Income tax surcharge?

24 on/ 48 off · 08-20-2003, 10:14 AM

So now our legislature wants to raise our taxes? I thought that the leaders of both houses PROMISED they wouldn't do that. "We need to live within our means", they said. Why the sudden change in our republican views?

Average taxpaying family = $138.00/ yr additional taxes. I don't get it!

BOTH parties frustrate me!

--spud-- :smile:

WaterDog · 08-20-2003, 10:29 AM

All I can say is.......******.

lost_sailor · 08-20-2003, 10:39 AM

Sure ... in the state with the highest unemployment rate in the country, an INCOME tax, of course !

It will probably get shot down in the House, then back to ... nothing.

Sea Foam · 08-20-2003, 10:50 AM

Well Sure! They have to pay for those 4000 new jobs that they added in Oregons public sector last year according to Lars Larson. Our governor says that the rest of the state may be in a recession but his state government is still growing! GO FIGURE!

lost_sailor · 08-20-2003, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sea Foam:
4000 new jobs

How did Sir Lars arrive at that bogus number?

24 on/ 48 off · 08-20-2003, 12:03 PM

But how could this bill even make it out of committee to a floor vote? The committees are all controlled by republicans. Why and how could they lie to us?

--spud-- :smile:

GutshotApe · 08-20-2003, 12:10 PM

Don't worry...it'll be a temporary surcharge.

Bounty Hunter · 08-20-2003, 12:13 PM

The Portland prison population was artificially inflated during the last income tax election. They suddenly started booking for any little misdimeaners just so they could threaten and eventually release people after the vote. The media ate it up. This is from someone who works in the system by-the-way, so don't accuse me of making this up. I beleive 100% of the other prisons 'struggled to get by' because they didn't increase the meaningless bookings.

The rest of this is opinion:
The socialist republic of Oregon needs to learn to live within its means. When the economy went south the legislators needed to figure a way to reduce the spending. If a family of four runs short they get forclosed on.

24 on/ 48 off · 08-20-2003, 12:13 PM

The vast majority of Oregonians voted against this same tax in January. :depressed:

--spud-- :smile:

freespool · 08-20-2003, 12:14 PM

So that makes it a temporary lie,see much better.

Conn · 08-20-2003, 12:33 PM

So the average Oregonian will pay $138? Sure I'm sure that's all the average Oregonian will pay. The scale is from 1-9%. So if you happen to be one of those greedy people who has seen some success result from your hard work you will be adding an additional 9% to your state taxes?

This can't be right, please someone tell me my calculations are off. If you are in the highest tax bracket, you know a greedy scumbag according to the Oregonian, the legislature, and almost every other media source, you are already paying 9% in state taxes off of your gross income. Does this mean the new tax will add an additional 9%? This can't be right.

I really enjoyed the quote by one of the sponsors who termed this a "a way for citizens to contribute some of their federal rebate check toward helping our state."

Get your F****** hands out of my pocket and do what we elected you to do. Live within your means. Quit growing the damn government if you can't pay for it.

TheRogue · 08-20-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bounty Hunter:
The Portland prison population was artificially inflated during the last income tax election. They suddenly started booking for any little misdimeaners just so they could threaten and eventually release people after the vote. The media ate it up. This is from someone who works in the system by-the-way, so don't accuse me of making this up. I beleive 100% of the other prisons 'struggled to get by' because they didn't increase the meaningless bookings.

Where's The Geek!! I hear the black helicopters flying overhead

Artwo · 08-20-2003, 12:57 PM

I am listening to Lars on-line right now and they are broadcasting live testimony from salem and ther was one of our legislators toting just that concept. He stated since we got a federal roll back in our taxes we wouldn't really see a tax increase from this tax surcharge over and above of what we paid last year in state taxes.............what a joke. You'ld think since we voted this same tax sur-charge down last January that the legislators ould get the hint.

DanS · 08-20-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

...it'll be a temporary surcharge

And I'm sure they'll repeal that surcharge about the same time that Illinois gets rid of their "temporary" tollways.

lost_sailor · 08-20-2003, 02:32 PM

You guys should get elected so we can do it the right way!

Hoosier Daddy · 08-20-2003, 02:57 PM

Oh, but we need major league baseball?

Like we're not all going to end up paying for that little failure-in-the-making too....

Old Coot · 08-20-2003, 03:01 PM

Quote:

The committees are all controlled by republicans. Why and how could they lie to us?

08-20-2003, 05:14 PM

It seems unconstitional to be able run this Surcharge through way the house like they have.The last tempary fee was the national forest fee along with the state user fee. I believe they are perment now. I am sure this will be the same thing in a couple of years. They wont be able to live with out the extra cash. They will say if they dont keep it they will have to cut Schools, Police,And Fire. Like we have not heard that before. It like giving a unlimited supply of drugs to a drug addict.And then asking them quit or cut back some.
The next elction we need to vote them all out

pdxkevin · 08-20-2003, 06:42 PM

I would like to take a look at the bank accounts of the those who 'decided' to vote for the increase.

I used to think that rhino's were endangered. Not in OR that's for sure. There was a pack of them spotted in Salem this week.

Seems like the only time they are in touch with their constituants is when they are reaching for our wallets.

Seriously though, do they honestly hold their heads up thinking that they are doing what we elected them to do? How can they possibly sleep at night? Don't the sheet get too slimey?

pdxkevin · 08-20-2003, 11:25 PM

Ahhh come on... Give them a chance.. a little extra taxiation worked for California, right?

freespool · 08-20-2003, 11:26 PM

Todays Otregonian states Washington county gives Intel 200 million in tax breaks. They say they'll use that money to rebuild their plant. In the past 10 years the state of Oregon has doled out over a billion dollars in tax breaks to various business concerns. Willams bakery was given a large tax break,so they retooled the plant and laid off half the workers. Freightliner was given a large tax break,then moved it's headquarters out of state. See a pattern here?

Cool Texan · 08-20-2003, 11:37 PM

This would indicate that there are another 985 jobs to be hired in the state by 2005 compared to the 2001 Actuals.

http://www.bam.das.state.or.us/pub/G...hedule_VII.pdf

TheRogue · 08-20-2003, 11:51 PM

Voters passed the "unfunded mandate" of Measure 11. Of course we have more employees, the prison population has jumped significantly. I'm not going to dig it up right now, but I read recently we have the third highest percentage of the budget devoted to the criminal system of any state in the country.

TR

TheRogue · 08-21-2003, 05:27 AM

Nothing like a bunch of armchair quarterbacks....

Considering the amount of Rep legislators that "jumped ship" on this, well, I'd say that this was the best that they could do. Personally, I vote for people to make the tough choices, not send it back to me to vote on it. That IS their job!!

Don't like it?? I'm sure the boys at TaxPayers United will force it to ballot anyway. Be nice if they could have their own plan instead of the "tighten your belt" mantra. Put up or shut up!!

TR

WaterDog · 08-21-2003, 05:55 AM

KPTV 12 is reporting that it's headed to the Governor's desk and he is expected to sign it.

I'm giddy with excitement to be able to pay more taxes.

[img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Straydog · 08-21-2003, 06:15 AM

I agree with TR.

The Legislature will never please all of the people. They were sent to make tough decisions. What is wrong with this is how long they took to get to this point, how much it cost us to support them while they played their games and the fact it will likely be refered to the voters.

In the meantime, school districts and other entities need to know how much money they can plan on having and at this point we still don't really know.

I have asked my local reps. for a plan all session that would give us the funding we need without raising taxes. They have failed to do so in a manner that would be acceptable to the people. Just as people have said "no more taxes", we have also said certain service levels are a must.

All session I and many others have said "show us the money". It is apparent they can not and a few R's had the guts to admit that and vote for the sucharge. My hat is off to them, the rest should be voted out next go around.

Cool Texan · 08-21-2003, 07:55 AM

I was in disbelief this morning about the news of the tax increase to be signed. Absolutely ridiculous.

When do I get to vote for these stooges again? I will vote for NONE of the incumbents. Ship of fools down in Salem.

Fiscal irresponsibility continues.

[img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Sea Jypzee · 08-21-2003, 08:09 AM

I will be glad to vote against any person who voted for this tax increase next election time.

What part of NO don't they understand?

[img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

CATCH AND EAT · 08-21-2003, 08:12 AM

A tax is never temporary. We will be paying for this for years to come. 3 years my eye. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

Cool Texan · 08-21-2003, 08:44 AM

So does this mean that Multnomah County will repeal the OTHER "temporary" tax we're being hit with??

Dont get me wrong, I love Oregon...but this is one messed up state.

Okie · 08-21-2003, 09:03 AM

A recall of the Oregon Governor is in order. Oregon is going the sameway as California.

TheRogue · 08-21-2003, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Okie:
A recall of the Oregon Governor is in order. Oregon is going the sameway as California.

Please list your answers to the problems here. Recalling a sitting governor certainly is a way to approach it, but certainly would appear to be counter-productive.

TR

Straydog · 08-21-2003, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Okie:
A recall of the Oregon Governor is in order. Oregon is going the sameway as California.

A recall is not in order. There is no comparison to our situations. Davis took over a budget surplus and turned it into a large deficit. What has Kulongoski done to deserve a recall? (please answer beyond the Lars simplicity of life)

The problem with Oregon is too many Orange County Republicans have moved in from California.

[ 08-21-2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

lost_sailor · 08-21-2003, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Straydog:
Davis took over a budget surplus and turned it into a large deficit.

Didn't someone else do that on a national level? Recall that guy!

Everyone who preaches "cut spending" needs to specify what services to eliminate - because the legislature has scrutinized every budget in detail and made cuts to most agencies. If you're going to significantly reduce expense, you have to eliminate services - SO WHAT'S IT GOING TO BE?

I'd like to see our "welfare" benefit be a one-way bus ticket to ... California (Texas?) ... but that won't happen, there's that whole federal funding thing. It's always something, see?

pdxkevin · 08-21-2003, 12:00 PM

I just heard that the baseball stadium was tied into the deal....

if we can't afford what we have on our plate now, why are we going to get new toys?

Conn · 08-21-2003, 12:31 PM

Thanks Thumper, I was in the middle of writing a similar message when I saw you already posted.

No business, government, economy, whatever can sustain itself if it continually spends more than it takes in. Unfortunately the government has what a business does not, the unlimited bank line....the taxpayers. The bank can always limit or cut a business' bank line. We are the only check and balance on the govt spending and we must speak. With noone to stop the increases in spending they will continue on and on and on.

Question, where can they cut? Well all the roads in my neighborhood were repaved this summer. This area was just built about five years ago, the roads were fine, zero problems with them. Why the expense?

For the past year they have been ripping up the Hart Road area in Beaverton. Why? They only added some turning lanes, nice light poles, and nice planter boxes. This is a multi million dollar project still going on. The roads were fine before. It was a slight improvement in traffic, but in todays times why the expense?

I don't want to even talk about PERS, only that it is a prime example of major economic decisions being made by those who stand to benefit the most, no matter how self serving and how much damage is done. The gross mismanagement during the stock market boom times is criminal.

Tell you what, all of you that believe that all budgets have been cut to the bare necessity, please give me a call, I've got a cabin cruiser to sell you to go along with that oceanside condo you bought in Arizona.

Okie · 08-21-2003, 12:33 PM

The governor has said on several occasions that he would solve our problems with out raising taxes. Why did he change his mind now??? Can you realy trust what a politicians says??? Maybe we need a actor to help us out.

Stratocaster · 08-21-2003, 12:56 PM

Quote:

posted 08-21-2003 01:33 PM

The governor has said on several occasions that he would solve our problems with out raising taxes. Why did he change his mind now???

Thats because they dont know their backside from a hole in the ground, untill they get into office and realize its not what they thought it would be. Or the situation changed. Read my lips. :grin:

Cool Texan · 08-21-2003, 01:19 PM

TR, print me off copies of all budgets, by line item, as well as headcount charts for all organizations, revenue forecasts, etc. I will be happy to go through it all. It can be done....easily...if you choose priorities. No one can give you a perfect rundown of how to do it without all of the necessary information, so your request for details is futile.

If you dont think budgets can be reworked and fixed, you have the right to that opinion. However, working in finance, I can assure you that there is not a budget on Earth that can not be reworked to meet the constraints it should be working within.

WaterDog · 08-21-2003, 01:26 PM

Funny how a small municpality can trim 20% ($2.5 million dollars out of a $12 million) out of a budget but the state can't. No more hiring, cut in services, frozen wages, and yes some jobs were eliminated. It can be done and it takes more guts to this that it does to just raise taxes. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Pete · 08-21-2003, 01:28 PM

This is a tough, complicated, emotional topic that impacts all of us (although some indirectly).

I'd like to compliment everyone in this discussion for presenting their perspectives without becoming personal. Thank you!

Straydog · 08-21-2003, 01:54 PM

CT,

Of course any budget can be reduced to whatever you want it to be on paper. It dosen't take a person in finance to know that.

The problem is implementing it. Once you take it from paper and attempt to put it to work in the real world, real people are affected and in most cases they are affected negatively.

When measure 28 failed and people started losing services the doo doo hit the fan and the reality was that there was not enough to provide the services people demand. Thus the longest session in the state's history and a budget that may fail and put us right back to square one.

Anyone can put anything on paper, applying it to real life is where the rub comes in.

Cool Texan · 08-21-2003, 02:19 PM

Stray, you are 90% correct. Implementing it is easy actually. Yeah, some people will lose jobs, but why should you or I pay more in taxes just so they can stay employed? I refuse. And yes, I voted No on 28...it was a joke. No reform going on...just asking for more money. No thanks.

Its unfortunate that people should lose their jobs, but that is life sometimes. A lot of people in Oregon know the feeling all too well. The government is fat...and no one is willing to stand up and fight it...yet.

Hopefully this thing will come to a vote by the people. I will vote no for a tax increase. Downsize the government...dont upsize the taxes.

Straydog · 08-21-2003, 02:32 PM

But CT, we operate on an income tax based revenue source.

If more people lose jobs the revenue source diminishes and we can not meet our budget. So, what then, get rid of more people, lose more revenue and 'round and 'round we go.....?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there is no waste to be trimmed in government (or most private businesses as far at that goes).

What I am saying is that, based on our current system of an income tax based revenue source, simply cutting jobs (government or otherwise) is not going to get us where we need to be fiscally, let alone socially.

[ 08-21-2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

24 on/ 48 off · 08-21-2003, 02:36 PM

If you were to vote out Ted K, then you better toss out every single republican who sent this bill to the Gov's desk.

--spud-- :smile:

Cool Texan · 08-21-2003, 02:37 PM

Stray, your argument has a fundamental flaw though.... example:

Person A is a state employee earning $xx. 9% of $xx goes to the state via taxes. That person is "right sized". What is the result?

The state has lost 9% of $xx in revenue, but has saved $xx-($xx*9%) in expenses, thus, putting the state ahead of the game. Repeat till break even.

So yes, go round and round until the state is of a size that it can support itself. When the economy rebounds (knocking on wood), then hire those people back to alleviate the burden the survivors had to carry. It absolutely gets where we need to be financially.

As for socially...its all about for the greater good of the population. Some will suffer so that many will survive.

Straydog · 08-21-2003, 04:52 PM

CT,

I understand to the degree you have taken your example.
However, what about the hungry, the dead, the dying, the robbers the muggers, the panhandlers, etc. etc. etc.

These people are not going to just disappear. The need for services will rise as will the cost of dealing with them whether it be via food stamps, housing, police protection, health care, etc. etc.....

I was just reading an article the other day how the cost of emergency room care is surpassing what it would cost us to insure people. When people need health care they show up at the emergency room with no money. You and I pay for their care via increases in costs to us either directly or via increased health insurance costs.

Pay em now or pay em later..... what is being gained?

[ 08-21-2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Uglygreen · 08-21-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Pay em now or pay em later..... what is being gained?

What is being gained is that the decreased or limited taxes allow for greater economic growth. More people are employed and proportionally less people require such state provided social services, reducing the total expense paid out.

The increased economic activity also means that more people going to be employed by the private sector, increasing the total number of payers into the government tax system.

The problem now is that the ratio of people paying into the system versus the number of people taking out of the system is screwed up in favor of the people taking out. For long term stability the ratio needs to be at least balanced or (better) in favor of those paying into the system.

UG

Compare Oregon with California and/or Colorado... which path do you choose?

[ 08-21-2003, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

Thumper · 08-21-2003, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lost_sailor:
Everyone who preaches "cut spending" needs to specify what services to eliminate - because the legislature has scrutinized every budget in detail and made cuts to most agencies. If you're going to significantly reduce expense, you have to eliminate services - SO WHAT'S IT GOING TO BE?

Remember, you are not talking about real spending decreases for the most part --- just decreases in the increases. But if real spending decreases are needed, just do it.

It's real simple if you are a businessman. Freeze all hiring. Cancel all unfilled vacancies greater than 60 days old. Institute zero-base budgeting for all future years (not "current service level" spending). Allow no increases beyond current spending levels. If you have to eliminate services, do it.

That about covers it.

The tax-and-spend folks think this is a tough problem, but in reality it is simple. If you are operating your own business, and you have to take corrective action or go bust, you just grit your teeth and DO IT. Operating a government should be no different.

The thought of instituting an income tax surcharge in a time of war and a recession is silly. Just plain silly.

Every legislator who voted for the increase should be voted out. Democrat or Republican, no difference. They are all incompetent to manage the affairs of a state.

It is probably all moot in any case. This issue will likely go to the voters, who will defeat it again. Back to square one!

Cool Texan · 08-21-2003, 11:45 PM

Thump,

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Like I have said all along...Its just a budget. They're easy to put together, they're easy to manage, and they're easy to reduce. I do it all the time...and while the ZBB is painful the first time, its amazingly powerful and stripping out the excess and the nice to have stuff....simple financial management.

TheRogue · 08-21-2003, 11:51 PM

Please, one of you run for governor, or state senator, or legislator. I'd happily vote for you, it's apparent that you've got it all figured out!

Again, you have not come up with a single thing in this as a way to cut BILLIONS of $$ from the state budget, as the people doing the work couldn't either. The priorities of a majority of the people in this state are quite obviously education, health care, and the environment. What are you going to cut (remember, we're talking NINE digit numbers here) that won't affect these priorities.

Not bashing, but I'd really like to know.

TR

Straydog · 08-21-2003, 11:54 PM

Thumper,

In my opinion, the plan you put forth will work only if services needed hold steady. This is not practical. Look around the state, regardless of what some people want us to believe, this state is growing rapidly and those without work are not leaving, thus services required increase.

Much too simple and impossible to implement.

Having said that, I agree, this will end up back to the voters to decide. I am not ready to say it will be defeated but would have to say the chances are very strong.

pdxkevin · 08-21-2003, 11:57 PM

Let's say you buy a nice new truck. It works great for a many miles over the years. Of course you must pay the monthly payment and regular maintanance. After a while, it isn't getting the same gas mileage that you started with because of the mileage, extra weight being carried in the bed, and engine build up. Over time, your down to 1/2 the miles on a full tank then you started with and it is starting to smoke a bit and drink-n-drip oil.

Do you take it in to the dealership for a larger gas tank to get back the total mileage out of a full tank?

No, if possible you fix the engine, elliminating the sludge. If it is beyond reasonable repair for the cost, you get a new truck.

TheRogue · 08-22-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

What is being gained is that the decreased or limited taxes allow for greater economic growth. More people are employed and proportionally less people require such state provided social services, reducing the total expense paid out.

Yes, to a point....but just the other day, Greenspan re-iterated again, that while a tax cut does some good for the economy, the fact of the matter is that most of the cut will be pocketed and not invested, and it will NEVER pay for itself in terms of rising incomes = more tax payments total.

TR

Straydog · 08-22-2003, 02:12 PM

UG,

I agree with TR, again. Plus, I think we are missing the fact that those that lose their public jobs will not have money to spend as they normally would and the economy will suffer from the loss of their purchasing power.

Again, I see it as a push at best, taxes may hold steady or decline slightly but the economy will lose the spendable income of the public employees that lose their jobs as well as their tax revenues.

[ 08-22-2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

fish_on · 08-22-2003, 02:30 PM

Someone need to come up with a $/person that it takes to run a state, set that amount and never let the raito change. We don't need anymore social programs, government handouts, or money for shcools. Cut the child tax credit and the budget for schools is solved, what sense does it make to beg for school money and then ask people with kids to give less than before? Flat tax no deductions!

Tanner · 08-22-2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by DanS,

Quote:

And I'm sure they'll repeal that surcharge about the same time that Illinois gets rid of their "temporary" tollways.

And that will be the same time they repeal the once "Temporary" Federal Income Tax. :grin:

[ 08-22-2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Tanner ]

DanS · 08-22-2003, 03:26 PM

Exactly, Tanner. There IS no temporary tax........just temorary memories.

Okie · 08-25-2003, 06:33 AM

Oregon voters are being held hostage by politicans who say it's all for education and the childrens good.

pdxkevin · 08-25-2003, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 24 on/ 48 off:
If you were to vote out Ted K, then you better toss out every single republican who sent this bill to the Gov's desk.

--spud-- :smile:

Don't leave it at that.... I do not follow a party line. I vote solely on the individual I believe (at that time) will do what's best out of the possible choices. Sometimes (more often than not it seems) it is a matter of "do you want your leg broken or both legs broken?" kind of choice. Neither is ideal but one is worse than the other.

Any and all of them that voted for this increase is NOT getting my support nor my vote - regardless their party affiliation.

Seems like there is actually very little difference between those two parties any more. Time for new fresh ideas....