I'm voting no on both measures because I don't see any reason to send more money to Salem. There is no reason for the budget to be increasing when revenue is dropping. They should be able to figure that out and not have to ask for more taxes at this time.

Furthermore, I don't approve of the specific targeting that these measures engage in for the tax revenue. There really is no reason to go after rich people for additional taxes when they already pay the vast majority of the income taxes. To call it "fair" is a huge lie and I won't support that sort of cynical misinformation. The people behind these measures who keep taking about fairness are liars and should not be encouraged.

Andy is not only supporting cynical misinformation, but promulgating it. If ignorance is bliss, they must indeed be very pleased with themself!

The pro-propaganda is just as misleading. Everywhere I look, including here at BO, I see "you'll pay $15 a month more so stop complaining."

No one mentions that 66 removes the deductions of federal taxes from adjusted gross income, so now I'll pay 10.8% to Oregon for money I never received but instead paid to the feds. Thats a 10% increase not 1.8% and its from money I don't have in addition to the 1.8% for the rest it. Throw in a bunch of new corporate fees that total far more than $150.

But the real kicker, and absolutely a question of fairness, is that 2009 is over. The money has been spent and I barely held onto my house this year. I may not have a good year in 2010 (e.g. make any money) So where do I find the money to retroactively pay for last years tax increase?

Here's how I'm supposed to pay for extra taxes and also why I'm voting no on 66:

"Hardin of the Department of Revenue said these taxpayers [who owe more now] can pay the difference by April 15 in a lump sum or by credit card, or through monthly payment plans arranged through her agency. "

I can charge it to my VISA?!

I should mention, I'd probably have voted for 66 if it didn't have the retroactivity in it. Then I could have at least planned for it.

Welcome to the recession, killfile! None of us planned for this.

How come no one is talking about the top bracket NOT being indexed to inflation? over time, more and more people will be moved into the highest bracket, even if they make the same amount of money in inflation-adjusted terms.

I was set to vote YES on M-66 until I noticed this item. Now I am conflicted. for some reason, no one is talking about this much. Granted, its not an immediate concern in the next few years. But since this is a permanent tax increase, this deserves more attention.

A competent tax professional would have told you to start setting aside funds for these taxes months ago -- if the measures fail, you'd have a windfall; if they pass, you've done some good financial planning.

OMG. I love it. Sorry, my chauffeur/caddie must have neglected to take me to my "competent tax professional" last year. Seriously, who can afford a financial planner? Do you think everyone has one?

And for the record, my income isn't distributed throughout the year like a salaried employee. Virtually all of my 2009 income was prior to July when HB 2649 was signed into law.

So it may be "utter bullshit" to you, but it's pretty real to me.

I'm still waiting for Dave Lister to publicly announce that his Oregonian op-ed relied upon this falacious view of the facts related to supposed salary increases for state workers.

Why not discuss all the underhandedness the pros have pulled from their bag of dirty tricks. Attempting to change the meaning for YES to NO and NO to Yes on the ballot, placing misleading information that supports the measures under the NO arguments in the voters pamphlet, suggesting that these measures won’t cost working class families a penny more as if the grocery stores, banks and other businesses that will be hard hit with new taxes won’t pass them through to consumers… And then there is the issue of jobs. That simply comes down too a YES vote means more taxpayer funded jobs and an increase in the size of government while a NO vote means less loss of and protecting private sector jobs. Anybody with a brain can see what is happening here. Those on the pro YES side are self-serving while those on the NO side against the measures want to get the economy back in shape and moving again.

Kari commented: The only reason they appear to be "retroactive" is that opponents collected enough signatures to force 'em onto the ballot.

For the record, HB2649 (Measure 66) and HB3405 (Measure 67) were both passed ~June 11, 2009 and signed by Kulongoski on July 20, 2009 with effective dates of September 28, 2009.

Thus, with due respect, the tax increases don't 'appear' to be retroactive - they ARE retroactive to January 1, 2009 and are universally referred to as such by competent (and even incompetent) financial planners and tax professionals everywhere... and the tax increases were called 'retroactive' even BEFORE they were put on the upcoming ballot.

Killifire - You already spent over $250,000 in one year (or $125,000 as an individual)? You have no sympathy from me about the extra few hundred dollars you might have to pay. None. Zip. Zero.

Cash flow problem? You clearly have enough assets to take out a very small loan using some of your assets as collateral, or you burn money.

I have three housemates to make my bills. I have a 20 year old car. I eat out about once a month for $25 or less. So take your $250,000 whining about fairness somewhere else. Or, if you feel so put upon, tell us your whole story.

Yes the House was going to try to make no mean yes and vice versa. Both sides are not telling the truth, so we must determine the vote on the facts. Fact 1 The budget grew when the economy is failing. Fact 2 The Legislature chooses what to fund and they did not pick education to be at the top of the list. They did this as a tactic similar to the original stupid idea of making no mean yes. Fact 3 The people who are going to be taxed, still mostly made less last year but have the same bills as the year before and this tax is retroactive meaning many people did not know until it was too late that they may have to pay this tax. fair is fair vote no. This is really a terrible thing to do to people no matter how much money they make.

Kari commented: Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. This is how it always works in Oregon. In the spring of the odd-numbered year, we have a legislative session that sets the tax rates and creates the budget for the following biennium.

I was specifically addressing your incorrect assertion(s) that the taxes are not retroactive - not attempting to excuse killfile's apparent surprise.

If 'this is how it always works in Oregon', then there's even less justification for any sort of confusion or debate about the tax increases being retroactive.

Carla commented: Seriously, you're smarter than this. The budget for 2009 (including spending amounts and revenue) are done for the BIENNIUM: 2009-2011. It's not retroactive. It's the regular 2 year budget cycle.

If you don't like that 2 year cycle, then work to have annual sessions. But claming "retroactive" is just patently wrong.

Okay, Carla... you and Kari are right - and the Oregon Department of Revenue, Perkins Accounting, H&R Block, Deloitte & Touche, The Oregonian, Dethloff & Associates (my CPA), etc etc are all wrong (at least here in the non-objective confines of Blue Oregon)

Have fun!

I can't believe you people think that taxing GROSS revenue is ok. Should the state be able to tax you before IRA contributions or any deductions. Wouldn't that negate what a deduction is. If you have a 5 million dollar a year gross revenue but you spent 4.99 million to achieve that why should you pay based on 5 million. Did your business not just spend 4.99 million and inject that into the economy.

The state can reduce spending and make budget cuts just like a business can. They can also layoff employees to save money. They don't have to increase their employees by 9,000 new positions. They don't have to increase the budget by %9.0. There are ways to get this done. They can call an emergency session when they think they need more money, but when they are over extended they can do the same?

The problem with this is that the state will eventually run out of other peoples' money to spend. Leaving no successful business in Oregon. Result in zero new jobs for the economy and zero taxable income. You people that want this to pass can't truly be than ignorant, can you?

Do your homework before you start spouting outrageous, inflated numbers! The state workforce increased 1,500 positions - most in education and human services - a couple of areas where the need for services increased. Check the LFO (legislative fiscal office) for the data on the increase in state employees. And BTW - it is substantially less than the ORS calls for. For gosh sakes, you don't influence people when you do voodoo math. Of course, consider the topic of this article... And the effective date of these are going by a calendar year. That is normal. That is the calendar most of us go by. Do you know what a clusterf**k it is when Congress changes the tax laws midstream so you have to figure out how you compute something differently for part of the year? You scream about gov't inefficiency and then you want the gov't to figure out how to administer something that is effective midstream.

Ms Chan commented: And the effective date of these are going by a calendar year.

The effective date of these laws was 28 September 2009, retroactive to 01 January 2009. Fine. I've never argued the logic - just the contention that the tax increases are not retroactive. It's just a simple matter of interpreting the correct meaning of words in the English language. If people here want to avoid admitting the tax increases are 'retroactive' for fear it puts the increases in a bad light, okay - just understand that doesn't change that the tax increases will still be correctly termed to be 'retroactive' in the real world.

Gee. Everybody whines about the loss of jobs in the private sector if M66 and M67 pass.

Ever considered the impact on the economy from the loss of jobs in the public sector, if they fail?

Um--public sector employees pay taxes too. Lose that income to the state, and you're getting another big whammy on the budget.

But hark! Of course, the magical hand of the free market will save us, right--NOT.

(Unless you're in the handful of folks in the top bracket)

My numbers came from Oregon Farm Bureau.

Public employees do pay taxes. But not with newly generated money. Their wages come from tax income. Then they pay taxes out of their wages. Pretty simply really, they take a wage (being issued from tax money) and they pay income tax on that, more like they just take less income. In reality they don't actually "pay" a tax, they just give back what the state already gave them. It would cost less for public employeses to just pay Fed tax and by pass state. Less paper work the state treasury would have to deal with . Those jobs in the private sector pay for those human services and schools. You want failure? Try supporting all of the states services on their own revenue. That won't happen.

When a business is over taxed or they have reduced income guess what they cut. Charitable contributions. You want to see how that effects some of these organizations and schools? Don't you ever see "Evil Corporate" sponsors at school sporting events. Les Schwab ring a bell for anyone? That is free market working for you. Evil isn't it.

This tax only becomes fair when it's not your donkey on the line. If it was your money/business you would feel different.

Typical sky is falling routine, we will lose police, fire,and school if this doesn't pass. When will the "human services" actually start to work? Never..... they only make it easier for people to not be responsible for their own actions. Believe me, it will create a loss of jobs. I will lay off at least 20% of our employees if this passes.

Good thing this is a fair tax. What you people need to promote is an equal tax, a flat tax, same across the income spectrum. Ok now go ahead and start you ranting.

By the way, the public sector is the only industry that has grown during the recession.

While it is true that you have used public resources to create 5 million in gross revenue, isn't true your employees and others you have done business with have paid tax. I know they do. Withholdings on payroll anyone? You people need to get your mind out of the public sector and get into the real world. Why do you think Gerber left Oregon. Freightliner? Who else? Who's next? Oregon is very business unfriendly. Public sector jobs cannot create an economy of wealth to continue for our children's future. That is assuming you have children to be concerned with.

You know that if the state treasury does not have enough income you can make a personal contribution. The liberal child rearing theory is it take a village to raise a child. It also take a village to raise an idiot. Teach them to provide for themselves and not rely on everyone else to provide for them. (Government)

"That’s false. State employees are actually taking a pay cut."

Puh-leeze. State employees are not taking a pay cut or benefit cut. They are being told to plan on 10 days off. They can easily use vacation time to cover for this. Now when a private employer (like Intel) says we need to cut salaries 10%, that is a pay cut.

Do you really think the pub employees union would do a give back?

"the taxes will help pay for $259 million to “fund state employee salary increases.”

You remember in 2007 when Ted said there was a 20% bump in education spending? Then about 9 months later he had to admit most of it went for benefits.

A more accurate statement might be that any increase in taxes will be used to fund benefits for employees with no increase in customer service to taxpayers.

Steve,

I believe the furlough days are unpaid, and cannot be used as vacation days. Do you have anything that shows otherwise?

"I believe the furlough days are unpaid, and cannot be used as vacation days."

In just about 100% of the private businesses that have had to have furloughs, they allow the employee to take vacation time in its place.

Not exactly a big sacrifice and it still doesn't address a lot of long term issues which is my main point.

No. you are wrong. When there is vacation time available yes that is right. No vacation time its called a layoff or termination. Some employees choose to use their vacation time instead of unemployment. Others choose to draw unemployment.

Steve--those furlough days are unpaid days. Can't be taken as vacation days, and the employees have to pay back the cost of their health benefits for those days as well--at least, that's the case for teachers.

It wouldn't be a cost saving if those days were simply paid vacation days.

I was referring to the statement....

"In just about100% of the private businesses that had to have furloughs, they allow the employee to take vacation time in its place."

Thats not a furlough, thats paid vacation in place of unemployment. How many teachers use a day or two per month that would be considered a personal day anyway. You are not required to take all 14 day in a row. Most teachers already do that, this just gives them one more thing to whine about.

By the way my wife is a teacher, a registered Republican teacher no less.

Oh the Blasphemy!!!!!

"How many teachers use a day or two per month that would be considered a personal day anyway."

YOu ever see the UPS guy? They will work until their route is done. A lot of small business can't afford extra workers and they have to put in plenty of extra work.

In this economy, thinking teachers are the only ones sacrificing is pretty parochial.

I think you are missing my point steve. They are already doing it. Now they just have an official "you have to do it". They need to quite whining and suck it up and acknowledge they are lucky to even have a job.

My point is I don't feel sorry for them at all. It is the least they could do in this economy, more so for the average state worker. Like the person in charge of making sure there is a person in charge of supervising someone to make coffee and copies for someone else in charge of the copy making department.

Furloughs are unpaid. There is no option to use accrued leave. There is no option to work extra. There is no option to take work home. They are threatened with termination if they even check their voice mails on a furlough day and the weekend following.

Much of the work state employees do is mandated by law. It has to be done in a specific time frame. With less time and/or less workers, some services will have to wait.

72IH - if you know of fraud, waste or abuse of state funds, I believe there is a hot line you can call to report it. I recommend you report it -- if you do, in fact, know of any specifics. I guarantee it will be addressed...

72lH--

Yeah. Right. Your wife's a teacher. Yeah. I really, really believe that when you make this following statement:

How many teachers use a day or two per month that would be considered a personal day anyway. You are not required to take all 14 day in a row. Most teachers already do that, this just gives them one more thing to whine about.

By the way my wife is a teacher, a registered Republican teacher no less

I'd like to know just where those mythical paid personal leave days are coming from. In my experience, as a teacher in one of the Portland metro-area districts which actually HAS paid personal leave days (and significantly less than the 14 or so days you're implying), dang few teachers routinely take 1-2 days off per month unless they have family circumstances or illnesses.

Dang. Obviously I'm working in the wrong district since I have less than a week's worth of personal days available, and once they're gone, if I have a medical appointment or some such thing, I take it off without pay (and district policy clearly states that sick leave is not to be used for anything other than personal illness). Somewhere I need to go on a quest for this mythical school district that has enough paid personal leave days that I can take one to two days off a month. Wow! Who'd have thunk it?

Of course, you were significantly vague about whether she was a private or public school teacher, much less K-12.

Unpaid personal days you dumb jack ass.

I also find it interesting that the most vocal supporters of increase taxes are those who work for a public entity. Almost self serving you might say.

Ditto those that are most verbal against the measures. Those that benefit tremendously from all aspects of public services - education and public safety to name two - but aren't willing to pay their fair share...

72IH, you're at a pep rally trying to convince the other team that yours is superior. It's trash talk until game time. Which "yes" will lose. "No" can handle bad karma. It's them. Bad karma will lose "yes" the contest.

72IH, I'm confused.

It seems like at first you were claiming that teachers get 14 paid personal days off. Then you changed it to say that they get 14 unpaid personal days off.

So, if they're unpaid, what's the big deal?

Are you just throwing a handful of darts at the wall, hoping that some of them stick, without caring whether you hit the target? Just a tip: When throwing darts, it's always good to check to make sure that nobody is standing in front of you.

No where did I ever claim that they were paid days they were taking. State employees have been whining about furlough day since their inception. So what is the big deal with time off and no pay? It happens in the private sector all the time. If you want the economy to work lower taxes. What companies employ the most people? Would you consider them rich? I guess if there were no rich there would be no large companies. If there were no rich there would be no one to work for. I am by no means rich, however I feel no reason to make them pay more than their "fair share" How is it that some of my tax money goes to support MAX for the metro area? I don't even live close to portland and I have never even used it. Is that me paying my "fair share" for the rest of the state? You people have no idea how the real world operates. You have been sheltered from reality for too long and you refuse to connect common sense with how the economy actually operates. The government is not the sole base for a booming economy, private business and free enterprise is. The government was not established to provide services to those who wanted them. Read up on it before you claim we may have to do with out a public program.

As for as a pep rally at the wrong team. Youre right. I just hope that some day you may actually say " I guess he wasn't as crazy as we thought." Just won't be till after the economy fails and Oregon is in bankruptcy.

No where did I ever claim that they were paid days they were taking.

No. you are wrong. When there is vacation time available yes that is right. No vacation time its called a layoff or termination. Some employees choose to use their vacation time instead of unemployment. Others choose to draw unemployment.

It seems to me that here you are saying that they can use vacation time for their time off.

If you have a furlough day you can't draw unemployment for that day. In fact, you don't draw unemployment after a second week of unemployment or underemployment (and the underemployment has to be far less work than missing one day. You'd probably have to miss at least two days, and more likely three, two weeks in a row to be eligible for unemployment.)

So what is the big deal with time off and no pay? It happens in the private sector all the time.

When your campaign is making claims that public employees are making more money, when in fact their taking a pay cut when you consider the unpaid days off, it matters. It means the campaign is lying.

If you want the economy to work lower taxes.

If that's the case why did the U.S. economy fall apart after Reagan signed the bill to cut taxes in August, 1981? Unemployment started going up that month, and stayed at a higher lever for two years.

72: Nurses, contractors, seniors, church groups "all work for public entities" and that is why they are on a Yes on 66 & 67 mailer?

I suppose PTA and Stand For Children, because they support public education are "self serving" under your definition because how dare anyone care more about kids than about businesses?

Where do you get your information?

As for as a pep rally at the wrong team. Youre right. I just hope that some day you may actually say " I guess he wasn't as crazy as we thought." Just won't be till after the economy fails and Oregon is in bankruptcy.

You think?

This is what t.a. had to say about Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inaugural. Haven't heard any "he wasn't crazy" from his ilk, even though we laid out what he would and wouldn't do in the first year, and were spot on!

i think this was a mistake by Obama's team, but i also think by the time he finishes his inaugural address, no one will remember much of anything else. let's not forget how massive his election is. when Barack Obama becomes President Barack Obama -- the world changes.

we were clueless 2 years ago what an Obama candidacy would mean. imagine how clueless we are about the actual presidency.

Yeah. "Clueless" is definitely the word we're looking for.

I still remember. Bet you still remember. Certifies us as "no one".

<hr/>