Hank Stern of the Willamette Week noted today the new Yes on 66 and 67 ad. Here is what to expect.
No related posts.
Let’s all gang up on the minority. The schoolyard bully approach. Perfect for Oregon’s government employee unions since that’s how they conduct all their business.
How is this wrong, bad or dishonest? I’m really eager to hear the bashing on this site start. That ad, to me, makes a very coherent, appropriate and objectively truthful argument. These measures simply help bring Oregon’s tax structure into today’s economy.
The fact that companies like Mastercard do hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business here every year and pay only $10 is absurd. These companies then, in good years, take a corporate kicker that sends surplus tax dollars out of state to their corporate HQ for executive bonuses.
I’d really prefer that they pay taxes in the state, like I do, and that those tax dollars go to fund the essential services we all share here.
Now: ideologues of vague, free-ish enterprise principles, let’s hear it!
Question of the year…Did you read the bill?
Its a *minimum* of $10. Show me a company that only pays $10 and I will pay it for them!!!
About 2/3 of the corps affected DO & WILL pay only the corp minimum.
maybe because they need to make a profit before their tax increases
I don’t understand how the example of Mastercard would be paying taxers here. Mastercard is based Globally in New York and would be paying taxes to New York.
These tax Bills are going to be KILLER on big corps that are based here….The misinformed are being fed a bunch of BS. MOI is right..the MIN is $10. BUT the tax rate on net profits is 6.6%, one of the highest in the country NOW….Google it..all the states are listed.
That tax is on their NET..the bills that passed are on their GROSS. In 2008 Mastercard had a 383 million LOSS before tax. 2007 had a 1.1 billion profit, so if the paid tax in Oregon @ 6.6 that would be about 6 mil. in tax here… I really don’t think they pay the tax in every state.
Oregon corps do pay tax and it’s not just $10.. NOW add about 2% above $250,000. Gross and that will mean some jobs or MORE % passed on to the consumers. Business requires a % profit and when that goes down the first thing raised is premium or cost..if the market or competition won’t allow that then we loose JOBS… just what Oregon needs. We’re cutting off the hands that feed us….putting jobs and payroll taxes out for the expense of the unemployment line.
State Business Tax Climate Index 2010
State Score Rank
Alabama 5.19 19
Alaska 7.38 3
Arizona 5.01 28
Arkansas 4.61 40
California 3.89 48
Colorado 5.63 13
Connecticut 4.72 38
Delaware 5.98 8
Florida 6.62 5
Georgia 5.01 29
Hawaii 5.05 24
Idaho 5.21 18
Illinois 5.01 30
Indiana 5.67 12
Iowa 4.23 46
Kansas 4.93 32
Kentucky 5.18 20
Louisiana 4.74 35
Maine 4.83 34
Maryland 4.26 45
Massachusetts 4.73 36
Michigan 5.35 17
Minnesota 4.44 43
Mississippi 5.16 21
Missouri 5.37 16
Montana 6.32 6
Nebraska 4.88 33
Nevada 7.05 4
New Hampshire 6.25 7
New Jersey 3.60 50
New Mexico 5.06 23
New York 3.66 49
North Carolina 4.66 39
North Dakota 5.04 25
Ohio 4.04 47
Oklahoma 4.97 31
*Oregon 5.59 14*
Pennsylvania 5.03 27
Rhode Island 4.33 44
South Carolina 5.03 26
South Dakota 7.42 1
Tennessee 5.10 22
Texas 5.70 11
Utah 5.80 10
Vermont 4.56 41
Virginia 5.53 15
Washington 5.81 9
West Virginia 4.73 37
Wisconsin 4.54 42
Wyoming 7.38 2
District of Columbia 4.72 â€“
Note: The higher the score, the more favorable a state’s tax system is for business. All scores are for fiscal years.
Source: Tax Foundation
“Oregon has long been one of the 31 states that have a flat tax on corporations, but the new law scraps that in favor of a bracketed system. Corporations will pay the current rate of 6.6% on their first $250,000 of taxable income but a new rate of 7.9% on all other income. The 7.9% rate would drop to 7.6% in 2012. The minimum corporate income tax liability will range from $150 for corporations with annual sales lower than $500,000 up to $100,000 for firms whose annual sales exceed $100 million.”
For the record, the Tax Foundation has criticized the 2010 tax proposals (specifically, measure 66, not measure 67). The figures cited above have been calculated with the assumption that measure 67 will pass. As a result, Oregon has dropped to 14th (from 8th in 2009) in the Tax Foundation’s state by state ratings for business-friendly tax policies.
Any corporation making a profit, will only push the new taxes onto their customers or us. Or they will go out of businesses or not open a business in Oregon.
There is not a new pot of money to tax.
Oregon has a spending Problem!
Biennium–Total All Funds
1983-85—-$10,223,173,163 — 14.34%
1975-77—–$5,196,769,722 — 56.72%
Nobody said Oregon (and every other state in the union) doesn’t have a spending problem, but next time you want to cite statistics like the one above you might want to adjust them for inflation and then graph them with another relevant variable, like population growth.
As for corporations going out of business as a result of M67, um, no, they won’t. As for pushing taxes onto customers, well, yes, some of the expense may be offset that way and some not. So what?
So lame, this has been refuted before on this site by others, very informative. Bottom line: the state budget has grown almost exactly at the rate of growth of the economy. Big deal. Don’t like it? Elect people who want to cut the role of government in Oregon. Bill Sizemore is ready to go!
Spending went up nearly $5 billion dollars!
I said it twice in case you missed it.
s O s — I am one person who has commented on this and made the point you refer to. You get it, not everyone does. And put it very concisely. sage indeed. Thanks for the plug!
Not everyone does get it. Like Anon of the $5 billion. Without the context — the size of the existing budget, growing economy, more money rolls in, etc. — a figure like that means nothing.
We get it!
The state has more money they are spending it as fast as they can.
Then telling us they are slashing budgets!
Hellooo! Your recent data only go through the 2007-2009 biennium. In fact, they come from a budget document dated September 2007. So they are COMPLETELY outdated.
And, of course, they include a huge chunk of federal money and an even bigger chunk called “Other Funds”. Only about a third consists of the General Fund, money that can be used for discretionary purposes. Do you have any understanding of how this works?
More this biennium
Oregon has a spending problem
Biennium General Fund Increase
Not the sharpest tack in the box, eh pal?
Biennium General Fund
Biennium–Total All Funds
The average state employee received a raise while much of the private sector is struggling to stay open and being hit with higher taxes and fees.
Your right I don’t get it, after years of unsustainable spending
and the PERS problem.
Thanks to the tax and spend crowd
You still don’t seem to get it — revenue and spending track the general economy, pretty close. That is what your data show.
You should be happy, then — for the latest biennium, you only show a general fund increase of 1.6%. (It wouldn’t hurt to give links to your data sources, by the way. There is no way to tell when the estimate for 2009-11 was made, or what the current estimate is.)
With the deep recession, it’s entirely possible that general fund revenue will decline. That should make you happy, I suppose, inasmuch as it will afford an opportunity to cut state government.
By the way — the % increases you list appear to be IDENTICAL for the all funds budget and the general funds budget. Do a little math and you’ll see that, of course, their not.
If you’re going to play with statistics, you ought to be a little more careful.
As somebody noted, someone is not the sharpest tack in the box.
Sitting here taking a break from I-5. Informative exchange. eagle eye has sharp vision, especially those % figures!
I’m not even saying I’m for the tax increases, but Oregon’s spending seems right in line with the growth of its economy. To change things, Oregonians would have to make a conscious choice to cut state government. Little evidence they want to do that, seems they are happy with things as they are, neither grow nor shrink state gov. That’s just the way it is. Maybe Bill Sizemore will prove this wrong, I doubt it though.
Guess you FORGOT the County Business Property and Income Taxes in the Portland area Counties didn’y you Gomer? And UNION SHILLS like you wonder why businesses have been exiting Multnomah County for years. Soon their “Downtown” will consist of government offices, the Portland State Campus, a few non profits and loads of vacant offices and storefronts.
What an awesomely moronic thing to say. Thanks for the input.
66 & 67 Hell No!
Only wish we had the opportunity to defeat Bruce Starr & Larry George’s obscene increases on driver license fees, registration fees, and gas taxes. Damn them.
I am all for running businesses out of the state as well as everone else I don’t like, which includes about 95% of you cretins. When the dust settles, I would like to see nature regain the state while the Indians run off the remaining 5% and annoint me as a Chief. I would then develop a state homeland security dept. to take care of trespassers at the border and other assorted riff-raff.
You most of the way there…
…just elect Gov Kitz for a rerun, put in more idiot liberal state senators and representatives, and keep passing tax hikes and we will run off everybody but the state employees and your injun buddies.
Yeah! Liberals are so dumb!
1. Two-thirds of of Oregon’s corporations pay the $10 minimum tax.
2. While the measure that voters will be asked to approve increases the minimum tax , the minimum tax increases no more than 0.15%.
3. For the highest minimum tax to be applied, ($100,000), a firm would have to make Oregon sales greater than $100 million dollars while not realizing a taxable profit or have taxable profits coupled with tax subsisies that reduce tax liability below $100,000.
4. Oregon has one of the lowest business tax in the entire country. It will still have one of the lowest (moving from 3rd to 5th) if the measures pass.
5. Job loss claims are without merit and have been disputed by several sources.
6. State spending can affect corporate location decisions. Businesses may choose other states because of cuts in infrastructure and education that would make Oregon a less attractive place to work and do business.
It’s precisely because of financially ignorant people like you that have never owned a business that I moved out of your state and took with me two of those “family wage” jobs you LIB/UNION scum always talk about but never create on your own. Pu that in your pipe and smoke it you ignoramus!
This ad does not account for the small business family owned corporations in this state. In 20 yrs, we have never paid the $10.00 minimum and I certainly wish I had the big bad corporations accountants to do my taxes. The tax on gross receipts, rather than net income will do serious damage to our small business community. If anyone cares, we provide the jobs that create the income, payroll, & property taxes as well as pay thousands of dollars in annual fees to the state for the opportunity to run a business. There is no discussion of the personal property taxes on our fixtures & equipment we need to run a business, no discussion of the City & County income taxes, no discussion of the fees for this and the fees for that we pay annually. No discussion of the jobs we provide or the donations we make to charity.
The majority of businesses in our state are small businesses. We have one lone Fortune 500 company the state has yet to run off. I remember the other corporations, they once donated much to the state well beyond their taxes. We had corporate support of cultural entities and non profit groups. We had their employees donating their time to worthy projects in the community. Sadly it wasn’t enough for those who choose to take, take and take some more from businesses. They left our state and left us in the lurch, but who can blame them? Businesses both large and small are in business to earn a profit for the owners and investors. Profit is not a dirty word.
Jan, it is my understanding that the IRS defines a small business as any business having less than 500 employees (an S-corp must be 35 or less). Roughly 99.7% of businesses fall in the category of “small business” by that definition, and account for over half the GDP. As for big business in Oregon, both Intel and Nike have expressed support for M67 (I have no idea if Comcast or any of the others have weighed in yet one way or the other). Just sayin’.
You’ve made the claim that “serious damage” will be done to the small business community. I’m not going to dispute your claim, but I’m curious, can you elaborate for us? Perhaps provide some numbers that demonstrate the damage to your business? Oregon, economically speaking, is generally considered to be a business-friendly state, despite oregoncatalyst.com’s efforts to change that perception. You’d like to speak about property taxes? Really? Oregon has among the lowest property taxes in the country. What about sales tax, shouldn’t we be talking about that too? And who said ‘profit’ was a dirty word? Is ‘education’ a dirty word too? How about ‘maintenance of infrastructure’? What about ’emergency services’ et cetera et cetera?
enough of this nonsense that businesses only pay the 10.00 minimum.that 10.00 minimum is not even a tax its a registration fee falsely reprted as a tax.businesses pay thousands and millions more in hidden taxes in oregon that no one ever talks about like fees,system development charges,taxes on their profits and etc that the pro love more taxes crowd is too scared,lazy and afraid to talk about.if you people are going to talk about business taxes include everything they actaually pay which you dont and please stop this nonsense that they only pay 10.00.thats the biggest line of baloney out there and is so dishonest.
Couldn’t agree more, Matthew. To suggest that a business of any size only pays $10/year in taxes is absurd. And the ad above, as well as the ballot titles, leave a lot to be desired in the honesty department. I suggest you take a look at the documents found by following this link. They are fairly comprehensive.
I am at a compete loss as to why Oregon’s conservative legislators did not even attempt (to my knowledge) to introduce counter measures to 66 & 67. It would seem to me to have been politically expedient to have simply updated the corporate minimum tax a long, long time ago. By not doing so they have left the tax code vulnerable to these exact circumstances.
if our taxes are so low and we are so business friendly like you claim anonymus then why is our unemployment rate still so high and why are businesses not chomping at the bit to relocate to oregon then?when you include all taxes and fees we pay our property taxes are very high compared to other states.instead of talking about a sales tax i have a better idea anonymus how about a major league cut in the size of the state govt which has practically never been cut and continues to grow?how about the state quit wasting millions of dollars on 100,000 dollar and outside consultants they dont need and never save them any money?the greedy selfish state govt has more than enough money now.54 billion is plenty.
I am not claiming anything, dude. I am deferring to a time-tested organization that is widely considered to be the most impartial economic think tank in the U.S.
I don’t know how many times I’ve got to say it and in how many different ways. I’m with you on cutting government spending.
1. The job loss projections have been proven to be based on irrelevant cross-country studies. There is no support that the proposed increase in the Oregon tax will significantly reduce employment or economic growth.
2. Many C corporations that are mult-state or multi-national have paid NO taxes in Oregon, save for the $10 minimum. Macys and Eli Lilly are two examples of corporations that pay no taxes in Oregon despite huge sales in Oregon.
3. Oregon has been, and will continue to be after M67, in the bottom 5 states for % of business taxes paid versus gross state sales.
4. The average family in Oregon pays $3,100 in income tax. That is 300 times higher than the corporate tax.
5. Eighty-eight percent of Oregon businesses will pay $150 annually if the measure passes.
skippy says “The job loss projections have been proven to be based on irrelevant cross-country studies. There is no support that the proposed increase in the Oregon tax will significantly reduce employment or economic growth.”
Not so. Two Urban Institute economists criticize Randall Pozdena’s analysis of the job losses stemming from the corporate income tax increase portion of M67 because the study he used included industrialized and non-industrialized nations. But similar studies by the OECD of only industrialized nations show similar results; that raising tax rates leads to fewer jobs. And, as Pozdena points out in his analysis, employers find it easier to move between states than they do between nations, so his estimates of job losses in Oregon are likely conservative.
What is the purpose of the corporate minimum tax?
Should individuals pay a minimum tax?
One last thing, all corporations “doing business” in Oregon must file an Oregon excise or income tax return. In response to #11 skippy, while I have no way of knowing, but I suspect Macy’s and Eli Lilly do pay taxes in Oregon.
skippy you are full of it because you failed to include every tax,fee,system development charge,taxes on their profits and etc that businesses actually really pay.your argument skippy is weak because you dont include the thousands and millions more in hidden taxes that businesses really pay.businesses skippy pay a heck of a lot more in taxes every year than 10.00.we are not skippy in the bottom 5 in business taxes.when you include all the hidden taxes and fees skippy businesses really pay not this 10.00 baloney that liberals claim oregon is in the top 5 in the nation in total business taxation and oregon has a very unfriendly business climate.
matthew, provide data.
Don’t hold your breath, Skippy. Guys like Matthew are just full of hot air and “talking points” and don’t actually have any economic insight (let alone data to back up any of their claims).
look it up on your own skippy and start including everything businesses actually pay in your arguments.in your arguments.
Defeat 66 – 67 and the Democrats.
Phantom congressional districts. Nearly a trillion dollars in federal stimulus. Billions spent on Wall Street bailouts while executives get record bounces. Over 17 percent underemployment in Oregon… and Governor Kulongoski wants another $733,000,000 in additional taxes to balance the state’s budget.
Oregonians … these are your tax dollars at work. Whether wasted by the federal government or frittered away by state and local officials, it’s your money.
Rather than running up record deficits, why don’t we try living within our means and creating a more competitive business environment so we can produce full-time, living wage jobs?
Watch the video here: http://thinkoregon.squarespace.com/news/2009/11/28/oregonians-these-are-your-tax-dollars-at-work.html
As far as the business tax increases:
If people are kept stupid, and a majority believes that corporations only pay $10, then there is a chance they will pass.
If people realize the logical idiocy of that proposition, that by incorporating ones tax bill goes from thousands to $10, then the tax increase is doomed.
Regardless of the outcome, one thing remains a certainty. The people in control now are dependant on an ignorant populace accepting this $10 nonsense. When ignorance is crucial for the aspirations of the leaders to flourish, it should tell you quite a bit about the quality of those in charge.
As far as the upper income tax increases:
Well, that’s just simple class warfare again. Playing to the most base of human natures, envy.
An economy run on envy, i. e. socialism, is sometimes possible, at least in the short term. However an economic system based upon playing to mans ugliest desire, the theft of another’s effort for his own needs, is not long sustained. One does eventually run out of people to steal from.
“However an economic system based upon playing to mans ugliest desire, the theft of another’s effort for his own needs, is not long sustained. One does eventually run out of people to steal from.”
I do not disagree, but feel the need to point out that the description you’ve provided is sufficiently abstract to describe free market capitalism as well. The mechanism by which wealth is distributed may be different from that which you had in mind, but the end result is very much the same. In short, while our tax system may be in desperate need of reform, so too is our financial industry.
I do not disagree, but feel the need to point out that the description you’ve provided is sufficiently abstract to describe free market capitalism as well.
Not really. Capitalism (I don’t add on free market as it is a redundancy, like saying French Champaign) by definition involves people entering into trade, and consequently wealth creation, via free choice. Thus there is no theft. Thus it would be impossible to take my statement in its totality as describing capitalism.
Can the theft of ones effort for another’s needs happen in a capitalist system? Sure, a jeweler could work on a piece and another could break into his shop and steal it. An employer could hire an employee and then not pay them.
However the important thing here is that Capitalism does not rely on that for its foundation. Those are anomalies and one cannot really think of any Capitalists who have advocated those things be encouraged so as to further Capitalism.
Socialism of course is the direct opposite. Socialism at its very foundation relies on redistribution, stealing the results of another’s effort to give to someone else. Theft is encouraged in a socialist system. The most basic example of this would be class warfare. Envy is encouraged of those who have more, and thus justification for taking it is eased into the minds of the populous.
>The mechanism by which wealth is distributed may be different from that which you had in mind, but the end result is very much the same.
Actually I think few, if pressed, would be able to defend this statement since its entire premise is wrong. With that, lets deal with the first part:
Wealth is not a substance. It is not quantifiable in its totality nor a product existing in that totality independently in some locus, thus the notion that it is something to be distributed is pure nonsense.
If you are under the impression that it is, and thus wealth exists because of a distribution mechanism rather than due to creation, then you are operating under and entirely erroneous basic assumption.
Wealth is produced, not something that is mined or found by the seashore. Thus it exists because it is created, not because it was distributed. Wealth can be stolen, and that is what you might be calling a distribution system. However that is not any more of a distribution system than is the person who robs Tiffanies a jeweler. It is simply taking wealth that one person produced and giving it to another. That does not produce wealth. The Capitalist endeavors of the jeweler who took $100 worth of gold and transformed it into a piece worth $1000 did. That is where wealth creation took place, not in the taking of the jewelry, or the proceeds of the sale of it, and simply giving it to another person.
Obviously this leads us to the final part of your statement which does show that you are operating under a total false idea of how economic systems work.
The end result is not the same and in fact is as widely divergent as any two things in the universe could probably be.
If the jeweler creates the piece and sells it and keep the proceeds, wealth is created in that step, He gets the benefit of his efforts and thus creates more jewelry, more sales and more wealth.
If the jeweler creates the piece sells it, and then has to turn the profits over to another, the cycle ends there. The jeweler will simply not work and put out the effort just to see all his efforts go to another. In short order the jeweler will either move to a different location, where theft of his effort doesn’t happen, or happens to a lesser extent. Or the jeweler will give up and prey upon others as was done to him.
You are clearly operating under a lot of very erroneous logical conclusions. I don’t know if you are just considering this sort of thing and thus have not had a chance to fully flesh out your thoughts on it. If you are, that’s fine. However you really have made some very basic logical errors of such a magnitude that I would strongly suggest that you analyze how you reached them. They simply don’t hold up very well to even the most casual of scrutiny.
Man, you are an unbelievable bore, and by that I mean a dull, tiresome, or uncongenial person.
“Capitalism (I don’t add on free market as it is a redundancy, like saying French Champaign)…
My use of “free market” was appropriate in that a free market is a market that is without government intervention or regulation. This is a common designation, Rupert, as is laissez-faire capitalism.
“Wealth is not a substance. It is not quantifiable in its totality nor a product existing in that totality independently in some locus, thus the notion that it is something to be distributed is pure nonsense.”
What a ridiculous jackass you are. When discussing tax policy it is considered common parlance to discuss the distribution and redistribution of wealth.
I dislike you so much that I am at a loss for words.
>Man, you are an unbelievable bore, and by that I mean a dull, tiresome, or uncongenial person.
OK – So no exchanging Christmas gifts this year or is this just a lovers spat?
>My use of “free market” was appropriate in that a free market is a market that is without government intervention or regulation. This is a common designation, Rupert, as is laissez-faire capitalism.
Woopy doo, I never said it wasn’t.
I was explaining why I was not using the term.
>What a ridiculous jackass you are. When discussing tax policy it is considered common parlance to discuss the distribution and redistribution of wealth.
Common parlance is one thing. Where you went wrong is in such statements that indicated a lack of understanding how the incorrectness of that common parlance lead to incorrect conclusions on your part. Such as:
“The mechanism by which wealth is distributed may be different from that which you had in mind, but the end result is very much the same”
The end result of vastly different systems of wealth distribution as you call them is not at all “very much the same”. I pointed this out, you obviously hadn’t thought it out, and for some reason that has reduced you to using words such as jackass rather than argue your point with any amount of intelligence.
Its sort of like the term statement “He is a very unique individual”. It may be common parlance, however if one then goes on to state that there can be many unique instances of the same thing, then one clearly is carrying lazy parlance into illogical conclusions.
That’s what you did since I think the concept that different methods of “wealth distribution” will lead to the same results is clearly contra indicated by history. I went on to illustrate why I thought that with examples.
You went on to substantiate your position by simply calling me a jackass.
Maybe that works in your circles. Who knows?
>I dislike you so much that I am at a loss for words.
You at a loss for words?
Words do not seem to be your forte, as you have demonstrated here. Had you argued your point with either some sort of logical progression or by example, then I might think differently.
However, you seem to have little to offer other than calling people jackass when they disagree with you. Saying you dislike them is all well and good but it again demonstrates a lack of ability to express why you reach the conclusions you do, and possibly a lack in thinking them through in the first place.
Since the written word is clearly not your strong suit, might I suggest that your participation in a blog is as ill conceived as your economic theories?
Just a thought.
You have a great day, and if dislike of me makes it any sunnier, then dislike away Mr. Anonymous.
Im sure the more rudimentary and base things in life, such as disliking someone, bring you joy. Therefore if disliking me means I have helped in this regard, you have brought as much sunshine into my life as I pray I have into yours.
So, because I choose not to engage at length in an inane discussion with you over a non-issue on an inconsequential blog, you conclude that my ability to express myself verbally is lacking? Sounds kind of illogical to me.
Calling you a jackass and expressing my dislike for you, on the other hand, continues to strike me as meaningful.
If you really believe that the creation of opportunities for theft by way of deceit, exploitation or coercion is not inherent to capitalism, then… okay. I am neither in the mood nor do I have time to elaborate the precedents for my point of view (which is in no way anti-capitalist, but rather just matter of fact) that exist in our current economic environment. And more to the point, I simply have no burning desire to win you to my side. Who cares what you think? You’re just a reactionary blowhard who isn’t worth the effort.
>So, because I choose not to engage at length in an inane discussion with you over a non-issue on an inconsequential blog, you conclude that my ability to express myself verbally is lacking? Sounds kind of illogical to me.
I did not engage you, you engaged me.
You did this by replying to my post. I countered and you were reduced to little but calling me a jackass and expressing your dislike for me.
If you don’t want to engage, fine, don’t engage. But that decision was yours, not mine.
>Calling you a jackass and expressing my dislike for you, on the other hand, continues to strike me as meaningful.
Well yes, I would imagine it would. As I said previously, I am sure that sort of thing carries some weight in your circles. I also stated that yes, it is probable that the more rudimentary and base things, such as calling someone a jackass, bring you joy in life. You missed both of those? Fine, I restate them here. Although you aren’t able to express why you hold the vies you do very well, at least we have been able to clarify and find agreement on what sorts of things in life appeal to you.
>If you really believe that the creation of opportunities for theft by way of deceit, exploitation or coercion is not inherent to capitalism, then… okay.
I never said anything addressing that. I said that your concept that a foundation of theft was just as much a part Capitalism as it was in any other system was inane. I said nothing about creation of opportunities for theft other than sure, such theft can happen but it is not the foundation of Capitalism as it is the foundation of Socialism.
I think your need to try and reframe the argument after not being able to support your statement says a lot about the strength of your original position. I can also understand your frustration. Expressing ones views through written word is not the easiest task.
>I am neither in the mood nor do I have time to elaborate the precedents for my
Well, obviously you both are in the mood and do have the time. You have now replied through several iterations.
What you do not have is the ability to express why you think what you do, as surely to do so would have taken less time than what you have put forth so far in this endeavor. You just simply think calling someone a jackass and expressing dislike for them is an argument.
As I said, if ability to express yourself in a concise manner through the written word is not your strong suit then clearly commenting on blogs is as ill thought out as the reasoning behind your statements.
>which is in no way anti-capitalist, but rather just matter of fact
Clearly it is not a matter of fact, as you cannot list any facts in the matter.
It is an assertion, backed up by saying things like jackass and blowhard. In other words, for someone who seems to think they have a lot of facts, you cannot seem to relate them in any sort of intelligible manner.
>And more to the point, I simply have no burning desire to win you to my side.
Well, Id imagine if your mode of disagreement with someone is simply to call them a jackass and say you don’t like them then you are well accustomed to not being able to convince people of much of anything. That’s fine, there is nothing wrong with holding ones views in a solitary manner. Bringing such an attitude to a blog with no motivation to express why you hold them or to convince other people of the reasoning of your position is a little nutty though.
>Who cares what you think?
You clearly do.
You have replied to me several times. If my thoughts were inconsequential you would not have bothered to have read them in the first place. Clearly you did, thus clearly my thoughts on the matter were of consequence.
You responded, several times, so again, my further thoughts on the matter were of consequence since you clearly had read those replies as well.
>You’re just a reactionary blowhard who isn’t worth the effort.
I’m not exactly sure how I am the blowhard when you are the one running on about disliking someone and all the name calling.
As far as effort goes – I would also remind you that you are the one who replied to my post, not me to yours. So obviously your actions are at odds with what you now claim. Again, I would have to say that this statement is also as ill thought out as your other theories. To say I am not worth the effort, after you went through the effort to reply shows your actions contradict your words.
As an aside on style – I will warn you, the “I don’t have the time” routine when you have engaged someone through several iterations on a blog is pretty old. I mean real old.
You hold the views you do without much reasoning or evidence behind them. That’s fine. Going on with this “I don’t have the time not in the mood” routine when someone questions your statements really just highlights your inability to express the foundation for those views rather than the lofty schedule or effete mood you wish it would portray.
Id suggest you perhaps engage more in face to face discussion if you really are interested in political dialogue. Doing so through written word is something that is clearly difficult for you and for which you have stated no desire to engage in. Given those precepts, one would be hard pressed to understand your reasoning in expressing that inability, especially on a blog you say is of no consequence.
“I did not engage you, you engaged me.”
My mistake. I made a passing comment, just an observation without the intent of starting a debate. I see a difference, but if you don’t… fair enough.
“it is probable that the more rudimentary and base things, such as calling someone a jackass, bring you joy in life.”
I can live with that. I also like calling men whores. For instance, “Why don’t you just shut the #%!@ up Rupert, you stupid whore.” Just an example.
“I never said anything addressing that.”
“However an economic system based upon playing to mans ugliest desire, the theft of another’s effort for his own needs, is not long sustained.”
Capitalism doesn’t play to greed and self-interest? Well, well, color me surprised.
“What you do not have is the ability to express why you think what you do, as surely to do so would have taken less time than what you have put forth so far in this endeavor. You just simply think calling someone a jackass and expressing dislike for them is an argument.”
This has taken very little time and very little effort. Calling you a jackass is a statement of opinion, not an argument.
“Clearly it is not a matter of fact, as you cannot list any facts in the matter.”
Enron… Tyco… AIG… every major U.S. bank… et cetera.
“You clearly do.”
Caring what you think and amusing myself by arousing your buffoonery are mutually exclusive, trust me.
“I’m not exactly sure how I am the blowhard”
a braggart; a big talker. : When and if this blowhard finishes, let’s go.
Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition.
Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill.
an exceptionally boastful and talkative person.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Â© Random House, Inc. 2009.
The Tax Policy Center’s analysis of Measures 66/67 show that the campaign is relying on phony job numbers cooked up by hired gun economists. Oregon economists Randall Pozdena and William Conerly argued that raising taxes on high-income Oregonians and corporations would cause the state to lose tens of thousands of jobs. Opponents of 66 and 67—funded by banks, big corporations and rich individuals —- added together the upper limits of Pozdena and Conerly’s estimates and trumpeted the total as the centerpiece of the NO campaign.
36 Oregon economists issued an open letter in October endorsing the YES campaign and called into question the flawed numbers used by the NO campaign.
Oregonians need to base their votes on facts not numbers trumped up by lobbiests.
“The Tax Policy Center’s analysis of Measures 66/67 show that the campaign is relying on phony job numbers cooked up by hired gun economists.”
Sorry, but the Tax Policy Center’s analysis shows no such thing. First, the Center questioned using a cross-country analysis that included non-industrialized nations, but the OECD did similar studies using only industrialized nations and found similar results – that higher tax rates led to job losses.
Second, Oregon economists Conerly and Pozdena were not “hired guns” and the Center made no such claim. That was an editorial comment on the Oregon Center for Public Policy website, the group that engaged the Center.
How about saving a ton of money and paving over all the light rail tracks and turning them in to express lanes. Talk about an absolute waste of money. West side light rail, I see it driving by with one or two people on board. What a joke. Governors Green Jobs – another myth. We are throwing tons of money away on Global warming initiatives, now shown to be a hoax by climate gate. Public employee Union people retiring after 30 years with full pay and Cadillac health benefits. At some point and time the state is going to collapse of it’s own debt burden. Furthermore we are going to have to spend good money to tear down all those stupid wind mills that GE is making billions over. I could go on and on. But what’s the use. The inmates are running the asylum.
Pingback: cheap car insurance()
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:
Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.
No Thanks (close this box)
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox
Join other followers: