Member of the Month

JalmarKalmar
April, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Way to go citizens of Oregon...

profile picture
hoodSlayer
Posts: 900 - Karma: 7
Once again you have proved that in times of struggle you can still make the worst decision possible...Today Measures 66 & 67, which create a tax hike for businesses and the top 3% wage earners in the state, were passed. Oregon traditionally is a blue collar industry state but thanks to our environmental laws we have killed our primary blue collar industries (fishing, logging, farming). We now have the nations second highest unemployment (around 12-13%). So whats left is our corporations (Nike, Adidas, Intel, etc) and high wage earners (lawyers, doctors, etc). The tax hikes that 66 & 67 bring will make it more difficult for these companies and people to continue to do business in Oregon and subsequently the lower class will be hurt even more and our unemployment will continue to rise. FTW end rant/
Jan 27 2010 1:29PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564


Or like this.
Jan 29 2010 1:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Calvin.
Posts: 771 - Karma: 10
The thing that bothers me is the entire attitude towards the rich and successful. They're seen as evil and greedy and terrible people simply because they make a lot of money. Here's a lesson kids. Rich people do not become rich at the expense of others. Rich people don't steal money from the poor. Just because I make 20 dollars an hour doesn't mean that I'm causing someone else in the state to make minimum wage.

Here's a fun fact. 2/3 of the people that make over 125k a year are small business owners. Now that they are paying even more taxes; which way do you think unemployment is going to go, up or down?
Jan 29 2010 2:11AM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11498 - Karma: 327
Logging and fishing is whats up.
Jan 29 2010 2:14AM
0 0
profile picture
mnick11
Posts: 206 - Karma: 14
actually its 250,000 dollars a year and its dumb if you can make that money and worked your but off to get it then you deserve to spend it and not have it handed over to people who most of them put there selves in that position of making less than they would want i live in portland and personally are schools on not over filled and we dont have that many kids in are classes already
Jan 29 2010 2:21AM
0 0
profile picture
SirStai
Posts: 253 - Karma: 15
Stop fucking bitching we have 40-50% taxes.
Jan 29 2010 2:34AM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
LULZ.

this thread is full of them.
Jan 29 2010 11:13AM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
please tell me where you are getting this idea from? id love to know the cold hard facts that show that people who are poor choose to be poor.
Jan 29 2010 11:14AM
0 0
profile picture
NW_Rider
Posts: 2580 - Karma: 314
Shit you missed the memo Ben? Remember that piece of construction paper they hand you the first day of  2nd grade? If you fold it hamburger style, you get rich, if you fold it hotdog style, you become poor. Thought you knew that.

And to the people callin socialist and shit, not even Sweden or Norway or any other European country for that matter are socialist. They are mixed economies. The USSR was socialist - 100% centralized PLANNED economy. There are still free markets in Sweden and Norway, they may only account for 30-40 percent of the economy, but these are not actual socialist countries.
Jan 29 2010 11:42AM
0 0
profile picture
hoodratz47
Posts: 11992 - Karma: 9,212
i made a paper airplane what does that mean?
Jan 29 2010 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
NW_Rider
Posts: 2580 - Karma: 314
President.
Jan 29 2010 6:12PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
loving how no one has addressed that its somehow "ok" for the majority to expropriate the wealth of the minority.


MOB RULE!

it will be interesting to see what this does to OR. you can only push people so far before they simply give up and leave. thats the beauty of these united states, if one state has something you dont like. you are free to vote with your feet. IE GTFO.
Jan 29 2010 9:39PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
forgot to add, that i do have a different view of government than some.

i dont constantly look for what the government can give me, or what i can gain by coercing another group into an involuntary action. conversely, i just want to be left alone as much as possible. im comfortable making my own decisions, and living with the consequences.


Jan 29 2010 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Tasche
Posts: 5422 - Karma: 99
You are so fucking dumb. You live in a democracy you fucking tool. Don't act like the rich are being so oppressed because they are taxed a small percentage more. Anyone could come up with 100 ways people with money control the poor. Stop your bull shit, you are so out of your mind.


I usually don't pull internet pissing contests but aren't you a psychology major or something like that? You are probably never going to make over 100k a year. You will never be rich, you are living in a fantasy world.
Jan 29 2010 10:12PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
 we are NOT a pure democracy. not to mention i wouldnt want to live in a pure democracy. why? just for this reason, the majority is given free reign to oppress the minority. just because everyone votes something ok does not make it so. the way our government was invisioned was to be a check against this kind of mob rule, not the practitioner.

guess again, not a psych major. still have a couple of months to decide but at this point i would say Econ is going to be my area of study. then we will see where grad school takes me. whether that be an MBA program or maybe law school.

if you dont usually get into these pissing matches, why lower yourself this time?


as for you, i wish you nothing but the best in your life. (no sarcasm) do you hate me or something? cause it sure seems like it.



Jan 29 2010 10:25PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
nope. were an aristocracy
Jan 29 2010 10:26PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
well then, damn glad i was born into the right class. :)
Jan 29 2010 10:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
More like a fucking Oligarchy.
Jan 29 2010 10:28PM
0 0
profile picture
MitchPee
Posts: 8871 - Karma: 1,510
Hm that's funny. Socialism isn't supposed to be 100% planned economies, it's simply a transitional period between communism and capitalism. I don't know what your MBA wannabe teacher is teaching you but it surely isn't a relevant definition to Socialism. Socialism can't even be really defined by anyone truly, but there's no way it is strictly 100% command economy. That would be more towards a communist approach.

Your tax numbers, unfortunately, are plagued with that of irrationality. The problem you don't account for is that the top 1% are generally rich because they own unilateral externalities, such as companies. This is where they can avoid most of the taxes and as Bush signed some bills to help these loopholes get better on corporate writeoffs. I can show you a whole book full of ways that you can own a business and barely pay taxes with making $1,000,000 a year. Income is a very ambiguous thing that not everyone is accounted for and with a $1,000 a month lawyer you can keep from paying 1 mil in taxes. Looking at a tax bracket simply doesn't explain it. So yeah, I'm calling BS on all the percentages you just posted.

Since you so boldly proclaimed that these people are being punished for being "successful" I will gladly argue that this money is usually old and has been passed down from generation to generation. It's sad because anyone who knows anything about economics can at least conceptualize what the difference is between abundant dead capitol and what contributes to the "success" of these billionaires.

I also challenge you to answer the question of why we have economic crises at times with the most sharply distinguished inequality of income. It's a pretty simple answer, but I don't believe you understand it. With that said, don't take my word for it, read some opposing literature in economics and then criticize what I am saying.
Jan 29 2010 10:40PM
0 0
profile picture
MitchPee
Posts: 8871 - Karma: 1,510
Here's a fun fact: Ironically, what you just said in your fun fact contradicts what you said in your paragraph.

Some people in here have some pretty damn narrow thoughts. What does a business do? Employ labor. What does employing labor do? Give the owner (capitalist) a source of labor for his capital to buy. Therefore, he indeed is getting rich at the expense of others. Yes, this is a Marxist ideal and no I don't believe that it boils down to it this simply. I am just showing you another way to think, not that it is the right way.
Jan 29 2010 10:46PM
0 0
profile picture
sheeby
Posts: 94 - Karma: 19
actually, it's an individual making $125,000 or couples that make $250,000
Jan 29 2010 10:48PM
0 0
profile picture
idontactuallyski
Posts: 1320 - Karma: 19
i don't like you. skiminnesota, i like you.
Jan 29 2010 11:17PM
0 0
profile picture
NW_Rider
Posts: 2580 - Karma: 314
That would be F.A. Hayek, but I'm sure his views are irrelevant to anything. And I accept every mathematical tool that Keynes has have brought to economics, it is the way they are used that I sometimes do not agree with. And a definition of socialism from the Merriam-Webster dictionary

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So while yes, you are correct it is a stage towards communism, my original statement was also correct.
And of course there are ways to avoid taxes, everybody participating in the economy is a rational actor that will do what they can to benefit themselves as much as they can. That still doesn't negate the fact that most of our countries tax revenue comes from one side of the spectrum. Old money, I can see why some people will be jealous or upset by others getting the "silver spoon", but I know personally, that I will work and save all my life in order to give my children the best possible advantage I can. I don't care that my children may not have earned it personally, I'm earning it and saving and I should get to choose where it who gets it.
Jan 30 2010 12:24AM
0 0
profile picture
ESB
Posts: 9273 - Karma: 10,647
Interesting thread for an interesting measure. I'm no economist, but I hope that our elected officers have put together measures that will benefit the state. I also hope Oregonians have made the right decision to fund state services. As for arguing for or against it now, it seems like the right thing to do would be to wait a bit and see how it plays out.
Jan 30 2010 3:04AM
0 0
profile picture
MitchPee
Posts: 8871 - Karma: 1,510
I'm sorry you believe in homo economicus. Most have thought that theory to be out of date for some time now. If you actually think about it, human beings are not rational at all. We indulge in so many things that either bring regret or some sort of altruistic act that puts that theory to shame. Also look at discrimination. The Gary Becker model does not actualize the problem and will never be correct in terms of real life.

Sentence 2 from MW is actually wrong. There is private property in socialism since it is a collectivist failing that communism is to replace. I am pretty sure the theorizers of socialism have the say in what it means. If you look anywhere else for the definition you will see nothing about no private property.

The fact that one side pays a lot of taxes doesn't avoid the fact that we have some of the largest income disparity we have ever seen.

Wouldn't getting your kids a good education and teaching them good morals give them more of an advantage instead of handing them as much money as you can? It's funny that this new phenomenon of giving the kids the better life and the American dream stemmed from our capitalistic society. This is completely contradictory to what you said. This is not a rational act and actually moves against capitalism. It's a collectivist procedure, just located within the family. If you wanted to somehow justify it you could say the completely asinine idea that this gives the person benefit of giving.
Jan 30 2010 11:42AM
0 0
profile picture
NW_Rider
Posts: 2580 - Karma: 314
Well once again, the argument has moved to a normative debate. We obviously do not share aligning economic or political views. That is fine, but I am fairly certain that neither of us are going to budge on our respective opinions. And yes, many did think that Hayek was long gone, but a student of his Mr. Freidman brought that back and several nobel prizes awarded to University of Chicago professors since the mid 70's show that some people must still be agreeing with it. Sure it has changed a little, but the roots are in Smtih and Hayek. Regardless, we do not see eye to eye, so this debate isn't heading anywhere but to a point in which we have each said whatever we have to say and we move to simply calling each other names and starting some stupid e-fight. I am sure you know what you are talking about, there are many accepted and valid opinions out there, it is just different than mine. I am off to Utah for a week of bliss though, so I must retire from from this thread for the time being. Have a nice week.
Jan 30 2010 1:34PM
0 0
profile picture
NW_Rider
Posts: 2580 - Karma: 314
...and Carl Spackler is one of the greatest characters ever. Though we should agree on something.
Jan 30 2010 1:35PM
0 0
profile picture
Upgrayedd
Posts: 620 - Karma: 25
Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into a back and forth on the internet about economics, but I feel  compelled to say that this ultimately comes down to distribution of wealth - and I find it very hard to believe that the above posters can make a cogent arguement that we have an equitable distribution of wealth in the United States (or globally, for that matter).


Jan 30 2010 2:05PM
0 0
profile picture
ATLskier
Posts: 8203 - Karma: 406
So you dont think companies wouldnt want to go to other states, or that people that earn more will leave?

States that do not have income taxes and corporate taxes usually do very well and attract businesses and jobs because of that. One of the worst things to do in bad economies is to raise taxes. Even a temporary tax decrease will not help. If that happens then people just save money instead of spending. If you have permanent tax cuts, people will again start spending. If you lower corporate taxes, companies have the ability to hire more people, create new products, and invest. A tax hike may not seem to hurt high earners, but it prevents them from spending more and hurts the economy even more. Giving money to the government isnt good. People are much better with money than the goverment and make much smarter decisions.

Besides, in the past, lower tax rates have proven to increase revenue to the government, since giving the government so much money appeals to all you liberal people.
Jan 30 2010 2:05PM
0 0
profile picture
ATLskier
Posts: 8203 - Karma: 406
oh yeah, Im gonna go ahead and strike Oregon off my list of states that Im considering moving to.

Just so yall know, I didnt read this thread. I read that one post I quoted and am too hungover to read the rest.

Sorry for the blog.
Jan 30 2010 2:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Half-Blood
Posts: 1770 - Karma: 385
The US needs to move more toward a republic governed country again.. Give more power to the states.
Jan 30 2010 2:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Calvin.
Posts: 771 - Karma: 10
Uh, thanks for the personal attack. Anyway, do you realize how a free economy operates? People only purchase a product/service if they are benefiting from it. In other words, it is a completely voluntary action.
"Give the owner (capitalist) a source of labor for his capital to buy. "
I do not understand this sentence. Can you clarify it please?

Basically, my main point is that wealth is not limited. By becoming rich, people are not preventing others from doing the same.
Jan 30 2010 5:50PM
0 0
profile picture
omIV
Posts: 1950 - Karma: 306
alright alexander hamilton take a pill. there's a difference between theft and a bad tax code.  I agree that the current system disproportionately taxes america's leaders of business and industry, but its not like anybody is suffering hardship.
Jan 30 2010 7:37PM
0 0
profile picture
steveys
Posts: 268 - Karma: 10

LOOK!,  Someone said "Quoting NW_Rider from Jan 27 2010 2:19:37:
The federal government already pillages the upper class with taxes.
The top 1% amount for 40% of federal income tax
top 5% pays 60%"


Well DERRRR!  IF two people , one who makes a billion dollars a year and another $10,000, ie under the poverty line, and both pay the same tax rate, %10 (which would be regressive, and thus unfair to the lower income person; the billionaire would contribute $100,000 and the poor person $1000.

The total revenue raised would be 101,000.  The billionaire would pay %99 percent percent and the poor person %01.  What is my point?

1) it is a economic fact that the super rich paying the same rate as the poor is unfair and regressive

2) In the above scenario even tho the rich is paying too low a rate,  he is still paying %99 of the taxes collected

3) therefore it is total bullshit to try to argue that because the top %1 pays for %40 of the federal income tax the top are paying too high a rate.  Maybe you should take some philosophy classes, especially logic classe

Jan 31 2010 11:53AM
0 0
profile picture
steveys
Posts: 268 - Karma: 10

If everyone could figure out what %20 of $10,000 is and %20 of $1billion, they wouldnt be making stupid assed arguments like

1) the top X percent pay greater than X percent of taxes.

:. the top pays too much taxes.

That is just bullshit.  I showed that hypothetically, if both the wealthies and most poor person paid the same tax percentage (which is unfair to the poor person because it is regressive), the top person would pay over %99 of the taxes.

Jan 31 2010 12:02PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)