Well, that's good news.

Maybe people are finally waking up to the reality that the constant anti-tax mantra has not worked out so well for them, that taxes make a civilized society possible.

So Oregonians know that big corporations are getting off the hook while we little people pay the taxes. And corporations know the $10 corporate minimum paid by 2/3rds of the corporations doing business in Oregon is indefensible. So prepare for a campaign of lies and distortion from the big money lobbyists behind the referral.

Remember, Mark Nelson is the guy who last convinced Oregonians to stand up for tobacco companies and against the interests of healthy kids. This is gonna be a tough campaign with well-funded opposition.

The good news (thanks to OCPP) is that the good guys start out ahead, and as long as we keep telling Oregonians the facts (thanks again to OCPP) to expose the lies as they are told, this is a fight we can win.

It's the most important fight we can have if we are ever going to do more than talk about funding our schools, so don't wait for the TV commercials to begin to talk to your friends and family about who really pays the taxes in Oregon.

Thanks, Chuck. Keep up the good work. Facts matter more than ever.

Chuck, I recently ran into the signature gatherers on the MAX and they were quoting some "study" suggesting that 79,000 jobs will be lost. Do you know what they are talking about? Could you talk a bit about that. I'm familiar with the new taxes, but I'd like a bit more info to counter these claims. Thanks.

Chuck

Do you have the questions that were asked in the poll and if so, please post them here.

Chuck

Ignore above, I missed the link in the post

What a profound question, Do you want to raise taxes on yourself or just other people. Pure genius

mp97303 beat me to it but-

Not exactly front-page news that a majority would favor raising personal income taxes on a small minority rather than a lesser broad-based tax increase - or that the same majority opposes any spending cuts as long as they believe they personally won't be asked to contribute more or otherwise be impacted in some way.

Guess we'll see...

Dan, regarding the 79000 lost jobs: The Republicans just make that stuff up and attribute it to an 'economist', or the "economist" makes that stuff up and attributes it to the Republican Party. I cna't figure out exactly how that works.

From the OR Republican Party Website.

Economists have estimated these permanent tax increases will cost 79,000 Oregonians their jobs and the only jobs higher taxes would save are public employee jobs.

Thanks Chuck, at only 500 likely voters polled there is a stated margin of error +/- 4.4%. It is interesting that while there is general agreement that the loss of an additional $750MM in state revenue is unwanted, the majority of those responding wanted someone else to pay for it, eschewing the alternative temporary 1.3% surcharge for all.

Human nature never changes. When faced with the status quo or increased services paid for by the anonymous "someone else"; most sheeple will place the burden of support elswhere.

Nice touch of misanthropy, K. C. May I remind you of the huge shifting of the tax levy away from the upper crust in the last Administration?

Ed, you bias is showing. There was absolutely $0.00 in tax levy dollars at the state level shifted away from the upper crust in the last Administration. But hey, nice try at mucking up the picture.

K. C. misanthrope, all Oregonians are U. S. citizens.

Where do you think the tax liability shifted when the feds quit collecting from W's rich firends?

Yes Ed, thanks for the attempt at a civics lesson. We are talking about OREGON Income Taxes here.

Oh, and memo - not all Oregonians are US citizens, just like all Californians, Washingtonians, Virginians, Pennsylvanians, etc, etc, etc.

But you keep showing us the wonderful merits of a public education K?

K. C. that was a predictable response, but you wouldn't consider them "real" Oregonians, anyway.

Look, there was a concerted, purposeful effort to recuse the rich from federal taxes, slash federal benefit programs, and push the liabilities for taking care of the needs of people left behind onto the states. You can maintain your disconnect from reality but it still hits the rest of us where it hurts. You being are dishonest.

Nope Ed, you're the dishonest one. If you knew anything about how the federal and Oregon tax codes work together you would realize that a reduction in federal income tax payment results in increase Oregon personal income taxes being owed. That is because there is not a 100% write-off the former and the latter.

But you just keep showing off that wonderful eeducation you got there Ed. Maybe you should click those old Ruby slippers together three times and chant, "There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home..." So it goes.

Nice Snidely Whiplash impression! Keep your highly educated head in the sand, dude!

Dear Just As.....

After reading all the people on another post taking Carla apart because she reported some of the petitioners did not have unblemished records, I went to read the Jeff Mapes blog.

And right there at the top was this http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2009/08/tax_fight_costs_nelson_a_lobby.html

It seems one of Nelson's clients opposes the referendum.

This makes a point some of us have been talking about for awhile.

Just because a group has devoted followers and money to put into paid petitioners, that does not buy agreement from all Oregonians.

Strange as it may seem, the anti-taxers could run ads every hour on the hour with some slogan like TAX INCREASES KILL JOBS, but there would still be those who say something like, "OH, grow up and do something productive with your time instead of yelling at us because we do our own thinking",

or what Jim said above,

"Maybe people are finally waking up to the reality that the constant anti-tax mantra has not worked out so well for them, that taxes make a civilized society possible."

More BO dishonesty -- rolling back the $2 billion in tax increases wouldn't cut anything in state government, because the state is sitting on $4.9 billion in unused cash.

Chuck gets the answers he wants because the pollsters lie to the public, just as BO does on this topic.

We'll see how the public votes when the truth comes out. If Chuck's position were so strong his allies wouldn't be so worried.

"More BO dishonesty -- rolling back the $2 billion in tax increases wouldn't cut anything in state government, because the state is sitting on $4.9 billion in unused cash."

Please be specific--is this about the "all funds budget", or federal stimulus money, or bonded indebtedness, or is it "mystery money" like the days of Measure 28---money which turned out not to exist and there were cuts after all?

Chuck, the "likely voter" question was done right (once worked with a campaign manager who refused to believe any poll where the "likely voter" question was later than the 3rd question), BUT.....

"There will be a vote by mail election..."? Although the political and journalistic class treat that as a certainty, it will only happen if the petitioners turn in something over 55,100 VALID signatures. If the valid signature number is, say, 56,000, there will be a special election in January. But if, for instance, the valid signature number is 54,999, that measure will not qualify.

I wonder if anyone answered the first question with "yes, I would vote, but has the measure qualified for the ballot yet? When did they turn in the signatures?".

Historian, Alexander Tyler, said "A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury."

May I remind you of the huge shifting of the tax levy away from the upper crust in the last Administration?

Ed Bickford ... Can you please show specifically where in the Oregon tax code that there was a shift in Oregon income taxes away from the "upper crust" during the last administration? Oregon has no capital gains exclusion/deduction, nor is there any special tax treatment for interest, dividends, or other forms of passive income (with some very minor exceptions that haven't changed for years). We're not talking about cutting federal taxes here, just Oregon taxes. We have a relatively flat (9% marginal rate for most people) proportional tax, with little distinction between sources of income. "The rich" probably take somewhat more advantage of the pro-environmental tax credits. I guess we could enhance "tax fairness" by doing away with most of those.

Kitzhaber or Kulongoski didn't do much to enhance the tax position of "the rich" in Oregon (which, incidentally, we define as including single people with gross incomes of slightly over $100K a year).

Also, the 62% positive figure isn't as strong as it sounds. This is really a vote on whether of not to increase taxes. Tax increase measures usually start off with strong majorities. These tend to come down once the heavy negative advertising starts. The question is whether or not that number will drop by 12+% between now and January. It certainly isn't going to grow.

Had this discussion above... never said specifically OR taxes income taxes shifted. Yawn!