HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » Oregon (Group) » Ballot measures: what's ... » Reply #5
In the discussion thread: Ballot measures: what's your take? [View all]

Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 02:56 PM

5. I'm getting close to finishing mine...

 


77 and 78 - Yes. These are more procedural fixes and I don't think there's too much opposition to what they do, and to prevent problems that might happen if these don't happen in emergency situations, etc.
79 - NO!
80 - Yes - I know the local Democratic party here has chosen not to taken a position on this, since though many don't have a problem to do what it tries to do, one person noted to me that it is poorly written. Not sure of the details on this. But I say even if it isn't written well, let's get it in to law, and if there are problems with it, we can fix them later. But we need to get this law in place to help us not criminalize people for smoking pot, which as big a prison population as we have, that is more heavily black and minority, I believe is another form of voter suppression of Democratic Party votes.
81 - I still haven't decided on this one yet and this along with the judge selections are what I'm still trying to work on before I turn in my ballot. I'm leaning yes, but I think you need to have work done with the state of Washington to make sure that those really trying to game the system and use gill nets in a bad way will just work from the state of Washington instead to do the same thing.
82 - No - we can go to the Indian casinos or play the lotto. If you have this in place you take away revenue the state gets from the lotto games too.
83 - No
84 - NO! - Another gift to the rich. This is even made worse that Oregon's laws on inheritance already have a loophole that costs the state $2 billion each year in lost tax revenue. This is that when you inherit an asset that has a capital gain associated with it (or at least if it was sold by the person that owned it before, they'd have to pay tax on the unrealized capital gain from the time they required this property. State law absolves those who receive this property from this unrealized/untaxed capital gains liability and instead has any capital gain liability starting with the day the property transfers to the inheritor. If you add this removal of inheritance tax liabilities, then you will increase the gaming the system that those owning big assets that have unrealized capital gains game the system. They simply will just hold on to this asset with the most capital gains liability, knowing that even if it is valued very highly, it won't be taxed to the inheritor, in addition to that inheritor not paying those unrealized capital gains taxes. This is NO with an exclamation point for me! We should have another proposition to change the way capital gains are assessed on these properties too.
85 - YES - the corporate kicker needs to either go altogether or be used for something that helps the average Oregonian like this prop does.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
LWolf Oct 2012 OP
luv_mykatz Oct 2012 #1
LWolf Oct 2012 #6
luv_mykatz Oct 2012 #2
DreamGypsy Oct 2012 #3
0rganism Oct 2012 #4
LineNew Reply I'm getting close to finishing mine...
cascadiance Oct 2012 #5
OregonBlue Nov 2012 #8
LWolf Oct 2012 #7
Please login to view edit histories.