Wall Street Journal Editorial on Measure 66 and 67

Oregon at the Tax Crossroad
A ballot showdown over higher rates.
Wall Street Journal Editorial 1-15-10

A great beauty of the American federal system is that any of the 50 states can offer its policies as an experiment for others. So the nation owes some gratitude to Oregon for testing whether it is possible for a state to tax its way from deep recession to prosperity. Oregon’s unemployment rate is 11.1%, among the nation’s highest. But Oregonians are now voting by mail whether to endorse a pair of tax increases passed by the legislature last year: one to raise the state’s top personal income tax, to 11% from 9%, and another to raise the business income tax, to 7.9% from 6.6%. Both tax hikes would be retroactive to January 1, 2009.

The legislature and governor argue that only the state’s wealthiest 2.2% percent of residents will pay this tab. Nonetheless, the liberal Portland Oregonian has editorialized against the new taxes, which it says would target “the very businesses and employers that Oregon is depending on to lead an economic recovery, start hiring again and pay the wages that support state services.”

The battle in Oregon is a case study in the political drama now unfolding in many states. Essentially, it’s about whether a state’s wealth belongs to its public employee unions or to everyone.

The public unions are the primary drivers behind the Oregon tax hike campaign. In recent weeks, national powerhouses AFSCME and the SEIU have poured close to $1 million into the state campaign to secure passage. Oregon’s public employees have one of the sweetest deals in America. Their average pay is about one-third higher than that of private Oregon workers, and Oregon public employees don’t have to pay anything toward their health-care benefits.

In the last budget, the Democratic controlled state legislature doled out a $259 million pay raise to the government work force, even as the state was facing a near $1 billion deficit. In the last three years, the state has added 25,000 new public employees while losing 40,000 private sector jobs. The union TV ads say the tax hikes are needed to preserve schools, roads and public services.

The 11% income tax rate will make Oregon’s income tax about twice as high as the national average. Businesses in Portland can move across the Columbia River to Vancouver, Washington and pay zero income tax. Oregonians used to argue they didn’t have to pay a state sales tax. But the current tax proposal imposes a first-ever “gross receipts tax” on certain retail and wholesalers. This is a disguised sales tax.

Despite the state’s well-earned reputation for sympathy with all manner of liberal causes, Oregon voters trounced two major tax-hike initiatives in 2003 and 2004. Now Oregon has reached a crossroads. If Oregon enacts these tax hikes to fund its rising public payroll after a severe recession and amid a slow recovery, we’ll revisit the state in the future to see how many private workers are still there to pay the taxes.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 10:37 | Posted in Measure 37 | 53 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    The journal puts it very well and very concisely.

    The issue at hand is should we have wealth transfer from all Oregonians to increase the numbers and pay for state employees who already make more on average than the rest of us. In other words, should the general populace, who is facing hard times, pay more to those who are experiencing good times?

  • OI

    No, Rupert. The issue at hand is whether we should have a wealth transfer from the state’s largest businesses and the wealthiest 2 percent of wage-earners in order to pay for state services. Most state employees took a pay cut in the form of furlough days and a delay in step increases. The legislature also cut general fund spending by about $800 million from the last biennium.

    We saw some significant increases in one-time Federal funds for economic stimulus through ARRA, and a new hospital provider tax that costs about $400 million but triggers about $700 million in Federal matching funds through medicaid, but it is not accurate to say that anyone in this state — whether public employees or private business is experiencing “good times” — though the households who will pay the tax under M 66 are earning more than $250,000 per year in taxable income, so they aren’t exactly hurting.

    • Harry

      OI lies:
      “Most state employees took a pay cut in the form of furlough days and a delay in step increases.”

      A pay cut is defined as less pay this year than last year, hence the “cut”. As the Oregonian has already revealed, no public sector employee was paid less in 2009 than in 2008. OI only needs to compare his/her W2s and will see the increased pay for 2009. But if OI means that his/her “pay was cut from what it was going to before the recession hit…” then, yes pay was increased, but not as much as OI had wanted.

      and then lies some more:
      “The legislature also cut general fund spending by about $800 million from the last biennium.”

      Nobody can show that Oregon is spending less this biennium than last. That is just a flat out lie. Oregon is increasing their spending by double digit percentage increases, ie 10-11%. But it might be less than the 15-20% the public unions originally wanted, hence the cries for “poor, poor, pitiful me!!!” from the unions. Public sector employment (jobs) in Oregon has increased by 10s of thousands, while private sector jobs have decreased by over 100,000. Hence the 11% unemployment in Oregon in combined public/private sector, but about 15-20% unemployment in the private sector alone.

      and continues the lies with:
      “…but it is not accurate to say that anyone in this state — whether public employees or private business is experiencing “good times”…”

      Public sector unions are certainly enjoying “good times”, with free Rolls Royce health care, Cadillac PERS, 100% job security, free summer vacations (teachers), paid tuition for continuing education (Masters degrees paid for teachers), etc etc etc. Let the Good Times Roll!

      • OI

        Harry, you appear to be misinformed. As Willamette Week reported,

        WW and other media have asked the Legislative Fiscal Office whether the 2009 Legislature did give public employees a $259 million raise. The answer [PDF] in a Jan. 4 memo is “no.” Actually, lawmakers reduced public employee compensation from previously agreed upon levels by instituting wage freezes and 10 to 14 furlough days. “The estimated 2009-11 biennium personal services cost savings relative to salaries as of June 2009 from these actions is $27.4 million [savings from the] General Fund,” according to a Jan 4. LFO memo.

        You can see the analysis of the non-partisan legislative fiscal office here.

        As I said, the General Funds budget was cut by $800 million from the last biennium It is true, as I indicated earlier, that there were one-time increases from Federal ARRA (stimulus) funds. and the hospital provider tax which triggered about $700 million in Medicaid funds. Additionally, the “OTHER FUNDS” budget increased, but much of that was due to increased tuition and fees from increased enrollment at the state universities and community colleges. Nevertheless, in terms of money spent based on Oregon taxes and lottery funds, there was a decrease from the last biennium.

        • Harry

          I state:
          “As the Oregonian has already revealed, no public sector employee was paid less in 2009 than in 2008. OI only needs to compare his/her W2s and will see the increased pay for 2009.”

          OI responds:
          “WW and other media have asked the Legislative Fiscal Office whether the 2009 Legislature did give public employees a $259 million raise. The answer [PDF] in a Jan. 4 memo is “no.” Actually, lawmakers reduced public employee compensation from previously agreed upon levels by instituting wage freezes and 10 to 14 furlough days. “The estimated 2009-11 biennium personal services cost savings relative to salaries as of June 2009 from these actions is $27.4 million…”

          A couple of points:
          A) from previously agreed upon levels , but not a “cut” from last year. A “cut” from previously agreed upon levels…ie Gov Kulo’s outrageous 20% increase to pay off the union supporters, might only be an 10+% increase after the “cut”. Still an 2009 increase over 2008 income, yes? If OI is a public employee, then OI’s pay is public info, correct? Would you mind letting your readers know if your 2009 Ws is bigger than your 2008 W2?

          B) “The estimated 2009-11 biennium personal services cost savings relative to salaries as of June 2009 from these actions is $27.4…” (so the savings from the “cuts” 10 to 14 furlough days did not happen all in 2009, correct? Some in 2010 and 2011, yes? So the 2009 public sector W2s could in fact be bigger {ie more pay} in 2009 than in 2008?

          It is my experience that many public sector employees have more 2009 W2 income than 2008 W2 income, hence no pay “cut”. Are you saying that ALL employees got their pay “cut”, (ie less than previous year)?

          • OI

            If you have a contract with someone that says they wil pay to $20/hour in 2008 and $22/hour in 2009, and then you renegotiate that contract to receive $20 per hour in 2009, then that is a cut. Basically that’s analagous to what happened here.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t forget to account for inflation.

          • Steve Plunk

            No, it’s not a cut. It’s less of an increase but still an increase. Only the public sector would consider it a cut.

          • OI

            I’m not sure what line of work you are in, but if one of my clients wanted to reduce a payment from an amount we’d previously agreed on, I would consider that a reduction regardless of what they paid me last year.

            YMMV.

          • Steve Plunk

            If I’m a business and planned on raising my prices next year but didn’t could I tell my customers they got a price cut? Of course not.

          • OI

            That depends on whether or not you had a contract with those customers that stipulated a price increase.

        • Anonymous

          Private sector jobs are down while government jobs are not see
          http://tinyurl.com/yktqllw

          Now the Government unions and democratizes want to take more from the private sector that is hurting the most.

      • Oregon Resident

        Please join myself, Rupert, Harry and many hard working Oregonians to help our businesses recover from the economic downturn and create more jobs! The $10 and $250K TV ads lie regarding real taxes that businesses already pay: social security, employment taxes, payroll, equipment, property tax, trimet for multnomah county, etc.
        When it comes to profiting from sales, most businesses cannot make more that 15-20% from total sales. Oregon lawmakers are chasing away hard working entrpreneurs that create opportunities for others…”there is nothing wrong for the benefactor to also benefit from creating wealth for others”
        Increasing taxes just does not make sense. PLEASE VOTE NO ON 66 & 67

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >No, Rupert. The issue at hand is whether we should have a wealth transfer from the state’s largest businesses

      Really? Could you please show me in the law where the gross receipts tax only applies to large business?

      It is my understanding the gross receipts tax goes in brackets and starts from $0. Thats not a large business. Corporations? Nope, not there either, most are small type S corps.

      I think what you are saying is actually untrue. It is my understanding the gross receipts tax will applies to any business other than a proprietorship.

      Thanks.

      >Most state employees took a pay cut in the form of furlough days and a delay in step increases.

      Well, all I can say to those state employees is “welcome to the real world baby”.

      Fact is most people are dealing with far greater hardships than missing a raise or taking a few days off without pay. Business owners are facing the worst of that as not only is business down, but they face loss of their investment as well.

      If you think measure 67 affects only large business you are severely misinformed on this issue.

      • Anonymous

        The gross receipts tax will apply to C corporations with revenues from $500,000 – $100,000,000. It will not apply S corporations.

        • Shawn

          Regardless of who the gross receipts tax applies to who do you think will pay in the end? The consumer. Imagine a supply chain from giant distributor down to your local store. How many links are in that chain? Every one of those links will be hit with this tax. And each link of the chain will pass on it’s increased cost of doing business to the next lower link. Eventually when the product reaches the consumer how many times has a gross receipts tax been collected? All of those taxes will be passed on to the end link – the consumer…

          I think the easiest example of this for people to see will be at the gas pump…

    • Joe

      No OI, we are already paying for a supermajority of those services you talk about as it is. How about you leeches putting your money where your mouth is for a change or are you too busy figuring out how to spend your earned income tax credit?

      • Anonymous

        And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why far right conservatives do not hold the highest offices in this state.

  • Oregonian

    They don’t put it well. They rail against the gross receipts tax as a nefarious and subversive “disguised sales tax” without ever mentioning that we’re one of two states in the union without an actual sales tax.

    The WSJ obviously has a fundamental lack of understanding of Oregon’s public revenue and spending, and I’d appreciate it if they’d shut the eff up.

    Doesn’t Rob Kremer like to complain about this “invasive species from back East?” How is this beneficial to Oregon?!

    • Tami

      “They don’t put it well. They rail against the gross receipts tax as a nefarious and subversive “disguised sales tax” without ever mentioning that we’re one of two states in the union without an actual sales tax.”

      What’s your point, Einstein?

      Can’t you discern the reason forf the use of that niggling term “disguised”?

      Not that you’ve made a cogent argument for anything other than your own inability keep from conflating two, quite separate different subjects.

  • skippy

    WSJ is always Right.

  • v person

    Maybe the grand experiment we already ran in Oregon is having a long period of low business taxes (we rank near the bottom,) a series of tax cuts (property taxes,) a huge increase in prison funding (since the early 1990s, all resulting in a steady decline in state support for higher education, and now we have record high unemployment. Maybe the experiment we need to now run is improved funding for higher ed paid for with higher business taxes, and lets see where that leads in 5 or 10 years time.

    • Tami

      “Maybe the grand experiment we already ran in Oregon is having a long period of low business taxes (we rank near the bottom,) a series of tax cuts (property taxes,) a huge increase in prison funding (since the early 1990s, all resulting in a steady decline in state support for higher education, and now we have record high unemployment.”

      Non sequitur, thy name is dean

      Quite a leap, even for you. Here’s another one: If dean is typing, taxpayers are paying.
      That follows – don’t you think? How about: We’ve had 20+ years of D governors, “…now we have record high unemployment.”? Better?

      Private business and individuals can always re-create government, but I doubt the opposite is true – except in deanie world.

      Of course, you’d have no experience with that – if it weren’t for public employment, you’d have none at all.

      • v person

        I don’t know who you think I am or what I do, but in 2009 90% of my income was from my private sector consulting practice, 6% from my writing or farming, and less than 4% from teaching at public universities. This year will probably be about the same. So my typing is not costing you anything except the time you choose to take to read the results.

        Yes, we have had 20+ years of democratic governors in Oregon, and we do indeed have 11% unemployment at present thanks to a national economic collapse under a Republican president. When the last Republican governor was in office, Vic Atiyeh (and the sainted Ronald Reagan was president, and Oregon had 2 Republican Senators) our state unemployment rate reached into the teens. Is that better for you? Or do your history studies not go that far back?

        “if it weren’t for public employment, you’d have none at all.”

        Really? I left public employment (except for occasional teaching) in 1996. How is it you know so little about me, yet write with such confidence? Are you capable of making an argument that does not involve a badly missed shot at the messenger?

  • retired UO science prof

    Well and good to wish that the public employees will volunteer for pay cuts — call them cutbacks if you want, or givebacks, whatever — it’s not going to happen. So the choice is whether to take the higher taxes or take the service cuts.

    Time to makes our choices and takes our chances.

    • Harry

      “So the choice is whether to take the higher taxes or take the service cuts.

      Time to makes our choices and takes our chances.”

      I agree with the prof. And I already made my choice. I suspect (but could be wrong) that the tax measures both go down to defeat soundly.

      So, Oregonians will have chosen. And once Oregonians see that they won’t miss much when the furloughed workers are gone from work, they will be able to chose where they want the cuts to be made. Plenty of fat to cut, even in education (K-12 & higher ed) & protection services (local & state police, county sheriffs, jails/prisons). Choices. Feed the pig more. Or not.

      • retired UO science prof

        I disagree about their being plenty of fat to cut in higher education — as stingy as this benighted state has been with the universities? And no two people would agree about what is fat. But be that as it may, the cuts won’t even be that big at UO, since only about a quarter of the basic operating budget comes from the state. It will be a little over $3 million/yr. or a bit over 1%. They will undoubtedly try to make that up by raising tuition some. If that is not allowed, bigger classes or enrollment caps, whatever. The students will have the choice to pay up or leave. They think they’re being “pigged”? Then beat it, and off to the farm or a Burger King or truck driving school or a private university or wherever they think they can get a nicer deal. But pay or decline the service, seems fair to me.

        • Anonymous

          The taxpayers are paying the majority of the cost of education now, for the students in our public collages and universities.

          • eagle eye

            Only a small fraction of operating costs at the state universities in Oregon are paid for out of state funds.

      • eagle eye

        Harry, the polls I’ve seen show the measures steadily pulling ahead. I wouldn’t count on them going down. We’ll see. “choices and chances” indeed. If the taxes pass and Oregon’s economy stumbles even more in the coming years, the taxpayers should know who’s to blame. Doesn’t mean they will though.

  • Anonymous

    Businesses have to balance their budgets or go out of business.
    Businesses have to provide a service or product that their customers want or their customer base drys up and they go out of businesses. They work hard to serve and please their customers.

    Businesses are cutting spending and laying off workers, while government is expanding and hiring. Many businesses are on life support.

    Government does not have to live with in a budget or please the people they serve,. When they fail to live with in their budget or fail the people they serve, they can raise taxes on everyone else or a minority of tax payers.

    The greed and unsustainable spending of the state of Oregon democrats and public employee unions is unending and after these taxes pass, they will be looking for another tax, that will also, not solve any of their spending problems.

    The Business community is much smaller than the rest of the state and they have a uphill battle to win this vote. It is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for lunch.

    I would be surprised if the taxes don’t pass, becasue it is always easier to make someone else pay more taxes, so you don’t have to, especially if you go after a small minority of taxpayers.

    The greed of the mob! Or I should say ,the greed of the union and democrat mob!

    Ore Biennium–Total All Funds spending
    2009-11—-$53,760,031.018—– 9.38%
    proposed and spent before they had it in hand.

    2007-09—-$48,005,409,654—–13.72%
    2005-07—-$43,220,555,200 —-11.56%
    2003-05—-$38,743,009,114 —–9.11%
    2001-03—-$35,508,990,712 —-16.57%
    1999-01—-$30,462,319,439 —-11.55%
    1997-99—-$27,308,692,023 —-17.62%
    1995-97—-$23,218,655,377 —-15.85%
    1993-95—-$20,042,060,862 —-12.18%
    1991-93—-$17,866,757,268—–17.74%
    1989-91—-$15,174,994,031 —-20.72%
    1987-89—-$12,570,014,958 —–4.23%
    1985-87—-$12,060,094,718 —-17.97%
    1983-85—-$10,223,173,163 — 14.34%
    1981-83—–$8,940,741,798 –(-10.88%)
    1979-81—-$10,031,862,751 —-35.08%
    1977-79—–$7,426,493,362 —-42.91%
    1975-77—–$5,196,769,722 — 56.72%
    1973-75—–$3,315,908,507 —-22.15%
    1971-73—–$2,714,651,811 —-27.54%
    1969-71—–$2,128,527,639 —-13.49%
    1967-69—–$1,875,459,599
    1965-67—–$1,411,920,395
    1963-65—–$1,267,100,097
    1961-63—–$1,067,822,805
    1959-61——-$946,954,063
    1957-59——-$718,552,984

    • eagle eye

      Snore. This has been posted so many times.

      • Anonymous

        It must be pretty boring to see how the government bank accounts keep growing and they still can’t balance their budget.

        If the private sector had to live with this kind of growth, they would not be struggling like they are.

        The Greed of Democrats and the public employee unions is unsustainable and unending.

        • eagle eye

          Nonsense. Those numbers have grown with the overall economy, to within a fraction of a percent. The state will have a balanced budget, one way or another. This has been gone over so many times.

        • v person

          Using your own figures, flawed as they are for the reasons Eagle Eye says, the 1969-77 budgets were all done under the *Republican* administration of Tom McCall. That was the highest spending growth period. Then if you look at the *Republican* Atiyeh Administration, 1981-89 budgets, you also have quite a lot of growth except for the single year that was the depth of the 1980s recession, and his last budget. And as I recall, this was a period when Oregon actually lost population for several years.

          The 1991-2001 increases occurred in part to make up for property *tax cuts* that shifted most of the expense of school ooperations to the state, as well as prison expansions backed by Republicans, all passed by we the voters. And if I recall correctly *Republicans* controlled the Oregon House and the Senate during most of those years. THey are the ones who pass budget bills by the way, not the Governor.

          Kulongowski and the democratic legislature actually look like pikers in comparison.

          So tell us again about the greed of Democrats?

  • OI

    The raw numbers are interesting. It’s also interesting to look at how this money is spent.

    The $4.8 billion in increased general funds expenditures lays out like this:

    General Funds budget + Lottery Funds decreased by $142.8 million.
    – K-12 is down 7.7% from the last biennium
    – Higher ed is down 6.6% from last biennium
    Other Funds budget increased 5.5% from last biennium
    – $400 million raised from hospital provider tax triggered $850 million in federal matching funds. We could decrease the budget by $850 million by sending back the federal matching funds. I know of no one who thinks that doing so would be a good idea for Oregon.
    – Oregon University system brought in $185 million in additional tuition and fees from increased enrollment. Do you consider this increase “greed”, or is it just students trying to make a better ife for themselves?
    Federal Funds to Oregon’s budget increased by 33.7 percent in this biennium, thanks to one-time stimulus money through ARRA and increased money under medicaid matching programs. Again, would we be better off sending that money back? Doing so would reduce the state’s budget to below 2007-2009 levels. Here’s where the money went:
    – $81 million for LIHEAP and LIWP (low income heating and weatherization assistance).
    – $400 million from federal government for increased unemployment insurance claims. Maybe we should send that money back, given that we have 12 percent unemployment, eh?
    – K-12 and Higher ed received a 1-time payment of $560 million in ARRA funds.
    – $541 million increase in medicare and medicaid payments to DHS.

  • dartagnan

    First, Jeff Mapes at The Oregonian has pointed out that the Journal editorial got its numbers all wrong.

    Second, I wish some conservative would explain to me how the unemployment rate would be helped by laying off state employees.

    • v person

      Its simple D. The money that would not be taxed (which already has not been taxed by the way, but never mind) would be used to expand businesses who would hire back hundreds of thousands of people that those same businesses just laid off because there isn’t any business because private sector banks managed to destroy the economy by over investing in inflated real estate. See?

      • dartagnan

        That’s not simple, it’s simplistic. Many of the companies who would see their taxes increased aren’t even based in Oregon and employ few, if any, people here. And the amount of the tax increase isn’t enough to pay for hiring “hundreds of thousands” of employees.

        OTOH every dollar that’s taken away from wage earners — private sector or public — is a dollar less that can be spent in the Oregon economy to purchase goods and services and help Oregon businesses.

    • Anonymous

      The unemployment numbers are neraly all in the private sector. The same people you want to raise taxes on so the state does not have to balance their budget.

      • Anonymous

        Public employees pay taxes too.

    • Anonymous

      Private sector jobs are down while government jobs are not
      see

      http://tinyurl.com/yktqllw

      the graphs are startling, how the government union side is nearly left alone

  • Jack

    Vote NO on 66-67

  • Diamond Jim

    Dems – people who take money from those who work and give it to those who don’t.
    Quite simple really.
    And quite dangerous.

  • Stihl Chain Saw

    Hey, thanks so much for posting this original and unique article. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve visited blogs
    from Google and they’ve got nothing on them but crappy ads and false information that’s unereliable. I don’t
    normally comment on blogs, but I just thought that i’d drop you a line and tell you that I think you’re doing a fantastic job.
    Thanks! if you want, you can check out my blog at Stihl Chainsaws and
    Husqvarna Chain Saw

  • free trial

    After reading you blog, I thought your articles is great! I am very like your articles and I am very interested in the field of weight loss. I have also wrote some articles about weight loss in my blog, if you have time, welcome to my blog, I am very appreciated that you can share your idea with me. Acturally, I am still a student, and I am bury myself in weight loss’s study. Your blog is very useful for me .I bookmarked your blog! I trust you will behave better from now on; I hope she understands that she cannot exepct a raise.
    My secret of weight loss foods

  • Annoyed in Portland

    Oregon is excellent at running off the little business that exists here. Way to go. Yet another way to rise on the unemployment charts…

  • Zetta

    our state workers took a cut in pay via furlough days? Think again.. this time in real terms: they took furlough days yes, BUT!! those that want to work, can work with a time and a half pay.. just ask them.. My friend is a state worker and laughs at the furlough days off

    • Christy

      Late response here: I have two friends who are state workers, and their furlough days mean they can’t turn on the heat. How nice that Zetta’s friend laughs at the furloughs, and that this questionable anecdote is a reason to mock the people who provide our services.

      My husband and I are Oregon small business people, who will be hit by both taxes, and voted for them. I am SICK TO DEATH of the stupidity and arrogance of people who don’t have a clue inserting their right wing anti-tax position into my state. I did live here through the hideous economy of the ’80s, and, once again, we are suffering the results of rightwing economic (non)policies. Our state is starving, and those of us who are hanging on, and doing well, can step up.

  • Becky

    I have a slightly different perspective on why the measures passed. I was given 2 choices, neither of which I liked. But the bottom line is that those opposed to the measures failed to give me enough FACTS and INFORMATION to vote against the measures.

    NO, NO, NO has passed the point of being tiresome. If you don’t like what’s proposed, come up with some good alternatives and get them out there for me to vote on.

    I may be a left-leaning Independent voter, but am also an analytical style that needs facts and information to make decisions. Somewhere between 18 and 22 percent of the population is like me. The attack adds that whine and complain about losing jobs are preaching to the choir, and the few folks that can be swayed by fear.

    I read the Voters Pamphlet cover to cover. The one Against comment that made the most impact on me was the poor person that said their business made no money last year and would have to close if the measure passed. Fine, so explain to me why that’s true–I’ll listen. Don’t just leave me with the assumption that if you’re not making money you might need to rethink why you’re in business in the first place.

    Businesses and corporations:
    –Explain why you would have to lay off people, and give concrete examples–make it reasonable (i.e. don’t tell me you’ll have to lay off employees if your CEO makes $24 million a year–unless, of course, you can explain why the CEO’s salary is reasonable and appropriate);
    –Show us with facts and figures why the trickle down effect on the economy would be greater than that exacted by failure of the bill (I really suspect that might be true, but you didn’t show me it’s true);
    –Provide examples of actual impact in $’s (revenue, minus expenses, current taxes, impact from measures, and your options for dealing with the difference). You should already have this information. Give it to me.

    And last, but not least–for both higher income individuals and businesses/corporations, show me that you already pay the same (or a higher) percent in total income tax than I do. For example, if I pay 8 of gross (before deductions), what do you pay? You shouldn’t have to pay more than I do. It’s a fairness issue for me, and I will definitely be swayed if you can prove to me that you already bear a greater percentage of the tax burden than the rest of us.

    So, next time around, I suggest that both the proponents and those opposed to tax increases consider the needs of those of us that truly want to make fully-informed decisions before we vote. Give us what we need and you might be surprised when we pesky liberals vote in your favor.

  • Gordon Fiddes

    It is time to revisit this discussion. Measures 66/67 increased my business registration fees to four times what they were before. How has this tax increase affected Oregon’s businesses and jobs? How much has Measures 66/67 really produced, and at what cost? What part has this contributed to the state of Oregon predicting a very slow economic recovery while other states are experiencing profound improvements in their economies?

    On a related topic, why did the liberal Democrats block bipartisan 2012 legislation that could have brought 50,000 jobs to Oregon? Are our legislators representing the people of Oregon, or the organizations who fund their campaign coffers?

Stay Tuned...

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.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)