Has anyone looked into how neasure 118, if passed, could affect people on SSI, food stamps, affordable housing programs and OHP? The extra income that measure 118 would give them might well cost them big time if they lose vital benefits as a result!
Great question! They intend to have a hold harmless fund so anyone who would be affected will have extra funds to replace the amount lost. If you look up measure 118 debate on UA-cam, you will see a very well versed person addressing all the concerns and fear mongering from the business funded person opposed to the bill.
@@Firefenex1996 a "well- versed" Marxist spreading unfounded Propaganda. The problem is, this horrible Commie idea creates a HUGE hole in the state budget and the Progressives running the state will be making all the decisions on how to implement this...this abortion of a Socialist plan is NOT a Constitutional implement by the voters...the legislature will be twisting, turning, and changing it to suit them. There is NO guarantee that any money will even be given out, nor is there any guarantee that other taxes and fees won't be implemented in order to cover the budgetary implications. IF you think this is a good idea, you're either an uninformed nincompoop or a brainwashed Socialist. The "free money" this supposedly creates will cause exponential increases in consumer costs as the tax is paid on multiple levels by different companies.
Yea, duh. It's from the corporations. It's a tax on corporations. The corporations pay it. literally zero people said the money would fall from the sky.
I hate the way they complicate everything. Why not just charge the corporation more and take less from the people? No that would be to simple. They gotta make it confusing so hopefully they can sway votes one way or another and some middle person probably gets rich or some misleading loophole that serves anyone but the people really.
The primary argument used against this bill is that businesses will pass the costs to the customers or flee the state. So instead of supporting legislation that would directly confront corporate greed, they say we shouldn't support it because if we do the companies will be greedy. So sick and tired of corporate greed. If you find yourself standing up for the corporations, that makes you a pawn.
LOL! "corporate greed" you say that like it means something more then you whining that if anyone has more then you they are greedy, well aren't you a saint. Let me clue you in, anytime anyone uses the term "not paying their fair share" that is marketing designed to appeal to losers who want money for nothing.
Not a pawn you Commie...a REALIST can see that businesses dont somehow magically pay taxes without passing it on...only in this case dont forget that THE STATE WILL WASTE MILLIONS implementing this on top of consumers paying more and small businesses losing ground.
Large corporations are insanely profitable. There’s literally no reason that a private family-owned company worth $1 billion (like the one I work at) cannot share their profits with us - after all, we made them that money.
I agree but the big capitalist dilemma is being so anti-business that they'll bounce elsewhere. Unfortunately this is the world we live in, and $1600 isn't enough for me to risk it. Plus the risk of our leaders fumbling the execution like they always do.
SENATOR WYDEN: Big Business has been playing state against state for ever. If this measure pass's those company's that can will just run to another state, and likely get a tax break for doing so. This is going to have to be addressed at the federal level, as inter state flight to avoid fair taxation is not something we can cure alone.
How about no. If a state does something dumb, we need to be able to punish it by moving away from it. the is 50 STATES, not ONE federal system. And Sen Wyden should just quit his job and give that seat to a Republican.
I agree to a point that it's odd and a bit sketchy, but I am genuinely curious what they would get from it if the measure is passed. Some wealthy people are benevolent and want to make positive change so they could be doing it for non nefarious reasons, but honestly, I'm not sure what they get from it to be on the ballot and they wouldn't benefit for it to pass unless it's their competition that operates here and they are wanting to cost them, but even then seems like an weird risk to take.
I voted for 110 because I assumed there was infrastructure in place to treat the addicts. This is giving me the same vibes as when I realized there was no solid plan on how to really help people. Just an “idea” . Well this rebate “idea” is shady and will just cause a HUGE mess that needs to then be fixed by the legislature.
And like with 110, disabled people are completely left out. What's really messed up with 110 though is that in places where there was infrastructure in place, funding wasn't made available or cops threw up hurdles left and right (including intimidation), making said infrastructure repeatedly fail...which was then used to justify that it "didn't work"
Yeah, I want to like the idea of each Oregonian getting ~$1600 back per year (it's basically UBI), but am concerned our legislators will mess it up somehow or it will have some unintended consequences (like 110) and complications. Undecided at this point.
@@orangecoolius$1600 isn't much tbh don't sell your vote for some change. It might not even end up being that much since they have to balance it out so that $1600 could end up being alot less.
Look at the profits of large corporations during the period of the last few years, during inflation when America's poor suffered trying to make ends meet. Look at the profits of major food corporations, they made a lot of money during that time. They could have reduced their prices and taken less profits. Unless you take it from them, they will not give it willingly.
That sounds great, but this measure does not tax profits. It taxes revenue. Should a company that makes $25 Million in sales, but only made $10,000 in profit be forced to pay an additional $750,000 in taxes? It doesn't sound like a good plan to me. If the measure taxed profit, then I might be willing to get behind it, but so long as it taxes sales this measure will hurt Oregonians more than it will help by pushing medium sized businesses out of business...or push them into neighboring states. Remember those 3 wealthy business people in CA that supported this? Yeah, they are probably looking to benefit from either from making competitors go out of business or they plan on helping those businesses move into CA and somehow profit off that. This measure, as written, should NOT pass.
I love how someone that works there but off and makes barely enough to support there family gets no food stamps no health insurance no government help. While someone that doesn’t work gets a free health care food stamps and a free place to live. How is that fair?
what's worse is you are incentivized to stay without a job because you will lose your food stamps and health insurance and place to live if you make even minimum wage (full time) as the cut off is 1350 a month. Also, you won't qualify for most additional help like electric/gas credits and some food banks because your income. Things need to be changed to allow people with minimum wages to get help they need in order to really fix things. The same happens if you are living with someone else that has benefits as you don't even need to have benefits yourself. Your income you make can affect their benefits they get because the system expects you are supporting them so their benefits will be reduced or at a level they won't qualify for them anymore. it may not be fair but it's a trap I have been stuck in for 13 years due to my mom being on disability. Just living in this household, I am unable to get a normal job as it will affect both her benefits and mine and I won't make enough to support both of us with minimum wage (especially part time as that will lose benefits and be well under even just rent alone).
@@sillylily5828 I completely agree with you. The system is broken. It needs to be a sliding scale that encourages you to work so that the more you work, your total take-home from benefits and aid will only increase and not ever decrease. Here is the real rub... Politicians know this, and they have known about this fix for decades. Why do you suppose they don't fix it with that sliding scale? Or even better, why would they set up this measure not to be the funding for such a sliding scale, but rather give money to everyone and not focus it on those that need it most? But with regards to this measure, it is not set up right for another reason. This taxes sales, not profit. If a company sells %25 million in goods, they are going to pay $750,000 in additional taxes even if their profit was way less than that. Any company whose profit margin is less than 3% (every single grocery store and restaurant operates on less than 3%) will go into the red and possibly go under. Why was this measure worded to tax sales and not profit? So long as the wording is that it taxes the sales, this will hurt Oregon, not help us. This is a bad deal for us.
So a couple of things nobody has mentioned that I’d like to see discussed regarding Measure 118: 1. Every single bit of “Vote No on Measure 118” material you’ve seen is overblown nonsense being forced onto us by those who actually stand to lose from it - Corporations and the Politicians on both side of the aisle who benefit from the current status quo. 2. Only businesses who make over $25million in profits are susceptible-you’re no longer a “small business” at that point. 3. The entities against this tax had NO PROBLEM POOLING TOGETHER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR AN OPPOSITION CAMPAIGN. 4. The State of Oregon will lose nothing as far as funding is concerned-the lottery and cannabis taxes more than cover any perceived “loss.” 5. The politicians don’t like this because the money goes directly to the citizens, thus making it more difficult to steal and embezzle from the state coffers. 6. Oregon is California’s neighbor-many Oregonians have family in California, so unless it is specifically a Citizens United thing(which none of you seem to care about anyway, see Project 2025), I don’t see the relevance. 7. Both Milton Friedman and Richard Nixon agreed that there would come a time when Americans would require a Universal Basic Income for the economy to function properly. The interests of the hogs living in the fat house are the only things truly at jeopardy here. If you choose to vote no on Measure 118, you’re either willingly or unknowingly a corporate stooge.
Well, i may seem like corporate stooge by your definition....but that's only because you're slinging that hate around as Marxist. Its quite plain that you're not well informed and that you prefer misinformation as opposed to logic and common sense. Measure 118 doesn't 'take away corporate profits, its makes goods cost more for consumers. Eff that. Eff you.
@@gs4815 calling out autocorrect doesn’t discredit the above statement, it actually shows that you’re grasping at straws because you don’t address any of the actual talking points that I’ve plainly laid out. And since you seem to enjoy minutiae… cool, lets go with “sales” instead of revenue-that would actually be a LOWER figure than revenue-SOOOO, businesses, WHO GENERATE $25MILLION OR MORE in “sales” actually have even less of a valid complaint. They can still cook their books and report a lower figure. Every single opponent to Measure 118 I’ve seen has inadvertently pwned themselves when trying to prove their case. I can pretty much guarantee this is an excellent idea by simply observing the people who are against it-crooked politicians, greedy corporations, and trolls who have been enlisted by said entities either by accident or by intentional design. If scumbags are screaming “NO!!DON’T DO THIS!” We should definitely go for it.
@@MikeVorpal Yelling and name calling never wins arguments. What does “pwned” mean? I’m guessing it is something to do with Minecraft, but I could be mistaken.
As much as I would like to drag some profit-sharing out of the corporations that make money here and then immediately take their profits offshore, we need a better system than this. I don’t like the Californian interest here because we are just a testing ground to see if they can do this in more populous states.
I actually appreciated, as an educator, that the video was mostly non-partisan, didn't say WHAT group had pushed to get it ON the ballot (from within my state) and didn't hype the politics of the outsiders interfering in our internal affairs. It is always good to know WHO benefits from misinformation. (the current topic I'm teaching my statistics students) but if the facts alone are insufficient to sway you in one direction or the other, and you need to know the politics of those involved to make your mind up, then perhaps the facts don't matter so much as knowing whose "team" wants what thing more. There have been many studies done about how introducing the politics of a supporter of a bill WILL influence those who are trying to make up their mind about the issue at hand. For example, I remember back in the late 2010s there was a study that demonstrated that if a person was asked "Should we do this popular thing" the results were about 74% in favor. But if you asked the same question in an area that heavily voted for GW Bush and included the fact that he supported it in the question, it became more popular, and if you included instead that Obama supported it, it dropped in popularity down to below 50%. The actual thing they were being surveyed on didn't change. The question was designed to determine biases. If you know the politician you hate (or love) supports or opposes something, you're less likely to vote on the merits of the proposal.... and turning measures into popularity contests ultimately end up benefiting the person with the loudest megaphone. (the you was a collective societal you, not YOU specifically) It's always good to take the time to get facts, then try to make sure that they're not being presented in a biased way by those with a vested interest in the outcome. I thought this video was good, but it clearly was designed to push people into voting against this measure. They did a good job of trying to SEEM unbiased, but if your CON list says "it'll be BAD..." and your PRO list begins with "It won't be THAT BAD" ..... then it's clearly tilting in the direction of the CON. This is a great example video. If I was teaching advanced Statistics this year, I'd probably try to use it for a term paper, have my students discuss and debate all the ways it's good at being unbiased, and all the ways it's bad at being unbiased and discuss the merits of the way the information is shared. so.... it's a great video
This takes money out of the general fund budget which pays for schools and public safety among other things...any business that survives will pass on the tax to us....this is a joke measure
The arguments against 118 that helped sway me but not mentioned here are 1) If this passes, there won't be any appetite in Salem for a future tax for education, public health, transportation, etc for a long time, and 2) We should just reform the kicker instead by making that refund progressive (which is tax neutral and therefore potentially more politically viable).
@@kmarks97236 I don’t think we disagree…? I’m suggesting that a reason to NOT support 118 is because there is more obvious, low hanging fruit: change the kicker so that the returns are progressive. Since the kicker already exists, we wouldn’t have to change the way taxes are collected (so it would be more politically viable). We’d only have to change the way that the money is distributed.
@@kmarks97236 With property taxes, Oregon has one of the least regressive tax systems in the country ranked at number 42 (source: Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy).
Anti-homeless rhetoric is nuts because anyone could be homeless under the right circumstances. Just say you hate poor people, say you hate people with disabilities, say you hate children who were kicked out of their homes. Be specific with your hatred.
@@MaggotPrince I don't hate anyone (although I don't care much for maggots). I am not against assisting those in need but am perplexed why California would push this plan in a state adjacent to theirs, I doubt it is out of the goodness of their hearts. And other states do send their homeless to California and Oregon, these people are being used as pawns, but that may be difficult for you to comprehend. My actual objection to this measure is for other reasons but I am suspicious of the motivation behind it and will vote against it.
@@saneasthenextguy196 it actually isn't California law makers pushing this, it's a few wealthy venture capitalists, which may not be loads better, but it's good to know who is responsible. Either way, you're using homeless people as cannon fodder for your argument, but that may be difficult for you to comprehend.
@@kmarks97236 I am not bashing anyone, I am questioning the wisdom of and the motivation behind people from California promoting laws in Oregon. It is very common for republicans to fund campaigns to change laws in states other than their own. The Koch family is notorious for this.
Hmmmmm "We are from the government and are here to help " .... hahaha.. A business is not going to lose money.. They will ALWAYS pass those increased costs on to the consumer... This is just a way of taxing lower and middle class people . All the government seems to do anymore is find new and creative ways and terms to Increase government revenue...
"Could receive $1600." "The measure is paid for by Californians." Tells me everything I need to know about 118. A slick way to pass a sales tax in Oregon that is not called a sales tax!! Vote NO
who's paying for campaign against 118, how much money have they dontated? a quick perplexity search will show this. How much are these same companies donating to the politician speaking out against, how much are they donating to OPB?
Oregon state government just needs to stop handing out the kicker & keep the money for government use. Then if the state needs more money just raise the tax on corporations. This bill sounds like voodoo math.
Why keep the kicker when the budget doesn't need the money. The STATE doesn't have a revenue problem...its a wild spending problem that is effing over every taxpayer in Oregon.
Anybody who focuses more on the source of the idea than the idea itself should perhaps re-evaluate their critical thinking skills and maybe buff them up a bit. I might think that people from some states are suspect because the state is Blue or Red, and it's okay to generalize about generalities. But it's never wise to believe that just because one person comes from a specific locale doesn't make them or their ideas suspect. Evaluate the idea, not the person!
Origin not Origen. It’s a dumb idea and you always question the source of proposals/measures to better understand the intent and purpose of the proposals. It’s obvious that the proponents want their homeless population to migrate up here for “free” money.
Why didn't y'all go into the opposition to measure 118 from labor groups? The businesses I understand, and the opposition from legislators makes sense, but why how do the labor bosses say this hurts working people?
Don't forget the argument that the money given to residents could knock some folks out of Medicaid eligibility, thus negatively impacting their poverty level
The city of Grass Pants increased my water bill yo gouge the SSI hike to pay for the non-existent police force with a 30.00$ increase in my water bill. I'm certain they'll get this one too.
You’re kidding right. I want companies to pay there fair share, but if you think you’re outsmarting corporations your not. For the ones that decide to stay in Oregon they’ll deal with even less competition. You think price gouging is bad now? Can you imagine taking their profit and handing it directly to residents. We tried that with stimulus checks and we’re still painfully paying for it.
Has anyone looked into how neasure 118, if passed, could affect people on SSI, food stamps, affordable housing programs and OHP? The extra income that measure 118 would give them might well cost them big time if they lose vital benefits as a result!
Great question! They intend to have a hold harmless fund so anyone who would be affected will have extra funds to replace the amount lost. If you look up measure 118 debate on UA-cam, you will see a very well versed person addressing all the concerns and fear mongering from the business funded person opposed to the bill.
@@Firefenex1996 a "well- versed" Marxist spreading unfounded Propaganda.
The problem is, this horrible Commie idea creates a HUGE hole in the state budget and the Progressives running the state will be making all the decisions on how to implement this...this abortion of a Socialist plan is NOT a Constitutional implement by the voters...the legislature will be twisting, turning, and changing it to suit them. There is NO guarantee that any money will even be given out, nor is there any guarantee that other taxes and fees won't be implemented in order to cover the budgetary implications.
IF you think this is a good idea, you're either an uninformed nincompoop or a brainwashed Socialist. The "free money" this supposedly creates will cause exponential increases in consumer costs as the tax is paid on multiple levels by different companies.
@@valerielhw simple. Sin tax. You tax Marijuana dispenseries an extra 1% more to make up the 1.5 billion dollar social services shortfall.
@@determinedtofail or the government simply wastes less money.
This will decimate jobs in the area. And all the costs would just be passed on costing much more than we will ever receive back from the government.
I think I'm good on another experiment. Measure 110 PTSD. $1600 doesn't get me out of bed for the risk.
NO thank you. NOTHING is free!
Yea, duh. It's from the corporations. It's a tax on corporations. The corporations pay it. literally zero people said the money would fall from the sky.
Vote NO!!!
Every bill they pass will cost you something. That’s why they are required to ask you to say yes.
I hate the way they complicate everything. Why not just charge the corporation more and take less from the people? No that would be to simple. They gotta make it confusing so hopefully they can sway votes one way or another and some middle person probably gets rich or some misleading loophole that serves anyone but the people really.
The primary argument used against this bill is that businesses will pass the costs to the customers or flee the state.
So instead of supporting legislation that would directly confront corporate greed, they say we shouldn't support it because if we do the companies will be greedy.
So sick and tired of corporate greed. If you find yourself standing up for the corporations, that makes you a pawn.
LOL! "corporate greed" you say that like it means something more then you whining that if anyone has more then you they are greedy, well aren't you a saint. Let me clue you in, anytime anyone uses the term "not paying their fair share" that is marketing designed to appeal to losers who want money for nothing.
Not a pawn you Commie...a REALIST can see that businesses dont somehow magically pay taxes without passing it on...only in this case dont forget that THE STATE WILL WASTE MILLIONS implementing this on top of consumers paying more and small businesses losing ground.
@@LL.Johnson You talk about pawns as if you aren’t one yourself. Typically chess is played by two people with two sets of pawns.
😭
this was sold to me as a sales tax now I'm more informed I will be voting yes on this Measure,
makes sense if you gave 8 grand a year to people making 15 grand and under - why everyone?
Large corporations are insanely profitable. There’s literally no reason that a private family-owned company worth $1 billion (like the one I work at) cannot share their profits with us - after all, we made them that money.
So quit your job and find a company that has profit sharing.
@@RikerLovesWorf so you would sell yourself out for a couple of dollars?
I agree but the big capitalist dilemma is being so anti-business that they'll bounce elsewhere. Unfortunately this is the world we live in, and $1600 isn't enough for me to risk it. Plus the risk of our leaders fumbling the execution like they always do.
And businesses already pay the cat tax
SENATOR WYDEN: Big Business has been playing state against state for ever. If this measure pass's those company's that can will just run to another state, and likely get a tax break for doing so. This is going to have to be addressed at the federal level, as inter state flight to avoid fair taxation is not something we can cure alone.
How about no. If a state does something dumb, we need to be able to punish it by moving away from it. the is 50 STATES, not ONE federal system.
And Sen Wyden should just quit his job and give that seat to a Republican.
"Three wealthy people from California"..... uhhh wtf? Not sketchy to anyone else? HUGE red flag
@@davidpoole409 This is like waving a Communist flag in Oregon. Fools.
@@davidpoole409 certainly a reason so question this for sure.
CA wants all their homeless to migrate up here for “free” money.
I agree to a point that it's odd and a bit sketchy, but I am genuinely curious what they would get from it if the measure is passed. Some wealthy people are benevolent and want to make positive change so they could be doing it for non nefarious reasons, but honestly, I'm not sure what they get from it to be on the ballot and they wouldn't benefit for it to pass unless it's their competition that operates here and they are wanting to cost them, but even then seems like an weird risk to take.
I voted for 110 because I assumed there was infrastructure in place to treat the addicts. This is giving me the same vibes as when I realized there was no solid plan on how to really help people. Just an “idea” . Well this rebate “idea” is shady and will just cause a HUGE mess that needs to then be fixed by the legislature.
And like with 110, disabled people are completely left out.
What's really messed up with 110 though is that in places where there was infrastructure in place, funding wasn't made available or cops threw up hurdles left and right (including intimidation), making said infrastructure repeatedly fail...which was then used to justify that it "didn't work"
Yeah, I want to like the idea of each Oregonian getting ~$1600 back per year (it's basically UBI), but am concerned our legislators will mess it up somehow or it will have some unintended consequences (like 110) and complications. Undecided at this point.
Also a "trio of Californians" with deep pockets getting it on the ballot concerns me.
@@orangecoolius$1600 isn't much tbh don't sell your vote for some change. It might not even end up being that much since they have to balance it out so that $1600 could end up being alot less.
Someone got to pay. "Could get" is the watch word.
Look at the profits of large corporations during the period of the last few years, during inflation when America's poor suffered trying to make ends meet. Look at the profits of major food corporations, they made a lot of money during that time. They could have reduced their prices and taken less profits. Unless you take it from them, they will not give it willingly.
That sounds great, but this measure does not tax profits. It taxes revenue. Should a company that makes $25 Million in sales, but only made $10,000 in profit be forced to pay an additional $750,000 in taxes? It doesn't sound like a good plan to me. If the measure taxed profit, then I might be willing to get behind it, but so long as it taxes sales this measure will hurt Oregonians more than it will help by pushing medium sized businesses out of business...or push them into neighboring states. Remember those 3 wealthy business people in CA that supported this? Yeah, they are probably looking to benefit from either from making competitors go out of business or they plan on helping those businesses move into CA and somehow profit off that. This measure, as written, should NOT pass.
What makes you think their profit margins will change? They will simply pass the cost of the tax on to you
so take less profits to make up for the government's inflation? In the world where a dollar is now worth 75 cents they are taking less profits.
I love how someone that works there but off and makes barely enough to support there family gets no food stamps no health insurance no government help. While someone that doesn’t work gets a free health care food stamps and a free place to live. How is that fair?
what's worse is you are incentivized to stay without a job because you will lose your food stamps and health insurance and place to live if you make even minimum wage (full time) as the cut off is 1350 a month. Also, you won't qualify for most additional help like electric/gas credits and some food banks because your income. Things need to be changed to allow people with minimum wages to get help they need in order to really fix things. The same happens if you are living with someone else that has benefits as you don't even need to have benefits yourself. Your income you make can affect their benefits they get because the system expects you are supporting them so their benefits will be reduced or at a level they won't qualify for them anymore. it may not be fair but it's a trap I have been stuck in for 13 years due to my mom being on disability. Just living in this household, I am unable to get a normal job as it will affect both her benefits and mine and I won't make enough to support both of us with minimum wage (especially part time as that will lose benefits and be well under even just rent alone).
@@sillylily5828 I completely agree with you. The system is broken. It needs to be a sliding scale that encourages you to work so that the more you work, your total take-home from benefits and aid will only increase and not ever decrease. Here is the real rub... Politicians know this, and they have known about this fix for decades. Why do you suppose they don't fix it with that sliding scale? Or even better, why would they set up this measure not to be the funding for such a sliding scale, but rather give money to everyone and not focus it on those that need it most?
But with regards to this measure, it is not set up right for another reason. This taxes sales, not profit. If a company sells %25 million in goods, they are going to pay $750,000 in additional taxes even if their profit was way less than that. Any company whose profit margin is less than 3% (every single grocery store and restaurant operates on less than 3%) will go into the red and possibly go under. Why was this measure worded to tax sales and not profit? So long as the wording is that it taxes the sales, this will hurt Oregon, not help us. This is a bad deal for us.
So a couple of things nobody has mentioned that I’d like to see discussed regarding Measure 118:
1. Every single bit of “Vote No on Measure 118” material you’ve seen is overblown nonsense being forced onto us by those who actually stand to lose from it - Corporations and the Politicians on both side of the aisle who benefit from the current status quo.
2. Only businesses who make over $25million in profits are susceptible-you’re no longer a “small business” at that point.
3. The entities against this tax had NO PROBLEM POOLING TOGETHER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR AN OPPOSITION CAMPAIGN.
4. The State of Oregon will lose nothing as far as funding is concerned-the lottery and cannabis taxes more than cover any perceived “loss.”
5. The politicians don’t like this because the money goes directly to the citizens, thus making it more difficult to steal and embezzle from the state coffers.
6. Oregon is California’s neighbor-many Oregonians have family in California, so unless it is specifically a Citizens United thing(which none of you seem to care about anyway, see Project 2025), I don’t see the relevance.
7. Both Milton Friedman and Richard Nixon agreed that there would come a time when Americans would require a Universal Basic Income for the economy to function properly.
The interests of the hogs living in the fat house are the only things truly at jeopardy here.
If you choose to vote no on Measure 118, you’re either willingly or unknowingly a corporate stooge.
Well, i may seem like corporate stooge by your definition....but that's only because you're slinging that hate around as Marxist.
Its quite plain that you're not well informed and that you prefer misinformation as opposed to logic and common sense.
Measure 118 doesn't 'take away corporate profits, its makes goods cost more for consumers.
Eff that. Eff you.
Profits not prophets. Also, the language reads 25 million in “sales” not 25 million in “profits”. The kettle calling the pot black!
@@gs4815 look...dont play Commie leftist games. There is no reason to point out what was most likely an autotext mispelling.
@@gs4815 calling out autocorrect doesn’t discredit the above statement, it actually shows that you’re grasping at straws because you don’t address any of the actual talking points that I’ve plainly laid out. And since you seem to enjoy minutiae… cool, lets go with “sales” instead of revenue-that would actually be a LOWER figure than revenue-SOOOO, businesses, WHO GENERATE $25MILLION OR MORE in “sales” actually have even less of a valid complaint. They can still cook their books and report a lower figure.
Every single opponent to Measure 118 I’ve seen has inadvertently pwned themselves when trying to prove their case. I can pretty much guarantee this is an excellent idea by simply observing the people who are against it-crooked politicians, greedy corporations, and trolls who have been enlisted by said entities either by accident or by intentional design.
If scumbags are screaming “NO!!DON’T DO THIS!” We should definitely go for it.
@@MikeVorpal Yelling and name calling never wins arguments. What does “pwned” mean? I’m guessing it is something to do with Minecraft, but I could be mistaken.
It's not gonna be much help to do it yearly it would be a way better idea to do it monthly
ITS SOCIALISM. we should NOT be doing it at all.
give me some money man...right now...🤪
I would prefer a traditional model in which a progressive tax system was right-sized to generously fund public services and social welfare systems.
Do we want ALL of the business to leave or what?
As much as I would like to drag some profit-sharing out of the corporations that make money here and then immediately take their profits offshore, we need a better system than this. I don’t like the Californian interest here because we are just a testing ground to see if they can do this in more populous states.
3 people from California you could have added their names easily and should have...
I actually appreciated, as an educator, that the video was mostly non-partisan, didn't say WHAT group had pushed to get it ON the ballot (from within my state) and didn't hype the politics of the outsiders interfering in our internal affairs.
It is always good to know WHO benefits from misinformation. (the current topic I'm teaching my statistics students) but if the facts alone are insufficient to sway you in one direction or the other, and you need to know the politics of those involved to make your mind up, then perhaps the facts don't matter so much as knowing whose "team" wants what thing more.
There have been many studies done about how introducing the politics of a supporter of a bill WILL influence those who are trying to make up their mind about the issue at hand.
For example, I remember back in the late 2010s there was a study that demonstrated that if a person was asked "Should we do this popular thing" the results were about 74% in favor. But if you asked the same question in an area that heavily voted for GW Bush and included the fact that he supported it in the question, it became more popular, and if you included instead that Obama supported it, it dropped in popularity down to below 50%. The actual thing they were being surveyed on didn't change. The question was designed to determine biases. If you know the politician you hate (or love) supports or opposes something, you're less likely to vote on the merits of the proposal.... and turning measures into popularity contests ultimately end up benefiting the person with the loudest megaphone.
(the you was a collective societal you, not YOU specifically)
It's always good to take the time to get facts, then try to make sure that they're not being presented in a biased way by those with a vested interest in the outcome.
I thought this video was good, but it clearly was designed to push people into voting against this measure. They did a good job of trying to SEEM unbiased, but if your CON list says "it'll be BAD..." and your PRO list begins with "It won't be THAT BAD" ..... then it's clearly tilting in the direction of the CON.
This is a great example video. If I was teaching advanced Statistics this year, I'd probably try to use it for a term paper, have my students discuss and debate all the ways it's good at being unbiased, and all the ways it's bad at being unbiased and discuss the merits of the way the information is shared.
so.... it's a great video
@@LadyLithias Agreed. So many want to focus on drama and emotion based on party affiliation. Its refreshing when they just focus on the topic alone
VOTE YES ON 118
Unless we can find a way to ensure that the costs aren't just passed onto consumers, this measure seems bound to be fail.
Money is not free😂😂😂
This takes money out of the general fund budget which pays for schools and public safety among other things...any business that survives will pass on the tax to us....this is a joke measure
The arguments against 118 that helped sway me but not mentioned here are 1) If this passes, there won't be any appetite in Salem for a future tax for education, public health, transportation, etc for a long time, and 2) We should just reform the kicker instead by making that refund progressive (which is tax neutral and therefore potentially more politically viable).
@@jamessauls9652 low income people don’t benefit from the kicker. We need to fix one of the most regressive income taxes in the country.
@@kmarks97236 I don’t think we disagree…? I’m suggesting that a reason to NOT support 118 is because there is more obvious, low hanging fruit: change the kicker so that the returns are progressive. Since the kicker already exists, we wouldn’t have to change the way taxes are collected (so it would be more politically viable). We’d only have to change the way that the money is distributed.
@@kmarks97236 With property taxes, Oregon has one of the least regressive tax systems in the country ranked at number 42 (source: Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy).
@@bouncyboi3197 thank the universe we don’t have a sales tax or it would be ugly.
Are we trying to get more of the homeless in other states to move here? Maybe that is California's plan.
Anti-homeless rhetoric is nuts because anyone could be homeless under the right circumstances. Just say you hate poor people, say you hate people with disabilities, say you hate children who were kicked out of their homes. Be specific with your hatred.
@@MaggotPrince I don't hate anyone (although I don't care much for maggots). I am not against assisting those in need but am perplexed why California would push this plan in a state adjacent to theirs, I doubt it is out of the goodness of their hearts. And other states do send their homeless to California and Oregon, these people are being used as pawns, but that may be difficult for you to comprehend. My actual objection to this measure is for other reasons but I am suspicious of the motivation behind it and will vote against it.
@@saneasthenextguy196 it actually isn't California law makers pushing this, it's a few wealthy venture capitalists, which may not be loads better, but it's good to know who is responsible. Either way, you're using homeless people as cannon fodder for your argument, but that may be difficult for you to comprehend.
Good old homeless bashing. Bet you never went hungry or had no place to live in your life. Try it sometime and maybe you will learn some compassion
@@kmarks97236 I am not bashing anyone, I am questioning the wisdom of and the motivation behind people from California promoting laws in Oregon. It is very common for republicans to fund campaigns to change laws in states other than their own. The Koch family is notorious for this.
Hmmmmm "We are from the government and are here to help " .... hahaha.. A business is not going to lose money.. They will ALWAYS pass those increased costs on to the consumer... This is just a way of taxing lower and middle class people . All the government seems to do anymore is find new and creative ways and terms to Increase government revenue...
"Could receive $1600." "The measure is paid for by Californians." Tells me everything I need to know about 118. A slick way to pass a sales tax in Oregon that is not called a sales tax!! Vote NO
Vote yes on 118
who's paying for campaign against 118, how much money have they dontated? a quick perplexity search will show this. How much are these same companies donating to the politician speaking out against, how much are they donating to OPB?
It’s stupid af
Oregon state government just needs to stop handing out the kicker & keep the money for government use. Then if the state needs more money just raise the tax on corporations. This bill sounds like voodoo math.
Why keep the kicker when the budget doesn't need the money. The STATE doesn't have a revenue problem...its a wild spending problem that is effing over every taxpayer in Oregon.
Any idea coming from California should be seriously suspect.
Anybody who focuses more on the source of the idea than the idea itself should perhaps re-evaluate their critical thinking skills and maybe buff them up a bit.
I might think that people from some states are suspect because the state is Blue or Red, and it's okay to generalize about generalities. But it's never wise to believe that just because one person comes from a specific locale doesn't make them or their ideas suspect. Evaluate the idea, not the person!
@@LadyLithiaswhat is the reason California was involved in this initially?
@@worleystudios If the idea is either good or bad then it’s point of origen is irrelevant
They're the fourth largest economy in the world.
Origin not Origen. It’s a dumb idea and you always question the source of proposals/measures to better understand the intent and purpose of the proposals. It’s obvious that the proponents want their homeless population to migrate up here for “free” money.
"why are people against it"
Moneyed interest.
Why didn't y'all go into the opposition to measure 118 from labor groups? The businesses I understand, and the opposition from legislators makes sense, but why how do the labor bosses say this hurts working people?
They did mention that a criticism is companies leaving the state. That's fewer jobs and labor groups want job growth.
if this passes, it's likely big companies will just leave the state for places like texas the way elon musk took tesla and x out of california.
yeah or Intel
If we lose Nike and Intel we’re doomed.
Don't forget the argument that the money given to residents could knock some folks out of Medicaid eligibility, thus negatively impacting their poverty level
Then make it where that doesn’t happen
remind of the formula for losing eligibility.
The city of Grass Pants increased my water bill yo gouge the SSI hike to pay for the non-existent police force with a 30.00$ increase in my water bill. I'm certain they'll get this one too.
Vote yes on 118. Stop greedy people. They didn't need all that money to sit on. They need to pay for everything not us poor and middle class.
You’re kidding right. I want companies to pay there fair share, but if you think you’re outsmarting corporations your not. For the ones that decide to stay in Oregon they’ll deal with even less competition. You think price gouging is bad now? Can you imagine taking their profit and handing it directly to residents. We tried that with stimulus checks and we’re still painfully paying for it.
You sound like you need to study just how bad SOCIALISM is throughout history.
I need more than "stop greed." Give me some details and analysis, not just blanket statements.
Also $1600 a year is not a lot of money so is it even worth it to try to figure it out and gamble?
You sounds extremely uneducated and just desperate for any handout without thinking about the implications beyond yourself.