Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[Little-Acorn]

I don't have no problem with anyone talking about it.

We can debate this topic along with a great many others.

Thank you for revoking your orders to us, to "move on".



Back to the subject:
sihouette still seems unable to answer the question, though it is quite central to the issue of "taxing the rich" when the rich are already paying a hugely disproportionate share of the taxes.

Once again: Are the problems you listed, sufficient to justify taking away people's property rights?

 

[ktucan1]

Thank you for revoking your orders to us, to "move on".



Back to the subject:
sihouette still seems unable to answer the question, though it is quite central to the issue of "taxing the rich" when the rich are already paying a hugely disproportionate share of the taxes.

Once again: Are the problems you listed, sufficient to justify taking away people's property rights?

If you don't mind I would like to take a crack at this one. If the people of Oregon did allow for the taking of private property then would they be breaking the law according to the constitution? Here is a link that can answer that question. It's from wikipedia so its not the best.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

 

[Little-Acorn]

If you don't mind I would like to take a crack at this one. If the people of Oregon did allow for the taking of private property then would they be breaking the law according to the constitution? Here is a link that can answer that question. It's from wikipedia so its not the best.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

That was a court case, one which I (and four of the nine justices) disagree with, no surprise. I think the majority opinion flatly violates the Constitution.

But my question was, do you think that the reasons sihouette listed (medical problems, difficulty of work etc.) justify taking away people's property rights? Not whether some groups of leftists on a court felt that way.

Once again: Are the problems sihouette listed, sufficient to justify taking away people's property rights?

 

[GenSeneca]

You may not like what happened in Oregon but is it effecting you per say where you live?

Yes, it certainly can. States like California and Michigan have dug themselves into fiscal holes, the taxes they raise to get them out of the hole have driven wealthy people and businesses out of those states, reducing the states tax revenues further and have made the hole bigger. Those states are now looking to the federal government for bailouts.

Just as you should not be held financially responsible for your neighbors inability to balance his budget, financially sound states should not be financially responsible for covering the debts of other states.

So if Oregonians are gullible enough to follow the lead of Michigan in trying to tax and spend themselves into prosperity, then they alone should shoulder the burden of their states decisions and not pass on the burden to other states.

As long as the other states aren't forced to foot the bill for reconstructive surgery, then I have absolutely no problem with Oregon cutting of their nose to spite their face. If we have to bail out another state with our tax dollars, that is taxation without representation - we didn't get to vote in Oregon but we will be forced to bear the financial burden created by those who did.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Yes, it certainly can. States like California and Michigan have dug themselves into fiscal holes, the taxes they raise to get them out of the hole have driven wealthy people and businesses out of those states, reducing the states tax revenues further and have made the hole bigger. Those states are now looking to the federal government for bailouts.

Just as you should not be held financially responsible for your neighbors inability to balance his budget, financially sound states should not be financially responsible for covering the debts of other states.

So if Oregonians are gullible enough to follow the lead of Michigan in trying to tax and spend themselves into prosperity, then they alone should shoulder the burden of their states decisions and not pass on the burden to other states.

As long as the other states aren't forced to foot the bill for reconstructive surgery, then I have absolutely no problem with Oregon cutting of their nose to spite their face. If we have to bail out another state with our tax dollars, that is taxation without representation - we didn't get to vote in Oregon but we will be forced to bear the financial burden created by those who did.

While I can't speak about California specifically but this would apply there as well: it would appear that during G.W.B.'s term in office {all 8 years} that he signed an agreement to accept Somalian refugees to the tune of 13,000 per quarter and of those refugees the great State of Michigan was to have to house/find jobs for their quota of 8,000 X 4 = 32,000.

How do I know this {glad you asked} due to our area meat packing plant and subsidies that corporations received for guaranteeing their quota of Somalians jobs the government would kick in $5.00 for each Somalian hired and the company paid the balance of $4.50 = $9.50 starting wage to work at a Tyson Meat/Slaughter plant...many unforeseen problems occurred {but that's another story}...the plant soon changed from a slaughter plant to just handling special cut meat and that entailed everyone getting laid off and then they hired some back...none of the Somalian were hired back {some of the problems that are to lengthy to go into detail}...so what does a small community with a population of 25,000 {of that 63% is Mexican/American of that 23% illegal} and now we have 150 families of Somalians unemployed with little or not job skills/very little English and serious social problems...it was a disaster.

Play that out in the great State of Michigan and it is ten fold for that state to handle and the state resources get drained really quickly. Let alone the auto industry that was struggling pry to this wonderful idea that just blew up in their faces...GOOD GRIEF

I'm curious as to why you would think that it's just that specifics state problem when the issue of our President sending in numerous refugees just escalated the avalanche of social problems That is if your still talking to me

 

[dogtowner]

Oh, your argument is that no money should be taken away from anyone.

How do you propose covering our costs? Ever blacktopped a road by yourself? It's quite a messy and difficult job with only shovels and a mop. And those potholes that will spring up will be quite the bugger for your aching back.

only the more well to do use roads ?

as Cali has shown, if you overtax the achievers they go away.

people know when they are not welcome.

 

[Sihouette]

I said to throw a bone to small businesses. INDIVIDUAL households that bring in over 250K, if they dont' reinvest in small business or substantial human charity get no breaks. 250K a year breaks down after taxes to 200K a year roughly, or lets be conservative and call it 175K.

That breaks down to about $15,000/month. If you can't make it by on $15,000 a month then you're a glutton. There's your litmus test.

 

[dogtowner]

I said to throw a bone to small businesses. INDIVIDUAL households that bring in over 250K, if they dont' reinvest in small business or substantial human charity get no breaks. 250K a year breaks down after taxes to 200K a year roughly, or lets be conservative and call it 175K.

That breaks down to about $15,000/month. If you can't make it by on $15,000 a month then you're a glutton. There's your litmus test.

you can get by on 1500 a month, why stop there ?

you realize wealthy people do more than buy food with their money right ? taking each additional dollar means one less to grow the economy.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like sihouette is back, but still not answering the question that gets to the heart of his desires to increase taxes on "the rich" and redistribute the money to "the poor".

Once again: Are the problems you listed, sufficient to justify taking away people's property rights?

 

[citizenzen]

Just as you should not be held financially responsible for your neighbors inability to balance his budget, financially sound states should not be financially responsible for covering the debts of other states.

The nearly 80% of states that find themselves in the red...

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

STATES WITH PROJECTED MID-YEAR FY2010 BUDGET GAPS

State - Size of Gap (Percent of FY2010 General Fund Budget)

Alabama - $401 million (5.5%)
Arizona - $2.0 billion (20.5%)
Arkansas - $107 million (2.4%)
California - $6.3 billion (6.8%)
Colorado - $561 million (7.5%)
Connecticut - $549 million (3.1%)
District of Columbia - $150 million (2.4%)
Florida - $147 million (0.6%)
Georgia - $1.2 billion (7.0%)
Hawaii - $533 million (10.4%)
Idaho - $151 million (6.0%)
Illinois - $5.0 billion (14.3%)
Indiana - $309 million (2.2%)
Iowa - $415 million (7.0%)
Kansas - $459 million (7.5%)
Kentucky - $1.2 billion (12.9%)
Maine - $209 million (3.5%)
Maryland - $936 million (6.8%)
Massachusetts - $600 million (2.1%)
Minnesota - $209 million (1.4%)
Mississippi - $370 million (7.4%)
Missouri - $690 million (7.7%)
Nebraska - $155 million (4.4%)
Nevada - $67 million (2.2%)
New Hampshire - $38 million (2.4%)
New Jersey - $400 million (1.4%)
New Mexico - $650 million (11.8%)
New York - $3.2 billion (5.7%)
Ohio - $296 million (1.1%)
Oklahoma - $550 million (9.6%)
Pennsylvania - $450 million (1.7%)
Rhode Island - $400 million (13.0%)
South Carolina - $439 million (7.6%)
Tennessee - $96 million (0.9%)
Utah - $279 million (5.5%)
Vermont - $28 million (2.5%)
Virginia - $1.8 billion (11.1%)
Washington - $2.6 billion (8.4%)
West Virginia - $100 million (2.6%)
Wyoming - $32 million (1.7%)​

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm curious as to why you would think that it's just that specifics state problem when the issue of our President sending in numerous refugees just escalated the avalanche of social problems That is if your still talking to me

First, I'd like to say that I welcome such posts and hope that we can exchange thoughts on this level more often.

I'm not familiar with the details of that agreement but I doubt the states involved didn't have a say in the issue. Chances are, they eagerly accepted the refugees with the agreement that the federal government would temporarily subsidize their employment and maybe throw some other perks to the state. So it sounds to me like the politicians made a temporary arrangement, for short term gains, without taking the long term consequences into effect... I'm sure everyone will be shocked to learn that politicians often care more about the next election than the long term welfare of their state.

In such a case as that, yes, I still think the voters of the state are responsible for the mess they helped create and other states have no obligation to bail out bad decisions. This doesn't mean that there is no room for charity and other voluntary means of finding assistance for those who find themselves in a bad situation, just that assistance from other states should not be mandatory.

Now there are cases where the federal government places unfunded mandates and obligations on the states and the debts they incur are a direct result of federal legislation. The federal law that mandates people who show up at emergency rooms must be treated is one example. Another would be the federal government offering stimulus money to states to expand their unemployment compensation permanently but the federal money used to cover the gap is temporary.

Such situations are certainly more difficult because the debts the states incur are not the fault of the particular states, their respective electorates, and the Congressmen who voted against the federal mandate. The responsibility lies with the states who sent Congressmen to Washington that voted in favor of the mandate. This of course just makes the case for why the federal government needs to be strictly limited in its powers, as it once was.

 

[GenSeneca]

The nearly 80% of states that find themselves in the red...

What was your point?

Are you citing this as evidence that the 20% of states who were fiscally responsible should be forced to bailout the 80% who were not?

 

[citizenzen]

Are you citing this as evidence that the 20% of states who were fiscally responsible should be forced to bailout the 80% who were not?

Wow. Now there's a leap in logic.

My point was simply to demonstrate how widespread the problem is.

Is your state in the black or in the red?

 

[GenSeneca]

Is your state in the black or in the red?

We're in the red but even if we were the reddest state in the union I would still say that it is not the responsibility of other states to bailout our budget via the federal government.

It's no different to me than my own personal debt. While I have no personal debt, if I did incur debt for any reason, I would not see it as the responsibility of anyone but myself for the repayment of those debts. Furthermore, I would consider it immoral for anyone to be forced into sharing the financial burden.

 

[citizenzen]

It's no different to me than my own personal debt. While I have no personal debt...

You don't own a home?