From Sunday's editorial:
Wrong time, wrong tax hikes: Vote no on Measures 66, 67:
"Of all times, of all things, the Democrats in the Oregon Legislature chose now, in the throes of one of the worst recessions in history, to make business an enemy. They chose this moment to pit business against schools, the private sector against public unions, employers against the jobless.
"The two referrals on the Jan. 26 special election ballot -- Measure 66 and Measure 67 -- insist that Oregonians pick a side, to accept one lousy, harmful choice or the other. No, we won't do it. You shouldn't, either."
From today's editorial:
Once upon a time there was Measure 66:
"We oppose both Measure 66 and its companion on the Jan. 26 ballot, Measure 67. But Measure 67, which would increase Oregon's comparatively low business taxes, at least is an honest attempt to bring some balance and stability, to Oregon's tax system even as it lashes suffering, profitless businesses with higher taxes.
"Measure 66 is none of those things. It takes one of the highest income tax rates in the nation and drives it still higher. It takes one of the most volatile sources of public finance and makes it ever shakier and vulnerable to collapse in hard times like these. It sends the absolutely wrong message to small-business owners, professionals and CEOs -- the very people we need to come to Oregon, stay in Oregon, and create more jobs and state revenue in Oregon."
Could the
Oregonian be getting some sense? Maybe the
disproportionate loss of jobs in the newspaper business has had the amazing effect of giving the
Oregonian some economic sense.
4 comments:
TD, FYI, No, the Oregonian got it wrong. See the Register-Guard editorials this Friday through Sunday for a more reasonable analysis of the measures.
Contrary to the anti propaganda, the measures will actually preserve and create jobs in Oregon. It's easy to prove this: In addition to the added state spending of $733 million, the federal government will kick in a half billion in matching funds and state tax deductions. Plus, 75% of the C-corps paying higher profits taxes are out of state, so those taxes will come from outside. And rich people don't need to cut their spending in state for taxes this small ($180 per $10,000 over $250,000). So passing these measures will add over $1 billion to the state economic activity and support 10,000 to 20,000 jobs. That's about 1% of the state economy.
The average business will see an extra 1% in sales, which will over-compensate them for any bump in their taxes.
Everybody wins. It's just too bad the business folks drank the Kool-Aid being dished out by the Wall Street and anti-tax crowd.
This isn't a conservative/liberal issue. It's a truth/lie issue.
Steve,
Your faith in state job creation in spite of Oregon's dismal track record is hard to fathom.
Before Oregon was to receive it's almost $4 billion share of the federal stimulus package passed last February, Oregon's unemployment rate was 9.8% (January, 2009). It's now 11.1% (November, 2009).
That's a trajectory of suffering despite chucking three times more stimulus funds than you estimate will come from these new taxes and more federal funding. Why throw good money after bad? Especially when you are taking it from the people who employ the vast majority of Oregonians and will be cutting jobs because of new taxes?
A better plan is to give more funds to the people who do the best at creating Oregon jobs (private corporations) by giving them tax cuts not take more from them.
Not to mention that this isn't a jobs creation tax. Its major purpose is to keep state spending at previous levels. It will do well at that. Unfortunately it's cost will include more unemployed Oregonians. That price in suffering it too high.
http://e-biscuit.com/index.php/weblog/zero_point_zero_zero_three_percent/
http://roguepundit.typepad.com/roguepundit/2010/01/inflation-and-oregons-essential-budget-level.html
Hold on to your hats, we're in for a bumpy ride.
.
The California post is scary. If we keep raising taxes on the "rich" and make them the center of budgeting, and they decide to leave . . . uh oh.
And budget cuts that are based on projected needs rather than actual spending is a doublespeak that muddies already poor thinking. As it becomes harder and harder to really figure out what is going on, it becomes harder and harder to fix problems.
Thanks for these links, OG.
Post a Comment