Is Jim Just even a member of the farm bureau?

Whether it's $5 or $500,000, it is not right to tax farmers or anyone else based on gross income. Those many farmers who will not directly pay the tax actually have the moral high ground here because they advocate on the principal that it's not right to tax someone on money they do not have. Whatever Barry Bushue's personal situation (ad hominem attacks make poor public policy btw), his opposition seems rooted in the belief that gross revenue is the wrong basis for businesses to be taxed (morally and pragmatically). Small business gross income is not like a pay check. Gross revenue is not money one gets to keep. In this blind rage about PGE paying $10, the net has been cast so wide that it threatens to hurt countless farmers who are already struggling to stay afloat. They will pay based on gross receipts, and they will pay because they buy their farm equipment and supplies from and sell their products to businesses that may be hit much harder by these new taxes, and therefore farmers will bear that cost too indirectly. Farmers cannot pass on these costs like other businesses can. The politics of personal destruction is disturbing here. Rather than attacking those who disagree with the pro 66/67 people, why not think about the arguments they make and consider their merits. And bravo to Bushue and anyone else who does not buy the "hey these taxes are good because someone else is paying them" argument that is drowning the airwaves these days. Question the morality of celebrating the "someone else pays" rationale, then take a breath and realize that not only is it wrong, it is also naive. We all pay. President Obama is right that this is the worst possible time to raise taxes and Bushue is right that this is the worst possible way to raise taxes.

FarmDD, I guess you missed all the facts. Nothing bad is happening to farmers, period. It's like yelling that these measures will ground kittens into pudding to be served to old people at retirement homes. You can keep saying it, but it don't make it true.

Carla,

Morality? Really? I think you need to refer back to the post on this blog about the word “inconceivable.” I don’t think morality means what you think it does.

How is it moral to say these taxes won't affect me and I won't have to pay but then say you care about schools and other services so others should pick up the bill? Either you care about it and YOU are willing to pay for it or you don't. Very simple.

Capitol Staffer:

Carla is paying. I am paying. All Oregonians are paying for the important functions of our state. What isn't happening? Huge out of state banks and big-box stores paying. Hyper-wealthy folks who can afford high priced attorneys and CPA to shelter their income from state taxes.

I own a business in Oregon. 66 and 67 are a smart and necessary way to keep Oregon moving in a positive direction. To say otherwise is to not believe in reality.

Posted by: Carla Axtman | Dec 22, 2009 12:27:51 PM

The Farm Bureau's job is to advocate for the best interests of farmers. Given that 85% of Oregon farms won't be touched by these tax increases--it stands to reason that there are any number of farmers in the Farm Bureau that are in Just's same position.

And do 85% of Oregon farms pay 85% of the Farm Bureau's way, or are they beholding to the mega 15% for 85% of their revenue? I smell another example of "never donate to a non for profit with full time staff positions". What about a formal complaint, if he's so fed up? If they're using the money to actually argue against the 85%'s best interest...

Amen, "staffer". With the current health bill, the Dems have lost the right to use the word, if they ever had it, always trying to cajole the base with the "lesser of two evils". That still leaves you with evil, doesn't it? And that's the choice voters have in January.

So, this is the 16th article on M67, 11th since Thanksgiving, at BO. Anyone interesting in picking the magic number, the final total number of articles twitter with #bom67count your guess. Let's start at November 1, as they blur into TEA articles before that. I'm going to say 30, from 11/1 to election day.

That's 15 more that won't say anything we haven't heard plenty of times. Sorry, I guess when you say that people are distorting the truth, you count each one as a new fact. Could we "test out"? I mean, if posters are willing to stipulate likely candidates that they already assume are doing that, can we skip hearing that they are? And what is the difference between "spin" and "lie"? There must be a big one, because the biggest spinners seem to be the first to call "liar". Could it be jealousy? You decided what the line was that you wouldn't cross, they did, and now you wish you had?

Some "opera". There's a difference between the Marriage of Figaro and a shotgun wedding.

Don't farmers in Washington state pay the Business and Occupations tax? Washington's B & O tax is on gross sales and it is .471 percent. Oregon's tax is only one-tenth of one percent by comparison.

Don't farmers in Washington pay sales tax on most of the goods and services they purchase for their farms (including their pick up trucks)? Frankly, Oregon is a heck of a lot better/lower taxed state to farm in compared to Washington.

Carla- I suggest a basic economics course would be very helpful for you. When big mega corporation's taxes go up, they pass on those increased costs to their customers. When mega corp is the buyer of products from a family farm, they are inclined to pay less for those products to offset this tax or any other cost increase. The exact family farmers you theoretically champion cannot pass on costs to anyone. So they will pay more for what they buy and they will get less for what they sell. It's what economists describe as "there's no such thing as a free lunch." I'm happy to go mana a mano with you on the ethics of this, particularly since you introduced the number of jobs that are lost if this thing passes. State funding is increasing with or without these new taxes. I'd like to see where you get your data that these taxes will net out to save jobs. Unless you pull this number out of the same place you apparently got your "85% of farms will not be touched" figure. On emotion, you're rock solid in this forum. On facts and merits not so much. Everyone loves teachers. Everyone realizes we have to pay in taxes so that we may have public services. But paying for any service with a permanent tax on small business gross revenue is wrong. Tax based on ability to pay: reasonable. Tax based on money people don't have: not reasonable.

Nice try Carla...

"You REALLY think that school funding, services for the poor and the elderly and public safety have nothing to do with our morality as a society?"

They have everything to do with our morality as a society. What lacks morality is jumping up on your soapbox to proclaim that they must be paid for with money from someone else.

If you want fairness this would be a tax on everyone. But then again, this was never about "fairness" it is about getting someone else to pay your way.

When did Oregon last run a surplus?

Both sides are spreading falsehoods. The pro ad that says that a favorable vote (for Measure 67) will not cost middle class a penny more is a lie. High volume low profit margin businesses (such as grocery stores) that will be excessively taxed under Measure 67 will pass through their higher taxes costing everybody significantly more than a penny. In other words, the pros who live in glass houses should not be throwing rocks.

FarmDD - you make interesting assertions about tax incidence without evidence. All out of state corporations pass on all costs directly to Oregonians? All farmers are unable to do the same?

Taxing on those who bring in tens of millions of dollars of gross receipts is reasonable because net profits are so manipulated to... avoid taxes! For example, if my business made ten million dollars, and I spent it all on $250 business lunches and first-class plane tickets, should I be taxed?

Back to the POST - Just is right on. He explains the facts clearly about the real effects on farmers. I hope to god he's not a member of the Farm Bureau, but some people join for the insurance benefits, despite their disagreement on policies.

The Farm Bureau leadership is FAR more conservative than the average member and a pawn of Mark Nelson. And Bushue is the worst offender.

"For example, if my business made ten million dollars, and I spent it all on $250 business lunches and first-class plane tickets, should I be taxed"

It would not matter - you would be out of business if you spent all your revenue on lunch and airfare...

The underlying point is that gross revenue DOES demonstrate something about whether I can afford to contribute more towards society - and net profit is often designed to LOOK as low as possible for tax reasons. Hence, taxing gross revenue (like many - or most? - states do) makes some sense.

Thanks for highlighting this column, Carla. I really enjoyed reading it this morning. I noticed that the Mr. Just pointed out the tax breaks that the package has for the unemployed, which I think is an important point to make.

"High volume low profit margin businesses (such as grocery stores) that will be excessively taxed under Measure 67 will pass through their higher taxes costing everybody significantly more than a penny."

False.

Next.

"What lacks morality is jumping up on your soapbox to proclaim that they must be paid for with money from someone else. "

Capitol Staffer--here is your chance to make a big difference in the campaign.

There are legislators who support the YES side of the ballot measures who say that there will be massive cuts otherwise. Sounds to me like they intend to vote for cuts to balance the budget, rather than the sort of gimmicks we saw earlier this decade during a revenue shortfall.

Legislators who support the NO side of the ballot measures don't seem to want to talk about an alternative. They say THESE ARE BAD TAXES, the throw out ideas which may or may not have 20 votes in the House, much less the needed 31. They talk about the philosophy of taxes as if that solves the problem of a budget shortfall. Or look puzzled when their comment about the need to shrink ending fund balances is met with "OK, let's have an open public debate on the relative merits of whether to keep or shrink ending fund balances--esp. if there is a future revenue shortfall".

Could it be they are waiting for their caucus to make up their minds for them, and meanwhile ordinary folks don't matter because we're just voters?

Something the folks in the capitol seem to forget is that not everyone lets a lobbyist do their thinking for them--not all business owners allow AOI or OBA to make their decisions, and obviously not every farmer agrees with a column written by the Oregon Farm Bureau president.

This question of whether groups do the thinking for all their members or whether individuals make decisions has been fought out in previous decades--incl. in primaries.

CS said: "But then again, this was never about 'fairness' it is about getting someone else to pay your way."

True, because that is the mantra of corporate business, and the push-back in these measures has their minions squealing. Now we are treated to their lies about the real effects of the measures, delivered with the haughty assurance that the unwashed masses are incapable of fact checking anything more complex than the TV guide.

The no campaign seems to have these messages:

a) new taxes would be worse than having potential customers who are public employees laid off and unable to afford to patronize businesses

b) quoting someone without that person's permission because of course every businessperson agrees with the business lobby is perfectly acceptable because only subversives think for themselves

c) before this, it was the world traveling dairy farmer supposedly sending out a mailing--except it was Pat McCormick, Mark Nelson et al sending it out from the warehouse district of Salem and no one was supposed to question the return address

d) rejecting the taxes would mean having to fill a large budget hole, but we aren't supposed to ask for alternative ways to balance the budget.

e) if killing tax increases really creates jobs, why aren't the job creation statistics after the Measure 30 election being spread far and wid? Because actual data would not match the ideology?

Not that it matters to this discussion, but to answer a question asked above, farm income is exempt from the Washington B&O Tax. See WAC 458-20-210.

Special interest and lobbying organizations - like the Farm Bureau - are entitled to take any position their executive board chooses to take. Likewise, individual members of the Farm Bureau are entitled to disagree with the executive board, and to make their own statement. And Blue Oregon is entitled to bitch about the Farm Bureau's position.

Farm Bureau folks are notoriously conservative and typically opposed to land use, stream protection, etc. etc. Nothing improper going on here. Just good old fashioned political wrangling.

My Dad was a farmer in Kansas. As I recall and have observed, Farm Bureau leadership has always supported big corporation business over the local farmer from the 50's until present. Not likely to change I don't think.

Well, I am not so particular with farm Bureau and its system. But farmer needs assistance for the fact that we need them for food production. Perhaps Mose Allison was right – a young man doesn't have anything in the world these days. Thanks to the lovely endorsement of corporate fascism by our government (thanks, guys!) real wages have fallen dramatically since the 70s, but the average post graduation debt has increased – so instead of being able to invest that first big salary paycheck as a cash advance towards the future, it now is eaten up first by taxes and second by servicing debt. New graduates must budget wiser than ever before to stay afloat.

Born is right.

I recall doing a term paper once on the diff. between the Grange organizations in diff. parts of the country.

For all that is supposed to be a "little guy" old fashioned populist outfit, the diff. between the grain farmers in the Midwest and the farmers in the NW was like the diff. between R. Reagan and Jesse Jackson--both much in the news in the 1980s when I wrote the paper.

carla,

please get a clue and open an econ 101 book.

Corporate taxes get passed down in a few ways. Lower wages for employees, laying off workers or increase in costs for consumers or a combo of all three.

This affects everyone!

I find it more than a little suspicious that the article does not have his picture and name included. It just has "Guest commentary."

Furthermore, "Jim Just Oregon Farm Bureau," "Jim Just Lebanon, OR," and "Jim Just Linn County OR" does not bring up anything about a farmer outside of Lebanon, OR named "Jim Just."

I call bullshit on the article that gave rise to this post. Unless this "Jim Just" has an online fingerprint, then it could be some SEIU staffer writing this for all we know.

With entire 200-2010 and beyond K-12 school budgets having been created with the expectation that BOTH M66 and M67 will pass, I do not put it past Democratic operatives to ghost write for a fictional farmer or a farmer who is well into his senility years craving just any attention and agreeing with those who give him it.

Too much at stake normally means dirty politics.

please get a clue and open an econ 101 book.

Corporate taxes get passed down in a few ways. Lower wages for employees, laying off workers or increase in costs for consumers or a combo of all three.

This affects everyone!

Please cite an economics textbook that says that. Author(s) and title should suffice.

Never mind, I found Jim Just. There is a Jim Just who "raises sheep, timber and wine grapes just outside of Lebanon." He also appears to be the Executive Director of the Goal One Coalition.

Source: http://www.goal1.org/board-staff/

Posted by: RyanLeo | Dec 23, 2009 12:50:18 AM

Never mind, I found Jim Just. There is a Jim Just who "raises sheep, timber and wine grapes just outside of Lebanon." He also appears to be the Executive Director of the Goal One Coalition.

Source: http://www.goal1.org/board-staff/

...and...

president of Friends of Linn County, owner of Native & Wetland Plant Nursery. (in conjunction with Wildlife Habitat Reserve), agent for the Cascade Coalition for Sustainable Communities, and owner of La Ferme Noire (specializing in re-creating intact, complete native eco-systems).

Come on Carla, at least "full disclosure: this is where I buy my bedding plants"? Looks like a decent guy that got in with a bad crowd here. So, reading between the lines, you don't think that he makes the bulk of his living from filling gov restoration contracts (which will benefit from the measures) would make him a little more friendly towards the measures than the average farmer?

If you want to talk about this seriously instead of seeing who can manufacture the best "joe the plumber", how about explaining what anyone that knows the business is wondering. Fine. I'll grant that it doesn't hurt farmers. That flies in the face of the fact that farming is a very low margin business. On the face of it taxing gross receipts would seem to be anathama with such tiny margins. How is it not a problem? Not questioning the line, just want to know how it works. If there's a shortfall, will they get greater Fed subsidies?

thank you very muchh

It seems everyone is ignoring the fact that the legislature had the money for Education and chose not to use it for that. They expanded government 9.5% without funding education and police first. They do this frequently knowing progressives will pass a tax increase on someone else. To justify a tax simply because you do not pay it is nothing more than legalized plunder of another social group. Not very progressive if you want the people responsible for this mess to stay responsible. Do not fall for these tricks. Also the gross income tax is from the first dollar on C Corps and stops at $100,000 so there are some misleading statements being made by posters and writers alike on this board. This by specific design is a tax on small business and sold as something else. Don't be their fool, read between the lines people. Obama said we should not raise taxes during a recession and he is correct.

The venerable Michael Powell underscores my argument about "no free lunch" on the opinion page of this morning's Oregonian. Thanks, Mike! Perhaps Powell is too large-scale a businessman to get respected in this forum, but he makes excellent points about passing unfair costs along in ways that hurt both Powell's and its customers. Greg D- I agree with your observations about the right to discuss and debate without name calling, however, I have one factual quibble with your comment after that. Farm Bureau is THE leading supporter of Oregon's strong land use planning system. A Farm Bureau member wrote Senate Bill 100, and nobody has done more in the last 35+ years to protect land use planning than Farm Bureau. Rust, whether a legitimate farmer or not has the right to share his view, that of one individual. Bushue answers to a board and delegates from every Oregon county, and if his statements were out of line with his membership, he wouldn't be chairman for long. As for Kevin, the term "corporate farm" is a pretty tired, I'd actually say lazy, rhetorical dodge. It carries the same lack of thoughtfulness or gravitas as saying anyone on this forum is a pot smoking burn-out, driving around dazed and confused in a VW van. Go look at any statistics about Oregon agriculture and you'll see that the family farm is king here. There are very few mega enterprises deserving the title "corporate" in the way you mean that term to suggest. The merits of big and small farms is a topic for another day. Big or small, my money says farmers are willing to look at ways to fund state government at a reasonable level, in a broad-based way where revenue is generated across the population fairly and not based on gross receipts. Last, anyone who's ever met a legitimate farmer knows that they are nobody's fool, and nobody's pawn. So stop the "they're being manipulated by X" balogna. Whatever happens at the ballot box in January, I think it'd be great if everyone engaged in this dialog would got out and actually meet a farmer this spring. Not just someone at the Portland farmer's markets, but actually out on a farm. Get out to the country see what you can learn. You might enjoy yourself, and you'll come back with a richer understanding of the community beyond the UGB, and you can score some great fresh and local produce.

It makes me want to barf when I hear people who have no clue how these things work say "just open an econ 101 book".

The problem is, the idea that corporations pass on all tax increases to their customers (or employees) violate other principles that conservatives hold dear, such as the law of supply and demand and that the sole goal of businesses is to maximize profits.

There certainly are some businesses who can pass along cost increases (those who are in a market that are relatively price-inelastic), but for businesses in markets that are price-elastic, if they increase their price, their sales go down, so they have no ability to pass their costs on to customers.

But according conservative dogma, businesses are supposed to be maximizing their profits, anyway. If they are already making as much money as they possibly can, then they are already charging the optimal amount for their products, so an increase in price will hurt their profits.

It's amazing how many people who are gung-ho about business have no clue as to how businesses actually work.

"Source? Please show where the Oregon legislature had the money for education and chose not to use it for that. Do you have any notion whatsoever how the budget works? This isn't some big pool of dollars that's simply distributed like so many slices of pie. Money often comes from sources that earmark it SPECIFICALLY for budget items by law, and there's nothing the legislature can do about it.

The rest of your comment makes almost no sense."

If you paid attention what happened in the legislature this last term you would know the answer to that. Just look at the budget. It grew 9.5%, look where they spent and look where they cut. If you were in Salem listening you would have heard them talking about this.

Regarding the rest of my comment. What part of it do you not understand? A gross income tax starts at the first dollar of the gross income. Once you have paid $100,000 into it, you do not have to pay anymore. So if you are super rich you in fact get a break at some point. If you are not, you pay on all your gross income. I hope that clarifies things a bit.

Carla, I just read another post of yours. Oregon is low on the pole for friendly taxes. Washington State and Nevada for example do not tax personal income something that attracts capital instead of making it leave.
http://retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html America is now leading much of the world in high corporate tax rates: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html Scroll down the list you will find a mile of countries and states with better tax rates for businesses than Oregon. Norway and Sweden among them.

Fbear: You seem to recognize the tax incidence question better than most on here. But you left out one important point.

What happens when the tax incidence falls on the producer?

If demand is elastic (or supply is inelastic), output tends to fall over the longer term (let's call it at least one production cycle). When output falls, jobs tend to be lost.

So, in any market, and all other things equal, the tax will cause consumers to pay in the short term, or jobs will be lost in the long term.

Sorry, Econ103, your argument makes no sense. Basically, you're saying that because I earned 1-2% less, I'll reduce my business activity.

So, you're saying I'll willingly cut my income even more because it's been cut by a small amount. That just doens't make any sense.

Furthermore, Econ 103, it makes no sense for anyone to reduce their business activity simply because their taxes have gone up a little.

If I reduce my company's activity by, say, 10%, my profit is likely to be reduce by much more than that, because fixed costs (like rent) aren't going to go away right away. In fact, such a reduction in activity could turn my profitable business in to one that loses money.

A tax on profits, though, by definition can't turn a profitable company into an unprofitable one.

Oh, FarmDD, Mike Powell's column in the O isn't about taxes, it's about large businesses gouging small businesses.

That fishy smell is your red herring.

fbear--thanks for reminding me of my college econ. class.

For those who have forgotten:

Elastic prices: you might or might not have to buy something. It times are tight, you don't have to buy that latte or print Oregonian.

Inelastic are things that you need regardless of the price. Salt, as I recall, was a classic example of this. Also, gas if you need your car to get to work.

And no taxes are not the only element of economics, the only element of business decisions, the most important issue in the lives of everyone.

But then, I took econ. before Reagan was Gov. of California, much less the standard bearer for supply-side economics.

Carla, if you are not going to read my posts there is no need for me to give you the research. Read it again very carefully please. I am starting to think you are simply invested in your ideas and are not searching for truth. If this is the case, then evidence will not help.

Is that K arlock or Carla responding to RyanLeo? Verbatim argument. You've sure pulled yourself up a notch.

We'll ignore the Turkish porno link spammer on every current topic. The ad. dollars don't go toward blog management.

Uh, Galen, you think?

Hey Galen:

Using the google it took about .18 seconds to pee all over your "research."

From a previous BO article:

Oregon Business Taxes: We’re number 2 (lowest) by Chuck Sheketoff

A new study funded by big corporations found that Oregon has the second lowest state and local business taxes among all states and the District of Columbia and that businesses get a better deal for the taxes they pay in Oregon than just about anywhere else in the country.

The study’s data suggest that Oregon’s state and local business taxes are so low that the state could raise business taxes by $1.6 billion annually and still be in line with state and local business taxes nationwide.

In the study, Oregon tied with Connecticut for the second lowest business taxes — state and local taxes combined — as a share of the state economy among all states and the District of Columbia. Only North Carolina has lower business taxes than Oregon, according to the study.

The accounting firm Ernst & Young conducted the study on behalf of the Council On State Taxation (COST), an association of over 600 multistate and international corporations that lobbies on state tax policy. COST does not disclose its membership list, so it is not known which multistate or multinational businesses operating in Oregon are members of COST.

The big business lobby says that Oregon is one of the cheapest states in the nation when it comes to taxes. Their study finds that businesses in Oregon pay state and local taxes totaling 3.7 percent of the private economy, compared to 4.9 percent for businesses nationwide.

I found an interesting quote from bear here:

"But according conservative dogma, businesses are supposed to be maximizing their profits, anyway. If they are already making as much money as they possibly can, then they are already charging the optimal amount for their products, so an increase in price will hurt their profits."

So us guys in Ashland are not trying to make as much profit as we can in our businesses?

When we get taxed more it won't impact us because we can't always pass it on to the consumer?

We won't find other ways to compensate for that loss?

If the tax increase hits all people in my industry it won't impact prices at all?

Grocery stores for example won't need to do any of the following not one of these things when a large chunk of their 1% profit is taken?

Lower wages Lay off slower workers Hire illegals increase prices on goods that were lower reduce charitable donations look for other tax breaks take higher risks to give greater returns look at other markets that allow me to keep my profit.

How about internet companies?

They can't put their HQ in Nevada?

The impact is endless.

Very interesting so many people think they can just put a guy in a box and make him pay and there is no economic response to it.

While a tax on profits may not make a business unprofitable a tax on gross income can do it rather easily in low margin businesses.

"A new study funded by big corporations found that Oregon has the second lowest state and local business taxes among all states and the District of Columbia and that businesses get a better deal for the taxes they pay in Oregon than just about anywhere else in the country."

Please show me the detailed study so I can look at the numbers. My information provided is regarding corporate income tax. I am not sure how we can be #2 like a super dog on top of the country gloating about our low tax heaven when there are states that have no corporate or personal income tax. Did you even look at the links I provided? I gave hard data. You give me no real numbers to crunch. I will come back later with more real data not opinions.

"Please show me the detailed study ..."

or maybe you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and type the required search items yourself.

Scott,

Actually, I think it's fair that people who make assertions about data can actually back it up and provide the source of their information. And tj did just that.

One of the things that pisses me off about the righty blogs is that they will make crazy assertions, then when you ask them where they got their information, they'll tell you to look it up yourself.

Of course, if it doesn't actually exist, it can't be looked up, which is often the case.

I gave actual numbers with my links showing Oregon with a higher tax rate than many countries and a good number of States. This is not about left or right, this is about the truth of the matter. You guys want me to do your research when I know its just a shill post? I think not, provide your Stats just as I did if you want to keep this scientific. If its about emotion and making me be your way on this issue, well that does none of us any good. Send me some links as I did for you. I actually work for a living and took time out of my work day to get you Stats, show the same regard. If you can prove your case for these measures I want to hear it. So far there is nothing to see except a lack of knowledge of the real situation here in Oregon, both at the legislative and citizen levels.

Here is more data on over all tax burdens. Oregon is far from the lowest here: http://www.newgeography.com/content/00754-local-and-state-tax-burden-maps Here is another link that includes more taxes. Nope we are still not #2 as you suggested: http://www.e50plus.com/public/202.cfm and when you go here you see we have a corporate income tax burden higher than most countries: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html

Fbear: I don't make the economic theories, I'm simply telling you what they are.

For a more in-depth view on why output decreases in the face of increased taxes, you can bone up here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/cda04-12.cfm

Oh I see it now. I will check it out. Did not notice it as a link.

Here is another chart on best states for Business. Oregon is found towards the bottom: http://www.directorship.com/the-best-states-for-business/

I will dig through the PDF and get back to you if I find something new there.

Here's another link to the same report (leads to a PDF in an easier-to-read format):

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/71440_1.pdf

Ok in the first page I see some deceptive trickery, which any progressive should be against. The benefit to tax ratio. Oregon is very low. This means that Oregon businesses receive a very large amount of benefits from the State in relation to what they pay. Here is the trick folks....are you ready? This simply means that Oregon business taxes are taken from one business and given to businesses the legislature likes. It goes to the lobbyist pet projects. This is not favorable information fellas. This is a downright hostile area to do business according to this chart. Now a "conservative" if you can call him that, might like this simply because he owns the business that gets the perks. But I read this and say OMG run from Oregon. Look as the rest of the charts and Oregon is not spectacular except when it comes to plunder. You guys need to sit in on some sessions in Salem and learn how this works. You are not supporting progressive causes by spewing this stuff out guys.

fbear -

The article in question can be found right here in BO authored by Chuck Sheketoff which I referenced in the post.

Carla,

"Just Jim" is another poster. I have gone by many monikers, but I have never used 2 different handles in the same thread.

One of my old monikers is "Young Oregon Voter" and "Young Oregon Moonbat." I have seen "Young Oregon Voter" in a recent post, but that is not me and has not been for at least a year now.

while seeing their share of the total tax burden dropping by as much as two thirds.

In the last 20 years,individual taxpayers up 31%, C-corp taxpayer down 7%, S-corp's up 200%. Really simple to figure out why the individuals share of taxes paid is going up.

BTW, 9% of tax collected at the individual taxpayer level are from s-corp, sole props, and other business activities.

I see the SEIU has kicked in $250,000 for the YES vote. Damn out of state interests trying to meddle in a state election. :-)

We have guys posting information that undermines their own position. You cannot compare apples to oranges. If the percent a company pays in taxes goes up and their percentage in overall paid taxes compared to others goes down, this is evidence that the increased taxes on companies reduced productivity or that the companies left Oregon or that they switched to LLCs due to tax structure. Oregon has a very anti-business mentality and until that changes it will be on the bottom of the list for employment. These taxes do have an impact, but some people don't want to hear it, yet their posts prove it. The Scandinavians learned that if you over-tax businesses you decrease revenue. Yes we have columnists saying America prospered under a 90% tax rate when even socialist nations know from experience this is not possible. This defies logic and reason.

But all that said, exactly HOW do any of your points actually rebut the factual information in Just's piece? The answer? They don't. They simply (and unsuccesfully) try to kill the messenger.

Oh, come on. I thought you were a natural, but the peroxide has penetrated to the cortex.

1). Show me where I ever said that the farm isn't a real farm. 2). The bedding plant bit was a joke. 3). If he is getting city/county restoration contracts, with money from M67/M68, then he isn't a typical farmer, with regard to his perception of the measures.

Posted by: Lord Beaverbrook | Dec 23, 2009 1:39:47 PM

Is that K arlock or Carla responding to RyanLeo? Verbatim argument. You've sure pulled yourself up a notch.

And she never answered the factual question I asked, about how does this work with small margins.

This is unacceptable. For Xmas you get a facebook page, entitled "Clean Up Blue Oregon", where concerned bloggers will write an open letter to Dr. Dean and Mandate Media's political clients, asking that you adhere to, at least, minimal blog best practices, as you are giving the Party a bad name.

• Just Jim

Posted by: gl | Dec 22, 2009 3:06:52 PM When did Oregon last run a surplus?

That would be the last time you received a kicker check. If we had put that money in a rainy day fund instead maybe we wouldn't be talking about increasing taxes.

Hello... A response to my last post, please. Is that what you did, while yelling for folks to tell the truth?

TJ

Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the NUMBER of taxpayers.

BTW, using anything from OCPP in re: taxes is as credible with me as me using a study from Fox News would be with you.

Didn't realize this was a "post and run". Bummer how the base is up in arms dealing with Copenhagen failure, HCR, and no up and down vote on Afghanistan on the same day. And yes, you are correct. I have way to much time on my hands. I've been bed-ridden for two months and started blogging to pass the time.

Any care to tell Carla how tedious another "isn't the opposition stupid/douchebag/laughable...and M67/68 is a good example" post is?

From Facebook: Carla Axtman The whiners are out in force today. #blueoregon December 19 at 1:03pm via Twitter 2 people like this.

Kristin Teigen ?? December 19 at 1:20pm

Carla Axtman Kristin: The people griping in comments at Blue Oregon are tedious as hell. There are a number of people who either have waaaaaaaaay too much time on their hands, walk around in paper-thin skin or measures of both. Good grief. December 19 at 1:36pm

Kristin Teigen oh, yeah that -- agreed. I'm beginning to like the strategy of just posting something and then letting it go...realizing that the comments aren't going to make or break an idea... December 19 at 1:42pm

Miles Vorkosigan See Zarathustra whine. Whine, Zarathustra, whine. December 19 at 1:49pm

Since there's been no rebuttal, I'll assume JJ benefits directly from M67/68, as I hypothesized. So, for the record, this post is a bad as the "Tillamook" letter, but is slightly more arrogant, in that it accuses the other side of dissembling in the title.

Beware the justified, of all stripes!!!

Rereading some of Z's complete destruction of the posted theses, one imagines a small child with its hands over its eyes, screaming, "I can't see you, I can't hear you"!

Rereading some of Z's complete destruction of the posted theses, one imagines a small child with its hands over its eyes, screaming, "I can't see you, I can't hear you"!

I have a long memory and we'll see how sensitive she is on her 50th! Plenty of time to think up something really...choice. Doubt I'll live long enough to thank Miles. Might show up to a gig and get sick in the front row.

Better to get even. The way Dems are headed, they'll be plenty of opportunities to point out the attitude that led to the end of the two-faced, one party system, when it comes.

We don't accept "post and run". Your silence is your conviction. Guilty as charged.

asking the Oregon Farm Bureau to stop spreading falsehoods

You first. Even the "dairy letter" didn't begin it's con by telling the other side to stop lying! Classic gen X.

<hr/>