WHAT THEY SAY: "We don't want to increase the tax burden on working class people in these tough economic times"

WHAT THEY MEAN: "The tobacco and liquor lobbyist can have their way with me".

These same lawmakers had no trouble passing a tax on high earners, on hospitals, and on gasoline this year.

/lives 40 miles from the state capital, has seen 1st hand these lobbyists in action.

Holden C: on hospitals, and on gasoline this year.

Working class people don't use those things- they are too busy smoking and drinking.

No instead they increased the taxes of the corporations and small businesses that hire the working class. Forcing companies to leave the state or close all together. Which in turn has increased our unemployment rate to one of the nation's highest. You know, I don't mind the Hero tag on alcohol related stories, but do some research in cases like this. Cause you just came off as an idiot.

Stupid. These are actually things we SHOULD be taxing. Take the taxes off things we DO need and put it on the things we don't (Beer, cigarettes, etc)

jake3988: Stupid. These are actually things we SHOULD be taxing. Take the taxes off things we DO need and put it on the things we don't (Beer, cigarettes, etc)

They already increased cigarette taxes once this year also.

Hero tag hrm? From what I've seen when republicans stand against taxes all I hear from Fark is wahrlgrbl tax cuts and mockery.

When democrats refuse to raise taxes they get the hero tag.

/Starting to see how this site works.

Pro tip: If you work, you are working class.

aneki: Hero tag hrm? From what I've seen when republicans stand against taxes all I hear from Fark is wahrlgrbl tax cuts and mockery.

When democrats refuse to raise taxes they get the hero tag.

/Starting to see how this site works.

When anyone does anything all I see is comments slagging them for doing it.

And that's how the interwebtubes work.

aneki: /Starting to see how this site works.

This headline proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how persecuted conservatives are. I came in to praise the Democrats for just breathing (which of course I curse the Republicans for doing).

I've never paid tax on cigarettes or beer.

aneki: Hero tag hrm? From what I've seen when republicans stand against taxes all I hear from Fark is wahrlgrbl tax cuts and mockery.

When democrats refuse to raise taxes they get the hero tag.

/Starting to see how this site works.

See? Now you're getting it!!!

Deadhouseplants: No instead they increased the taxes of the corporations and small businesses

Excellent.

They should raise them again only big time.

The greatest middle-class economy the world has ever known (america from approx 1940 to 1980) had tax rates as high as 91% on the rich and the economy roared for decades.

Bob16: Deadhouseplants: No instead they increased the taxes of the corporations and small businesses

Excellent.

They should raise them again only big time.

The greatest middle-class economy the world has ever known (america from approx 1940 to 1980) had tax rates as high as 91% on the rich and the economy roared for decades.

Please, PLEASE stop spouting this nonsense. Let me put this in its own block so the tax kiddies understand:

When the tax rates were "as high as" 91%, the rich had a cubic ton of deductions, and they used them all. Today, we have things like Alternative Minimum Tax and phase outs of tax breaks at higher incomes.

If you jacked up the tax rates today to 91% with all the caps and limits still in place, you'd have one hell of an exodus from the country. You (and others) are comparing apples to oranges.

/Not trying to personally attack you, but this "fact" keeps cropping up in tax discussions and its totally bogus because of the deductions.

Uh, yeah, let's not tax cigarettes and beer, that might cause people to stop smoking and drinking, and we wouldn't want that. . .

/Smokes, drinks, is fine with taxing them at high levels

aneki: you'd have one hell of an exodus from the country

It'll straighten itself out eventually, someone is bound to move back in and make use of the space and resources rather than just boarding the whole country up like an abandoned house.

aneki:

You don't seem to understand how tax breaks work and why they exist

Phil Herup: Pro tip: If you work, you are working class.

But, not everyone has class while working.

aneki: If you jacked up the tax rates today to 91% with all the caps and limits still in place, you'd have one hell of an exodus from the country.

Bye. Have fun making millions else where.

Phil Herup: Pro tip: If you work, you are working class.

Lol. . . The old "phrases don't have meaning!" argument. Classic.

Broken clock, etc.

RemyDuron: Phil Herup: Pro tip: If you work, you are working class.


Lol. . . The old "phrases don't have meaning!" argument. Classic.


Your dad is working class.

>> aneki - When the tax rates were "as high as" 91%, the rich had a cubic ton of deductions, and they used them all.

I see so you were the accountant for all those rich people so you "know" they used them all.

And lets not mention the fact that Kennedy ran on a platform of increasing the taxes on the rich even more by reducing their rate and eliminating their loopholes.

Or that the rich are only a small portion of those that were paying higher fed. taxes than they are now

jake3988: Stupid. These are actually things we SHOULD be taxing. Take the taxes off things we DO need and put it on the things we don't (Beer, cigarettes, etc)

You better start running, because God won't help you when I find you.

Lost Thought 00: aneki:

You don't seem to understand how tax breaks work and why they exist

Here, knock yourself out. Link

Some key points:

An "income-splitting" concept was introduced for 1948 for married couples, permitting them to treat their joint incomes as half earned by each spouse and taxed as if each spouse were taxed separately, usually resulting in a lower combined tax.
(So rich married dude got to cut income in half)

The tax base was redefined and called "taxable income," starting with 1954. Previous tax bases were derived from a statutory
"net income."
(Statutory income is quite different than taxable income you have today)

Bob16: >> aneki - When the tax rates were "as high as" 91%, the rich had a cubic ton of deductions, and they used them all.

I see so you were the accountant for all those rich people so you "know" they used them all.

And lets not mention the fact that Kennedy ran on a platform of increasing the taxes on the rich even more by reducing their rate and eliminating their loopholes.

Or that the rich are only a small portion of those that were paying higher fed. taxes than they are now

Uh, thanks for supporting my point. Kennedy lowered their rate but eliminated deductions, thus increasing the amount paid. When tax rates were over 70%, they had a ton of deductions available to reduce their tax rate.

djkutch: aneki: If you jacked up the tax rates today to 91% with all the caps and limits still in place, you'd have one hell of an exodus from the country.

Bye. Have fun making millions else where.

I'm going to log and remember this the next time there's a globalization thread in case you show up to piss and moan about american companies outsourcing to china.

Hyuck hyuck democrats always love taxes, right, subby?

Phil Herup: RemyDuron: Phil Herup: Pro tip: If you work, you are working class.


Lol. . . The old "phrases don't have meaning!" argument. Classic.


Your dad is working class.

Nope, I don't think so. My immediate family is pretty much on the upper middle class/rich line and is bourgeoisie to the core.

Working class doesn't mean everyone who works, it just doesn't. It's the workers as separate from the owners. My dad owns a business, he has employees, he is not working class. Working class is probably an outdated phrase, as nowadays there is a huge number of manager and executive positions which separate the workers from the owners.

He'd probably agree with you, though. He's a wallet voter.

Holden C: WHAT THEY SAY: "We don't want to increase the tax burden on working class people in these tough economic times"

WHAT THEY MEAN: "The tobacco and liquor lobbyist can have their way with me".

These same lawmakers had no trouble passing a tax on high earners, on hospitals, and on gasoline this year.

/lives 40 miles from the state capital, has seen 1st hand these lobbyists in action.

wow, so smokers get 17 breaks per work day and no tax hikes! Must be nice

Shaggy_C: Hyuck hyuck democrats always love taxes, right, subby?

Your sarcasm meter might be off just a bit.

aneki: Bob16: >> aneki - When the tax rates were "as high as" 91%, the rich had a cubic ton of deductions, and they used them all.

I see so you were the accountant for all those rich people so you "know" they used them all.

And lets not mention the fact that Kennedy ran on a platform of increasing the taxes on the rich even more by reducing their rate and eliminating their loopholes.

Or that the rich are only a small portion of those that were paying higher fed. taxes than they are now

Uh, thanks for supporting my point. Kennedy lowered their rate but eliminated deductions, thus increasing the amount paid. When tax rates were over 70%, they had a ton of deductions available to reduce their tax rate.
______________________________

Only problem is that was not my original point. My original point was that they were paying higher taxes than they are now and the economy did fantastic.

Conservative conventional wisdom is that taxes are death to the economy. The 1940 to 1980 period demonstrated thats a bunch of bunk in spades.

Tax more to discourage what you don't want e.g. people earning money.
Tax less to encourage what you do want e.g. smoking and drinking.
It's just commen sense.

Bob16: aneki: Bob16: >> aneki - When the tax rates were "as high as" 91%, the rich had a cubic ton of deductions, and they used them all.

I see so you were the accountant for all those rich people so you "know" they used them all.

And lets not mention the fact that Kennedy ran on a platform of increasing the taxes on the rich even more by reducing their rate and eliminating their loopholes.

Or that the rich are only a small portion of those that were paying higher fed. taxes than they are now

Uh, thanks for supporting my point. Kennedy lowered their rate but eliminated deductions, thus increasing the amount paid. When tax rates were over 70%, they had a ton of deductions available to reduce their tax rate.
______________________________

Only problem is that was not my original point. My original point was that they were paying higher taxes than they are now and the economy did fantastic.

Conservative conventional wisdom is that taxes are death to the economy. The 1940 to 1980 period demonstrated thats a bunch of bunk in spades.

I think the high taxes encouraged reinvestment into companies, while the lower taxes encourage looting the companies. Then again I'm not an economist, and might be wrong.

aneki: djkutch: aneki: If you jacked up the tax rates today to 91% with all the caps and limits still in place, you'd have one hell of an exodus from the country.

Bye. Have fun making millions else where.

Strawman.

Nobodys saying jack it up to 91% (60% should be good).

As for the scare tactic of the rich fleeing thats been shown to be bunk even in the pages of the Wall Street Urinal.

Right wingers were claiming that millionaires were fleeing Maryland cause taxes were raised. They found out that the number of millionaires in Maryland was falling cause they were getting poorer not cause they were fleeing.

I lived in Oregon for about 12-13 years. I recently moved to Texas end of Nov. 08 to find work. I like the pacific northwest but Oregon seriously needs to consider a sales tax (something like 3-4%) and lower the property tax. Almost every year they would raise the "sin" taxes to help cover budget shortfalls or shorten school years to balance school budgets. The problem is people of the state would never go for a sales tax even if it lowered property taxes. Most Oregonians want low taxes (especially sales tax) but also want the state to provide services that the state can't afford. Instead they go after easy tax targets like cigs and alcohol and then people quite smoking and they need to raise the cig tax higher. Oregon gets a lot of tourist and people coming to shop from other states because of the no sales tax. As long as the sales tax is lower than WA, ID, and CA people will still come. Sales tax is probably across the board the most fair tax their is. Everybody has to buy something whether they live with parents, or homeless, (no property tax)don't drive (gas tax) or rich or poor. Everybody pays something. The state can always not tax food or do like Texas does and offer no sales tax days before school starts for clothing and school items. Oregon needs to either get a sales tax or Oregonians need to stop expecting and voting in more from state government. I will give the state of Oregon props for giving out kicker refunds to residents when they have a budget surplus.

RemyDuron: My dad owns a business, he has employees, he is not working class.



Plastic surgeons, or any physician for that matter are some of teh hardest working people I know. Your dad has worked his ass off his entire adult life.

He would agree with me probably.


Do you two ever butt heads?

DarkLancelot: I think the high taxes encouraged reinvestment into companies, while the lower taxes encourage looting the companies. Then again I'm not an economist, and might be wrong.

I believe you are correct and simple logic even backs you up. If your getting hit by high income taxes you can reduce those taxes by taking less income and putting money back into your business.

Phil Herup: Plastic surgeons, or any physician for that matter are some of teh hardest working people I know.

I worked on a big job down in Maryland about 10 years ago. It was the house of a plastic surgeon. He was either on the job site (slowing everything down cause he didn't know how to leave working men alone) or on vacation.

The reason i know this is because I'm best friends with the contarctor. I lived at his house while we were doing the PS's house which was somewhat complex and was constantly being modified by the PS. We had to talk to the man on a daily basis. Sometimes multiple times in a day.

The man was so lazy he vacationed more than Bush.

reality bits Dem-o-rats

they figure out they can't have you send in your entire paycheck

Holden C: WHAT THEY SAY: "We don't want to increase the tax burden on working class people in these tough economic times"

WHAT THEY MEAN: "The tobacco and liquor lobbyist can have their way with me".

These same lawmakers had no trouble passing a tax on high earners, on hospitals, and on gasoline this year.

/lives 40 miles from the state capital, has seen 1st hand these lobbyists in action.

It is not like those items are already the most taxed items or anything. Maybe you support a tax increase on these items, and that is fine. Maybe you are smoke and alcohol free, for which I applaud you. To be honest, any more increase in taxes on these items would drive people away from purchasing them. "Perfect!" you think. Other than the tax revenue would drop from these items, and they would have to raise taxes elsewhere. It strikes me as more of a shrewd move to maximize profit than anything else.

/One way or another, it is about the money.

jake3988: Stupid. These are actually things we SHOULD be taxing. Take the taxes off things we DO need and put it on the things we don't (Beer, cigarettes, etc)

*sigh* I have to agree. They should tax things with negative externalities and societal costs first (lung cancer and drunk driving included), and then inelastically-supplied natural resources (like land). Taxes on labor, capital, and trade should be as light as possible.

/Oregonian.
//likes beer.
///really likes the lack of a sales tax.

Holden C: WHAT THEY SAY: "We don't want to increase the tax burden on working class people in these tough economic times"

WHAT THEY MEAN: "The tobacco and liquor lobbyist can have their way with me".

These same lawmakers had no trouble passing a tax on high earners, on hospitals, and on gasoline this year.

/lives 40 miles from the state capital, has seen 1st hand these lobbyists in action.

Pretty much this. The wine lobby in particular never lose a fight here. Ever. They own the farkin' legislature (both parties.)

onedrp: I like the pacific northwest but Oregon seriously needs to consider a sales tax (something like 3-4%) and lower the property tax.

Nope, not unless they got rid of the state income tax. You can't have both. As for the property tax- property tax "reform" has farked up the state in much the same manner as California.

What we need to do here is make the graduated state income tax much more progressive then push to have some sort of federal ban on corporations tax shopping states to the point they pay almost nothing. Oregon can't unilaterally disarm or all the corporations we've bribed to stay here like Nike and Intel will move to Georgia.

Bob16: The man was so lazy he vacationed more than Bush.

Anecdotes are normally the best way to view entire groups. Cos if one person is bad then everyone who looks like them or has the same job as them or comes from the same part of town is bad too.

Snarfangel: *sigh* I have to agree. They should tax things with negative externalities and societal costs first (lung cancer and drunk driving included), and then inelastically-supplied natural resources (like land). Taxes on labor, capital, and trade should be as light as possible.

Yes, let's tax the Internet, and fatty foods, and sugary drinks, and anything someone might gamble on. Can't have any negative externalities, so sir. We subsidize pollution and irresponsible investment, because that isn't a sin. Only sinners deserve to be punished by the mean ol' government.

Snarfangel: jake3988: Stupid. These are actually things we SHOULD be taxing. Take the taxes off things we DO need and put it on the things we don't (Beer, cigarettes, etc)

*sigh* I have to agree. They should tax things with negative externalities and societal costs first (lung cancer and drunk driving included), and then inelastically-supplied natural resources (like land). Taxes on labor, capital, and trade should be as light as possible.

/Oregonian.
//likes beer.
///really likes the lack of a sales tax.


These are already highly taxed. You can't keep going back to the same shrinking well and expect to continue to draw forever.

Lung cancer is a positive externality. Smokers die sooner than non-smokers, so there are fewer years to continue to support them. The boomers who expect to live forever and get supported are bankrupting the state and federal governments. There's a reason that 65 was the age of retirement: that's when people generally dies at the time. There are already stiff fines and punishments on drinking and driving (raise them more, if that's your issue), and if you can point out some proof that raising liquor taxes lowers the rate of injuries and deaths due to driving drunk, I might be on board.

If the government is worth paying for, then everyone should pay, not just the people with habits that are disagreeable.

course, it wouldn't have anything to do with the powerful tobacco and alcohol lobbyists on capital hill. course not.

and besides, the Ownership Society wants as many Americans addicted to nicotine and alcohol as possible. easier to control those with addictions than those without.


and an added bonus is they'll sell more nicotine and alcohol and make more money. kewl!


those burnouts could not care less about the 'tax burden' on the middle/working class. they are the same ones who send their dollars to swiss bank accounts to avoid federal income taxes.

more bullshhitt CON games.

onedrp: I lived in Oregon for about 12-13 years. I recently moved to Texas end of Nov. 08 to find work. I like the pacific northwest but Oregon seriously needs to consider a sales tax (something like 3-4%) and lower the property tax. Almost every year they would raise the "sin" taxes to help cover budget shortfalls or shorten school years to balance school budgets. The problem is people of the state would never go for a sales tax even if it lowered property taxes. Most Oregonians want low taxes (especially sales tax) but also want the state to provide services that the state can't afford. Instead they go after easy tax targets like cigs and alcohol and then people quite smoking and they need to raise the cig tax higher. Oregon gets a lot of tourist and people coming to shop from other states because of the no sales tax. As long as the sales tax is lower than WA, ID, and CA people will still come. Sales tax is probably across the board the most fair tax their is. Everybody has to buy something whether they live with parents, or homeless, (no property tax)don't drive (gas tax) or rich or poor. Everybody pays something. The state can always not tax food or do like Texas does and offer no sales tax days before school starts for clothing and school items. Oregon needs to either get a sales tax or Oregonians need to stop expecting and voting in more from state government. I will give the state of Oregon props for giving out kicker refunds to residents when they have a budget surplus.

I have to disagree about the desirability of a sales tax over a property tax. Governments like sales taxes, because people don't squawk as much paying a nickel per dollar in a store as they do paying a penny per dollar on a piece of land. I also disagree about the fairness aspect -- taxing trade reduces trade, but taxing land does not reduce the quantity of land, and the value of land (location, location, location) comes from the surrounding community, which is why an acre in Manhattan is more valuable than an acre in Alaska.

Current property taxes are a combination of a "good" tax on an inelastically-supplied natural good (land), and a bad tax on improvements. Personally, I would prefer to shift property taxes from land+improvements to just bare land value -- which would in essence mean a high land value tax (a large fraction on the rental value of the bare land, minus improvements), and an extremely low or nonexistent tax on improvements.

Finally, you should look at where Oregon and Texas rank in property taxes:

Oregon
Median Tax: $1,910
Rank: 16
Median Value: $201,200
Tax as % of home value: 0.95%
Rank: 22
Median owner income: $55,588
Tax as % of income: 3.44%
Rank: 14

Texas
Median Tax: $1,926
Rank: 15
Median Value: $106,000
Tax as % of home value: 1.82%
Rank: 2
Median owner income: $54,610
Tax as % of income: 3.53%
Rank: 12

Oregon still won't let you pump your own gas into your own car.

I don't mind that it gives jobs to people that otherwise wouldn't have jobs. For example, yesterday a former porn star was pumping my gas in Beaverton (I snap you not!).

I don't mind that he was an ex porn star, but it really pissed me off when he pulled out the nozzle at the last second and sprayed gasoline all over the back end of my car.

Damn You Oregon!

/Schmegicky

They are right, these items are not very responsive to price among their most habitual uses, and they the tax is terribly regressive. Raising the top tax bracket would make more sense, and hopefully will become the norm now that supply-side economics has (thankfully) began to die.

citizen905: Snarfangel: *sigh* I have to agree. They should tax things with negative externalities and societal costs first (lung cancer and drunk driving included), and then inelastically-supplied natural resources (like land). Taxes on labor, capital, and trade should be as light as possible.

Yes, let's tax the Internet, and fatty foods, and sugary drinks, and anything someone might gamble on. Can't have any negative externalities, so sir. We subsidize pollution and irresponsible investment, because that isn't a sin. Only sinners deserve to be punished by the mean ol' government.

You need a little more focus in your criticism. Pollution is one of the very first things mentioned in any discussion of negative externalities, usually with the suggestion of a carbon tax of some kind. And I have yet to see any suggestion that the internet is a negative externality, though I would be interested in seeing such an argument.

And the purpose of taxes on negative externalities isn't to punish, it's to bring economic incentives to bear so that goods are efficiently supplied, and those not party to the transaction are compensated for any harm.