income tax rates to 6-8-10 fron 5-7-9 -- that is a tax increase on everyone!! That's not something Russ Walker would accept or voters. The House-passed version only taxes 2 percent of Oregonians, the most wealthy taxpayers.
-
Let's tax the fair way. Start a sales tax. Those who can afford two houses and fancy cars will pay more than those of us who only have one home and simple cars. Every one here in Oregon to too afraid of sales tax.
-
So, what happens when someone earns a lot of money and does not spend it, saving it instead? Living frugally. They'd pay the same tax as you. Is that really "the fair way"?
-
It seems to me the real issue is why the oregon legislature thinks they know better than the magority of economists who say raising taxes in a recetion is the wrong thing to do?
-
People who get the best seats pay the most for the tickets.
People who benefit the most from the way government structures and regulates the economy should pay the most to maintain the system from which they profit most.
Oregon has the 2nd best tax structure for business in the US and Oregonians nationally rank 41st in the per capita amount of tax they pay to support state and local government.
You can look it up...or Google it.
EIEIO--Enough Is Enough In Oregon
http://williamuren.blogspot.com/
-
that's not true if you aren't a C corp and most small business isn't.
-
Question:
Does the democratic activist include, user fees, license fees, nusance fees, etc.. in his calculation of taxes business pay. They are called fees but they are taxes@!!
Comment and Question
This is what we in the private sector have to do when the economy tanks. Why does the public sector think they are better than the taxpayers who pay their wages???
Entrepreneurs Cut Own Pay to Stay Alive
By SIMONA COVEL
A number of small-business owners have stopped paying themselves as they struggle to keep their companies afloat.
It's impossible to know just how many owners are affected. But in a sign of the breadth of the trend, 30% of 727 small-business owners and managers surveyed by American Express Co.'s small-business services division said recently that they were no longer taking a salary. That's a troubling sign for small businesses, which have created a significant share of the new U.S. jobs in recent years....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124053156953150693.html
-
If Oregon were truly committed to "tax fairness ," they would stop taxing income earned by Clark County residents who work in Oregon. Since Clark County residents can neither vote nor use any state services, it's an unfair tax burden just for the "privilege" of driving on your roads. Clark County waives the sales tax for Oregonians who shop in our stores. I don't object to paying something for road usage, but income tax on our whole income seems excessive.
-
Since arriving in Oregon from the NYC/NJ area, I have to admit Oregon is a mixed bag tax wise: way cheaper to live here tax wise than in NY and NJ. As a small business (one person LLC) I am not getting hit with all the crazy taxes I did back there (NY state tax, NJ State Tax, NYC tax, Fed Tax, and fees fees fees.) So quite frankly I see a lot of the complaining about taxes here as small minded whining.
But that being said I also thinking the Oregon state legislature is probably the most idiotic set-up I've seen. What state in their right mind only makes a budget every two years? And there definitely is lack of creative thinking in terms of bringing in new revenue to the state. Have the leaders here ever heard of economic incentives for businesses?
-
I'm one of those who would be affected by the new tax. I don't mind paying it - in principle - if I knew that it would go to fix the long-term problems in Oregon. Unfortunately, it seems like it's being imposed only so legislators don't have to tackle the budgetary mess that has perpetuated for years. We need to clearly define which services are truly essential - education, basic healthcare, mass transit, public safety, for example - and which are discretionary. Then, tax if need be to support the essential services and cut the discretionary ones. Don't just complain that the general fund doesn't cover everything so we need more tax revenue. If you want me (and others like me) to pay more, show us that it's going to pay dividends in the long term well-being of the state.
-
WELL SAID. THOSE ARE THE REAL ISSUES. RICH VS. POOR CLASS WARFARE ARGUMENTS VERY HANDY TO LEGISLATORS TO DIVERT CITIZENRY FROM ADDRESSING REAL ISSUES YOU STATE SO WELL.
-
How about a tax break for single parents! I know it's off the general subject, but I have been a single parent for more than 15 years and have sacrificed having a main stream job to be able to focus on developing 2 children that will benefit our society and not be an added burden. I am college educated and am considered a professional in my field. I have a son in college as a pre-med student on a full scholarship and a daughter in high school that has been a finalist in an environmental competition. They do not do drugs or break the law. That would cost our taxpayers in expenses for prison and other financial burdens. I would appreciate a tax break for raising citizens that will improve our society. I will not have the money to retire and am planning to work into my 80's. Give me a break please.
-
Some or all of us may pay some or all of the following:
Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog license Tax, Fed. uemployent Tax, Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax Interest expense Tax, Liquir Tax, Local Income Tax, marriage License Tax, Porperty Tax, Retail Sales Tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, Road Toll Booth Tax, State Income Tax, Telephone taxes (federal excise tax, universal service fee, local and state surcharges, minimum usage surcharge, usage charge tax), Toll Road, bridge and tunnel taxes, Traffic Fines (indirect taxation), Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration, Vehicle Sales Tax, Well Permit Tax. Have I missed any?
-
I moved from Oregon to Washington 10 years ago to avoid Income taxes. So did most of my neighbors. I knew Oregon would never fix the problem. It was good for me and my family and my neighbors. We paid off our mortgage with the tax savings. Anyone would agree that my family must come before my obligations to any government. After all, I know how much money they simply waste. Don't hate me, admire my initiative. I visit Oregon - whenever I want to shop ;-). My question is "Why do governments not factor competition or incentives into their calculations?". Successful people leave Oregon for Washington all the time. Many of my successful friends in Portland are actively looking in Clark County. I need to hear your pro-tax guest tell me my family needs to come second to an incredibly wasteful state government.
PS Do you really think Corporations actually pay taxes? No, they simple collect it from individuals on behalf of the government. Duh.
-
Ah, Mr Walker fear-mongers that old canard that tax raises are economy killers.
But out here in reality, the fact is that the Conservative idea of giving tax breaks to the wealthy has always been the economy killers.
Walker is the superhero of the Conservatives, he is The Dynamic Dissembler! Stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
-
Walker says that when Kennedy lowered the tax rate on the wealthy from 91% to 71% that tax revenues went up. The revenues did go up but that was not because the rate went down (that would be completely illogical) but because he closed vast loopholes that had allowed the wealthy to avoid taxes. So with loopholes closed the wealthy paid more taxes at the lower rate than they had at the higher rate.
-
Similar to Reagan.
-
Another classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees. A quote by the late Adrian Rogers comes to mind:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
When does the redistribution stop?
-
I support an increase in the top tier tax rate. However, I think that the revenue raised should be used to reduce the taxes paid by low income wage earners which are extortionary in Oregon.
In any event, we need to see a state goverment that collects taxes and makes a compelling case that the taxes are spent to benefit citizens..
So, for example, while we are allegedly facing a fiscal crisis, the state continues to allow urban renewal (really urban destruction) which syphons away tens of millions from schools and other local tax districts. They continue to subsidize out of state corporations with "enterprise zones" and other shams that destroy local businesses that could otherwise compete.
At the individual level, our legislators make a mockery of their supposed commitment to environmental stewardship and reduction of greenhouse gases by using our taxes to subsidize drivers (for example).
Oregon needs more revenue. But our legislature needs to establish a smidgen of credibility by (1) ending corporate subsidies that discriminate against tax paying local enterprises, and (2) by going the businesses that are further subsidized by exporting their real costs to the environment - for example, grass seed farmers.
In short, we need a Democratic party with a real vision, a few principles, and a backbone.
-
I don't think that most people understand how corporations work or that they are made up of individuals. When I started my company I was a Sole Proprietor. As I grew the company I incorporated and hired people. Now out of the profits that used to come to me and I got taxed as an individual on, I pay salary to employees and I pay a payroll tax. Those employees don't consume state resources and they pay taxes.
I provide benefits and I get taxed on the benefits that I provide. The legislature just voted to increase that tax. State employees and big corporations are exempt from paying that tax.
The salary that I take for myself gets taxed and the corporation (small business) that I operate gets taxed, now that tax is poised to increase.
-
Thank you, John. I tried to say that earlier, but you are much more thorough.
-
Why are we not going after the profits made by the people that created this financial mess? We know which people and companies were involved in the financial engineering of the housing bubble and the Wall Street bubble, yet we are allowing them to retain their gains.
Before we talk taxes, we should be working on recovering any and all funds gained by the financial manipulators. This is not the poor and middle class against the rich, this is the return of funds gained through fraud.
-
Tax fairness means nothing to me. The term is oxymoronic. We choose to run our society in such a way that fairness is impossible. Next topic.
I love those who argue, "Taxing the rich will kill the economy." The economy is dead already. Hand me the paddles. Clear! It's time to see if we can resuscitate this sucker, but we must first remove the plastic bag covering its head.
We murdered ourselves. For the last 50 years we've shipped fair-paying jobs over seas while boosting the pay of executive hundreds of times relative to the pay of rank-and-file workers.
We've automated, outsourced and cut costs by firing people. We've become consumers instead of producers. Did we think Japan and China would remain our subservient providers of cheap goods forever? What did we think was going to happen? Prosperity?
You people kill me, but please, not with a plastic bag over my head. How about a Strychnine-laced martini, shaken, not stirred, followed by a rubber-mallet chaser?
-
Elimination of jobs is a fact of economic life - what about all those horse-and-buggy jobs that went away when the car was invented? The problem is not that we are consumers, it's that we've stopped producing the things that we choose to consume. Many of the products that we commonly import rely on technologies that were invented right here at home. The trick is not trying to prevent job flight or efficiency, it's in promoting innovation (a traditional American strength) and bringing new products to market. Many consumers will pay more for a superior product. But why pay more for less?
-
I applaud Sen. Mark Hass for requiring a sunset provision. I feel it is disingenuous of the state goverment to use this economic emergency to just pass tax hikes that will never end.
There is nothing wrong with all of us helping out in these tough times, but I completely agree with Sen. Hass. There should be a time table for the emergency tax increases to be terminated. If the government wants more money when this ends they can come back and ask the people again.
-
An Expansion on Sacrifice as the Objective Measure of Tax Fairness.
After listening to the whole show, I am more convinced than ever that tax fairness is objectively the comparison of sacrifice. The situtation with s-corps is what convinces me. Here you have a lot of income that one might consider great wealth; but that income doesn't just support a family that same income also supports a bussiness. So a tax that might not cause a high salaried employee to sacrifice, does cause sacrfice for the medium earning business owner.
Using sacrifice as the definition of tax fairness doesn't give us one clear view of how to tax. However, it does give us a way to measure tax fairness that aligns its self with the arguments both for and against laws like this. Which means that agreeing to use sacrifice as the metric can give both sides enough common ground to lay out healthy, long term tax reform.
I support a flat tax rate on all personal income because then taxes become less of a factor, we would all adjust to the simplicity of it and begin to take taxes for granted. Everyone is taxed the same percentage so there is no one who "has it better". The high emotions of tax concerns would fade away.
-
Does anyone wonder why we have the second highest unemployment in the country and we don't even make cars.My understanding is that small business provides approximately 80% of the jobs, why would anyone open a business in Oregon when it's much cheaper to be in Wa. Ida or Nv. California beats to it's on drum.As a long time democrat I can't believe we don't revamp the tax system in this state. We don't know the difference between C corps and small business usually S, LLC, partnerships and others which will be taxed at a higher rate 10.5% is a penalty and lower than the much larger C corps but we don't lobby and pass the money around Salem. We have two taxes and sharing property tax revenues for school funding when we use a different system in each county for evalution of propery tax is also a major problem and one reason the schools hurt so bad maybe they could ask Washington how they do a better job at sharing the property tax burden.Keep up the good work Salem maybe we can be number one next time.
-
At a time when everyone's budget is getting hammered and layoffs are riddling our workforce, to continue to allow Oregon's corporations to pay ten dollars in income tax is immoral and stupid.
It is also wrong to grant our wealthiest taxpayers obscenely unfair tax loopholes while even the poorest wage earners pay their share. A vote against the revenue package while continuing unfair tax loopholes is a vote against average Oregonians.
No one is being treated unfairly under the revenue measures voted against by Senator Hass and his corporate allies in the GOP. Allowing the tax code to stand as it is -- that's grossly unfair to all of us.
Change your vote, Senator Hass.
-
I just listened to this a second time today. What I heard was silly bickering, emotional issues and inaccurate technical details. Do the Oregon legislators have any big picture vision of where Oregon is going, what it will look like in future, what to do to get there, or do they legislate by the seat of their pants issue by issue. I laughed out loud at comparisons to Washington. Washington taxes businesses higher, but it also provides much much more to its citizens and businesses than Oregon does. Ditto for CA.
-
Fair? Good for the community? Every time I hear such argument/reason, I just have to laugh out loud. If it's about the community and sharing the wealth, then EVERYONE, I mean EVERYONE, should take on the burden. Why do you make someone else pay for your benefits and then claim it's about fairness. Can you not take on the same responsibility and contribute the same 2% increase for the good of the whole community. It's just so damn easy for you talk and point finger. Let's see your money/contribution where your mouth is.
Other voices can be heard here too:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/06/apparent_deal_made_to_approve.html#comments
-
Comments are now closed.
Our leaders, at both the local and state levels, have long undervalued the impact of a business oriented economy. They have failed to attract and retain both public and private enterprises that provide the revenue needed to support essential public services. These new tax increases on both the wealthy and the remaining businesses are a direct result of the failed policies of past administrations. Business interest will be driven to more tax friendly areas, deepening the very deficits this measure is supposed to address. Until we have Governments that value a thriving economy, we will face the choice between higher taxes or reduced services. You simply cannot have it both ways. Increasing taxes is the quickest way to killing the goose that laid the golden egg.