Measure 97

[chuck white]

Just change the words on the ballot until it says what you want, then vote yes. (That's what I do)

[Wonky3]

Just change the words on the ballot until it says what you want, then vote yes. (That's what I do)

And I'll bet you are not kidding. 

[orygunluvr]

Good read, clearly 97 is a bad idea, so count on Oregon voters to pass it.

The two comments below yours are a good indication of that. Hard to believe anyone can be that stupid, but the tactic of driving a wedge between Employers and Employees through Jealousy and Envy has been very successful.  If I were to follow their train of thought, I should HATE my employer, and be actively trying to damage the company's viability?  Isn't that suicide?

Of course it would be suicide (or something like it) to try to "damage the company's viability" for which one works. Good employees want the company to prosper. But either you or the people you work for are more than likely going to face increased taxes. Your company might well be able to absorb that burden more easily than you. 

The issue about "97" is adding taxes to larger company's in an attempt to raise needed revenue for the the needs of the state. It's not "a given" that those increases would necessarly have to be passed on to consumers. 
Or, the state could raise taxes on individuals for the needed revenue. 
Or the state could cut services and not raise any taxes. 

We have choices. Personally I don't like any ballot measures and think our legislature should slug it out in the halls of the captiol until they reach a reasonable compromise. 

I'll vote no on "97", but wonder just how many servicies the State can cut until we become a backwater with lousy schools, fewer OSP officers, children services that are neglected, and other needed services cut or dismantled. 

No easy answers. We all need to stay alert, read all we can from good and reliable sources, and remember to vote. 

Citizenship is not easy.

Here is where the bullshit meets the road.  The State is NOT in dire need of more revenue, except in two areas.  To cover the atrocities of the promises made to PERS recipients, and to fund the failing Obamacare.  The PERS recipients are the ones who need to suck it up and accept realistic changes to their retirements, and Obamacare needs to wither and die.  Oregon State Government has never had MORE money than they get right now, so go sell your bullshit elsewhere.

Lars Larson in the flesh.

At least you don't claim to be one of the "intelligent" demokkkratikkk posters here, just repeating what you're told to. This debt was/is born by the demokkkratikkk run legislature, for the "benefit" of we the people, paid for by we the people. It's nice to know that demokkkratikkks always have the little guy on their minds when they spend more of OUR money.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index..._big-photo

This is becoming a moral issue': Officials face truth behind Oregon's soaring pension costs
[/url]
Just how bad is Oregon's public pension funding crisis?
Bad enough that Rukaiyah Adams, the normally polished investment professional who is vice chair of the Oregon Investment Council, broke down in tears last week as she spoke of passing a record $22 billion in unfunded promises to future taxpayers.
"My call to the legislature and to the governor is for leadership on this, and I mean right now," Adams said during last Wednesday's joint meeting of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System board and the citizen panel that oversees its investments. "This is becoming a moral issue. We can't just talk about numbers anymore."
The numbers are bleak. Oregon's pension system owes billions of dollars more to retirees than it has, and the last major attempt to fix the problem was shot down in courts.
This month, cities, school districts and others will find out how much more they'll pay to help prop up the system. Higher pension costs could come at the expense of funding for other needs, including social services, infrastructure investments and education programs.
Last week's meeting was extraordinarily candid. And it provided a brief, reality-based peek behind the financial charade taking place not only in Oregon's pension system, but also in systems across the country.
Experts openly acknowledged they're understating the magnitude of Oregon's problem. They're relying on optimistic assumptions about investment returns. And they're holding down required pension payments below what's needed to keep pace with the debt, to avoid eviscerating school and government budgets across Oregon.
"We're beyond crisis," Katy Durant, chair of the Oregon Investment Council, said in an interview after last week's meeting. "We should have been addressing this 20 years ago and it's just been building. It's a little bit like a Ponzi scheme. Sooner or later it's going to catch up with you."
A handful of lawmakers are set to meet Wednesday in hopes of jumpstarting a conversation on pension reforms in the 2017 legislative session. They have a list of ideas already [url=http://media.oregonlive.com/politics_impact/other/lcpersopinion0816.pdf]vetted by state lawyers. They say the ideas could help plug an $885 million budget hit looming over the next two years, fallout after the Oregon Supreme Court rejected most of a package of pension reforms negotiated in 2013.
But Democratic leaders, including Gov. Kate Brown, so far say they're not interested. In an interview this week, Brown said she saw pension costs as a very important issue, but "from my perspective, that list is not legally viable and not likely to result in significant financial savings."
It's a similar story from Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, and House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland. They insist there are no more money-saving moves that could be both legally viable and economically significant.
Remaining pension reforms would also mean cutting pay and retirement benefits for current state workers — which would alienate Democratic benefactors in Oregon's public employee unions.
Kotek and Brown are both backing a controversial, union-backed proposed tax increase on large corporations on the fall ballot. Measure 97 would raise $3 billion a year by taxing 2.5 percent of certain corporations' sales over $25 million. But Brown also said that revenue should be spent as supporters have promised: to beef up spending on schools and social services.
So why is the pension debt becoming a bigger issue now?
There's the sheer size of the deficit – $22 billion – at record heights even after a seven-year economic recovery. It's no longer a cyclical problem that a string of big investment returns could erase, board members agreed last week. The imbalance of assets and liabilities is now structural.

[orygunluvr]

So who here believes that an increase in overall cost to business of about 3 billion dollars a year won't be passed onto the consumer? That's you and I for our more challenged of the group. The only reason orygun ranks lower in business taxes than some states is because there isn't a sales tax, with that we would rank up much higher in taxes paid by business. How does adding about another $100.00 a month onto your overall cost of goods sound, especially to our low income population?

[Valuesize]

Definitely a no vote here. Government wastes more money than they use properly. We'd be far better off if we demanded they cut waste by a certain percent every year. As it is now, they spend all they can so they can ask more and more every year.

[Cuzz]

So who here believes that an increase in overall cost to business of about 3 billion dollars a year won't be passed onto the consumer? That's you and I for our more challenged of the group. The only reason orygun ranks lower in business taxes than some states is because there isn't a sales tax, with that we would rank up much higher in taxes paid by business. How does adding about another $100.00 a month onto your overall cost of goods sound, especially to our low income population?

I have no idea what you are buying a month but I won't be seeing my expenditures increase anywhere near $100 a month. Not even close. That's assuming 97 were to pass.

[orygunluvr]

So who here believes that an increase in overall cost to business of about 3 billion dollars a year won't be passed onto the consumer? That's you and I for our more challenged of the group. The only reason orygun ranks lower in business taxes than some states is because there isn't a sales tax, with that we would rank up much higher in taxes paid by business. How does adding about another $100.00 a month onto your overall cost of goods sound, especially to our low income population?

I have no idea what you are buying a month but I won't be seeing my expenditures increase anywhere near $100 a month. Not even close. That's assuming 97 were to pass.

It's an average by economists, and I tend to believe them on this. With a cost increase in gross sales comes an increase in everything related, i.e., workers comp, general liability insurance, utilities associated with the businesses affected, etc. These aren't costs incurred for each particular industry it's costs that will effect all industries. There are far more costs of goods sold than just the goods.

[Cuzz]

So who here believes that an increase in overall cost to business of about 3 billion dollars a year won't be passed onto the consumer? That's you and I for our more challenged of the group. The only reason orygun ranks lower in business taxes than some states is because there isn't a sales tax, with that we would rank up much higher in taxes paid by business. How does adding about another $100.00 a month onto your overall cost of goods sound, especially to our low income population?

I have no idea what you are buying a month but I won't be seeing my expenditures increase anywhere near $100 a month. Not even close. That's assuming 97 were to pass.

It's an average by economists, and I tend to believe them on this. With a cost increase in gross sales comes an increase in everything related, i.e., workers comp, general liability insurance, utilities associated with the businesses affected, etc. These aren't costs incurred for each particular industry it's costs that will effect all industries. There are far more costs of goods sold than just the goods.

Yes, and there are other economists that predict the opposite too. I haven't seen the actual measure wording yet so it's difficult to speak about specifics but I'm still doubting it would cost me anywhere near $100 a month.

[GPnative]

I posted the following on page 1:

"You know it's a bad idea when even the fish wrapper Oregonian calls it a hidden sales tax on every person in oregon, rich or poor.

Also, according to the state of oregon's own nonpartisan study, if the measure passes it will cost a typical household more than $600/yr. "

So even by this particular nonpartisan study we are up to $50/mo. So $100/mo is not far fetched at all, and pretty much an absolute as far as I'm concerned.

[Cuzz]

I posted the following on page 1:

"You know it's a bad idea when even the fish wrapper Oregonian calls it a hidden sales tax on every person in oregon, rich or poor.

Also, according to the state of oregon's own nonpartisan study, if the measure passes it will cost a typical household more than $600/yr. "

So even by this particular nonpartisan study we are up to $50/mo.  So $100/mo is not far fetched at all, and pretty much an absolute as far as I'm concerned.

I couldn't find the actual measure verbage in the time I had, but what I did find in the oppositions analysis was that it would "cost the typical family 600/yr." That's slightly different then household. I think they still define a typical family as 4 though I'm not sure of that. So, your $600/yr. would drop to maybe $200/yr. for an individual. That's if they're right and there is lots of room for disagreement.

I don't know, I still want to see the measure in it's entirety myself. I'm going to have to think about this one.

[GPnative]

I posted the following on page 1:

"You know it's a bad idea when even the fish wrapper Oregonian calls it a hidden sales tax on every person in oregon, rich or poor.

Also, according to the state of oregon's own nonpartisan study, if the measure passes it will cost a typical household more than $600/yr. "

So even by this particular nonpartisan study we are up to $50/mo.  So $100/mo is not far fetched at all, and pretty much an absolute as far as I'm concerned.

I couldn't find the actual measure verbage in the time I had, but what I did find in the oppositions analysis was that it would "cost the typical family 600/yr." That's slightly different then household. I think they still define a typical family as 4 though I'm not sure of that. So, your $600/yr. would drop to maybe $200/yr. for an individual. That's if they're right and there is lots of room for disagreement.

I don't know, I still want to see the measure in it's entirety myself. I'm going to have to think about this one.

Last time I checked my children are not yet wage earners, and I have to buy their food, shoes, clothes, school supplies, electricity, etc. therefore I will be covering the full $600+/yr for the household, that's my reality. Sure a single person may get by paying $200/yr because they buy less goods, but that does not make the measure less of a burden for 1000's of Oregon families on a fixed incomes and assistance who will be at the high end of this tax increase.

[Valuesize]

I went to this http://sos.oregon.gov/Pages/index.aspx election page and searched Measure 97. 

You get a pop-up in which this is the first choice. This can't be the entire measure can it?

Ballotpedia does a pretty fair job of explaining both sides.

https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Business_..._97_(2016)

[Cuzz]

I posted the following on page 1:

"You know it's a bad idea when even the fish wrapper Oregonian calls it a hidden sales tax on every person in oregon, rich or poor.

Also, according to the state of oregon's own nonpartisan study, if the measure passes it will cost a typical household more than $600/yr. "

So even by this particular nonpartisan study we are up to $50/mo.  So $100/mo is not far fetched at all, and pretty much an absolute as far as I'm concerned.

I couldn't find the actual measure verbage in the time I had, but what I did find in the oppositions analysis was that it would "cost the typical family 600/yr." That's slightly different then household. I think they still define a typical family as 4 though I'm not sure of that. So, your $600/yr. would drop to maybe $200/yr. for an individual. That's if they're right and there is lots of room for disagreement.

I don't know, I still want to see the measure in it's entirety myself. I'm going to have to think about this one.

Last time I checked my children are not yet wage earners, and I have to buy their food, shoes, clothes, school supplies, electricity, etc. therefore I will be covering the full $600+/yr for the household, that's my reality. Sure a single person may get by paying $200/yr because they buy less goods, but that does not make the measure less of a burden for 1000's of Oregon families on a fixed incomes and assistance who will be at the high end of this tax increase.

What you say is all true enough. But, if I was a good Republican/Libertarian I wouldn't care about you. Still I'd have to be against a tax increase, any tax increase. Right?

[GPnative]

I posted the following on page 1:

"You know it's a bad idea when even the fish wrapper Oregonian calls it a hidden sales tax on every person in oregon, rich or poor.

Also, according to the state of oregon's own nonpartisan study, if the measure passes it will cost a typical household more than $600/yr. "

So even by this particular nonpartisan study we are up to $50/mo.  So $100/mo is not far fetched at all, and pretty much an absolute as far as I'm concerned.

I couldn't find the actual measure verbage in the time I had, but what I did find in the oppositions analysis was that it would "cost the typical family 600/yr." That's slightly different then household. I think they still define a typical family as 4 though I'm not sure of that. So, your $600/yr. would drop to maybe $200/yr. for an individual. That's if they're right and there is lots of room for disagreement.

I don't know, I still want to see the measure in it's entirety myself. I'm going to have to think about this one.

Last time I checked my children are not yet wage earners, and I have to buy their food, shoes, clothes, school supplies, electricity, etc. therefore I will be covering the full $600+/yr for the household, that's my reality. Sure a single person may get by paying $200/yr because they buy less goods, but that does not make the measure less of a burden for 1000's of Oregon families on a fixed incomes and assistance who will be at the high end of this tax increase.

What you say is all true enough. But, if I was a good Republican/Libertarian I wouldn't care about you. Still I'd have to be against a tax increase, any tax increase. Right?

An insidious tax increase like this one, I would hope so. If you want to put a hardship on 1000's of Oregon families, vote yes. If you want Oregon to reload on a better proposal than vote No.

I have read in several places now that the figure is actually $600 per Oregonian (man, woman, child) so that would be awesome, I'm over $2,000 now, I definitely have an extra $2000 a year laying around, it's not like I am using it to try and raise a family or nothing.

[Cuzz]

I posted the following on page 1:

"You know it's a bad idea when even the fish wrapper Oregonian calls it a hidden sales tax on every person in oregon, rich or poor.

Also, according to the state of oregon's own nonpartisan study, if the measure passes it will cost a typical household more than $600/yr. "

So even by this particular nonpartisan study we are up to $50/mo.  So $100/mo is not far fetched at all, and pretty much an absolute as far as I'm concerned.

I couldn't find the actual measure verbage in the time I had, but what I did find in the oppositions analysis was that it would "cost the typical family 600/yr." That's slightly different then household. I think they still define a typical family as 4 though I'm not sure of that. So, your $600/yr. would drop to maybe $200/yr. for an individual. That's if they're right and there is lots of room for disagreement.

I don't know, I still want to see the measure in it's entirety myself. I'm going to have to think about this one.

Last time I checked my children are not yet wage earners, and I have to buy their food, shoes, clothes, school supplies, electricity, etc. therefore I will be covering the full $600+/yr for the household, that's my reality. Sure a single person may get by paying $200/yr because they buy less goods, but that does not make the measure less of a burden for 1000's of Oregon families on a fixed incomes and assistance who will be at the high end of this tax increase.

What you say is all true enough. But, if I was a good Republican/Libertarian I wouldn't care about you. Still I'd have to be against a tax increase, any tax increase. Right?

An insidious tax increase like this one, I would hope so. If you want to put a hardship on 1000's of Oregon families, vote yes. If you want Oregon to reload on a better proposal than vote No.

I have read in several places now that the figure is actually $600 per Oregonian (man, woman, child) so that would be awesome, I'm over $2,000 now, I definitely have an extra $2000 a year laying around, it's not like I am using it to try and raise a family or nothing.

I wouldn't worry too much about that $600 per person number. I think that's bunk. Seems to be quite a range of figures being bandied about on this. It usually ends up being somewhere between the numbers claimed by opposing sides. Imagine that!

It's probably a good thing I'm not the hypothetical Republican/Libertarian I referred to before. As a "Good, Western Raised, Church Avoidin', Middle of the Road Independent With Libertarian Tendencies" I think I lean away from this measure and along with you hope they would "reload with a better proposal".

[edited to add]  I would like to make it clear I would definately like to see corporate/business taxes to be increased to a more equitable level. I don't see why they should get a pass on taxes when they benefit so directly from public services and projects.

[orygunluvr]

Measure 97 is a tax on sales, not profits, which means it isn't a corporate tax.

[Cuzz]

Measure 97 is a tax on sales, not profits, which means it isn't a corporate tax.

If it's only applied to corporations it is by definition a corporate tax.

[tornado]

It's a tax on the end user, the source of corporations income.

[Cuzz]

It's a tax on the end user, the source of corporations income.

Well that's a circle without an end. A corporation is my source of income.

I understand what your pointing out. But I don't have to be their source of income unless I want to, in most cases.

[GPnative]

We will pay more for Utilities, Insurance, Gas, phone, internet, medical including prescriptions, groceries through higher consumer prices. Don't buy the lie for a second that corporations will not increase costs to make up the tax.

With the state of healthcare costs as it is, it's insane that this lousy measure does not at least throw consumers a bone and exempt medical. This really is a sneaky screw job on Oregonians that hits the poor the hardest.