Measure 97
#41
(10-12-2016, 11:06 AM)GPnative Wrote: 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.

As is typical with the crooked left, they don't really care. Measures 66 and 67 were the gold standard for tax measures, and look at how successful they were. The Oregonian had a story the other day stating that if this fails the state might borrow the money to try and shore up pers, provided the state has that option, some legal issues might prevent it.
Reply
#42
"if measure 97 becomes law, the legislative assembly may appropriate revenues generated by the measure in any way it chooses" - The Oregonian, 8/4/16

"the Legislature can spend the available money in any way it sees fit - on pensions, prisons or pet projects" - Portland Tribune, 7/21/16

"since it is not a constitutional amendment, Measure 97 cannot guarantee how the money from its tax on sales would be spent. Oregon's top legal authority on legislative affairs emphatically stated the legislature could spend the money from Measure 97 any way it chooses." Bill Rutherford, Former Oregon State Treasurer.
Reply
#43
Will most of the large companies impacted by this measure like Walmart, Safeway, Verizon, big banks and others raise prices? I don't think they will raise prices if they want to keep their customers. I think competition will keep them in check like the pro yes on 97 people say. I am inclined to vote yes on this measure.
Reply
#44
(10-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Snail Wrote: Will most of the large companies impacted by this measure like Walmart, Safeway, Verizon, big banks and others raise prices? I don't think they will raise prices if they want to keep their customers. I think competition will keep them in check like the pro yes on 97 people say. I am inclined to vote yes on this measure.

That's just viewing the world through rose colored glasses to say they wont increase prices. Of course they will. The competition is on a total market level that the consumer does not even see aside from price at the register. It's not this simple idea that one store is going to sell cheerios 25 cents less than the other guy cause one passes on the tax and the other does not in order to be competitive. On a market level, they will all raise prices unilaterally by the same basic percentages. None of these companies are going to take it in the can for millions. As much as folks may like to think they are in the business of feeding our families at the cheapest price possible, that's not even a goal on their radar, they are in business to sell goods and make money.

And it's not just large companies. Smaller companies will see price increases from their large suppliers leaving them no choice but to raise prices. The pro 97 camp wants you to believe it only impacts these mega corps who by using common core math will not increase prices because they need to stay competitive with market prices.  It's preposterous.

snipped from an article "Economists Robert Whelan and John Tapogna, both of ECONorthwest, used Oregon Department of Revenue numbers to figure the measure’s impact had it been in place in 2013. They concluded that the larger C corporations subject to the tax would have paid $2.7 billion, equal to nearly half their $5.5 billion in total profits."

If you think the most impacted companies are going to take the combined total loss of 2.7 billion with a shoulder shrug and not pass on the loss to consumers, well then you are a perfect candidate for rose colored glasses.

Vote NO and contact your state reps to do their damn job and come up with a better plan.
Reply
#45
(10-19-2016, 10:54 AM)GPnative Wrote:
(10-19-2016, 09:41 AM)Snail Wrote: Will most of the large companies impacted by this measure like Walmart, Safeway, Verizon, big banks and others raise prices? I don't think they will raise prices if they want to keep their customers. I think competition will keep them in check like the pro yes on 97 people say. I am inclined to vote yes on this measure.

That's just viewing the world through rose colored glasses to say they wont increase prices. Of course they will. The competition is on a total market level that the consumer does not even see aside from price at the register. It's not this simple idea that one store is going to sell cheerios 25 cents less than the other guy cause one passes on the tax and the other does not in order to be competitive. On a market level, they will all raise prices unilaterally by the same basic percentages. None of these companies are going to take it in the can for millions. As much as folks may like to think they are in the business of feeding our families at the cheapest price possible, that's not even a goal on their radar, they are in business to sell goods and make money.

And it's not just large companies. Smaller companies will see price increases from their large suppliers leaving them no choice but to raise prices. The pro 97 camp wants you to believe it only impacts these mega corps who by using common core math will not increase prices because they need to stay competitive with market prices.  It's preposterous.

snipped from an article "Economists Robert Whelan and John Tapogna, both of ECONorthwest, used Oregon Department of Revenue numbers to figure the measure’s impact had it been in place in 2013. They concluded that the larger C corporations subject to the tax would have paid $2.7 billion, equal to nearly half their $5.5 billion in total profits."

If you think the most impacted companies are going to take the combined total loss of 2.7 billion with a shoulder shrug and not pass on the loss to consumers, well then you are a perfect candidate for rose colored glasses.

Vote NO and contact your state reps to do their damn job and come up with a better plan.

I will do more research so that I can make a more informed decision. That isn't always easy to do with all the misinformation out there.
Reply
#46
If we lower corporate taxes will they lower their prices?
Reply
#47
a BIG company that is vertical integrated, buys raw materials, process it and ships it up the line who combines it with other stuff and moves it up the line, more processing and moved it up the line to final retail outlet and adds the sales tax.

A small company buys material with a tax added on, process the material sells to the next company with tax added on. They combine it with other stuff they bought with taxes added on. process it and sell it to the next guy with a sales tax added on who distributes (sells) to the retail store with a tax added on and then the retailers add the tax and sell it to the consumer.

Small operations will may a lot more taxes then a large company which owns the production line from start to finish.
Reply
#48
(10-20-2016, 04:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote: If we lower corporate taxes will they lower their prices?

Sure they will Razz
Reply
#49
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index...asure.html

Kitzhaber issues anti-Measure 97 manifesto
Print Email
Jeff Manning | The Oregonian/OregonLive By Jeff Manning | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on October 23, 2016 at 10:48 PM, updated October 24, 2016 at 7:36 AM

Former Gov. John Kitzhaber parted ways with Gov. Kate Brown and two other former Democratic governors Sunday night issuing an anti-Measure 97 manifesto on his new website and on Facebook.

Business could and should contribute more, Kitzhaber said. But the new revenue generated by Measure 97 is too much and won't necessarily fix anything, he added.

"There is no question but that we need more money in the general fund to close a $1.4 billion structural budget deficit and to better support important public services," Kitzhaber wrote in the Facebook post. "And, yes, I believe that corporate Oregon can afford to contribute quite a bit more to support these priorities.

"The problem," the former governor said, "is that BM 97 proposes to spend an additional $6 billion a biennium on current programs regardless of whether those programs are actually producing the outcomes we want... The sheer magnitude of the new revenue being proposed (a thirty-one percent increase in the general fund) will eliminate any motivation for fixing the "education funding disconnect," created by Ballot Measures 5 and 50."

Measure 97 would create a new gross receipts tax on specific kinds of Oregon businesses with sales of $25 million or more. It has become one of the most expensive political fights in state history with opponents and proponents raising more than $32 million.

Kitzhaber has been moving slowly back into the public eye since he resigned under fire in February 2015 after an influence-peddling scandal involving former First Lady Cylvia Hayes. He put up a new website on Oct. 12, which he said will deal primarily with environmental and healthcare issues.

Kitzhaber's opposition to the new tax measure is no secret. He said in his Facebook post that he wanted to publicly explain his opposition "because many of my friends and former political allies support it."

One of those allies, veteran Legislator Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, said Kitzhaber was wrong. "We've had 25 years as a state to come up with options, and M97 is the first proposal I've seen that provides a viable choice for progress," Buckley commented.

-- Jeff Manning

jmanning@oregonian.com
Reply
#50
(10-24-2016, 05:43 PM)tornado Wrote: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index...asure.html

Kitzhaber issues anti-Measure 97 manifesto
Print Email
Jeff Manning | The Oregonian/OregonLive By Jeff Manning | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on October 23, 2016 at 10:48 PM, updated October 24, 2016 at 7:36 AM

Former Gov. John Kitzhaber parted ways with Gov. Kate Brown and two other former Democratic governors Sunday night issuing an anti-Measure 97 manifesto on his new website and on Facebook.

Business could and should contribute more, Kitzhaber said. But the new revenue generated by Measure 97 is too much and won't necessarily fix anything, he added.

"There is no question but that we need more money in the general fund to close a $1.4 billion structural budget deficit and to better support important public services," Kitzhaber wrote in the Facebook post. "And, yes, I believe that corporate Oregon can afford to contribute quite a bit more to support these priorities.

"The problem," the former governor said, "is that BM 97 proposes to spend an additional $6 billion a biennium on current programs regardless of whether those programs are actually producing the outcomes we want... The sheer magnitude of the new revenue being proposed (a thirty-one percent increase in the general fund) will eliminate any motivation for fixing the "education funding disconnect," created by Ballot Measures 5 and 50."

Measure 97 would create a new gross receipts tax on specific kinds of Oregon businesses with sales of $25 million or more. It has become one of the most expensive political fights in state history with opponents and proponents raising more than $32 million.

Kitzhaber has been moving slowly back into the public eye since he resigned under fire in February 2015 after an influence-peddling scandal involving former First Lady Cylvia Hayes. He put up a new website on Oct. 12, which he said will deal primarily with environmental and healthcare issues.

Kitzhaber's opposition to the new tax measure is no secret. He said in his Facebook post that he wanted to publicly explain his opposition "because many of my friends and former political allies support it."

One of those allies, veteran Legislator Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, said Kitzhaber was wrong. "We've had 25 years as a state to come up with options, and M97 is the first proposal I've seen that provides a viable choice for progress," Buckley commented.

-- Jeff Manning

jmanning@oregonian.com

You know its a bad deal when kitzhaber opposes it!
I am no fan of kitzhaber but credit where credit is due, well done John!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)