Chicago Mayor Tries to Poach Oregon Companies because of Measure 66

Goodness... Chicago has a 10.5% SALES TAX!!! Wowsers... that'd be $75 a Costco trip for my fam... two trips that would be = to the min business tax for the state.

Since we make a trip every 2 weeks we'd pay $1800 more in sales tax just at Costco! Count me in! But wait... I have to drive too... average of say 15,000 miles per year on our two cars at ~20 MPG, ~1500 gallons... (Chicago as 75c per gallon gas tax compared to 43c in Oregon) = another 480 bucks just in gas tax... so now we are up to another $2280... not to mention if I move I have to give up the beach... the mountains... forests, the high desert... the amazing summers... and trade them annoying bugs, humidity, a lightning pole on my house, nightmarish traffic and a charismatic mayor.

If that appeals to you... go for it. Personally... I love Oregon.

 

Holy shit, you spend 750 dollars every two weeks at Costco?!?!

 

Me too, I love Oregon.

But if you were working in Chicago, I'm guessing you would be making a lot more than in Oregon, so those extra costs you mentioned shouldn't be hard to deal with.

But you would miss all those other things you mentioned. Personally, I really love Hawaii. But the idea of finding a job in Hawaii that pays decent is very difficult. I suspect that is why many do not pick Oregon over say a Chicago . . . career wise, Chicago is the choice (taxes and all)

 

Sorry you feel that way. Let me define it a little better.

I was on the edge between voting for or against. I was leaning slightly against because I didn't believe they should tax income vs profits. I didn't think it was wrong, just that it was addressing something that needed to be solved in a different manner. They're just trying to address all loopholes by catching the income side vs closing the loopholes on the profit side. However, once I started reading about how little the tax actually was I thought "Well, it really isn't that bad, it hasn't been changed since the 30's, it doesn't affect most small businesses at all, and for most of those that it does they are capped." So I hedged a little more. Then I started seeing ads talking about how companies would be laying off left and right due to this tax. That was utter nonsense. That was a shining beacon of stupidity. As a result, it pushed me over the edge to vote for the tax.

Next time maybe PM me before posting something so fucking stupid? Not really sure I appreciate being called a stupid fucker, but hey, way to show how classy you are. Very ironic post of yours...

 

Agreed.

It's a bit more complicated. Sometimes you want to slow the economy to keep it from overheating. The tail end of a boom can do a great deal of long term damage. You can do it by raising interest rates or raising taxes to pay off debt.

My issues isn't that taxes are too high, but that government tries to do too much. Do less, and use the residual to pay off the debt.

The problem we have with government is they have to spend in tough times for the increased social safety net. In good times, the assumption is that they will last forever and rather than paying off the debt, they find new uses for the monies received.

 

I don't have stats about Chicago, but in CA (in general), the same professions make more in LA and SF than in Ptd. I'm pretty sure that is true with Seattle as well. I assumed that was true in Chicago, maybe I'm wrong on that.

What makes you think businesses have all this money? Again no stats, but I'm guessing over 100 businesses go down a year. Look at the resturant business alone, I see those businesses shutting down all the time. If businesses aren't going under, many are cutting back and laying off.

If starting a business was the key to automatically making a lot money, everyone would be starting businesses. It is much more difficult than some suspect to start a business and make it profitable and worth all the work, IMO.

 

Any sales tax would have to also see a concomitant reduction in the income tax and property tax. The goal is not to increase tax receipts, but to make them more stable.

As for your Costco dilemma, please tell me you're an Executive Member and you have the Costco AmEx.

 

Executive Member all the way. They should pick my wife up in a limo she spends so much there. =)

RR7... $500 a trip is max... can vary between 250-500... I may have been off in my math. Think kids... diapers... wet wipes... detergent for laundry etc...

Personally... I don't like Costo... for a few reasons... you never know if they are going to always have something... they rotate inventory a lot... and a company I had to deal with them and they are a pain in the butt. You have to put their price stickers on items... put stock on pallets according to their specs, having the inventory arrive at their warehouse at a precise time etc... and then there is the fact they demand wholesale discount when they are really selling to the public... Walmart etc... all the same... evil I tell you... all evil.

 

Ok, so we differ on the base view of how much government should do, but that aside - since the government in general isn't allowed to "save for a rainy day" during good times what other options do they have during the bad times other than to take a little more temporarily? Again, I realize you argue that the government can cut back, but at some point the government would scale back to the point where cutting anymore would destabilize society (for example if we stopped employing the FDA for a year)...

 

I thinhk we are somewhat on the same page. Without an intense analysis, I figured the taxes in a state is part of the higher cost of living, so my point was eventhough taxes are higher, same standard of living because increased salaries balance off the more you pay in taxes. Of course we can get into how much harder people work in LA or Chicago so really is it the same standard of living . . . but I'm sure there are many factors.

For the record, I have been one of the most vocal opponents to these tax measures but have never claimed it make businesses go under. I have said I don't think this helps the business climate and has futher divided business owners v. public employee union, but the most I have experienced was 2 part time layoffs (that I later conceeded is not as important as this supposed gov't shorfall).

I also conceed the bitching is high relative to the amount of tax increase. But the reason (and the part that really pissese me off) is because this was the exact wrong time to raise taxes. Business climate is a real factor in businesses. Many make decisions based on where they think the economy is going and the policies being implemented by the state. The fact the tax is retroactive pisses off business owners and the fact business owners feel like they have no real power in the legislature (the public employee union has all the real power . . they really do)

I think my final analysis on this is I sure hope the state (and PERS) really neededthe money, because these tax measures has raised a lot of hostility with the business community . . . whether justifiable or not.

 

Of course government can "save for a rainy day". First, the debt has to be paid off and Social Security and Medicare re-funded. Clinton and Bush both ran surpluses.

As for your "destabilize society" line, we have very different ideas of where that line is.

 

http://theoffice.wikia.com/wiki/Suck_It

[video=youtube;bapk460RPOM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bapk460RPOM[/video]