What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
230 Comments
- Petmc, on 06/20/2009, -3/+72I read the title as "Oregon Trail"
- biogears, on 06/20/2009, -6/+35Same thing as the feds solving overwhelming debt by taking on more debt.
If private businesses and individuals ran their finances like governments do they would be broke and/or in prison. - govsucks, on 06/20/2009, -32/+61In todays news the population of Oregon is now exactly the same as the number of people in the legislature plus the number of people on welfare. Liberal scientists are baffled by this strange development.
- ArcAnjel, on 06/20/2009, -6/+35Let me remind you Oregon has no sales tax. That is like having 5% more income and in some states more like 9% more. So an income tax that is 2% higher than yours state is why Oregon is still has among the LOWEST average personal taxes in the country (39th of 50, average of 5.92% of personal income). By the way, your bastion of conservatism, Alaska, is the highest (12.66% of personal income). This article is completely misleading.
- BillE3, on 06/20/2009, -8/+37The governator in Sacramento is doing the very same thing. As the state revenues plummet and businesses scurry to Nevada and Arizona the state legislature decides to raise taxes. This is right after we overwhelmingly voted down any tax increases on the June ballot. So much for representing the public or their collective opinion.
- timewarp424, on 06/20/2009, -6/+34Businesses operate on dynamics of profits. If they can justify paying a certain amount to reach a certain clientele which will drive up profit margins, they'll certainly do it. Which, explains your starbucks and McDonalds, everywhere. However, most small businesses or medium sized businesses who don't have a direct relation with a certain population (i.e. steel manufactors/distributors, paint makers, etc) or aren't in the service industry, take into account greatly the amount of taxes that a state demands. If it is possible to economically move to a state with lower taxes and not destroy profit margins, then a company will.
That's how businesses work.
Try telling me how you think businesses work. I bet you have no idea. - gemlarin, on 06/20/2009, -2/+27I am no Economist (let that be said before you flame me for my thoughts on this), but wouldn't slightly reducing the amount of state funded benefits during this time (Welfare, Health Programs) be less detrimental to the state economy and the greater good (the 90% who are not yet unemployed) than increasing the taxes to cover them, especially when people are already struggling to pay the taxes to begin with? I mean, if over 10% of your population is out of work, and therefore not paying any taxes, why is the additional burden placed on those who are already struggling, but just not unemployed yet. Wouldn't the increase of taxes, prevent people from using the money to purchase additional goods and therefore place an additional burden on the already struggling economy? Like I said, i am not an economist, but that is how I would see it. Am I wrong?
- snickysnack, on 06/20/2009, -4/+29This is bad news for small business owners like myself, who are already struggling in this crappy economy.
Also, because I'm incorporated, I have to pay around $500 a year to subsidize the TriMet system that I don't even use.
Oregon is an awesome state, but it's nickel and diming me to death. - geniusj, on 06/20/2009, -0/+22I think the public's collective opinion is a large part of what got our fine state into the crisis it's in. People tend to vote for every big spending project on the ballot with a sort of magical hope that the money will just appear, and shockingly it comes back to bite us later when we find out that we don't have unlimited cash.
- gotamd, on 06/20/2009, -4/+24This is sick. State budgets have exploded in recent years because of the bubble. Now the bubble is over and everyone is tightening their belts, yet government continues to grow itself. They claim that everything they do is absolutely necessary, but that doesn't explain how we did without all of this "absolutely necessary" stuff only a few years ago.
- jeffiek, on 06/20/2009, -2/+21You're wrong. You are an economist.
- specialbuddy1, on 06/20/2009, -2/+19I had a job in Oregon and Michigan at the same time this winter. Now I have nothing.
- wtbuser, on 06/20/2009, -0/+16But they're unemployed... so they don't have a significant personnel income... or any.
- WalkerTXclocker, on 06/20/2009, -4/+20Okay i think raising taxes is stupid but having a balanced budget should be in all state constitutions.
CUT SPENDING *****!!! - geoffg, on 06/20/2009, -12/+27So does that make you a big government tool?
- pak314, on 06/20/2009, -0/+15"The *governator* in Sacramento is doing the very same thing. As the state revenues plummet and businesses scurry to Nevada and Arizona the *state legislature* decides to raise taxes."
Actually the California governor wants to cut spending but the legislature wants to increase taxes. - falstaff, on 06/20/2009, -1/+15"Corporations will pay a 7.9% tax on gross receipts, up from 6.6%."
The article mentions this only in passing, but if this is accurate, this is actually an enormous burden to the state.
Federal business taxes target PROFIT, not gross revenue. Let's say I have a business that has a huge revenue, but small margins (due to high expenses, such as manufacturing firms):
$1 million in revenue - $900k expenses = $100k profit (10% margin, is healthy, but not outrageous).
Fed tax is about 30% on the $100k, or $30k. OR tax is 7.9% on the $1 million, or $79k!
High expense businesses are being squeezed in a major way. A 1.3% tax increase doesn't sound like much, but since it's on gross receipts instead of net, the company could have to raise prices significantly depending on the product.
Governments love to see business as a way to collect taxes totally hidden from the consumer, but when it costs jobs and eventually revenue, they need to be held accountable. - lyonsban, on 06/20/2009, -0/+14You're mostly right.
Businesses don't necessarily leave, they layoff workers, cut benefits and raise their prices to keep profit margins. Some businesses have no choice but to stay and are already highly efficient, so unable to lay off employees, rentals, stores, power generation etc, in which case they must raise prices or close. This raises the cost of living and usually unemployment, which of course impacts the poorer, uneducated and immobile more than the wealthy. It also indirectly raises the cost of labor when simply eating and having a place to live takes much of your pay check.
However, businesses will choose go where the cost of labor is lowest, all things being equal if they can. This ultimately lowers the tax revenues, feeding a cycle of tax shortages.
Some states such as New York, Massachusetts and California offset this by providing such things as stock exchanges, deep water ports or large numbers of college trained employees. These give the state a competitive advantage for some businesses. However, even in these cases there is a tipping point where businesses, one by one, will flee if and when they can. - Quisquis, on 06/20/2009, -0/+14"Many see the world as a zero sum game"
I've said the same thing many times, and it's worth repeating.
MONEY IS MADE NOT TRADED! People make money without driving other people into poverty.
For example, even though the rich have gotten much richer over the last 20 years, the poor have also gotten richer but just at a slower rate. This holds true even after you've adjusted for inflation.
Proof: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2126/2158081525_d62 ... - tgc1, on 06/20/2009, -0/+14"You have died of taxation"
- nana1701, on 06/20/2009, -1/+14I am currently unemployed in Oregon. I have been for 14 months now. I have seen so many businesses big and small go out of business lately and I am worried about my future. Luckily, I am going back to school for a little while in the hopes that when I get done, the economy will be on the upswing and I will be able to get a job that will help support me and my family. Apparently Oregon is trying to pass a bill that would create thousands of temporary jobs that would involve cleaning up parks and building trails and what not. They are going to use tax money to do that. Thats all fine and good- but what happens when the temporary jobs end? As it stands right now, I put out around 60 resumes per week and all for jobs that I am qualified for. But because so many people here are unemployed, the companies can have outrageous standards for simple jobs. The end result is that 50 resumes get submitted and only 2 people get called back. In the past 14 months that I have been unemployed, I have had around 6 call backs. What I am getting around to is that if they make the taxes higher, a lot more businesses are going to close and when the temporary jobs end it is going to make it that much harder to get a job. I am sure that they are going to use the temporary jobs as a platform for the higher taxes that way people who are really hard off are going to pass the bill. Even temp agencies around here are turning people away because there arent enough jobs. Higher taxes= less jobs for everyone.
- markf3388, on 06/20/2009, -2/+15I would say it is so much the governor as it is the legislatures fault. The california state congress does not work, they have refused basically all the cuts that Arnold has asked for. We have one of the most dysfunctional legislatures ever.
- govsucks, on 06/20/2009, -0/+13Once again, thanks GOVERNMENT!
Government is the start and end of all our problems. The man that is now in charge is supposed to be for the people and so far the only thing he has done is hand your kids future to the very same big businesses and unions that are causing our problems.
You Have Been HAD. - FearlessFreep, on 06/20/2009, -1/+13Come for you?
- MrSteamTank, on 06/20/2009, -0/+11Do you have any idea how income taxes work? You pay income taxes after your salary exceeds a certain amount.
In Canada, for example, you have to make 10,320 dollars before you get anything whatsoever. If you have dependants this amount increases even further. Then your tax rate is very low until you start making around 40k+.
How the hell do you drive unemployed out of the state if they don't pay barely any taxes to begin with. - gemlarin, on 06/20/2009, -0/+11I wanted to add this, but ran out of time. It is well known that many people on welfare are able to work, but often don't. I mean if you are ill and seriously cannot work, that is what SSI/SSD if for. And I know if you are on welfare, you have to in most cases show that you are looking for employment. So what ever happened to workfare? Hell, one of the large costs of running a state are maintenance and repair costs. So, if you are giving away free money, why not take those that are "looking for jobs so they can get off welfare" and get them fixing potholes, cleaning city buses, or any number of other vital areas that cost money where funds are greatly lacking? You would take care of two money sinks, and provide people a valuable skill, the motivation to work for your money.
- beccabob, on 06/20/2009, -1/+12That would never fly with AFSCME. How could a union worker clean the bus if someone was doing it effectively for free. Even though this would be a great practical idea and save the state money, you would then be putting out of work the union employees who currently do the job, and in most Democratic states, going against the unions is something akin to blasphemy.
- snapcase, on 06/20/2009, -3/+14High business taxes has indeed driven many businesses out of Michigan. Places are closing left and right and the taxes are a big part of that. The big problem isn't huge companies that have been well established for decades like McDonalds and Starbucks. It's small businesses that are really getting ***** over here.
- inactive, on 06/20/2009, -12/+22Taxation is theft.
- TroyPDX, on 06/20/2009, -1/+11Well said. In the good times revenues naturally increase and government grows. In bad times taxes are raised and government grows. It's like a cancer.
- scamper22, on 06/20/2009, -2/+12Talk about totally wrong logic.
Let me correct it for you.
Raise taxes and drive the EMPLOYED people out of the state, there by raising the unemployment rate.
You drive away factory workers, engineers ... They gradually move to another state.
The unemployed stay in your state as chances are it is a big government with lots of benefits to not do anything productive - thcobbs, on 06/20/2009, -0/+10If you raise the taxes, you drive the businesses and employed people out of the state because it becomes cheaper for them to live and work elsewhere. The unemployed are the LEAST likely to move as they don't have the financial capability to do so.
- woofers07, on 06/20/2009, -2/+12Sorry but I'm not paying sales tax on top of our ridiculous property tax. I wouldn't mind one or the other, not both.
- enthreeoh, on 06/20/2009, -0/+10I just came here to post that :/
- getoffmybridge, on 06/20/2009, -0/+10attempt to ford the river
- Hillsfar, on 06/20/2009, -0/+10@strangewill you are wrong about Prop 13. California property tax revenue is in line with other states.
Prop 13 essentially helps keep neighborhoods stable by keeping property taxes INCREASES low for people who bought their homes years ago - mostly retirees on fixed incomes and the middle-aged "sandwich generation" who are often raising kids at their most expensive years (teens) while helping support their ailing parents. But since taxes start high anyway, and since millions have bought homes in the last 5 to 10 years, the TOTAL REVENUE is still high and therefore in line with other states.
Where I do see a problem is that Prop 13 applies to commercial property as well. But then again, do we really want to be taxing businesses more, or having landlords passing on the property tax increases directly onto renters of apartment buildings and offices and retail space?
That has to be carefully studied, because the Prop 13 advantage is offset by the the costs of higher business taxes and stricter California regulations. - PhoebusApollo, on 06/20/2009, -0/+10Was it as a liquidator?
- foofightrs777, on 06/20/2009, -0/+9Eat the Irish children?
- ArcAnjel, on 06/20/2009, -4/+13And here is another great article that shows how wrong all of you conservitives are about Oregon business taxes.
http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=issue ... - edwartica, on 06/20/2009, -3/+12Hi, I live in Oregon and have to say the WSJ got their facts wrong. Yes, there is a tax hike, but it does not include small business first of all. It does include businesses with a certain profit margin, but there are so many loopholes that if you can't find one, you probably aren't smart enough to be running a business anyways! I am not an accountant, but I think one of the loopholes is actually if you use a certain percentage of profit for hiring new workers.
Secondly, the tax hike is not for all residents. It is for single filers who make more than 125K a year, or joint filers who make over 250k a year. And again, there are many a loophole. - pak314, on 06/20/2009, -0/+9I think the federal gov't also wants their 99.9% on top of the state tax.
- cornfeed, on 06/20/2009, -1/+9Yep, business tend to pass the cost of taxes on to their consumers. Government can than claim to not have raised your taxes. Just those "evil" businesses. And most are clueless as to why the price of goods goes up.
- WolvesOTheNight, on 06/20/2009, -3/+11Actually, recent events contradict your 2nd statement. Sure, small time businesses & business managers that do a poor accounting job end up broke. But the managers that run giant businesses into the ground normally seem to make a getaway, often with hundreds of millions. And the giant businesses themselves sometimes manage to get the government to not only pay for all their mistakes, but give many millions more to those whom cause the problem in the first place.
- Quisquis, on 06/20/2009, -0/+8logic fail. Taxes go up to support the larger amount of people who are unemployed and on welfare.
- roho76, on 06/20/2009, -4/+12Nope.
- Maddoktor2, on 06/20/2009, -1/+8"stop giving 20% of our tax revenue to other states"
This is something I hadn't heard before.
Please explain? Details would be appreciated. - darkened, on 06/20/2009, -0/+7IT IS CANCER.
- Quisquis, on 06/20/2009, -1/+8Who exactly is trying to clean up the mess?
When Obama was pushing for his spending plan, he said that if it didn't pass unemployment would reach 9% nationally. Now he's saying it'll probably be 10% by the end of the year.
Sounds like lies(oops, I meant to say business) as usual to me for both parties. - Kinneas12, on 06/20/2009, -0/+7Yeah. Wall Street Journal just gave me the urge to play an Apple II game.
- joe122370, on 06/20/2009, -1/+8that is the lamest argument ever. Govt was never meant to run 80% of the things its got it's mitts in now. The founding fathers would spit on all of us for trashing the country with this govt cancer
-
Show 51 - 100 of 235 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 