2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election 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 international internet kitzhaber 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 television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

According to the report, Why Oregon Trails the Nation, cited above by Chuck, the problem isn't rural income, rural Oregon is like most rural parts of the courtry.  The problem is low incomes received by Oregonans, when compared to equal jobs in other metro area. 

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Just yesterday the legislature heard a report by our state's employment division analysts dealing with this issue.  I hope you will explore what they have to say in "Why Oregon Trails the Nation: an analysis of personal income."  Essentially it says that there are two major contributors to the decline of Oregon's per capita income relative to the national average: (1) too many people keep moving here and (2) Oregonians are willing to work for less than those in other parts of the country who get paid for doing the same work, which is likely a result of the fact that those extra folks want to be employed here in Oregon. Our growth in population is much higher than most states.

These are not the issues raised by the business community.  According to the number crunchers, it woiuld take 140 businesses each hiring 1000 employees and paying every one of them $100,000 to bring Oregon's per capita income up to the national average. 

It's important to look at the facts, not just believe the urban myths on this issue.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

How money will be raised wasn't clear in yesterday's Ways and Means Co-Chairs budget.  As one reporter pointed out:  the budget assumes $800 million from new taxes on the wealthy and corporations  -- that isn't meeting budget cuts halfway, it's only meeting them 1/3 of the way.  

 

There has been plenty of mention of an 11% rate on the income of families over $250,000.  This is expected to bring in $483 million to educate our kids, run our prisons and help our vulnerable citizens.  Only 1 in 60 families have income of more than $250,000.  In these dire times, with nearly 1 in 8 Oregonians unemployed, it seems fair to ask more of those who are still doing so very well.

 

What isn't clear is why more isn't being asked of Oregon's corporations.  In the 70s corporations were paying 16% of Oregon income taxes, today they pay 6%.  So far, the legislature's plan doesn’t do much to address this shift.  Should our legislators continued to keep Oregon’s corporate taxes low while it increases college tuition for our kids? 

 

Certainly, Oregon’s low businesses taxes aren’t helping keep our economy afloat.  We’ve the lowest business taxes of the 11 western states and the highest unemployment rate.  Low business taxes have clearly not lived up to their hype.

 

How about a legislative goal to raise as much new revenue from big corporations as we do from  wealthy families--$475 million? 

Jody Wiser, Chair, Tax Fairness Oregon 503 810-6654

posted 4 years ago
view in context