Oregon in WSJ

K4L · Since 19 Jan 2009 483 Posts Obsessed

No government in history has figured it out and they never will, too much greed all the way from those on top down to those that are opressed

Hein · Since 08 Mar 2005 1314 Posts Possessed

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575004992410621692.html

K4L · Since 19 Jan 2009 483 Posts Obsessed

bulae99 · Since 12 Jul 2006 1692 Posts I give out bad advice.

The case for Measures 66 and 67

Download a PDF of this story January 10, 2010

It's a bad idea to NOT realize who will lose in the lack of state revenues. Nobody wants to pay taxes. Nobody wants to pick up the bill for services they don't get, but it's part of being a community of people who care for the less fortunate elements of society.

*Nobody want's to make cuts in education, services and anything that may hurt others. We are not building cars, we are educating, care taking, and providing services for those less fortunate that ourselves. Teachers teach kids so they can graduate and then work. Care takers help poor elderly people to finish out their lives with dignity and joy. DHS workers help struggling families to stay together and treat each other humanly. Taxes pay for human service that help people live better. Corporations provide profits for people who have enough money to own them.

**These services are needed by people who have no options and if they can't get em they will suffer.

However, to justify the rejection of taxes based on an increase in unemployment is short sighted and incorrect. Unemployment ,this time, can be blamed directly on the dudes who created risky investment opportunities on home loans that were not supposed to fail, can you say lack of "regulation?" They failed and the insured loan options were called on and they didn't have the money to pay them off!!! These risky investments were the cause, not the guys who wanted a bigger house and jumped on the wagon.

Unemployment is always a result of recession, inflation, and economic instability. The fact the economy slows down doesn't mean we should stop providing critical services to elderly, student's and the less fortunate elements of our community. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!"

Victoria Tuman and Don Moffett have a vested interest in how voters decide Measures 66 and 67.

If the Legislature's budget-balancing tax increases are rejected on Jan. 26, both stand to lose in the state spending cuts that could result.

"He would lose hours," Tuman said of Moffett. "I would lose someone who can help me with shopping, eating, bathing, grooming and dressing — and someone I can share things with. In care-giving, people get close to each other. They give something that families cannot give."

Just a few hours before Tuman spoke last week from her apartment in South Salem — and while elections officials delivered2 million ballots to post offices across Oregon — she learned that her brother had died. She and Moffett were arranging for her to go to Washington state.

But Tuman said she felt it was important for her to speak out.

"I know others who would lose that kind of care," she said.

She has a degenerative bone disease. She fears that a fall will put her in a nursing home permanently — or kill her.

Since 1999, she has received care from Moffett, who earns $10.20 per hour for providing 117 hours per month. He combines that work with a 24-hour week, at $9 per hour, as a private security guard. But his income would fall far short of the thresholds for tax increases in Measure 66.

If he lost his income as a home-care worker, he said, "I could not take care of her, she would go to a nursing home, and it would cost the state a lot more."

Since Oregon Project Independence began in 1977, Oregon has built a system of home- and community-based care that enables 24,000 seniors and people with disabilities to receive services outside of hospitals and nursing homes. Eligibility is linked to income and degrees of personal impairment.

"We are able to avoid the high cost of institutional skilled care for far longer — or avoid it completely — than most states," said Jerry Cohen, executive director of Oregon AARP, about half of whose 500,000 members are 65 and older.
(2 of 2)

But thousands lost such assistance in 2003, when spending cuts were triggered by defeat of a tax increase and several levels of impairment were dropped. A couple of levels were restored later, but not to what the system was before 2000.

The 2009-11 budget originally submitted by Gov. Ted Kulongoski — which by law could not propose higher income taxes — would have reduced income-eligibility levels, eliminated in-home care to people receiving less than 80 hours of service per month, and limited the allowable costs claimed by nursing facilities for reimbursement.

Lawmakers, however, chose not to make most of those cuts in approving a budget balanced with increased taxes on higher-end households and businesses that are contained in Measures 66 and 67. A "yes" vote upholds the increases; a "no" vote rejects them.

If the measures fail, caregivers would be affected by some of the cuts that the Department of Human Services has submitted to lawmakers, who requested all agencies to submit options for reductions of 5 percent and 10 percent from current budgets.

One proposal would cut 20 hours per month provided to some seniors and people with disabilities for personal care such as eating, bathing, dressing and mobility.

Another cut would reduce caregiver hours by 25 percent and some caregiver health-insurance benefits — although a note indicates that federal courts have disallowed similar moves in California and Washington.

At the bottom of the agency list are reductions based on income eligibility, which would require federal approval.

They are among a list of proposals amounting to a $345.8 million reduction in the agency's share of the state general fund, whose main sources are personal and corporate income taxes. But the cuts also would cost Oregon $385.4 million in matching federal grants.

Home-care workers organized a few years ago to increase their pay and improve their training.

Moffett said caregivers such as himself have agreed to forego cost-of-living increases, which would have cost $39 million from the general fund and $80 million overall, to save money for the program.

Neither Moffett nor Tuman earn enough to be affected by the increases that Measure 66 proposes on individual filers exceeding $125,000 and joint returns exceeding $250,000.

If the measures fail, Moffett said, "it is not good for our economy or our people."

pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745
[/quote]

Oh yeah, one other thing needs to be said here and I'm going to say it. If you are against this tax you make a lot more money than most people in Oregon.

Mark · Since 20 Jun 2005 3678 Posts I need my fix because I'm a Naishaholic

undertow · Since 15 Feb 2008 371 Posts BeaversBurg Obsessed

Really, enough with the talk, TV ads, Newspaper ads,

Just get out and Vote!!!! Surprised

Chooch · Sun Jan 17, 10 3:43 pm

registered · Since 12 Jul 2005 1319 Posts tsunami Sandbagger

A little higher percentage point and $10 minimum to hundred$ something is all most people see.

The big change the slightly higher tax is on GROSS income instead of the now Net income. this would maybe be swollowable if it were not retro aka surprise.

I know my bussiness will be out of nevada or washington if these pass and so will be MANY others who are now here to avoid this tax.

My wive works for the university and a no vote would be an immediate 1 mil + out of thier budget of her small university slice of many millions cut.
My bussiness had to slow some aggressions and watch the budget more this year. The average gov. jobs still are going to be short because of growth and waste.

The average tax payer does not have the benes os the govenment that WE employ.

This tax will fix the budget this year MAYBE but does that account for the loss of taxable revenue from the slow economy to be filed by the 4=15 or the losses next year when bussinesses move.

LOCK THIS SHIIet

stevegriffith22 · Since 14 May 2006 434 Posts Obsessed

OMG Ok I can't help it.......Oregon politics suck, for that matter all politics suck. Here the deal, Forest made a statement about flat taxs and everyone blew him off. But that fucker is right the fuck on. Heres the deal.......taxes based on income is a horrible idea. It punnishes the people that make money and creat jobs for being successful and doesn't give a reason for the people that don't make much money to look at how to make there lives better from a financial standpoint. We'll hell with all the taxes you guys pay, I don't understand why you don't have better fire and police service. Also whats up with some of your roads.......and homeboy was right. How can you guys allow a state government to increase its spending by 44%, yet only increase the population by 10 or so percent. Get it together guys it one of the reasons boeing pulled out of seattle, its too expensive to do buisness in the NW. Flat taxes are fair! Gives everyone a reason to make more money and for that matter, spend more money. Inhearitant tax is a horrible idea as well. For that matter so is a freaking sales tax. I don't understand why people aren't outraged on being taxed at the pay check and then being taxed for spending money, then being taxed on the public services such as garbage, sewer ect. I know, I know......you all hate conservitives......bleading hearts just want to make ever one equal. Your govenment should provide hand ups not hand outs, they should give you protection lik fire, EMS, and police. They provide roads, sewer and garbage. When are you guys going to say enough is enough! Stand up and be freaking heard. Your people are suffering! 11% unemployment but your going to raise taxes......holy shit, who's running your shit show! I can't imagine why people don't want to come to oregon to live and work.....

Look at the good side......atleast the kiting community has enough money to keep kiting....good for us! Thank god were all so smart. opps was that politicaly incorrect while your farmers are losing there farms and families are starving and being taxed out of there homes............ I know you all must think I'm a asshole thats just another dumb ass with a opinion. What happened to community anyhow....

stevegriffith22 · Since 14 May 2006 434 Posts Obsessed

One more rant.....if you bitch and you don't vote....you opinion doens't matter and we don't want to here it. Its your vote.......no matter what your opinion is....make it count.

pjc · Since 06 Mar 2005 649 Posts Addicted

the budget's blown because of tier 1 PERS. It's really that simple. Ask any accountant or actuary. The government promised 8% minimum annual returns, with higher returns during good years, to a large batch of currently retired employees. That's not a reasonable investment goal, and that's the single biggest cause of the budget deficit.

Sad but true. I talked to a lady the other day who put $4K into PERS in the early 70s. She now is entitled to a 200K payment, if she takes her money out as a lump sum.

I'm voting for the tax hike - but I'd prefer to see the state just declare bankruptcy like New York City did in the 70s. Clear out all these legacy contracts in bankruptcy court and at least set the stage for some long term growth.

Spike · Since 13 May 2007 1414 Posts Alameda Spelling Expert

pkh · Since 27 Feb 2005 6549 Posts Couve / Hood Honored Founder

Yeah just get out and vote. There is waste in government, though "waste" is just more people getting paid for work and thus more jobs, more people buying crap that feeds the economy. Yeah its not "pure" capitalism, move to Dubai if you want that.

Hell if the whole world worked at 100% efficiency we'd probably have very little jobs. I can write a program that can do your job, your fired. Ha ha.

Maybe we should all be Amish and at least then there'd be plenty of work for everybody Very Happy

Lots of sweetheart jobs in gov too, and lots of gov managers who would love to have more control over compensation and employees than they do now. i like the idea about bankruptcy to re-negotiate contracts. Maybe a "No" vote would make something like that happen.

Democracy is cool, just make informed decisions and things will work out Thumb's Up

bulae99 · Since 12 Jul 2006 1692 Posts I give out bad advice.

http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf

This is heavy reading, but let me melt it down for you. This article won't show up in Wall-street cause they keep this little bit of information a secret. Keep in mind that the financial crisis was a result of the have's working the market, not the poor.

The fundamental questions is, "What responsibility do the wealthy have to the poor?"

If you look at wealth as a pie and you go to cut it up into slices, who has the biggest slice of the pie?

The top 10% of the population of the US has upwards of 60% of the real wealth. That leaves a really small piece of the pie for the middle class. Did the unions do this? I don't think so, do you? Union's try to get fair wages for middle class workers so they can buy little houses and drive small cars.

Is it fair that 10% of the population has 60% of the pie? Keep in mind that wealth is the ability to come up with liquid cash. Assets minus Liabilities equal Net worth.

It's nice to be smart and have lot's of cool stuff, but it's even nicer to look out for those who don't have shit. I know where I stand, do you? I'll be looking for a similar piece of the pie, not a big ass chunk for one smart guy.

You bet your ass I'm going to vote! You can also bet money that I'm going to be looking out for the people who don't vote.

forrest · Mon Jan 18, 10 8:24 am

I'd vote yes on both 66 and 67 if they included a clause that would get rid of the seniority rule in government such that workers would be evaluated on performance rather than the length of time they've been in their position.

blowhard · Since 26 Dec 2005 2028 Posts Windward

life ain't fair never will be
if you took all the money and spead it around
the same folks would have it back again soon

it's just the way
can you imagine how the public sector was able to make more than the private sector?
unions have sucked the life out of the local economy paying for the exhorbirant
retirement of the workers,
There is nothing left for the children.
It's nothing new the same has happened in Canada
Retire early with a guranteed income well above of the income when you were working
My pal who was a shop teacher(25yrs.) retired at 57 with full benefits including a seperate deal he cut for health insurance for his family(for life) and a double dip for the last year ,not too bad for a dude who could hardly read when he entered collage
on the GI bill
To retire with over $700K in pers a $70K a year forever
Guranteed (by law)
oh ya you paid for it,, the children ,
the future,
in debt taxpayers
sad,
those who would position themselves to take so much from the very students they proclaim to be looking out for and claim innocence in this situation
but a pretty sweet deal for only 25 years of partime work ,
Don't get me wrong I believe the children deserve the best
they are not getting it
too bad