Yes. It's all about the "mentality". Since it is a discussion about money, there's no reason to use actual dollar figures and compute the monetary impact. It's better to wave our hands in the air and shout. Because no one ever got anywhere in business by analyzing problems rationally. I'm finding it hard to see why providing make-work jobs is desirable, much less better than funding the school system. Yes. If anyone thinks this very modest tax measure has put Oregon back on its feet, they are mistaken. Yes, there will be more problems to come. Yes, taxes will go up again. And the sky will still not fall. Well, I guess if you don't vote, then you aren't making decisions that impact the government. Disagree. The government provides services to you. Whether or not you actually value any of the services that government provides, maybe it makes sense to understand how and why they are provided and what they cost to provide, etc. barfo
If you don't understand how important the mentality of the business person is, I don't know what to say. And that is what pisses me off about the gov't . . . they don't understand or care. You say it's about the actual figure only . . . I say it is about the fact gov't just said we changed the rules on you for the last year and you owe us more money. That is hard concept to accept in these times. It makes me wonder what gov't will do next year to affect my business this year. You don't get that? Yes, yes I know . . . school funding needed, courts funding needed blah blah blah. I have heard this over 10 times in the last decade. I hope it is all needed because they spent a lot of cash convincing people corporations and wealthy people can bail out the state. You call these modest tax increases while the rest of the nation watches to see if a state is stupid enough to raise taxes during a reccession. Do you realize this election has been covered nationally. I think that is the problem. You see this as a modest tax increase while the rest of the nation see it for what it is . . . a tax increase approved by voters during a reccession. National news worthy stuff going on in Oregon . . . whatever the result, why downplay it? I have a sense of how gov't works (having worked for gov't and worked on elections). But I feel no matter how much I understand or don't understand gov't . .. I have zero impact on what gov't does. I can spend hours reading justifications for their actions . . . I can also spend hours reading poeple critizing gov't spending. I understand their are two sides to each argument . . . do you? So you don't think there is a burden on gov't to try to be in touch with the business community. That they decide how much money we pay and decide the services they provide and to hell if we appreciate it. It is up to business to learn all about gov't and appreciate what they do for us . . . it is that thought where we clearly have a difference of opinion.
You haven't noticed yet that Barfo likes to view all government decisions as if in a vacuum. It's only $18/year. We should just refuse the urge to think about future consequences or the general trend. It's only $18/year.
I think business people should be rational. You seem to be arguing that we should cater to irrationality. Who gives a shit what the rest of the nation thinks of our tax plan? If we cared about that, we'd have a sales tax like almost every other state, wouldn't we? Sure. No, you misstate what I said. What I said is that understanding is a two-way street. barfo
It's true, I'm not a slippery-slopist. I don't believe that one step in a particular direction necessarily commits you to continue moving in that direction forever, faster and faster. I think that viewpoint is pretty stupid, actually, since it is so obviously contradicted by innumerable examples in real life. If you jump up, do you inevitably rocket into outer space? If the Blazers lose tonight, will they never win again? If you elect someone from one party, does that party rule forever after? Since this is the first hike in the minimum business tax since the 1930s, I guess the trend here is that we increase taxes on business every 75 years or so. Better start making plans for a big tax hike in 2085. barfo
Depends what system you are talking about. For an unstable, or metastable system, this is absolutely the case. Sounds like a decent description of the government, unless of course you think that continually spending, borrowing and growing the deficit is a stable system. Ah yes. Close your eyes, cover your ears, and ignore any previous knowledge, probability and well proven theories. It is clear why you would think that the other viewpoint is "stupid".
I guess if you take a long enough term viewpoint, then our system of government probably is unstable. You can't expect any human organization to last forever, or at least none has so far. That said, I think you are confused when you talk about "growing the deficit" in regards to Oregon's government. barfo
I guess this thread is specific to Oregon's government, but my comment about you viewing decisions in a vacuum has been applicable to the federal government. (and thus, my comments about an unstable system due to spending are valid)
Well I guess we can go round and round, but what is the point. To conceed, I think you made a good point about if a gopher job is more important that the public school system and their needs. You're right, the needs of the school system far outweigh the needs for gopher jobs (although the idea that jobs won't be cut is wrong). I wish you would at least be open to the idea that gov't might be able to get by without the money. I can give you many links on measures for money where if they did not pass there were threats of closed school and courts that turned out to be just that . . . threats. I will try to think positively and hope gov't takes this money from the corporations and wealth and use it wisely . . . and doesn't look to corporations and wealthy everytime they get into a financial struggle. And I think we can respectfully disagree on the idea that gov't is way out of touch with the business community. (Talk to local business owners and see if they have the same perception as I do. Not trying to overreact, but tax increases could not have come at a worst time, in my and many other business owners minds.) Times suck, tighten up the belts (including job cuts and pay reduction), hope gov't uses their extra money wisely (as their employees get at least a COLA bump and many a pay increase as well), and hope to get through this time period without having to close up shop and go work for the man.
I'm open to that idea. It just wasn't what we were arguing in this thread. What I was responding to here was claims that businesses would be crushed by this tax, which I don't find credible. Could government get along without this money? Sure. It would be wrong to think nothing would change - $700 million or whatever it was is a lot of money, and clearly something would have to be cut. They don't literally burn money in Salem. Even if you think there is $700 million in waste, the waste would need to be cut. Again, I never challenged the idea that government is out of touch with business. I think there's a pretty good case to be made for it, although this tax probably isn't it. Business organizations were *very* involved in the process that led to this tax. [I don't mean to suggest that they were in favor of the outcome, of course.] barfo
If you think there is that much waste, why don't you ask your representatives to make bills stopping the waste. Voting no is like trying to stop cancer by starving the whole body through chemo. The whole system will suffer for a while IF it recovers.
That is what voting against a tax increase is: limiting their budget. Unless you have seen things I haven't, such as a bill titled "cut government waste". Something tells me that bill would pass pretty easily.
Perhaps a couple outside parties could evaluate their cost effectiveness. You never hear fiscal conservatives giving some kind of specific suggestion like that, just TAXES BAD! SPENDING BAD!
