|
|
|
December 31, 2009 Opinions |
|
|
—Editorial—
Measures 66 And 67, A Difficult Decision
State ballot Measures 66 and 67 present a perplexing problem for Oregonians. Should individuals and businesses be forced to pay more taxes in order to retain state, county, and school jobs and services?
Measure 66 raises taxes 1.8 percent on those making over $125,000 a year, $250,000 households for tax years 2009-2011, for those earning $500,000, by 2 percent, which excludes a lot of Oregon’s population. It also eliminates income taxes on the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits received in 2009. Measure 66 is slated to raise an estimated $472 million to provide funds that are currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services. Because some state money brings in federal matching funds, Oregon will likely receive more federal money if the Measure passes.
Measure 67 raises the $10 corporate minimum tax, and establishes $150 minimum tax for most businesses or minimum tax of approximately 0.1% of total Oregon revenues for some corporations with over $500,000 in Oregon revenues. It also raises tax rate some corporations pay on profits by 1.3 percentage points, and increases certain business filing fees. This Measure raises an estimated $255 million to provide funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services.
Getting the extra income for public services and education would be a real boon to Oregon, however small business owners will get the short end of this deal with their taxes being raised in two areas. Once for the corporate tax earning and again for personal income. Higher taxes on businesses could force them to reduce employees and add to the state’s already stressed unemployment system.
Some argue that these taxes only affect the wealthy, and not the middle to low income sector, an estimated 97.5% of taxpayers will not see an increase in their taxes. But as with any increase in business operations, there will be a trickle down effect — the higher taxes will ultimately be passed on to the consumers in higher costs per goods and services.
Oregon was cited by the Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index as one of the top ten states to have the most business-friendly tax systems this year. Which is good news because it provides incentive for more businesses to locate in Oregon, providing sorely need jobs. If these Measures pass, however, Oregon may not look as attractive to potential business owners wishing to locate in our state.
On the flip side school and state sectors, including public health and safety, may be forced to cut services and jobs if the Measures fail. This would further add to the state’s unemployment crisis and cut services to those who have already been hit hard by the downward economy.
Unfortunately there are no easy answers. These Measures have severe ramifications whether they pass or fail. Some will decide to vote “No” because they oppose any type of tax increase. Some will vote “Yes” because they fear loosing much needed services.
But ultimately it’s up to you, the voter, to decide. But please do your research and make an informed decision. The people of Oregon are counting on you.
The local ballots will be mailed Jan. 8 for the Jan. 26 election.
—Letters To The Editor—
A Letter To Senator Merkley
To The Record-Courier:
Dear Senator Merkley:
The recent action of the U.S. Senate to hold votes at midnight, and even later, on legislation that has essentially been hidden from the public is bizarre. Secret legislation that is sneaked by the public is frightening. In fact it scares the hell out of me.
Please explain this Senate action to us. If you cannot explain it by mail, then be assured that this will be the first question put to you the very next time you appear in Baker City.
Carl R. Kostol
Baker City, Ore.
White House Swimming In The Pork Barrel
To The Record-Courier:
When President Obama was campaigning for President he made a solemn pledge he would eliminate or reduce earmarks. He broke that promise during the push to implement the new healthcare program.
The White House cut backroom deals with a number of senators to secure their votes for the bill. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska received $100 million in federal funds which exempted his state from paying for new Medicaid patients. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got a kickback of $300 million in extra federal spending for her state.
The healthcare bill will add $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, and the Medicare system will suffer cuts of $500 billion. Approximately 30 million people will be added to the healthcare system. This will place a severe strain on hospitals and doctors who will not be able to handle the huge influx of new patients. The end result will be long waiting periods and lower quality service for all.
A particular concern is the impact of the program on small businesses, which will be forced to provide health insurance to their employees. This program could force many small businesses to raise prices and/or reduce costs (primarily labor costs), and some businesses will be forced to close their doors. It should be noted small businesses account for about 70% of the jobs in this country.
It is unfortunate the White House had to resort to pork barrel chicanery to get a highly flawed healthcare bill passed.
Donald A. Moskowitz
Londonderry, NH
|
|
|
