2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber language law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I am 55.  I quit my job in 2008 and went back to school just before the market tanked.  I finished my program last May, and got my degree, but have not been able to find a job.

Do benefits become available for someone like me after some period of time?

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

For Chris Dudley,

1 year on capital gains does not seem like enough time to indicate a commitment to the economy of Oregon.  

It does, however seem like enough time to buy a business, downsize including firing a few people, and sell the business at a profit.

I think that a break on capital gains should result only for truly long-term investments.  This would indicate more of a commitment to help build a business and the Oregon economy.  Merely buying and selling isn't enough for the State to provide a tax break.

Would you support a lower capital gains a tax after a year if they transaction has decreased jobs?

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I'v provided a link to the Berkeley website for the program I mentioned above.  This would be an ideal concept for a grant from the Feds or from a major foundation.  I can see why the utilities would oppose it as taking a slice of their pie, but it would be great for the public!

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=26580

From the site:

Berkeley FIRST was designed to solve many of the financial hurdles facing property owners who wanted to install solar systems. The advantages of the Berkeley FIRST program are:

• There is relatively little up-front cost to the property owner.
• The cost for the solar system is paid for through a special tax on the property, and is spread over 20 years.
• The financing costs are comparable to a traditional equity line or mortgage.
• Since the solar system stays with the property, so does the tax obligation—if the property is transferred or sold, the new owners will pay the remaining tax obligation.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Some years ago Berkeley CA implemented a program where a homeowner could finance their solar system through a community fund, and pay it back through the property tax bill.  The loan was paid according to savings on the energy bill and the loan transfered with the property, so subsequent owners would continue paying.  Is there such a program here?  If so, could you describe it?  If not, why not?  

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

I believe that the continued use of the term "owns" the ocean misdirects the discussion.  "Ownership" changes the concept to one of dominion over the resources, rather than the duty to protect and restore.  "Ownership" carries with it the idea that one has the right to exclude others and exploit as one sees fit.  This is a common resource that must be protected and, to the degree it has been harmed, it should be restored.

Rather than ownership, the State and Federal government instead have a duty more like a trustee to protect and maintain the marine resources for the future.  The beneficiary is the public.  That means avoiding exploitation that diminishes the resource in a way that it is lost to future generations.

The frame of the discussion should be who has the duty to monitor, maintain, and improve the resources, and what is the nature and extent of the duty?  Next is the question of the extent of the privilege allowed to those who exploit the resources.  Whether for energy, fisheries, or recreation, the ability to use or consume marine resources must be exercised only to the degree that it does not diminish the resource for the future.  It is the State and Federal Governments' duty to regulate in a manner that protects and restores the resources.

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context