We should all salute this controversial stand the Oregonian courageously took at the height of the psychedelic/sexual/antiwar revolution. What forward thinking. Was it because Canzano was close to being hanged by his readers?
Sigh indeed. If you are a small business making 250K/yr in revenue and only a couple of thousand dollars in net income, your tax used to be the greater of $10 (minimum tax) or 6.6% of $2000 (income tax). Since 6.6% of $2000 is $132, the tax under the old law was $132. Under the new law, the tax is the greater of $150 or 6.6% of $2000. So your tax just went up by $18/year. Somehow I'm not feeling your pain. barfo
As a wealthy industrialist making $100m/year, I will not be relocating my railroad company to Oregon.
Well, if you assume that for each 1 dollar you are taxed, you need to fire 100 employees, this will add up in a hurry
You may not be feeling his pain, but people laid off because of this will be. Oegon businesses are hurting . . . many feel they have cut as much as they can in hopes of not having to let staff go. But when you are a business on the brink of having to cut staff . . . this measure could and will push some businesses over the edge to the point of cutting staff.
Mixed bag for me as I have ten years worth of PERs. Anyways wrong time to raise taxes, IMO. Can you believe we agree on a political topic . . . first time?
His example was of a business that would have to pay an extra $18 per year. If that causes someone to be laid off - well, it's rather hard to believe. Give one person a couple of hours of unpaid leave, and you've saved the $18. If you want to provide a case where a company would actually be hurt enough to lay people off, feel free, maybe you can convince me. I have yet to see anyone present a realistic scenario with numbers. His example was a fail. barfo
In your opinion: a) is hurting businesses by raising taxes a step function (you can continue increasing taxes up until a point where lots of stuff breaks) b) raising taxes on corporations doesn't hurt businesses at all
I haven't studied the measures enough to know the exact impact. I do know this though, many small corporations are struggling. Many are trying to do whatever they can to not lay off staff. Buisness owners now hear about a retro active tax increase taht passed. The busy business person can sit down and try to understand all the implications of the measure. They can go to their tax lawyer (accountant will whip out and tell business owner to get a lawyer) and pay to get the answer. Or they can go into more a preventitive, let's get through this time and cut more cost to play it safe and see how this increase tax plays out. I suspect a couple of cuts here . . . but I'm not going to say it is because of teh measures. maybe it would have happened anyways . .. but I don't like the direction this is going for businesses in Oregon and many will be playing it safe. How am I to know that another retroactive tax won't be added on next year? I like the idea of making salary people take days off . . . but I can't tell you what that does to moral. Better to lay off a disgruntled employee and hire a new employee who is glad they have the job and ready to prove themselves. You lose the experience, but employees with attitudes are the worst and reducing someones salary is like having an Adre Miller in the locker room.
Why not? Seriously, why the hell not? You've spent way more time posting in this thread than it would take to actually understand the measures. They can spend ten minutes reading any of several easy-to-understand explanations available on-line, or they can make business decisions based on something they don't know anything about. I wonder which is best? barfo
Well so far I have read the implications by two different parties analyzing it (oregonian and the union) and heard two diffeernt answers. The business decision is how much should the corporation cut costs, and after this measure any cutting they were considering will now be more likely. And as far as what is the best way to make a decision . . . if gov't can make taxes retroactive, I'm not sure how businesses are suppose to make good decisions. Is there anything to stop the gov't (and unions funding the campaign) to stop them doin it again next year . . . and should a business factor in potential retroactive tax increases when making a budget? Gov't is, flat out, out of touch with the business community . . . I can't say how strongly I feel about that.
That could be, of course. But there are clear explanations from unbiased sources. You certainly have a point here about the retroactive tax bill - however it is undermined by the fact you don't know whether the tax actually amounts to anything substantial or not. And perhaps the business community is out of touch with government, if they don't even bother to take the time to understand what the government is doing. Being in touch is a two-way street. barfo
I think your missing the point of the business mentality. It's not the exact amount but the fact that it has been determined (for better or worse) that the state of Oregon plans to deal with their financial woes by gettting money from corporations and "wealthy." It may be a little this time. But the idea being (at least here) that there are a few jobs in a business that are boarderline necessary. One in particular with our company is a son of an analyst. Great kid, hard worker, but really a job that was created just to help him out. When the business mind starts to get worried that they are gov't's bailout, those jobs are the ones that go. Unfortuantely I think his job is gone. Maybe the tax increase isn't taht much, but that job isn't neccessay and who knows what the businesss is about to face with the economy . . . and the gov't! It is the business mentality that has taken a big hit. 2010 could be worse than expected and all of sudden another budget setback and schools will close and prisons will close and kids will become criminals who can't get locked up . . . Oregon needs money and those big bad corproations and wealthy people . . . well they can afford it. You really think it is small business man who needs to understand gov't? If I was making decisions that directly impacted the gov't, I would feel a need to understand it. You don't see a differenece? Tell you what, if gov't gives me money each year, than I will make it a priority to understand govt. The burden is on the gov't to understand the business community, not the other way around.
