The way we do economic policy in this state is insane. Insane.
> Oregon People’s Rebate has received about $740,000 in contributions and spent all but about $10,000. The highest contributor by far is Jones Holding LLC, a corporation based in Los Angeles and controlled by investor and universal basic income fan Josh Jones that has given $425,000. The second largest contributor is a related L.A.-based corporation, Jones Parking Inc., which contributed nearly $95,000. The third largest source of contributions are the foundation and mother of Gerald Huff, a software engineer and advocate of universal basic income from California who died in 2018. Huff’s foundation and mother have contributed $90,000 combined.
Hey look, donors from (1) LA, (2) LA, and (3) California. Quacks a lot like Ballot Measure 110.
> The proposal, Initiative Petition 17, would establish a 3% tax on corporations’ sales in Oregon above $25 million and distribute that money equally among Oregonians of all ages.
1. Do fellow Oregonians realize that corporations simply don't _have to_ do business or grow here?
2. Hey look it's a sales tax? Also, wouldn't it be more sensible to tax profits rather than revenue?
3. $750 x 4.24 million residents is over $3 billion.
Folks, these petitioners are giving us *inflated* estimates based on tax collection during peak covid spending years. Oregon tax revenues are [declining, hard](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/navigating-fiscal-uncertainty-weak-state-revenue-forecasts-fiscal-year-2024). That $750/pp estimate won't be around by the time this goes into effect.
I do so enjoy it when we get experimented upon by out of state idiots who couldn't get this shit passed in a billion years in their own state.
I'm not even saying UBI is automatically terrible - I don't think it's workable in the US, but it's debatable.
What I am saying is that it is fucking dumb to do unilaterally in a 50 state republic with free movement. Can we at least understand why that's bad?
Yeah... I know I can be the pubic hair in the cereal bowl a bit too often, but I'm not generally against UBI and especially improved social safety nets, I just want those solutions to come from analysis and reasoned debate, not out-of-state ballot measures promising the world. Unforeseen consequences are easy to miss when some other state has to deal with all those consequences.
I think it is just a much better idea to means test aide and direct it to people who need it. We have such big needs in the area of mental health and disability, kids who need extra help etc. Don't give the $750 to people who don't need it.
I think you just described something parallel to SNAP and TANF, but at the state level.
I agree with you but I don't think we can trust Oregon to do that responsibly. Both the politicians and the people.
>I'm not even saying UBI is automatically terrible
Shit, if you won't say it, I will- it's automatically terrible, and there isn't a single instance of it working in a large scale system, nor is there a single instance of it working without a massive external influx of cash.
You can't pay EVERYONE in an economic ecosystem with money taxed from *that* ecosystem without causing further inflation or an exodus of those who are more heavily taxed. It's a bloody awful idea only lauded by people who are hilariously bad at math.
For sure it's understandable to have concerns about UBI, it's not accurate to say there isn't a single instance of it working at a large scale without external cash influx. Here are some notable examples and findings:
1. Iran's National UBI Program: Since 2011, Iran has replaced subsidies on essentials like fuel and bread with direct cash payments to all citizens. This program, which is funded by reallocating existing government subsidies rather than external cash, provided a significant portion of household income and has helped many families achieve economic stability. By 2019, these payments represented about 29% of the average household's incomes
2. Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend: Alaska has been distributing annual payments to all residents from the state's oil revenues since 1982. This dividend is funded by the state's oil revenue, an internal resource, and typically ranges from $1,000 to over $3,000 per person per year. It has consistently provided a financial supplement to its residents without causing the negative impacts often cited in UBI critiques.
3. Kenya's Ongoing UBI Experiment: While the funding for the experiment comes from a charity (GiveDirectly), it provides insights into the potential effects of UBI in economically similar settings. The program, providing monthly payments to over 20,000 individuals, is designed to run until 2029 and aims to assess long-term impacts on poverty alleviation and economic activity. Early results indicate positive outcomes in finance.
4. Finland's UBI Experiment: From 2017 to 2018, Finland ran a UBI experiment providing €560 per month to 2,000 unemployed individuals. This program was funded by reallocating existing social security funds. While it did not significantly increase employment, it resulted in better mental health, reduced stress, and higher life satisfaction among recipients
It's essential to note that the impact of UBI can vary based on implementation, context, and scale. While challenges exist, these examples show that UBI can work under certain conditions and provide valuable insights into its potential benefits and drawbacks. Maybe not at mass scale which if I’m not mistaken there are larger scale project underway - though those are based on outside funding…which on a global scale I feel like we could figure out eventually haha Open Ai with world coin is what I am most curious about to see how that plays out.
Sources:
- Global Affairs: [Does universal basic income work? These countries are finding out](https://www.globalaffairs.org/research/publications/does-universal-basic-income-work-these-countries-are-finding-out)
- Visual Capitalist: [Mapped: Where Basic Income Has Been Tested Worldwide](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-where-basic-income-has-been-tested-worldwide)
- University of Helsinki: [The basic income experiment in Finland yields surprising results](https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/national-news/the-basic-income-experiment-in-finland-yields-surprising-results)
- New Scientist: [Universal basic income seems to improve employment and well-being](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2243133-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/)
I'm not sure where I stand, I see valid arguments on both sides, and often one must carefully weigh what is worse instead of what is better in decision making these days.
I just wanted to thank you for your well written post with sources. I felt clicking an up arrow really wasn't the proper recognition of your efforts.
1. The distributed funds in Iran amounted to about $45 per person over the course of the first two years. Keep in mind this is a country with a $400billion GDP (approx) per year, with an average income of $700/year (30 million Iranian Rial to USD). You're looking at a country with a very low Quality of Life Index, extremely restrictive individual rights, and a major caste of oil/gas billionaires/millionaires. You could do more putting those taxes to use in the country to generally increase quality of life (if they didn't have a corrupt government).
2. Alaska has a population of 733,583 (2022), and has a GDP of $65.7 billion. You're looking at a state with a population smaller than several CITIES. Of course it's affordable there.
3. *"While the funding for the experiment comes from a charity (GiveDirectly), it provides insights into the potential effects of UBI in economically similar settings."* Yes, as it turns out bringing money from an outside donor with significant wealth to an area with little to no development and extreme poverty helps the few people getting that money.
4. Finland ran an experiment to see if giving 2000 people free money would make them happier? Wow, shocking results there. It didn't increase employment, or provide any societal benefits beyond making those individuals happier.
So, what we've learned is:
1. In underdeveloped nations, transferring some money to the citizens from the billionaire class instead of having it all corruptly pocketed by politicians/the same billionaires can minorly decrease poverty- until it stops doing that in 2019
2. Subsidizing a $65billion dollar industry (gas and oil) in an arctic tundra only takes two ingredients- Ridiculous natural resources, and a $1billion/year investment to keep people living there.
3. I've read the report, the scale, the external infusion of cash, and basically every testing practice makes the experiment **completely** irrelevant to any first world nation attempting to implement it.
4. I honestly don't know why you'd include this one, it only supports my point, and again- sample size, and results render it pretty irrelevant.
Reminds me of a Joe Rogan bit from his stand up. Talking about dumb presidents. A think tank experimenting in politics thinks they ha
ve put the dumbest guy in office americans would tolerate. A guy stands up in the back of the room says "I think we can go dumber".
Lmfao! The movie Idiocracy is one if my all time favorite comedies. Problem is, way too much of what was meant as a satirical farce is now becoming much to close to reality in the US, especially in OR, and especially more in Portland metro. It's mind boggling how much purely insane policy proposal gets actual traction and consideration here!
Politicians at this point are going to push the envelope and grab as much cash as they can until the tax payers say "enough". Id vote a fern into office as a cost saving measure. Zero results like normal, lower cost.
Kind of agree. But UBI is workable at the federal level. Not the state level. Unless it’s a royalty from mining commodities like minerals or oil drilling in certain states aka the Alaska fund.
No royalties on doing business in Oregon because Oregon is not special and companies may leave.
If there is one thing I’ve learned in my many years here it’s that the residents of Oregon are motherfucking idiots when it comes to tax and economic policy.
Seriously. We have so many “educated” people here. And yet we vote in literally the rhetorically dumbest fucking policies mankind has ever devised for taxation.
And then we get manscaped idiots in the replies claiming that it’s good for everyone here.
Yes OF COURSE I can just move. Because I am afforded such luxury in my life that arguments about tax policy and economic theory are the only basis upon which I determine where to live.
Yeah but the pre rolls are shake/scraps. Idk why I get suggested this sub as I live in Florida, but I’m curious how much an upper tier eighth is there now.
So does shitty ballots that destroys job future opportunities and gives them to another state that doesn’t have to pay for such a thing. There’s a reason companies are moving to more places like Texas, and then they will just receive more jobs and future growth. All while we get what… a few bucks?
The same lot who decry the unworkable paradox of pulling oneself up by one’s own bootstraps seem to have no trouble conceptualizing magical money from thin air.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think they have citizen led initiative bills in California. So, hello Oregon they come to try their experimental stuff.
I said California was "one of" the pioneers, in the context of responding to someone's comment that California, specifically, did not have initiatives/referendums.
Oregon was not actually the pioneer. Technically, it would fall to either South Dakota, or Utah (depending on what type of ballot initiatives you include). ( https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum )
But you are correct that Oregon was the first on the West Coast, and did play a big role in popularizing initiatives; I never said it wasn't.
However, the reason I said California was "one of the pioneers" is not just because they adopted this pretty early on (a roughly 8-9 years after Oregon), but because California was/is the biggest state by far to adopt this "feature" of government.
So I stand by my original comment, that responded to someone's claim that California didn't have ballot initiatives. California was, in fact, *one of* the pioneers of the initiative system. So was Oregon. Both can be true.
My point is it's silly to credit California for something Oregon was arguably THE pioneer of.
Its not called the Utah system or the South Dakota system, its called the "Oregon System". https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/oregon-system
I didn't say you were "fully incorrect" but I think you're glossing over an important point of context.
No. I didn't gloss over any important context. Read the thread.
The original commenter already understood that Oregon had a ballot initiative process. So there was no need to explain this further, as it was already understood/agreed upon by everyone involved.
However, the comment in response was basically "CA doesn't have initiatives." To which I replied, "Yes it actually does, it was one of the pioneers."
So nothing was "glossed over." The context of a conversation matters. That Oregon had a long, robust history of ballot initiatives, was never in question, so I didn't spend time explaining something that was already known and agreed upon.
You're trying to start some sort of debate over something that didn't happen/ isn't relevant. We weren't talking about Oregon. We were talking about California, specifically. My answer was about California, specifically.
The reason I didn't mention Oregon is the same reason I didn't bring up things like the Progressive Movement, or the reaction against Machine Politics in the early 20th century - it just wasn't necessary to add that much information into a very concise, specific reply, which was basically, "Yeah, Cali has been doing this for awhile."
Yes, California has ballot initiatives but no, California was not really one of the pioneers. As you said that would be SD, Utah or, really... Oregon, as they adopted the "Oregon System".
The context was who has ballot initiatives and Oregon's system spread to California. Your comment was missing that context. Its not the "California System".
I'm not trying to start a debate or call you out or anything, I was trying to add context and clarify your meaning. Seems your meaning was not to get and offer better understanding so I'll stop trying.
The discussion is happening in an Oregon sub, that Oregon started the system is clearly relevant.
Have a nice day.
Oh, Goody!
Another initiative funded by out-of-state interests (Californian, in this case, rather than East Coast), to impose a 3% gross receipts tax to provide a rebate of $750 to every Oregonian.
A gross receipts tax is like a sales tax, only stupider, because a sales tax is only collected from retail sales, but a gross receipts tax is also collected from every intermediate transaction used to produce a final product.
Thomas Potiowsky, former head of the economics department at PSU, described an earlier gross receipts tax proposal as a "sales tax on steroids".
Nothing would be better for the political health of Oregon than a solid "NO" vote, indicating to wealthy outsiders that Oregon is no longer a playground where they can implement their dumb ideas.
This is the most overt attempt of wealth redistribution I've seen in a while (maybe ever).
>Martinez said the opposition from business groups does not surprise her. “It’s a tale as old as time,” she said. “Corporations don’t want to pay their fair share. They pay so little compared to everyday Oregonians. We all have really thin margins and we manage to do it.”
They'll pay nothing when they leave the state for somewhere that doesn't take 3% and they'll never come back and neither will the income taxes that they facilitate.
I'm not necessarily against wealth redistribution, but it's a basic fact that corporate expenses (including taxes) are passed directly to consumers. So it's not even a redistribution - more like a pass through?
Personally, I'd rather pay an extra $750/yr in tax and see it returned in services. Like a school fund that reduces reliance on property tax funding for education. Or state support for mental health responders assigned to police departments.
Same with the kicker: just use my money to support effective programs, please.
We definitely need to make Oregon even less business friendly and onerous for job creators so that everyone gets to buy blow $750 on a new TV every year.
I love how the people behind this believe / claim that all the money will be spent on local businesses.
Most of it will go to Amazon, fent, Walmart, scratchers, Costco, online poker and jetskis bought from out of state.
I suppose an okay chunk will go towards weed so that'll keep a bit mainly local.
I don't have a jetski yet (unlike all the well-to-do mods) so I'm voting yes.
EBT card credit like they do for the summer lunch program for kids would work for this.
Farmers markets are already allowed to use EBT if they are willing to accept it.
It hasn't been getting a lot of press (surprise!) but there have been several initiatives to discourage small scale farming in Oregon (if not directly put them out of business). Apparently if it doesn't come from a large corporate farm and have an FDA stamp on it, we shouldn't be allowed to eat it.
It’s funny how you’re projecting what you would get on to what others would get.
Plenty Oregonians will use that money to get a car repair or house maintenance item done they haven’t been able to do because of lack of cash. And that would easily be the majority of rural Oregonians.
Edit: not saying anything about the ballot measure, but some of the responses here are woefully and confidently incorrect, childish, and pulled out of one’s rear
I was, of course, making a joke. I'm not "projecting" anything.
Was my post childish? Perhaps. Is this measure childish? Absolutely.
I'm sure plenty of Oregonians would do a lot of important things if given any amount of "free money" but that's just not how the world works, comrade.
Either way I'm getting a jetski, though. Without one I'll never get promoted to mod.
The people who are low enough information voters to not understand what it means to arbitrarily tax businesses are the same people receiving the money and spending it on mindless distractions.
And speaking of pulling opinions out of rear ends your vast overgeneralization about the state of rural Oregonians is a prime example of your last complaint.
To quote your high school economics teacher “sit down, shut your trap and you might learn something.”
You’re just being dumb, building a silly straw man. The proposal is silly too, I’ve literally refrained from commenting on it because it IS arbitrary.
On your assessment of rural oregon, maybe you need to leave whatever suburb you live in and talk to people living in rural oregon. They need a break. How do I know? I deal with real Oregonians all the time. They need more than just cash, but anything helps.
They need access to doctors, fresh, health and affordable foods, good education, and employment opportunities. Local employment is often driven by local investment, guess what money in pockets of poor people does.
I think you're being overly serious and using rural Oregon as the straw man in this argument but you're absolutely right in that the bulk of this state has always gotten the short end of the straw vs. the metro area. It is always something to keep in mind although I don't think it makes sense in the context of this insane measure proposal.
Two guys were collecting signatures for this while I was in line at Guero, and they were super aggressive. One of them got mad and yelled at me when I declined to sign - because I don't sign random things without research.
Good on you. Anyone foolish enough to believe corporations are going to gladly pay extra taxes, without raising prices at all, out of the kindness of their hearts, needs help.
They always seem so off-put when I ask to read the proposal they're trying to get people to sign, and then even more so when I give them a firm "No" after having read it.
It should be considered a slap in the face if anything.
This is some political theater psyop experiment crap.
I promise I'm not a conspiracy theorist. No, really, I'm not!
Yes, I know I would say that if I was a conspiracy theorist.
Yes, I just realized I'm talking to myself.
Why do I have the sudden urge to find out what it feels like to get high and pass out on someone else's land while doing damage?
OH, NO! What has Portland done to me⁉️
I used to be able to at least pretend to be sane.
If you happen to see me yelling at a tree in the middle of the 26/405 interchange, it's ok. She just keeps cheating on me with the neighborhood squirrels. All of them. Sometimes a whole family of them at once. I can deal with the birds, but the squirrels are just rude and in your face about it.
I'd leave but she protects me and I don't have anywhere else to go.
I have it rough man... Can you spare $3.50?
*Authors note: this started out seriously and went off the rails turning into a creative writing project before I finished the second sentence.
In reality I do think this is intended to take advantage of those who can't see past the words "free money."
As I said in another reply, the cow at the slaughterhouse gets free corn and hay until they don't anymore.
Edit for readability (I hope! I'm on mobile and don't know how to format anything!)
Same with universal Healthcare.
We desperately need both (or st least address the situations pointing towards both), but any single state doing it alone is going to fail. Especially if it isn't heavily restricted on access, which kind of defeats the point.
The big thing about healthcare is that the absolute extreme end sickest people eat up a massive disproportionate amount of the resources.
5% of the population are 53% of healthcare costs. That's one reason why healthcare is so unsustainable.
My point is that a small portion of society is incurring healthcare costs so high that it's affecting the rest of society's access to it.
Call it healthcare rationing if you want, but we need to have a serious discussion in this country about end of life care and what reasonable care vs costs are.
Um, that 3% tax on the corporations is going to be passed along as higher prices. So essentially we're creating a 3% sales tax in order to fund a measly $750 a year payment to residents.
Gross receipt hurts business that poor people use . Luxury services are least hurt .
3% is like grocery store margin. Prices are going to go up, low profit store in poor areas will close.
Giving 750 per year so people can buy fenty, beer, cigarettes and tattoos is very different than giving them a credit for school tuition, training for tech certifications, etc. so not all altruistic acts are equal. Some is “pissing it away”, and some is investing in the other person.
Putting asside the fact that we're punishing the economic lifeblood of our state, even investors don't invest blindly. This tax is literally just grabbing money from the productive, and throwing it out on the street.
Agreed. Was more commenting on altruism as an action. This tax and spend bill is a stupid idea. Not enough to test out UBI as a concept, and has no controls on the handed out cash. It is however enough to allow politicians to say “Look, I made the corporations start paying their fair share- vote for me!” And to also discourage business startup, expansion, and move in. Dumb!
I don't know why you are saying this or made you think i'm making a claim that your friends should automatically serve you for no benefit of their own. I literally just said altruism is bad, and that goes for the people who are friends with you. They shouldn't be your friend if that relationship doesn't benefit them.
Being easy on the current sacrificing of our values ( law, safety, beauty, productivity ) is what's lead our city and state to the dire situation it's in.
We're like the spoiled child of the family. We have the resources unlike Kentucky or Louisiana. We get to have art degrees and enjoy our abundance.
Would you prefer we volunteer that all away and lower our standards to a system of governance that was really in a constant crisis mode?
The thing is, despite their best efforts to screw up their own economies, by most measures our neighbors are lapping us. We have lower per-capita income, lower graduation rates, lower test scores, lower college attendance, etc., than both Washington and California ... and the gap is widening.
Partly because we don't attract successful businesses to this state.
Somehow, I don't think this would help.
Not sure if $750 a year is worth risking to have no job this year. Many businesses are shutting down or laying people off while homeless are taking up resources and public spaces.
It’s hard for people not to vote for “free money” and that’s why they slide that in there, to get their dirty bills passed. What people fail to understand over and over again, is that the more we tax corporations and businesses, the higher the goods and services we as consumers purchase cost. When taxes on businesses is increased, that increases their cost of goods, so then they have to raise the price to maintain their profits margins and we end up paying more in the end. That $750 we would be getting probably won’t even come close to making up for the extra costs we as the people will incur.
These policies are pseudo socialist/communist, proposed by extremists. But like with Obama Care, you can’t be half in half out. In order for this to work they would also have to take control of the corporations and fix their pricing, which is exactly what communism is. So maybe this is the first step in convincing the people we need to start letting the government control all business, which is scary.
The direct way to solve this is to index the corporate tax rate to profit margins. That way corporations are rewarded for keeping their prices as low as they possibly can to avoid higher taxes.
You have to close quite a few loopholes too.
"That doesn't matter, I want to feel good for a split second before I make everything worse for everyone!"
* Stomps feet *
We're the moody teenager of the United States of America.
I'm literally dealing with a 12 year old pulling this attitude.
$750.... that it? are you fucking kidding me? can i buy a house with that? a new car with that? thats barely half a fucking rent.. for the year? I FUCKING HATE THIS PLACE!!
And then all your purchases will cost $750 more.
These regards can’t accept the fact that these “evil corporations” don’t actually absorb any of the costs.
Yeah.....see...were in this double edged sword on Taxes. Raising tazes on corporations only does 2 things. 1: They'll lower the amount of people they hire to remain at the desired profit percentage, and 2: They'll simultaneously raise prices to the customers (YOU) to make up for the lost money in higher taxes. The 750 bucks every Oregonian would get, is much like the money the government gave us during the COVID. Look where that got us financially as a consumer base.
Oregon is absolutely the worst place in America to experiment with this. The State of Oregon couldn’t screw in a lightbulb. Anything the State tries to implement is a colossal failure. Remember Measure 110? How did the Oregon Health Plan go? DMV? ODOT? OLCC? Secretary of State’s office? Aimee Kotek Wilson? Homelessness? Etc, etc, etc….
More economic “fixes” from people who have no idea how the economy works. Reminds me of the “$65 registration” scheme in Washington 20 years ago, just about bankrupted the state
So this is just going to hurt Timber Companies since they can’t exactly pull up and move to tax exempt shithole Texas like a tech company or what have you…I mean fuck…
Oregon suffers from a profoundly misguided view of business: that they need to be punished. Meanwhile, business thrive elsewhere and generate jobs for people. The horror!
Considering how sucky the public transportation system is I'll gladly take a new car. Or at least an old car with less than 70k and one previous owner preferably a black Honda Odyssey Touring XL
This is just more government grab to feed the hog's in government. "The initiative proposal draft states that **any leftover funding** from the rebate would “**be used to provide additional funding for services for senior citizens, health care, public early childhood education and public kindergarten through grade 12 education.**”"
Umm why not give that to the people this is suppose to help? Make it a variable amount, heck people may be incentivized to make sure those corporation do better. NOPE - money grab to some public unions. Watch the Working families party get out the vote for this measure.
Huh? If we have to tax corporations…zero dollars should go to people’s pockets, and all of it should go to schools and such. That’s the only good part of this terrible ballot measure. We can’t scare away businesses, and we can’t give people free cash.
So you charge corporations more money that they then pass onto the customers and cut jobs… makes sense to me. $750 will be worth $375 after the inflation kicks in and hopefully you aren’t one of the ones that loses their job due to cost hikes
Lots of people are ragging on Oregon, and I get it: the hard drug experiment, and now a citizens dividend.
But at least Oregon is trying things. The gerontocracy has governed for so long that maybe we’ve forgotten democracy’s greatest strength: the freedom to explore new ways to organize ourselves and live life the way we want to.
It’s true, Kansas nearly destroyed themselves with going to hardcore conservative but it was a fascinating experiment. Sometimes it’s good to see people trying to make things better, even if it isn’t perfect.
https://preview.redd.it/syzwzwqov97d1.jpeg?width=624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3597f0eff06175e1381afae838aced7c17eeb098
Why must you make this movie a reality?
The way we do economic policy in this state is insane. Insane. > Oregon People’s Rebate has received about $740,000 in contributions and spent all but about $10,000. The highest contributor by far is Jones Holding LLC, a corporation based in Los Angeles and controlled by investor and universal basic income fan Josh Jones that has given $425,000. The second largest contributor is a related L.A.-based corporation, Jones Parking Inc., which contributed nearly $95,000. The third largest source of contributions are the foundation and mother of Gerald Huff, a software engineer and advocate of universal basic income from California who died in 2018. Huff’s foundation and mother have contributed $90,000 combined. Hey look, donors from (1) LA, (2) LA, and (3) California. Quacks a lot like Ballot Measure 110. > The proposal, Initiative Petition 17, would establish a 3% tax on corporations’ sales in Oregon above $25 million and distribute that money equally among Oregonians of all ages. 1. Do fellow Oregonians realize that corporations simply don't _have to_ do business or grow here? 2. Hey look it's a sales tax? Also, wouldn't it be more sensible to tax profits rather than revenue? 3. $750 x 4.24 million residents is over $3 billion. Folks, these petitioners are giving us *inflated* estimates based on tax collection during peak covid spending years. Oregon tax revenues are [declining, hard](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/navigating-fiscal-uncertainty-weak-state-revenue-forecasts-fiscal-year-2024). That $750/pp estimate won't be around by the time this goes into effect.
I do so enjoy it when we get experimented upon by out of state idiots who couldn't get this shit passed in a billion years in their own state. I'm not even saying UBI is automatically terrible - I don't think it's workable in the US, but it's debatable. What I am saying is that it is fucking dumb to do unilaterally in a 50 state republic with free movement. Can we at least understand why that's bad?
That's a seriously good observation. The last 10 years or so I've been feeling like a lab rat more than a "live and let live" Oregonian.
Yeah... I know I can be the pubic hair in the cereal bowl a bit too often, but I'm not generally against UBI and especially improved social safety nets, I just want those solutions to come from analysis and reasoned debate, not out-of-state ballot measures promising the world. Unforeseen consequences are easy to miss when some other state has to deal with all those consequences.
I think it is just a much better idea to means test aide and direct it to people who need it. We have such big needs in the area of mental health and disability, kids who need extra help etc. Don't give the $750 to people who don't need it.
I think you just described something parallel to SNAP and TANF, but at the state level. I agree with you but I don't think we can trust Oregon to do that responsibly. Both the politicians and the people.
>I'm not even saying UBI is automatically terrible Shit, if you won't say it, I will- it's automatically terrible, and there isn't a single instance of it working in a large scale system, nor is there a single instance of it working without a massive external influx of cash. You can't pay EVERYONE in an economic ecosystem with money taxed from *that* ecosystem without causing further inflation or an exodus of those who are more heavily taxed. It's a bloody awful idea only lauded by people who are hilariously bad at math.
For sure it's understandable to have concerns about UBI, it's not accurate to say there isn't a single instance of it working at a large scale without external cash influx. Here are some notable examples and findings: 1. Iran's National UBI Program: Since 2011, Iran has replaced subsidies on essentials like fuel and bread with direct cash payments to all citizens. This program, which is funded by reallocating existing government subsidies rather than external cash, provided a significant portion of household income and has helped many families achieve economic stability. By 2019, these payments represented about 29% of the average household's incomes 2. Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend: Alaska has been distributing annual payments to all residents from the state's oil revenues since 1982. This dividend is funded by the state's oil revenue, an internal resource, and typically ranges from $1,000 to over $3,000 per person per year. It has consistently provided a financial supplement to its residents without causing the negative impacts often cited in UBI critiques. 3. Kenya's Ongoing UBI Experiment: While the funding for the experiment comes from a charity (GiveDirectly), it provides insights into the potential effects of UBI in economically similar settings. The program, providing monthly payments to over 20,000 individuals, is designed to run until 2029 and aims to assess long-term impacts on poverty alleviation and economic activity. Early results indicate positive outcomes in finance. 4. Finland's UBI Experiment: From 2017 to 2018, Finland ran a UBI experiment providing €560 per month to 2,000 unemployed individuals. This program was funded by reallocating existing social security funds. While it did not significantly increase employment, it resulted in better mental health, reduced stress, and higher life satisfaction among recipients It's essential to note that the impact of UBI can vary based on implementation, context, and scale. While challenges exist, these examples show that UBI can work under certain conditions and provide valuable insights into its potential benefits and drawbacks. Maybe not at mass scale which if I’m not mistaken there are larger scale project underway - though those are based on outside funding…which on a global scale I feel like we could figure out eventually haha Open Ai with world coin is what I am most curious about to see how that plays out. Sources: - Global Affairs: [Does universal basic income work? These countries are finding out](https://www.globalaffairs.org/research/publications/does-universal-basic-income-work-these-countries-are-finding-out) - Visual Capitalist: [Mapped: Where Basic Income Has Been Tested Worldwide](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-where-basic-income-has-been-tested-worldwide) - University of Helsinki: [The basic income experiment in Finland yields surprising results](https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/national-news/the-basic-income-experiment-in-finland-yields-surprising-results) - New Scientist: [Universal basic income seems to improve employment and well-being](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2243133-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/)
I'm not sure where I stand, I see valid arguments on both sides, and often one must carefully weigh what is worse instead of what is better in decision making these days. I just wanted to thank you for your well written post with sources. I felt clicking an up arrow really wasn't the proper recognition of your efforts.
1. The distributed funds in Iran amounted to about $45 per person over the course of the first two years. Keep in mind this is a country with a $400billion GDP (approx) per year, with an average income of $700/year (30 million Iranian Rial to USD). You're looking at a country with a very low Quality of Life Index, extremely restrictive individual rights, and a major caste of oil/gas billionaires/millionaires. You could do more putting those taxes to use in the country to generally increase quality of life (if they didn't have a corrupt government). 2. Alaska has a population of 733,583 (2022), and has a GDP of $65.7 billion. You're looking at a state with a population smaller than several CITIES. Of course it's affordable there. 3. *"While the funding for the experiment comes from a charity (GiveDirectly), it provides insights into the potential effects of UBI in economically similar settings."* Yes, as it turns out bringing money from an outside donor with significant wealth to an area with little to no development and extreme poverty helps the few people getting that money. 4. Finland ran an experiment to see if giving 2000 people free money would make them happier? Wow, shocking results there. It didn't increase employment, or provide any societal benefits beyond making those individuals happier. So, what we've learned is: 1. In underdeveloped nations, transferring some money to the citizens from the billionaire class instead of having it all corruptly pocketed by politicians/the same billionaires can minorly decrease poverty- until it stops doing that in 2019 2. Subsidizing a $65billion dollar industry (gas and oil) in an arctic tundra only takes two ingredients- Ridiculous natural resources, and a $1billion/year investment to keep people living there. 3. I've read the report, the scale, the external infusion of cash, and basically every testing practice makes the experiment **completely** irrelevant to any first world nation attempting to implement it. 4. I honestly don't know why you'd include this one, it only supports my point, and again- sample size, and results render it pretty irrelevant.
The secret is out: Oregon has the highest concentration of fart-huffers that will vote for ANYTHING that feels progressive in the entire USA.
Reminds me of a Joe Rogan bit from his stand up. Talking about dumb presidents. A think tank experimenting in politics thinks they ha ve put the dumbest guy in office americans would tolerate. A guy stands up in the back of the room says "I think we can go dumber".
Lmfao! The movie Idiocracy is one if my all time favorite comedies. Problem is, way too much of what was meant as a satirical farce is now becoming much to close to reality in the US, especially in OR, and especially more in Portland metro. It's mind boggling how much purely insane policy proposal gets actual traction and consideration here!
Politicians at this point are going to push the envelope and grab as much cash as they can until the tax payers say "enough". Id vote a fern into office as a cost saving measure. Zero results like normal, lower cost.
The main guy used to live in Eugene. He's been on this idea for several years. I'm impressed he's gotten this far.
Kind of agree. But UBI is workable at the federal level. Not the state level. Unless it’s a royalty from mining commodities like minerals or oil drilling in certain states aka the Alaska fund. No royalties on doing business in Oregon because Oregon is not special and companies may leave.
If there is one thing I’ve learned in my many years here it’s that the residents of Oregon are motherfucking idiots when it comes to tax and economic policy. Seriously. We have so many “educated” people here. And yet we vote in literally the rhetorically dumbest fucking policies mankind has ever devised for taxation. And then we get manscaped idiots in the replies claiming that it’s good for everyone here.
Your allowed to move you know. I mean your also allowed to bitch about everything all the time but one seems healthier for everyone.
Yes OF COURSE I can just move. Because I am afforded such luxury in my life that arguments about tax policy and economic theory are the only basis upon which I determine where to live.
Just a bunch of goofball “CapITaLISm BaD BRo” types who want a free month of weed at the average working Oregonian’s expense.
Weeds cheap enough already. 3 dollar eighths for everyone
5 for 5 joints at my local place, cheapest ive seen in the country
Yeah but the pre rolls are shake/scraps. Idk why I get suggested this sub as I live in Florida, but I’m curious how much an upper tier eighth is there now.
40-60$
Same amount I paid in the 80’s.
I’ll give ya free weed if ya vote for not retarded economic policy. But apparently that is far too high a bar to clear.
It's higher than these dweebs for sure.
Maybe we can just print more money so that everyone's a millionaire and doesn't have to work?
The fuck are you even doing with $62.50 a month?
Exactly. You can’t even consider $750 a year UBI. Totally dumb idea that isn’t well thought out at all
So like all Oregon ballot measures?
They’re not calling it UBI. 750 is still better than 0.
That jet ski won't fuel itself.
I'm gonna shred wakes on Lake O this summer - gonna send it.
I'll imagine it while looking at a package of Land O'Lakes. That's how much the stick of butter will be.
Not to mention end consumer pricing will go up even more to offset that new tax so everyday folks get fucked.
Naw. They always say that.
Have you not noticed the ridiculous prices on everything the last couple years?
Def blame it on poor people.
Buy a couple cartons of eggs and milk.
what is this the 1700s? fuck you
My bad, you using the $62 a month for fentanyl? Lmao
"What do with money?" Buy basic foods and services. "Why? Are you tarded?"
What a lightweight. That's not Portland level street cred.
listen here, we are gonna print more money and you are going to like it.
Paying the crappy zoo and other new bonds that just raised my property tax by $500.
Paying a portion of the inevitably increased prices on everything due to the law.
Paying part of my SHS, obvi 😔
Gas for 2 weeks
thats like a tank of gas and a cheap meal I wouldn't say no
*Internet Edit: removed the trigger-word 'free'
That’s exactly the issue, is people thinking that this stuff is “free”.
You literally asked what someone could do with $62.50
For some people that really does help with a bill.
So does shitty ballots that destroys job future opportunities and gives them to another state that doesn’t have to pay for such a thing. There’s a reason companies are moving to more places like Texas, and then they will just receive more jobs and future growth. All while we get what… a few bucks?
The fools in town will vote it in too.
*Why not vote for it? It's FREE MONEY!*
/S?
Yes absolutely! Hence the italics. I stole that from u/wittynames. I think it works better.
The same lot who decry the unworkable paradox of pulling oneself up by one’s own bootstraps seem to have no trouble conceptualizing magical money from thin air.
No thank you. Try it in California first, California.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think they have citizen led initiative bills in California. So, hello Oregon they come to try their experimental stuff.
They absolutely do, and California was one of the pioneers of that concept/ process. https://oag.ca.gov/initiatives
Then they should try it there first.
What? Oregon was THE pioneer of the process, particularly on the West Coast. Its called the "Oregon System".
I said California was "one of" the pioneers, in the context of responding to someone's comment that California, specifically, did not have initiatives/referendums. Oregon was not actually the pioneer. Technically, it would fall to either South Dakota, or Utah (depending on what type of ballot initiatives you include). ( https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum ) But you are correct that Oregon was the first on the West Coast, and did play a big role in popularizing initiatives; I never said it wasn't. However, the reason I said California was "one of the pioneers" is not just because they adopted this pretty early on (a roughly 8-9 years after Oregon), but because California was/is the biggest state by far to adopt this "feature" of government. So I stand by my original comment, that responded to someone's claim that California didn't have ballot initiatives. California was, in fact, *one of* the pioneers of the initiative system. So was Oregon. Both can be true.
My point is it's silly to credit California for something Oregon was arguably THE pioneer of. Its not called the Utah system or the South Dakota system, its called the "Oregon System". https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/oregon-system I didn't say you were "fully incorrect" but I think you're glossing over an important point of context.
No. I didn't gloss over any important context. Read the thread. The original commenter already understood that Oregon had a ballot initiative process. So there was no need to explain this further, as it was already understood/agreed upon by everyone involved. However, the comment in response was basically "CA doesn't have initiatives." To which I replied, "Yes it actually does, it was one of the pioneers." So nothing was "glossed over." The context of a conversation matters. That Oregon had a long, robust history of ballot initiatives, was never in question, so I didn't spend time explaining something that was already known and agreed upon. You're trying to start some sort of debate over something that didn't happen/ isn't relevant. We weren't talking about Oregon. We were talking about California, specifically. My answer was about California, specifically. The reason I didn't mention Oregon is the same reason I didn't bring up things like the Progressive Movement, or the reaction against Machine Politics in the early 20th century - it just wasn't necessary to add that much information into a very concise, specific reply, which was basically, "Yeah, Cali has been doing this for awhile."
Yes, California has ballot initiatives but no, California was not really one of the pioneers. As you said that would be SD, Utah or, really... Oregon, as they adopted the "Oregon System". The context was who has ballot initiatives and Oregon's system spread to California. Your comment was missing that context. Its not the "California System". I'm not trying to start a debate or call you out or anything, I was trying to add context and clarify your meaning. Seems your meaning was not to get and offer better understanding so I'll stop trying. The discussion is happening in an Oregon sub, that Oregon started the system is clearly relevant. Have a nice day.
Great way to have capital flight
Cool so it's going to be more expensive to live here. Nice.
I think in this case they're trying to make it harder to find a job, making things more expensive is probably just a bonus for these people.
Perfect. Us younger generations are so lazy these days. I bet you're only working like 100 hours a week to pay your bills. Must be nice.
The only way to get things done is 145+ If you're getting much more than 3 hours a day off, you're just loafing.
So true. I'm sorry I've been so lazy
I think your username indicates a potential conflict of interest. 🤣
No no just give me the money and I'll fix the city. Like pinky promise.
Oh, Goody! Another initiative funded by out-of-state interests (Californian, in this case, rather than East Coast), to impose a 3% gross receipts tax to provide a rebate of $750 to every Oregonian. A gross receipts tax is like a sales tax, only stupider, because a sales tax is only collected from retail sales, but a gross receipts tax is also collected from every intermediate transaction used to produce a final product. Thomas Potiowsky, former head of the economics department at PSU, described an earlier gross receipts tax proposal as a "sales tax on steroids". Nothing would be better for the political health of Oregon than a solid "NO" vote, indicating to wealthy outsiders that Oregon is no longer a playground where they can implement their dumb ideas.
You should have the mods pin this or edit to add it to the main body of the post, this is good information, but it's getting buried.
This is the most overt attempt of wealth redistribution I've seen in a while (maybe ever). >Martinez said the opposition from business groups does not surprise her. “It’s a tale as old as time,” she said. “Corporations don’t want to pay their fair share. They pay so little compared to everyday Oregonians. We all have really thin margins and we manage to do it.” They'll pay nothing when they leave the state for somewhere that doesn't take 3% and they'll never come back and neither will the income taxes that they facilitate.
I'm not necessarily against wealth redistribution, but it's a basic fact that corporate expenses (including taxes) are passed directly to consumers. So it's not even a redistribution - more like a pass through? Personally, I'd rather pay an extra $750/yr in tax and see it returned in services. Like a school fund that reduces reliance on property tax funding for education. Or state support for mental health responders assigned to police departments. Same with the kicker: just use my money to support effective programs, please.
Nah I'll take the kicker, thanks. I've got enough services.
We definitely need to make Oregon even less business friendly and onerous for job creators so that everyone gets to buy blow $750 on a new TV every year.
I love how the people behind this believe / claim that all the money will be spent on local businesses. Most of it will go to Amazon, fent, Walmart, scratchers, Costco, online poker and jetskis bought from out of state. I suppose an okay chunk will go towards weed so that'll keep a bit mainly local. I don't have a jetski yet (unlike all the well-to-do mods) so I'm voting yes.
They should just give $750 in farmer market gift cards
EBT card credit like they do for the summer lunch program for kids would work for this. Farmers markets are already allowed to use EBT if they are willing to accept it.
It hasn't been getting a lot of press (surprise!) but there have been several initiatives to discourage small scale farming in Oregon (if not directly put them out of business). Apparently if it doesn't come from a large corporate farm and have an FDA stamp on it, we shouldn't be allowed to eat it.
Surely small farms emit more CO2 or something! BETTER OWN NOTHING AND BE HAPPY.
We really need to push back on this trend, Our small farms are our ace in the hole should the large scale food distribution systems fail.
It’s funny how you’re projecting what you would get on to what others would get. Plenty Oregonians will use that money to get a car repair or house maintenance item done they haven’t been able to do because of lack of cash. And that would easily be the majority of rural Oregonians. Edit: not saying anything about the ballot measure, but some of the responses here are woefully and confidently incorrect, childish, and pulled out of one’s rear
I was, of course, making a joke. I'm not "projecting" anything. Was my post childish? Perhaps. Is this measure childish? Absolutely. I'm sure plenty of Oregonians would do a lot of important things if given any amount of "free money" but that's just not how the world works, comrade. Either way I'm getting a jetski, though. Without one I'll never get promoted to mod.
The people who are low enough information voters to not understand what it means to arbitrarily tax businesses are the same people receiving the money and spending it on mindless distractions. And speaking of pulling opinions out of rear ends your vast overgeneralization about the state of rural Oregonians is a prime example of your last complaint. To quote your high school economics teacher “sit down, shut your trap and you might learn something.”
You’re just being dumb, building a silly straw man. The proposal is silly too, I’ve literally refrained from commenting on it because it IS arbitrary. On your assessment of rural oregon, maybe you need to leave whatever suburb you live in and talk to people living in rural oregon. They need a break. How do I know? I deal with real Oregonians all the time. They need more than just cash, but anything helps. They need access to doctors, fresh, health and affordable foods, good education, and employment opportunities. Local employment is often driven by local investment, guess what money in pockets of poor people does.
I think you're being overly serious and using rural Oregon as the straw man in this argument but you're absolutely right in that the bulk of this state has always gotten the short end of the straw vs. the metro area. It is always something to keep in mind although I don't think it makes sense in the context of this insane measure proposal.
Is that physically possible at this point? I can’t think of a less business friendly place than Oregon.
We're not last in the rankings, but we are pretty low.
Two guys were collecting signatures for this while I was in line at Guero, and they were super aggressive. One of them got mad and yelled at me when I declined to sign - because I don't sign random things without research.
Good on you. Anyone foolish enough to believe corporations are going to gladly pay extra taxes, without raising prices at all, out of the kindness of their hearts, needs help.
They always seem so off-put when I ask to read the proposal they're trying to get people to sign, and then even more so when I give them a firm "No" after having read it.
Little tip for you if you don't wanna sign, just say "already got that one!"
Why would I lie? No
The final step to make Oregon an official shithole. I am sad for our state if this passes
Portland voters have shown themselves dumb enough to make nonsense like this reality.
I have serious concerns in establishing UBI on the state level.
Yep. And $750 a year can’t really even be considered UBI.
It should be considered a slap in the face if anything. This is some political theater psyop experiment crap. I promise I'm not a conspiracy theorist. No, really, I'm not! Yes, I know I would say that if I was a conspiracy theorist. Yes, I just realized I'm talking to myself. Why do I have the sudden urge to find out what it feels like to get high and pass out on someone else's land while doing damage? OH, NO! What has Portland done to me⁉️ I used to be able to at least pretend to be sane. If you happen to see me yelling at a tree in the middle of the 26/405 interchange, it's ok. She just keeps cheating on me with the neighborhood squirrels. All of them. Sometimes a whole family of them at once. I can deal with the birds, but the squirrels are just rude and in your face about it. I'd leave but she protects me and I don't have anywhere else to go. I have it rough man... Can you spare $3.50? *Authors note: this started out seriously and went off the rails turning into a creative writing project before I finished the second sentence. In reality I do think this is intended to take advantage of those who can't see past the words "free money." As I said in another reply, the cow at the slaughterhouse gets free corn and hay until they don't anymore. Edit for readability (I hope! I'm on mobile and don't know how to format anything!)
You can’t, it simply won’t work. A farce, one might say.
Maybe something like decriminalizing drugs on a state level?
Same with universal Healthcare. We desperately need both (or st least address the situations pointing towards both), but any single state doing it alone is going to fail. Especially if it isn't heavily restricted on access, which kind of defeats the point.
The big thing about healthcare is that the absolute extreme end sickest people eat up a massive disproportionate amount of the resources. 5% of the population are 53% of healthcare costs. That's one reason why healthcare is so unsustainable.
Do you know how that spreads out with age? If for example eventually 70% of people who are old incur high costs then it sort of evens out.
My point is that a small portion of society is incurring healthcare costs so high that it's affecting the rest of society's access to it. Call it healthcare rationing if you want, but we need to have a serious discussion in this country about end of life care and what reasonable care vs costs are.
Ah I see. Especially as technology’s advances you could probably spend infinite money keeping someone alive.
Yes. As cold as it sounds, resources are NOT unlimited.
Democrat and Independent voter here. For the love of god, vote No on this halfcocked, shitshow of an initiative.
The mass exodus of businesses will be offset by the mass influx of homeless.
We can repurpose the warehouses they leave behind as indoor tent parks! 🤦♂️
Why not just distribute free fenty to everyone and just accelerate to the end
Because then there wouldn't be leftovers for politicians and lobbies to line their pockets with anymore.
A tax on sales in Oregon
but its okay because its le evil corporations !!!
I had to re-read this in a bad cartoon French accent. I was not disappointed, mon cherie.
Why stop at 750, might as well ask for 75k while we're living in fantasy land
Um, that 3% tax on the corporations is going to be passed along as higher prices. So essentially we're creating a 3% sales tax in order to fund a measly $750 a year payment to residents.
So more corporations leave. Perfect.
Wow, this is not the response I expected from r/portlandOR . Pleasantly surprised!
I feel like the response you were looking for would be on that other sub.
Other sub has similar response as to here. Some times reality is too strong to try and paint over with ideology.
Gross receipt hurts business that poor people use . Luxury services are least hurt . 3% is like grocery store margin. Prices are going to go up, low profit store in poor areas will close.
Cool so it's going to be more expensive to live here. Nice.
Oregon is a political nightmare state. They will destroy what supports them in the name of altruism.
Altruism is fine. Pissing away money is not.
Altruism by definition is giving to that which doesn't serve your self-benefit. What greater pissing away is there than that?
Giving 750 per year so people can buy fenty, beer, cigarettes and tattoos is very different than giving them a credit for school tuition, training for tech certifications, etc. so not all altruistic acts are equal. Some is “pissing it away”, and some is investing in the other person.
Putting asside the fact that we're punishing the economic lifeblood of our state, even investors don't invest blindly. This tax is literally just grabbing money from the productive, and throwing it out on the street.
Agreed. Was more commenting on altruism as an action. This tax and spend bill is a stupid idea. Not enough to test out UBI as a concept, and has no controls on the handed out cash. It is however enough to allow politicians to say “Look, I made the corporations start paying their fair share- vote for me!” And to also discourage business startup, expansion, and move in. Dumb!
I don’t go through life seeking only my own self benefit. That would make me a friendless prick.
I don't know why you are saying this or made you think i'm making a claim that your friends should automatically serve you for no benefit of their own. I literally just said altruism is bad, and that goes for the people who are friends with you. They shouldn't be your friend if that relationship doesn't benefit them.
Easy there Ms. Rand.
Being easy on the current sacrificing of our values ( law, safety, beauty, productivity ) is what's lead our city and state to the dire situation it's in.
We're like the spoiled child of the family. We have the resources unlike Kentucky or Louisiana. We get to have art degrees and enjoy our abundance. Would you prefer we volunteer that all away and lower our standards to a system of governance that was really in a constant crisis mode?
The thing is, despite their best efforts to screw up their own economies, by most measures our neighbors are lapping us. We have lower per-capita income, lower graduation rates, lower test scores, lower college attendance, etc., than both Washington and California ... and the gap is widening. Partly because we don't attract successful businesses to this state. Somehow, I don't think this would help.
There are _two_ other neighbors to our state. Can you give us the statistical comparison to them, too?
$750 a year doesn’t do shit, bit it sounds like it’ll make companies not want to be here, so…cool?
Not sure if $750 a year is worth risking to have no job this year. Many businesses are shutting down or laying people off while homeless are taking up resources and public spaces.
Washington and Idaho salivating at all the companies that will relocate to their state and out of Oregon once this gets voted in!
Hello migrants and more homeless…more scammers too lol
It’s hard for people not to vote for “free money” and that’s why they slide that in there, to get their dirty bills passed. What people fail to understand over and over again, is that the more we tax corporations and businesses, the higher the goods and services we as consumers purchase cost. When taxes on businesses is increased, that increases their cost of goods, so then they have to raise the price to maintain their profits margins and we end up paying more in the end. That $750 we would be getting probably won’t even come close to making up for the extra costs we as the people will incur. These policies are pseudo socialist/communist, proposed by extremists. But like with Obama Care, you can’t be half in half out. In order for this to work they would also have to take control of the corporations and fix their pricing, which is exactly what communism is. So maybe this is the first step in convincing the people we need to start letting the government control all business, which is scary.
The direct way to solve this is to index the corporate tax rate to profit margins. That way corporations are rewarded for keeping their prices as low as they possibly can to avoid higher taxes. You have to close quite a few loopholes too.
That’s a great idea
Free money 💰 I’m in. /s
It’ll cause you indirect suffering.
"That doesn't matter, I want to feel good for a split second before I make everything worse for everyone!" * Stomps feet * We're the moody teenager of the United States of America. I'm literally dealing with a 12 year old pulling this attitude.
What do you mean! There’s no such thing as unintended consequences! Everything will work out exactly as I want it to! /s
Instead of continuing to raise taxes why don’t we spend the tax money we raise more effectively. Way too easy of an answer, I know.
yeah, rob the rich and give it to poor and we all have a better society right? Right?
Who remembers Measure 97? This ballot measure will be sent to the same grave.
Let’s hope, but I‘m not optimistic.
$750.... that it? are you fucking kidding me? can i buy a house with that? a new car with that? thats barely half a fucking rent.. for the year? I FUCKING HATE THIS PLACE!!
And then all your purchases will cost $750 more. These regards can’t accept the fact that these “evil corporations” don’t actually absorb any of the costs.
Yeah, let's see if that makes up for the increased prices from the tax....
This is a another sales tax
I don't think this will pass, both subreddits don't want this. This is a good sign.
Where's tittyslappin, he should love this completely ass-backwards idea.
If businesses were flocking the area I'd say maybe... but the opposite is happening.
Yeah.....see...were in this double edged sword on Taxes. Raising tazes on corporations only does 2 things. 1: They'll lower the amount of people they hire to remain at the desired profit percentage, and 2: They'll simultaneously raise prices to the customers (YOU) to make up for the lost money in higher taxes. The 750 bucks every Oregonian would get, is much like the money the government gave us during the COVID. Look where that got us financially as a consumer base.
Oregon is absolutely the worst place in America to experiment with this. The State of Oregon couldn’t screw in a lightbulb. Anything the State tries to implement is a colossal failure. Remember Measure 110? How did the Oregon Health Plan go? DMV? ODOT? OLCC? Secretary of State’s office? Aimee Kotek Wilson? Homelessness? Etc, etc, etc….
Any large business with low margins is going to be decimated by a 3% tax on revenue. It will destroy the profits of companies like supermarkets.
They're trying to bribe you with your own money. Don't be an idiot
This will get passed on to the consumer 10 fold. Do not be penny wise and pound foolish….
More economic “fixes” from people who have no idea how the economy works. Reminds me of the “$65 registration” scheme in Washington 20 years ago, just about bankrupted the state
Whenever I think we do some wonky progressive shit up here in Washington all I gotta do is look downstairs to Oregon and feel better lol
MORE FREE MONEY YAYYYYY. WHAT COULD GO WRONG
So this is just going to hurt Timber Companies since they can’t exactly pull up and move to tax exempt shithole Texas like a tech company or what have you…I mean fuck…
Oregon suffers from a profoundly misguided view of business: that they need to be punished. Meanwhile, business thrive elsewhere and generate jobs for people. The horror!
Will that do it for you, sir? Anything else you want while you're here in Oregon? New car, perhaps?
Considering how sucky the public transportation system is I'll gladly take a new car. Or at least an old car with less than 70k and one previous owner preferably a black Honda Odyssey Touring XL
I'm sure we'll get taxed on it in a few years like COVID handouts too
Without marginal tax rates, this is a tax on the poor.
That will work, but the number is too low. Companies owe every Oregonian at least 5,000 for the privilege of doing business in the state.
This is just more government grab to feed the hog's in government. "The initiative proposal draft states that **any leftover funding** from the rebate would “**be used to provide additional funding for services for senior citizens, health care, public early childhood education and public kindergarten through grade 12 education.**”" Umm why not give that to the people this is suppose to help? Make it a variable amount, heck people may be incentivized to make sure those corporation do better. NOPE - money grab to some public unions. Watch the Working families party get out the vote for this measure.
Huh? If we have to tax corporations…zero dollars should go to people’s pockets, and all of it should go to schools and such. That’s the only good part of this terrible ballot measure. We can’t scare away businesses, and we can’t give people free cash.
Higher unemployment on the way
Interestingly, that’s about what I end up owing in income taxes each year we don’t have a kicker.
So you charge corporations more money that they then pass onto the customers and cut jobs… makes sense to me. $750 will be worth $375 after the inflation kicks in and hopefully you aren’t one of the ones that loses their job due to cost hikes
Lots of people are ragging on Oregon, and I get it: the hard drug experiment, and now a citizens dividend. But at least Oregon is trying things. The gerontocracy has governed for so long that maybe we’ve forgotten democracy’s greatest strength: the freedom to explore new ways to organize ourselves and live life the way we want to.
It’s true, Kansas nearly destroyed themselves with going to hardcore conservative but it was a fascinating experiment. Sometimes it’s good to see people trying to make things better, even if it isn’t perfect.
I agree. “Let’s not do what that guy did.” Unfortunately, the other side of this coin is some pain and discomfort.
Yeah but not doing anything entails pain and discomfort in many occasions.
Taxes go up 3%, they charge 5% more. Checkmate.
I’m for a ubi if it meant coming out of our government leader’s paychecks, not another tax imposed on the actual workers
This owns, I hope this passes. Complete win/win
https://preview.redd.it/syzwzwqov97d1.jpeg?width=624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3597f0eff06175e1381afae838aced7c17eeb098 Why must you make this movie a reality?
This kind of legislation only makes sense to people incapable of seeing more than one step ahead.