measure 66-67 pass in Oregon

[Partsproduction]

I can't believe people who own guns are actually so liberal that they could be for bigger, more intrusive government. Oregonians will pay more, get less.

Well, maybe not the one's who work for government. What happens to them when the Oregon government goes bankrupt because all the producers have left?

I hope to be living in Idaho laughing my A** off!

 

[Just Jim]

I had to personally lay off a number of my employees this year. Why? significantly reduced demand worldwide for what we make.

How many people have YOU had to personally take to the door this year?

Obviously, I don't work for the State of Oregon.

I make my living being a productive person working for construction contractors in a non union enviroment. I make them money and they pay me well. However I have seen a great number of my friends going through real bad times because of how the government has destroyed our economy.

Those people you took to the door deserve better from their government.

jj

 

[Visceral]

I love you guys with your numbers. Say did you know that Obama has spent more in the last year than Bush did in all eight of his years??

That's absolute b&*(sh*t.

cut the crap.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a

I guess this is just one more thing you "heard" on talk radio.

:nuts:

 

[dobeman]

If you think you don't "need" elementary and secondary education, unemployment insurance, state troopers, road and infrastructure maintenance, and many other state services, you aren't thinking hard enough.

Your "need" isnt always direct.

we can have fun with this...

who said government *had* to run education? Sure they stepped in and took it, but would private education at local levels work?

unemployment insurance? why really is it needed? don't employers fund this at least partially? What about enabling and empowering people to save for a rainy day. zero interest rate policy, zero yield on savings and the dwindling purchasing power of ones dollars makes it kinda hard for the average joe to save for that rainy day.

state troopers and police: yep, I agree, I want them and will pay for them. Fire, ambulance - all those needed services.

roads and infrastructure: yep, they are needed. Government plays a role here.

and national defense.

 

[Just Jim]

If you think you don't "need" elementary and secondary education, unemployment insurance, state troopers, road and infrastructure maintenance, and many other state services, you aren't thinking hard enough.

Your "need" isnt always direct.

There is a point where they charge too much for the services. Californis would threaten services and after they got the money they hired more than they needed. Vicouse circle and smaller government would stop it.

jj

 

[dobeman]

That's absolute b&*(sh*t.

cut the crap.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a

I guess this is just one more thing you "heard" on talk radio.

:nuts:

government spending has been on its upward trajectory long before Obama or Bush. It goes way way back and appears unstoppable. over decades, entitlements have grown leading to future promises to pay = unfunded liabilities that have to be covered somehow in the future, or defaulted on. I still haven't completely wrapped my mind around the scope of this.

 

[Visceral]

who said government *had* to run education? Sure they stepped in and took it, but would private education at local levels work?

Off topic, but OK...

Private education means you charge for it. You sure you want BASIC education to be something that poor people can't afford? I sure don't. That's not how we have a competitive country in the world economy. Bush laid out "No Child Left Behind". Do you disagree with every part of that philosophy?

unemployment insurance? why really is it needed? don't employers fund this at least partially? What about enabling and empowering people to save for a rainy day. zero interest rate policy, zero yield on savings and the dwindling purchasing power of ones dollars makes it kinda hard for the average joe to save for that rainy day.

How many corporations would really give people 6 months of severence. What if a company goes out of business? This is laughable... there's a reason that every state in the union (even Alaska) has UI.
How many people on minimum wage do you know that have 6 months of savings ready to go? C'mon... be real.

state troopers and police: yep, I agree, I want them and will pay for them. Fire, ambulance - all those needed services.

roads and infrastructure: yep, they are needed. Government plays a role here.

and national defense.

I can respect you like dobies, I love mine too... but we may just have to agree to disagree. THere are loads of things the state does that I would NOT trust a large corporation to do. I work for one... I know what they'd do.

 

[Partsproduction]

THere are loads of things the state does that I would NOT trust a large corporation to do.

Well, see, there's your problem! You actually trust government!

 

[Just Jim]

That's absolute b&*(sh*t.

cut the crap.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a

I guess this is just one more thing you "heard" on talk radio.

:nuts:

Actually I have been reading on the net and watching TV, don't have much time for radio. I guess all the pudits have it wrong when they talk about our debt and you are mr right
No wonder you are throwing away valueble people , you use only the best numbers that work for your arguement. Hope you enjoy the new taxes, I like others will be staying away from businesses as we wait for our turn out the door.

Oh and where I come from we don't "cut crap" must be something yall started and we didn't here about it

jj
Later boys

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

So much about guns and ammo. Politics now.

 

[parallax]

smaller government is my goal, i voted no, not because the measures would have any direct effect on me, other than trickle down, through increased prices of oregon products. but because i already give the state and federal government 34% of every dollar that i make. i dont need more education spending, i never had any kids, but for some reason i am required to pay for everyone elses. i want less government and i want it now..

 

[Trlsmn]

One of the rules I live by is to always vote NO on any measure that asks for money, regardless of who they say will pay the money, and who they say will receive the money.

It's a very simple rule to live by.

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

One of the rules I live by is to always vote NO on any measure that asks for money, regardless of who they say will pay the money, and who they say will receive the money.

It's a very simple rule to live by.

you say no to your wife?

 

[Trlsmn]

you say no to your wife?

Well she's my Ex-wife so I will leave you to guess............

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

Well she's my Ex-wife so I will leave you to guess............

LOL but not funny. Sorry.

 

[TonsOfOregonBrass]

The sad thing about this passing is, most people didnt even realize it is really just raising there own taxes. The vast majority of business are just going to pass the increase on to their customers. Some will not, like PBP said, what is he going to do, "make a burger $8.01 instead of $8"

But many other business will simply add fees else where raise prices slightly where they can and the "paying their fair share" is now just paid by the people who said yes to the measure and unfortunetly to the ones who said no also.

 

[Budro]

I'm definitely interested in finding out more about where the tax money goes and where it has been spent in the past. Without that information we really can't make reasonable decisions about whether to raise taxes or who to vote for in future elections. That last part is key to why the state is not transparent in its spending. We need a ballot initiative to force the publication of a detailed budget.

 

[dobeman]

brief responses inside

Off topic, but OK...

Private education means you charge for it. You sure you want BASIC education to be something that poor people can't afford? I sure don't. That's not how we have a competitive country in the world economy. Bush laid out "No Child Left Behind". Do you disagree with every part of that philosophy? what about communities banding together for eduction? why do you need a Federal government with its hands in local education? And creating functional illiterates with weak education does not make the US competitive on the world stage. All our competitors kicking our butts have government education so maybe I am defeating my own argument

How many corporations would really give people 6 months of severence. What if a company goes out of business? This is laughable... there's a reason that every state in the union (even Alaska) has UI.
How many people on minimum wage do you know that have 6 months of savings ready to go? C'mon... be real. you missed my point. Working people should be able to save. There should be a reward for saving and an incentive to save. And lifestyles have changed such that family support networks are broken apart. If people had purchasing power and reasonable access to employment, UI would not be an interwoven part of life like it is now. It is expected.

I can respect you like dobies, I love mine too... but we may just have to agree to disagree. THere are loads of things the state does that I would NOT trust a large corporation to do. I work for one... I know what they'd do. I don't say privatize everything, but I certainly don't trust the government to do much that private sector cannot do better and more efficiently. I did five years as a federal civil servant - there are things government does well - beaurcracy, creating rules, inefficiency, they do planning well... and a lot it does very poorly. Government does not produce anything.
and go Dobes!!!!!

 

[deadeye]

PBP, keep at it, don't get down. As a finance professional with one of the largest companies in the state, I am baffled by the lack of understanding among conservatives about simple corporate finance. The "example" on Lars Larson that people have posted is downright hilarious.

What raises and lowers the ability (and demand) for employees of a company?

NOT TAXES.

The answer is demand for the product or service the company sells. Why the %^*( would a company employ another person (regardless of their profit margin) if they had enough people to feed the DEMAND the company currently created?

Why did the Wilco or whatever company lay off 11 or whatever people? Because it didnt make business sense to keep them employed. If there was demand for the product and all that was left was OPEX, then either operational debt was ideal or the company used equity to employ those people and feed that demand. If they couldnt get credit based on a sound business plan and decent demand, then that is a credit problem, and those occur today because the banks lost all of their taxpayer-protected equity on poor investments.

If you have decent cash flow and reasonable equity, these new taxes mean little. If you don't, they don't.

PBP also has a very important point about off-shoring. You think these companies ever try and show a profit in the United States? Offshore deals allow them to create an entity overseas. That entity will but or sell overseas imports or exports for a "fee". That fee is carefully designed to funnel all profit to that offshore location. Another method is for the offshore entity to provide all of the intercompany transfers, increasing interest as necessary to bleed profits off shore.

Its a very cunning world of finance professionals out there. If you think that these two tax measures will really force anyone out of business or force people to lay employees off, you just don't understand accounting and finance. A company that lays off employees does it as a result of demand or poor cash flow. NOT <1.3% of additional taxes.

Your point would make sense if everyone charged $8.00 for a hamburger like stated by PBP. But there are companies out there who actually want to compete in the real world and grow their bussness. If the company wants to reduce the overall cost of their product or services to compete in the market place then this would reduce the profit thus reducing taxable income under this measure. The only draw back to this would be the reinvestment of capital back into the busness in order to grow. If The company is to pay more in taxes and have less capital for "Capital Projects" This means if the company wishes to grow then they do cutbacks in crewing thus reducing overhead or "non value added" costs. This is where the "Lean Programs" come into play. Reduce the labor force but expect the remainder to take up the slack or they can give up their position and be replaced by lower paid staff. This is where we are headed and it's not good for actual living wages.

 

[usmc0311]

I'm definitely interested in finding out more about where the tax money goes and where it has been spent in the past. Without that information we really can't make reasonable decisions about whether to raise taxes or who to vote for in future elections. That last part is key to why the state is not transparent in its spending. We need a ballot initiative to force the publication of a detailed budget.

In my opinion, this is a big problem with not only what tax money is spent on, but on what our gov't does period. Obviously we have streets and police and schools and national defense, but I don't know anyone that knows much beyond the basic infrastructure like this.

That's governments ploy. We get caught up arguing with each other about whether certain taxes get passed, and we forget to look at all the other crap they pass and force on us. I'm talking dems and repubs. Both parties play this game. It's pretty sad really... How much does our government (local, state and federal) do that we are completely unaware of, yet it affects us all.