Considering that Oregon's unemployment rate is in the Top 10 in the country I think passing these measures can have no positive impact. I also agree this is probably more about PERS than most realize.
Did you read the article you posted . . . it was the union that had the big bucks. The yes campaign had more money to spend on the campaign than the no campaign. That's politics. I'm guessing if the no campaign had more money, they would have won this election.
I hear what you're trying to say Barfo, but that's a bad analogy. The homeless people aren't paying anything. I'm paying around 2k per term in tuition alone. And yes, part of my education is subsidized, but that's only for a 28 year old without a job. My girlfriend isn't getting any subsidized loans. PSU expects her parents to cover 13k of her expenses per year... they can't. Students are consistently raped on tuition, books, parking etc. Hell, they charge over $700 for a small dorm that you share with another person. It's highway robbery.
My lavish union retirement lost 40% in this recession. I haven't worked since July, yah I'm loving that yes vote. I am sorry for your friend though. It sucks to have no income, bill collectors calling, plus more taxes.
It's not, really. I'm not sure you grasped what I was saying. Students don't pay the full cost of their education. None of them do. Let's do the math. PCC had 26,419 FTE students in 2009. The FTE tuition was $3105. So if all the students paid full tuition, that would raise $82 million. PCC's budget was $275 million last year. So even a student that is paying full tuition is paying only 30% of the cost of his education. So, who is getting raped here? Is it you, the student? Or is it me, the benevolent taxpayer who is paying for 70% of your education? How are your grades this term? Are you applying yourself? Money doesn't grow on trees, ya know. I worked hard all my life so you'd have this opportunity. I expect you to make the most of it. barfo
Yet another person who can't do math. I guess this tax bill is sort of Darwinian, it weeds out the weak (of mind) from the businessperson herd. To have measure 67 cost him an extra $5000, he'd have to be making a profit of $634,000, or else have revenue of over $7 million. In neither of those cases could it possibly make sense to close the business due to a $5K tax bill. barfo
I know he doesn't make that kind of money. But what does it matter? The measure passed. He suddenly owes thousands. He's closed. He's broke. He's unemployed. And the public employees get their wonderful taxpayer retirement indefinitely. That was the whole reason for the taxes.
He doesn't suddenly owe thousands, that's the point. He's either lying to you, or he's misinformed. If he doesn't make that kind of money, he doesn't suddenly owe thousands. It would be sort of sad if he closed his business thinking that he owed $5000 when he really only owes an extra $140, but given the level of misinformation being doled out on this board, it seems not unlikely. barfo
Gee, barfs, YOU wouldn't be lying, would you? Do you remember a couple of years ago a couple from K. Falls down at a swanky resort, by a pool and each had a drink in their hands on the cover of The Oregonian? They were friends of mine. They met in collage, got teacher degrees, married, worked for 30 years until age 54 as teachers, retired and each got 110% of their $67,000 per year pay for life with full free benefits added to that. THAT'S what the ballot measures were for. The union told the state what they demanded in a retirement, the state caved because they slept together and now that retirement program has bankrupted us. We have to raise taxes to pay for it. And we will again. And again. And again. And again... Had the union and state worked out a nice 401K with the state matching up to 5% or something like that, we'd have no problems at all and many social services and education woujld have substantially more money to work with then they do now. The whole thing makes me ill. A close friend losing his business over lies. Damn lies. I was a democrat when I was much younger, but the lies and lack of morality drove me to be a moderate and independent. Damn lies.
No, I wouldn't be, but if you doubt that it is simple enough to go read the ballot measures for yourself and see what they say. If you choose to believe nonsense instead of actually looking at the numbers I can't help you. It's literally not possible that your friend suddenly owes thousands of dollars of tax, if the situation is as you described it. This is a question of fact, not opinion. I do, vaguely. All right, that's a nice rant but it doesn't make the claim that your other friend now owes thousands any less false. I think you are the one lying here, or repeating lies. Your friend didn't lose his business over this tax. That's a lie. barfo
I would guess that the friend isn't lying. He's just an idiot who can't do math, and can't run a business successfully, so he blames his failure on this new tax. I can see both sides--while I think the new tax is miniscule, I also do think that government employees are overpaid. That includes teachers (I hear the conservatives cheering), police, and military (I hear conservatives booing). You could cut all their paychecks in half and you'd still have applicants lined up because of the pensions, health benefits, and security that your employer won't be going bankrupt. I once did payroll for a college department, and I can tell you that professors are paid maybe about $90-100K per year. (Nothing like doctors, who averaged $350-400K when I did their taxes.) But the college department also employees secretaries who ostensibly supervise (babysit) students working there on work-study. If they work hard and ignore the infant sycophants around them, they are fired for being unpopular with you young punks. That's where a lot of nonprofessorial payroll gets wasted. What that means is that NateBishop said that business is booming on college, and asked why must the average tuition increase? Then Sug said that colleges are building new buildings. Obviously, the large enrollment is the cause, and the new buildings are the effect. That explains where the money is going. In economics (if any of you are fortunate enough to last in college) you will find that booming business means a lower unit cost (because fixed overhead becomes overcovered) until expansion of capacity is required to continue the boom. Adding that new capital construction cost onto the operating cost then makes unit costs go up, contrary to your expectations of savings from the economy of scale (which is higher enrollment in this case). If you don't get it, it's okay. Conservatives are idiots, and liberals must be infinitely patient with your childlike minds. But hey, keep on hollering and giving us a lifetime of entertainment. As for new buildings causing old buildings to be 90% empty, you should see public college campuses in Washington State. Check out Western WA U in Bellingham. Every couple of years they finish a new useless building with all-glass sides. Then they desert an old one and claim it will be used somehow. I once asked an Olympia auditor who spoke to our accounting class, why the brand new building we were in had a never-used $500 TV mounted to the wall, in every single classroom. He had no answer. If you want to decrease government spending, you'll have to investigate the nuts and bolts, not just whine about every tax measure and expect government to decrease itself.
Oregon ranks 41st in total tax burden per capita... that's why the schools suck... All the BS arguments I hear about how high taxes are in Oregon are without factual basis...
This guy brings out the fighting spirit in me. You seem better. I'll try to distinguish next time I answer both of you.
It is natural for your defensive, fighting spirit to come out when you are clearly wrong and looking ignorant. Don't feel bad.
Are you claiming that any business with sales / revenues of several million dollars won't have any trouble paying several thousand more in taxes?
