measure 66-67 pass in Oregon

[Randini]

I just think its a BAD time to have tax increase's do not forget the other increase's like at DMV and the many more that we have had, so how much is too much? I seen on the news that couple who won the 10 million lotto and got 3.5 now thats as close to 1/3 to keep as you can get, how much of your money do you want to hand over to the goverment? and then there is the issue of those that just follow blind!!

 

[WAYNO]

I think not everybody appreciates the argument, here. This is not, to me, about tax equity. That can and should be addressed, separately.

66 and 67 was about condoning Oregon's lack of financial responsibility, and giving the State permission to spend as they wish, as they know they can convince the sheep to create a sin tax, or other tax, that only other folks have to pay.:huh:

And, some folks are really convinced!

WAYNO.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I think not everybody appreciates the argument, here. This is not, to me, about tax equity. That can and should be addressed, separately.

66 and 67 was about condoning Oregon's lack of financial responsibility, and giving the State permission to spend as they wish, as they know they can convince the sheep to create a sin tax, or other tax, that only other folks have to pay.:huh:

And, some folks are really convinced!

WAYNO.

How is creating a more equal division of tax burden a "sin tax?"

 

[WAYNO]

A sin tax, to me, is just a way to get the sheep on board with a tax increase, as long as the sheep are convinced that the tax will only be paid by others.

I do not see any of this as tax equity. I see it as more taxes. And because the sheep are on board with more taxes, it reinforces the government thinking it has a mandate, which it does have.

WAYNO.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

A sin tax, to me, is just a way to get the sheep on board with a tax increase, as long as the sheep are convinced that the tax will only be paid by others.

I do not see any of this as tax equity. I see it as more taxes. And because the sheep are on board with more taxes, it reinforces the government thinking it has a mandate, which it does have.

WAYNO.

How can you not see it as tax equity? It raises taxes on the richest part of the population that is paying the smallest percentage in taxes? How could it ever be considered a sin tax?

If making things equal would raise the amount of money that is available for schools, medical care, roads, etc. while making tax rates slightly more evenly spread out amongst the classes and still lower the burden on the working class how is it a bad thing?

 

[WAYNO]

You wont be convinced, nor will I.

Raising taxes only on one group, to achieve tax equity, is a back-door approach to raise taxes. I am absolutely against any new taxes, without representation. That is what we have, here, when the government has a mandate to overspend, year after year.

Fair, tax-equity, to me, is starting from scratch, and billing everybody for the same percentage of their income, at a rate sufficient to pay the bills.

WAYNO.

 

[Chee-to]

These same people will use the same tactics to take your gun rights away.

Yup, the same people voted the gun show loophole in to law, and put Obummer in office. Multnomah County rules Oregon...............eace:

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You wont be convinced, nor will I.

Raising taxes only on one group, to achieve tax equity, is a back-door approach to raise taxes. I am absolutely against any new taxes, without representation. That is what we have, here, when the government has a mandate to overspend, year after year.

Fair, tax-equity, to me, is starting from scratch, and billing everybody for the same percentage of their income, at a rate sufficient to pay the bills.

WAYNO.

Ummm...when you have multiple groups and one group is receiving unfair treatment it is unavoidable that they suffer more when things are made fair. That is some pretty backwards logic to say it is unfair to make things fair because in doing so the group that is not paying their share suffers more than the group that pays more than their fair share.

 

[WAYNO]

That is some pretty backwards logic...

Then I'm destined to remain logically backwards.

I remember a time when everybody worked that wanted to, Mom stayed home to take care of the house and family, gas was 24 cents a gallon, there was NO gun control, and we paid a whole lot less for taxes, while the government budgets remained in the black.

How has a runaway tax-and-spend government improved on this?

WAYNO.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Then I'm destined to remain logically backwards.

I remember a time when everybody worked that wanted to, Mom stayed home to take care of the house and family, gas was 24 cents a gallon, there was NO gun control, and we paid a whole lot less for taxes, while the government budgets remained in the black.

How has the new-order improved on any of this?

WAYNO.

Yes, and since that time corporations have paid less and less of their fair share and shoved the burden onto the working class. They have also forced down wages while increasing profits to obscene levels. So what exactly is your point?

 

[ob1]

"tax equity", "fairness"...........= the maximum amount possible of your money goes to the state and the misery is spread out more fairly.

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

Then I'm destined to remain logically backwards.

I remember a time when everybody worked that wanted to, Mom stayed home to take care of the house and family, gas was 24 cents a gallon, there was NO gun control, and we paid a whole lot less for taxes, while the government budgets remained in the black.

How has the new-order improved on any of this?

WAYNO.

LOL. You need to be a forward thinking soul to understand. Like you, I cannot.

69 posts and counting. You need to get back to the "firearms" aspect of this post. Ooh yeh, it is all related.

If everyone just had a "private sector" job we would all be happy again.

 

[gunnails]

Yes, and since that time corporations have paid less and less of their fair share and shoved the burden onto the working class. They have also forced down wages while increasing profits to obscene levels. So what exactly is your point?

========================================


With all due respect PP,,that is conjecture, opinion.

Nike, Intel among others pay a nice wage, pay there taxes, what is wrong with making a profit?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

========================================


With all due respect PP,,that is conjecture, opinion.

Nike, Intel among others pay a nice wage, pay there taxes, what is wrong with making a profit?

No, it isn't. Look up that statistics on tax bases from 1930 to the present time and look at the percentage of earnings paid in taxes by large corporations.

 

[Gunner3456]

California and Massachusetts have both raised taxes on "the rich" to generate more "fair" income.

The rich have fled both of those states in droves, resulting in an actual decrease in gross tax revenues.

If moving to another state won't do it, then the businesses move off shore. How many jobs have we lost to other countries in the past ten years?

 

[Correctthought]

69 posts and counting. You need to get back to the "firearms" aspect of this post. Ooh yeh, it is all related.

Higher Taxes = less guns and ammo bought

Retroactive Tax = less likely refund money gets to buy ammo and guns

 

[MountainBear]

Everybody should pay the same percentage of their income taxes on a private household return. No one should be penalized for being successful. Progressive taxation is a joke. And this coming from someone who exists right around the poverty line most of the time.

As for corporations, the fact is that most won't allow themselves to lose profit. Even if its only $140, they'll use it as an excuse to raise prices or lay off more people. We don't hold big business any more accountable in this country than we do government. Exxon makes record profits during an economic downturn and we, the people, allow them to get away with it. Until we make the government tighten its belt with the rest of us and stop supporting businesses and corporations who mistreat the public, we are essentially condoning their actions.

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

Maybe more competition is the answer rather than more Government. It seams to me that the more places selling ammo, the more competitive the prices. Does anyone really think if Wal-Mart was the only retailer their prices would remain low?

It still remains that the top few pay the most in taxes. And as long as they still have money, they have room for more taxes.

 

[quest23blue]

I think not everybody appreciates the argument, here. This is not, to me, about tax equity. That can and should be addressed, separately.

66 and 67 was about condoning Oregon's lack of financial responsibility, and giving the State permission to spend as they wish, as they know they can convince the sheep to create a sin tax, or other tax, that only other folks have to pay.:huh:

And, some folks are really convinced!

WAYNO.

I agree! They never look to cut costs only how to get more money! We spend so much on our schools thinking we are doing this to improve our children’s learning ability and yet look what we are getting! And since when is it a bad thing to want to make a profit in business? Expansion is how jobs are created and most jobs come from small business, if we make it next to impossible for the little guy to survive what does this do for our hopes of new jobs?

The Corporations can afford to pass this cost on to the consumer and get deep discounts because they purchase supplies in bulk, the small guy does not have this kind of purchasing power and can not afford to carry this kind of bulk. Top this off with this tax being retroactive who planned for this if you are just making ends meet in your small business.

I could not go to my boss and tell him; say boss man I can’t manage my money I need a wage increase so that I can support my wasteful spending and you will pay me this under threat I will do everything in my power to be as worthless as I can at spending company money and if you don’t give me this money I am going to cut back on even what little I do as it is, and expect him to not tell me to pack my stuff and get out!

 

[gunnails]

No, it isn't. Look up that statistics on tax bases from 1930 to the present time and look at the percentage of earnings paid in taxes by large corporations.

=====================================================

Great, homework.

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and after 20 minutes using the google machine the only thing I learned was....

According to the 1930 census 82,000 persons in Oregon were employed in agriculture; 52,000 in timber and wood industries; and only 22,000 in the remaining basic industries

This told me that taxes in the 1930s shouldn't be compared with the 2010.