Comments on: Cuts planned in case Measures 66, 67 fail

By: Robert L.

Robert L. — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:53:07 +0000

Really, Blake? Insults? Is that your best argument against these “job killing taxes”? How about some reason? Give us something based in reality to back up your claims. Please. Show me the examples of typical businesses that will actually lay off profitable employees in order to scrounge up $150 at the end of the year.

You assume that I am a government worker… I am not, so it’s really only you that looks like an a** for that assumption.

By: Blake Riley

Blake Riley — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:06:51 +0000

well Jayson, the real price tag on these measures is a little more than $150 a year. If you had any idea of how a business works, and how these measures will really affect a business, maybe you would stop asking stupid questions.

And to robert, the answer is yes you would cut an employee because in very many situations (when a tax increase occurs) the responsibility taken on by a business owner is not worth the return he or she will receive from the business. I hate to tell you this, but anyone can go work for the government and become a teacher or a bureaucrat. People who sacrifice every day they have and every dollar in their name in order to start and maintain a well working business are a little above that.

Soon everyone is going to just say screw it, and prefer to become lazy bureaucrats/government works such as yourselves who complain all day and feed off hard workers.

By: Jayson

Jayson — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:48:47 +0000

I’m curious to know how paying $150 a year is going to lead to job cuts within a corporation..? I guess a company could lay someone off for a day to recoup the preciouis money lost by this egregious tax hike?

By: Robert L.

Robert L. — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:41:26 +0000

Are you serious? You would cut employees (and cut earnings, and profit potential) in order to pay a tax that is only a fraction of the salary you would pay those employees?

Come on… In what business model does that make any sense? Enough of the rhetoric. It does not stand up to scrutiny.

By: Carmine

Carmine — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:20:33 +0000

It would be nice to pretend that we, as contractors, could simply defeat these measures and suffer no ill effects. But that’s not true. Businesses come to the areas with the education, the worker training and the infrastructure to support them. And guess what? You get those things with taxes, not with tax breaks.
I’ll probably pay a little more in business taxes because of this (I only wish I made enough in income taxes to pay more!)! but given the alternative-yes the things in this stoyr but also cuts to education and police and other services-I think it’s definitely a smaller sacrifice.

By: Eric Rouse

Eric Rouse — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:47:32 +0000

Concerned taxpayer,

I appreciate your comments. I agree in that we should be looking at ways to entice would-be-employers to Oregon. We should also appreciate and reward the business that exists now. Do you know how to do that? LOWER TAXES! No business ever said they wanted to move somewhere there are higher taxes. I have not done the research, but I would suspect that industry’s in Silicon Valley received enormous tax incentives to locate there, not tax hikes. If there is a demand, it is easy for industry to partner with schools to develop workforce training. It’s a strategic partnership between industry, education, and local governments to lure big business to Oregon.

This measure is not about developing a workforce to lure industry to Oregon. In fact, the taxes on Corporations as proposed in this measure would surely send would-be-employers packing. Not to mention existing employers like “Business Owner” are strongly consider moving as well. Thus, more jobs lost.

Proponents of this measure say, “make the rich and corporations pay” for these increases in obscure government programs that most of us do not even know exist. But in the end, who is going to pay?

Concern taxpayer, investment in job creation starts with the ability for corporations to meet their current tax obligations. I hear from owners like “Business Owner” all the time who say with these taxes I can’t survive, so I need to cut jobs and raise my prices. Who pays in both those instances? The Corporation…No. The wealthy…No. The average taxpayer, that’s who, you and I are going to be paying the freight. Those who keep their jobs are going to be paying more for goods and services, those who lose their jobs will be paying even more in lost earnings.

By: concerned taxpayer

concerned taxpayer — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:49:22 +0000

I am equally concerned about our economy, Eric. However, I believe we need to pursue job creation. We can’t do that without investment. Do you have any idea what expense Silicon Valley employers endure to be located there? Almost anywhere, USA would be far cheaper. But they stay for one reason. That’s where the skilled work force they need is located. The colleges (and grade and high schools) prepare future employees. Do not think for a minute that any business is going to relocate or expand to a region that does not have a work force that is pretty much ready to go. Your proposal for colleges is unworkable. It would only apply to existing employers, and that training would be “onesy twosey”, which does not generate sufficient enrollment to make the classes pay. Many skills are needed that cannot be fully acquired by computer classes alone.
Oregon business used to pick up 16% of Oregon state tax revenue. Due to intense lobbying efforts, they now pay only 5%. The shortfall basically rests on the backs of Oregon families. These measures do not represent new taxes, but make up the shortage from our bad economy. Some of these taxes do disappear in a couple years.
We can’t ignore the fact that we are one of the only states that have no sales tax. We have to pay a high price for refusing it. Overall, we are one of the least taxes states in the country for business, and will remain so when this measure passes.

By: Business owner

Business owner — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:46:33 +0000

When looking at all these government cuts remember this, additional taxes on businesses in these tough economic times mean that businesses will have to cut jobs in order to close their own budget short-falls to take into account the additional taxes. Our small family business is not a “corporate giant”, but after close study we will have to trim our workforce if these measures pass just to survive. Voters should really think about the greater loss of Oregon jobs in the Private Sector and when times are tough all the public sector has to do is to raise taxes on those who are already struggeling in order keep their operations the same as they were when times were good. Our business had to make serious sacrafices, cuts, and serious financial planning to make up for our budget shortfalls in a bad economic climate, public operations should be required to do the same. We have voted in favor of every school and “service upgrade” in the past because it betters Oregon, but this time we can’t. If these measures do pass we are considdering moving our small family business to Vancouver as Washington is much more small business friendly.

By: Eric Rouse

Eric Rouse — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:15:43 +0000

This is probably the most absurd article I have ever read. You mean to tell me that as taxpayers we should really be concerned that BOLI has to cut travel, supplies, and some obscure program to protect people that cannot ensure they get paid for the work that they do? You are telling me that I should pay, with my job I might add (because I will lose my job if this measure passes); because someone is not capable of protecting their own interest. You want me to pay with my job to have the government track down $3?

I have a MBA, I have student loans, I have a family and an upside down mortgage. I have been laid off for six months because of this recession and I know for a fact that employers don’t have enough money to pay these taxes and E. So, NO I DON’T WANT BOLI TO PURSUE $3 AN HOUR; MAYBE THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD NOT ENTER INTO VERBAL AGREEMENTS.

Let’s save jobs!

Regarding the technical schools… If employers need workers, because there is a demand for a service, then they will fund the technical schools to train the workers they need. Don’t throw money on the wall and hope it sticks. If there is no demand for technical workers, then the taxpayer should not be funding the training. The industry should fund itself.

If this measure passes, construction workers will be unemployed and won’t need BOLI to pursue their money. Additionally, there will be a bunch of technically trained people standing with them in the unemployment line because employers don’t have enough money to cover the taxes.

Message to State Departments- CUT YOUR BUDGETS, IT’S WHAT ALL THE TAX PAYERS HAVE HAD TO DO. IT’S TIME YOU DID TOO.

Message to Community Colleges- DEVELOP PROGRAMS WHERE THERE IS A DEMAND, PARTER WITH BUSINESS TO FUND YOUR PROGRAM, NOT THE TAXPAYER.

Message to Taxpayer- DON’T LET THESE PEOPLE FOOL YOU; THEY ARE WASTING YOUR MONEY BY THE MILLIONS.

EMPLOYERS DON’T ADD JOBS WHEN THEY HAVE TO PAY MORE TAXES. We have to decide whether we want more jobs in this state, if we want this economy to grow, if we all want to prosper…. If the answer is yes: VOTE NO ON 66 & 67.