Oregon's "other" assisted suicide

I would be very interested in where the $83K came from. I don't work for the state, but to my knowledge, very few state employees make that much money. I'd also like to know where the 30% higher than what private workers receive came from. Are they comparing skilled jobs of state workers to similar skilled jobs in the private sector, or to private workers flipping hamburgers? If it's the former, that seems like a problem that needs to be dealt with. If it's the latter, that's just smoke and mirrors.

Go Blazers

 

Well, PPS is about to go on strike in 30 days and their top salary is about $70k (for 9 months) + their $10k of free health benefits for their families that they would be responsible for some or all of if they worked in the private sector...but I'd love to see the details of that study for sure...

 

You haven't noticed Wall Street being demonized? You haven't heard anything about "spreading the wealth"? What do you think saying "I'll have the other guy pay for it" is? It's a wealth transfer, plain and simple.

So, if Government can't sell the idea that the majority of people should pay for a tax increase, then the Government should do with less and shrink. Instead, they say, "it's only fair these people should pay just a little bit more". Okay, I think posters with the word "hippie" should pay more in taxes. After all, it's only "fair".

 

People always find someone to blame and "Wall Street" is an easy target. But I don't ever see anything about "redistributing wealth"...but then again that's probably because I don't listen to conservative talk radio.

This is just a situation where the anti-tax folks thought they had a great idea to block all taxes...they didn't think it through, so now you will occasionally see tax measures passed by the majority of people on the minority.

The majority of voters approved new taxes to maintain a certain level of services. I am OK with that because that is the system we are dealing with. I don't think it will continue too far, though. A lot of people made a reasoned decision that this was an acceptable increase. I am one of those people and in no way am I trying to "redistribute wealth" or punish the rich. I would not vote for a tax increase if I deemed it ridiculously large or arbitrary. I think there are enough people like me that would and have defeated other tax measures if/when they go too far.

 

You don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh to know who "Joe The Plumber" is or Obama's plan about increasing taxes on only those individuals who make $200K or families who make $250K. That's wealth redistribution.

Yep. Just a little bit more. Those other people can afford it, and they should pay more so others can get more government. So, let's make it concrete since you and I don't agree in the abstract. Why should I pay for more services and you shouldn't? I don't even live in the state full time, yet I'm now subject to this increased tax.

 

[video=youtube;ByUOFV5TusE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUOFV5TusE[/video]


If this was the first day of taxation in our country, maybe you would have sort of an arguement here, but any extra tax on the wealthy at this point is merely a fractional return in the direction of balance. They have paid less and less and less and less. The poor have paid more and more and more and more. Reagan slashed the overall tax for the wealthiest by more than half and nearly doubled the median taxpayer's bill with his smoke and mirrors tax "reform". What followed was the largest deficit in American

The uber-wealthy in America have never paid a higher percentage in taxes than they used to. The graph has always gone the other way due to credits, deductions, write-offs, depreciation, loopholes, offshore accounts, outsourcing of jobs, foreign bases for American businesses, bribes, tax debt amnesties, tax fraud, healthcare deductions weighted in favor of the wealthy, excused property tax debt like the $45 million transfer of Facebook's Prineville property tax onto the backs of the mostly poor citizens.

You could double all taxes of any kind actually paid by the wealthy without affecting their absurdly lavish lifestyles at all.

They'd still be paying less than they were 50 years ago.

 

And Bush's TAX CUTS for the wealthy were also wealth redistribution. Don't remember you crying about that.

And if I pay to see a movie, THAT'S wealth redistribution.

Being a capitalist you should be happy, as wealth redistribution is the very definition of capitalism.

Without it, we'd be communists or socialists.

 

I disagree about your wealth redistribution...I don't believe it is.

You should pay more because you reap more benefits from the country in the form of greater income than I do. Additionally, in order to maintain an economy that can produce wage earners like yourself we need a strong economy, which is built in part upon an educated workforce which these taxes are being used to help provide.

 

See, that's your problem. You spew complete crap and hope that it's true. Bad news. It's not.

The tax system has never been more progressive. Once the Bush Tax Cuts are repealed for those making over $150K, it's going to get worse.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/taxburden06.htm

 

Allowing me to keep money I earned is not wealth redistribution. It's called earning money.

Nope. It's called spending money on something you choose. Is paying taxes a choice? The last time I checked, it wasn't.

The essence of capitalism is choice. I choose where I work, how hard I work, what kind of life I wish to provide for myself and my family. Paying taxes is anti-choice.

Those in Communist and Socialist systems have fewer choices than those in Capitalist systems.

 

So, the fact that I've worked harder or made more sacrifices should be shared with those who have chosen to slack? What's my incentive to continue to produce? Stop freeriding. If you want something, get it for yourself.

Newsflash: People like me who pay a lot in taxes and who don't demand much in the way of services are the ones who maintain a strong economy. A strong economy isn't provided by the Government; it's provided by the private sector. Perhaps those on the Left will figure that out one day.

 

Interesting article. Thanks.

Go Blazers

 

I'm not sure what it means in the big picture, but assuming 52 weeks doesn't seem like it would work for teachers. I think they work 10 months (42-43 weeks?). The article notes that educators are a large portion of the public sector. Is that accounted for in the $39.90?

 

Ah, so naive. Go live in Europe and you'll see the impact of taxes on the work ethic. Just a little bit more, just a little bit more, just a little bit more, just a little bit more...pretty soon the well is dry.

If they're asking me to pay for them, they are.

Good news! The State of Oregon Department of Revenue accepts VISA, MasterCard, American Express, money orders, cashiers checks and personal checks.

You're buying into the argument that the State of Oregon is operating at a bare minimum. On that issue we disagree. If those measures passed, they would have found a way to educate kids and keep convicts in prison.

 

And the comments about the "left" needing to "figure stuff out" ...implying I don't know anything and saying "chosen to slack begin...looks like the cordial discussion is over so I'm done. That's why I usually avoid these discussions.

Peace.

 

Um, I was talking about politicians, so lighten up. But you run along. Hopefully you learned something. When you vote for a tax increase in which you don't participate, you're asking for others to pay for you. That's simply wrongheaded. Be responsible for yourself.