voting on tax increases

[skysidhe]

I am at a conundrum about voting on our tax measure coming up for a vote.

Should the people vote to increase the Corporate income tax and taxes for people who make over 250,000 which will hurt government jobs,hurt the farmers and other individual businesses in the private sector?


I read that if taxes go up the state government will receive federal match money. The details I didn't get into much.

I am confused on how the increase in taxes will cost government jobs yet the state wants federal match money.



The economists say never to raise taxes in a recession?

OR

Vote against tax increases which will save the farmers and the private business. The downside is school districts budgets will get cut further,medicare will get cut further and other public services. I don't know yet if this effects higher education.

It is written into the state constitution that the budget must be balanced every year. If the state doesn't get money they will be hatching more government and city jobs.


It seems to be a hard call.

There will be some winners and some losers.

Who do I want to hurt the schools or the farmers?

Make corporations pay and lose private sector jobs?

[SamIam]

How is a farmer or an individual business equivalent to a corporation? I also don't see how the increased tax would mean fewer government jobs. Maybe you should do some further research on the issue. What state do you live in?

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by SamIam

How is a farmer or an individual business equivalent to a corporation? I also don't see how the increased tax would mean fewer government jobs. Maybe you should do some further research on the issue. What state do you live in?

If farmers and private business make over 250,000 they will be taxed at a higher rate same as Obama's plan.

My private turmoil of thought is:

SHOULD a person vote for higher taxes to save the schools and medicare at the expense of hurting private business owners and farmers who make over 250,000?

Yes I do need to read more on it but my vote won't make or break anything The issue is confusing. Both sides of the argument sounds right but there is more money behind pushing FOR the tax increase.

I don't think there should be a tax increase during a recession but the word is schools need money and big corporations need to bail out the state.

[Happy Monkey]

If, post deductions, they make more than 250,000, they're not exactly hurting. If I understand things right, most business expenses are deductible.

It sounds to me like the Oregon initiative.

And what little I know of it, its impact on most voters and most businesses would be marginal but it would help balance the state budget and prevent state service or job cuts.

As I understand it. most individual (like 98%) would see no personal tax increase and most corporations (like 90%) would end up paying $150/yr instead of $10/year in state corporate taxes.

I dont see how it would hurt those corporations and the tax certainly wouldnt result in cutting government jobs (not enacting the tax might result in cutting govt jobs or even private sector jobs that result from state govt contracts) and I dont know of any federal matching funds program that would be impacted.

I guess it comes down to how you feel about taxes generally.

What does "tax fairness" mean to you? Does it mean all taxpayers should pay the same rate or is it fair for higher income earners to pay a higher percentage.

And, is a $150 corporate income tax that much more burdensome than $10.

Or if it is not Oregon....never mind.

added:

My advice also...consider the source of the information being circulated. That might explain the arguments for or against.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Redux

It sounds to me like the Oregon initiative.

And what little I know of it, its impact on most voters and most businesses would be marginal but it would help balance the state budget and prevent state service or job cuts.

As I understand it. most individual would see no personal tax increase and most corporations would end up paying $150/yr instead of $10/year in state corporate taxes.

I dont see how it would hurt those corporations or government jobs and I dont know of any federal matching funds program that would be impacted.

I guess it comes down to how you feel about taxes generally.

What does "tax fairness" mean to you? Does it mean all taxpayers should pay the same rate or is it fair for higher income earners to pay a higher percentage.

exactly

Originally Posted by skysidhe

exactly

If we were not in a recession I might not be having such a hard time. I want the corporations to pay more. I want the schools to have services and medicare to be there for the elderly.

Yet there is this alternate opinion.

We estimate Measures 66 and 67 would mean approximately 47,000 fewer jobs in the state through 2018. That number rises as high as 55,000 if taxpayers doubt that the partial retreat in rates promised in the measures actually will occur.

Many of the taxpayers targeted by these measures would leave Oregon and take their taxable incomes elsewhere. If Measure 66 and 67 pass, the average biennial loss in adjusted gross income would be approximately $1.1 billion, or $5.6 billion over a 10-year period.

If both measures pass, Oregon would lose about 8,000 more of these mobile taxpayers per year than otherwise – as many as 80,000 filers over a 10-year period.

As I said...consider the source.

I dont know the source for the above...probably a "tax freedom" org or business org? But it is hard for me to understand how such a marginal increase in corporate taxes and a small (1%) personal tax increase that only affects 2% of the population would have that adverse job impact.

But I am biased when it comes to tax fairness.

[classicman]

Here are a few things to look at
Link
Link
Link

The public unions are the primary drivers behind the Oregon tax hike campaign.
Oregon's public employees have one of the sweetest deals in America. Their average pay is about one-third higher than that of private Oregon workers, and Oregon public employees don't have to pay anything toward their health-care benefits.

Thats all I need to know - vote the opposite of the Unions.

Originally Posted by classicman

Here are a few things to look at
Link
Link
Link

\

Thats all I need to know - vote the opposite of the Unions.

As I said..consider all the sources above, not just unions... or opinion columns in the WSJ, Heritage with a bias of their own.

sky...look for some independent analysis.

[classicman]

I tried - although briefly - those seemed at least somewhat ok.


Here is an interesting tidbit from another link:

Most Union Members Now in Government
52 percent of all union members work for the federal or state and local governments, a sharp increase from the 49 percent in 2008.[5] A majority of American union members are now employed by the government; three times more union members now work in the Post Office than in the auto industry.[6]

Link

[skysidhe]

Thank you classic. I will read those. I've read a few others myself.


*reading your links*
At first I agree then the articles starts showing their bias.


Seems like everyone has a counter point. I think the part about government workers is bs. State workers take unpaid furlough days and if the government was adding jobs I would be working.

but that is another matter..

I was one of those union members and it isn't as rosy as the public sector wants to paint it.

If the unions are behind it which I doubt it is because they want to keep their jobs and are usually liberal minded as an enity supporting public education and care of the elderly.

Of course if I was like minded I would vote for a tax increase so government jobs would increase...maybe but that isn't the issue and these damn papers shouldn't make it the issue either.

Oregon is known as a pretty progressive and "good government" state by most measures.

It comes down to the requirement to balance the budget, at least on paper. And that generally comes down to one of two options...raise revenue or cut services.

IMO, a tax increase on top wage earners and corps (most of which will pay $150 instead of $10)...or raise other taxes, like the state sales tax that would impact more people.

Or cut services.

There are few other options.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Redux

As I said..consider all the sources above, not just unions... or opinion columns in the WSJ, Heritage with a bias of their own.

sky...look for some independent analysis.

Right before classic posted I thought I had found an independent analysis then at the bottom of the page the reporter was forced to post his business affiliation and comments asserting to the fact it wasn't an independent evaluation.

I will continue to look and try to 'vote my conscience'.

Thank you both and sam for your helpful responses. It helps to hash it out sometimes.

Originally Posted by Redux

Oregon is known as a pretty progressive and "good government" state by most measures.

It comes down to the requirement to balance the budget, at least on paper. And that generally comes down to one of two options...raise revenue or cut services.

IMO, a tax increase on top wage earners and corps (most of which will pay $150 instead of $10)...or raise other taxes, like the state sales tax that would impact more people.

Or cut services.

There are few other options.

Thanks! that's the nitty gritty of it huh? When you get past the talk there is only this one issue and that is to balance the budget and it will be balanced.

[classicman]

agreed. Its only $150 a year....slippery slope begins here :p

The League of Women Voters of OR has a good resource page:

http://www.lwvor.org/SpecialElection2010.htm

But consider that they support the measures.