Downtown Portland News

[NJD]

Lower taxes, less burden on business to jump through hoops, and less agitation lets us all grow our business.

I am a Portland restaurant owner and have a degree in Business, I pay a lot of taxes, jump through TONS of bureaucracy and permit processes...

With that said: I DISAGREE COMPLETELY

Deregulation is what got us into this and every economic mess throughout American history. Good business practices are recession proof. Our national, and global, addiction to consuming soft goods is an unsustainable practice. Also, you can not make unfair business practices (and taxation) legal for some and not for others. My business is the same as another my friend owns in town and opened about the same time as well, far enough away for there to be no direct competition, but there's got a $150,000 mixed loan, tax break and grant 2 years into being open from the city because there's fell in an URA. They were able to afford things I couldn't, and now 2 years after that their business is thriving and mine is the same as both businesses were before. Need I remind you, on the subject of taxation, that businesses pay basically no taxes on themselves, the biggest burden on businesses is employee salaries based on minimum wage increases, that 70% of our Federal budget goes to just paying our interest on our National debt, and our State, County and City are dealing with budget crises and can't meet basic needs and services (see Oregon schools, medical programs or the jail closures for details).

THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS. PERIOD.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by cab

I would highly recommend the "pro-business" types to travel a bit and see how vibrant the business scene is in nations with high taxes.

Every year, the Global Competitiveness Report is published. Typically, the US, with it's laissez-faire approach to regulation, low federal minimum wage, comparatively low taxes, etc, etc, is the most competitive economy. Interestingly, the top 5 is usually rounded out not by Britain or the former Eastern Bloc countries, but the famously "socialist" Nordic/Scandinavian countries. This kind of blows apart any idea that a low tax, low wage economy is necessarily the the most competitive. A large state can help business a lot; the fact that employers have to provide healthcare for their employees is a massive drain on the US economy. Using the OECD rates, which provides a fair comparison between countries, the US rate of unemployment is slightly higher than Sweden's, and only marginally lower than the Eurozone as a whole.

I don't really know why Oregon's unemployment is so high, but I think it's a little silly just to say it's all that the minimum wage is too high.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

Lower taxes, less burden on business to jump through hoops, and less agitation lets us all grow our business.

.

Totally agree. I doubt anyone WANTS to burden businesses, and you're right there is a balance that has to be struck.

I have zero knowledge of the tax structure for a downtown Portland business vs. one in Camas or Hillsboro, but I would love to see a list of cutbacks people would be willing to accept for lower taxes. For example, isn't there a downtown improvement district tax that all the businesses pay for services like the 'Clean and Safe' program? This is a cost you probably wouldn't run into in the suburbs, but I personally would rather operate with the higher costs of downtown Portland than some bland office park in Tigard. The city just has to keep looking at ways to make the benefits of doing business downtown (clean, safe, diverse, high foot traffic, convenient transit) outweigh the negatives (higher costs, regulations). I've never owned a business so I don't know what it's like to have to consider those trade-offs.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I don't really know why Oregon's unemployment is so high, but I think it's a little silly just to say it's all that the minimum wage is too high.

I don't think anyone was making the assertion that our minimum wage is responsible for our unemployment. If that were the case, San Francisco and Berkley would be leading the nation in unemployment. (Minimum wage in Berkley is over $10.50/hour.)

I think the assertion made by me and others was that there are fundamental ideological approaches that make Oregon, and particularly Portland, unappealing to businesses that locate anywhere unless they are specifically targetted with tax breaks and incentives, a la the Solar industries and biotech industries.

Making your corner of the world generally unappealing to business, then making it appealing to specific industries you approve of is only a smart economic approach if your workforce is generally only trained in the types of jobs you are making available.

[Rhome]

I need help getting a picture that residents of the Benson might be able to help me with. The Goose Hollow neighborhood is changing their website, and one thing that is missing is a wide angle picture of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is roughly bordered by the area just South of 26, 405, Burnside, and Washington Park. I'm thinking a shot from one of the upper floors of the Benson would give this view. Can anyone at the Benson help confirm that this shot is possible from there?

[Quantum]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Every year, the Global Competitiveness Report is published. Typically, the US, with it's laissez-faire approach to regulation, low federal minimum wage, comparatively low taxes, etc, etc, is the most competitive economy. Interestingly, the top 5 is usually rounded out not by Britain or the former Eastern Bloc countries, but the famously "socialist" Nordic/Scandinavian countries. This kind of blows apart any idea that a low tax, low wage economy is necessarily the the most competitive. A large state can help business a lot; the fact that employers have to provide healthcare for their employees is a massive drain on the US economy. Using the OECD rates, which provides a fair comparison between countries, the US rate of unemployment is slightly higher than Sweden's, and only marginally lower than the Eurozone as a whole.

I don't really know why Oregon's unemployment is so high, but I think it's a little silly just to say it's all that the minimum wage is too high.

+1

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by JordanL

I don't think anyone was making the assertion that our minimum wage is responsible for our unemployment.

Yes, they were:

Originally Posted by WestCoast

Taxes are too high, minimum wage is too high, and there isn't enough core business to support downtown rents.

Anyway, by coincidence, I just came across this Forbes article, which places Portland Metro area as the no 10 best large city area for jobs. The caveat is that it hasn't seen job growth; just that the loss are significantly less severe than in other areas. But in this wintry economic climate, that's actually something to celebrate.

[zilfondel]

For those of you who have just moved to Oregon within the past 10 years, our economy was heavily driven by agriculture and timber until relatively recently. Most of the rural towns and cities, including places like Eugene, Roseburg and Medford, suffered heavily when they dried up. This wasn't a local phenomenon, as timber, ag, and industry has gone through major changes and restructuring in the global economy.

Portland has never been a major business center, and only recently jumped on the technology industry bandwagon in the 90s. To expect it to be recession-proof with such a lousy track record is a bit of a stretch... but I think one of our largest assets is the horde of college educated hipster-aged people who are willing to start new businesses and take chances. If you look at Seattle, they locally grew Starbucks, Microsoft, and Boeing from little companies back in the day (MS had only 13 employees in 1978 when they relocated to Bellevue).


Some Oregon towns have unemployment rates over 20% - even in the boom times. They certainly skew the state unemployment numbers up a lot higher than they otherwise would be.

Portland certainly doesn't have an unusually high unemployment rate right now compared to other cities in the US. Bend is over 14%, Fresno, Merced, and other high-growth Californian cities are over 17%. We're only about 1% higher than the LA metro area's 10.6% (March).

http://www.bls.gov/web/laummtrk.htm


The entire world's economy took a hit with the recession.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

...Portland has never been a major business center, and only recently jumped on the technology industry bandwagon in the 90s...

Um... Tektronix (Portland's first large technology company, which also spawned numerous spin-offs) was founded shortly after WWII and Intel (Oregon's largest private employer) has been a major local player since the '70s. Intel has more employees in Oregon than in their "home" state of California. Portland "jumped" on the technology bandwagon far earlier than the '90s.

[cab]

Portland is simply a small business town. Nothing wrong with that. Quality of life comes before ones job. We don't tend to play the keep up with the Jones games so we can do more with less. People come here to live; they take pay cuts for the lifestyle. Go read the other post about Frugal Portland. We just are not the type place to sell out our souls for corporate shill jobs. I think long term as the country moves away from the giant corporations, too big to fail model, places that do well with small, local business philosophy's will lead the next generation of US capitalism. Portland is primed for this, our streets are filled with people taking chances and starting businesses. But then again I guess we can keep complaining and dream of being Charlotte, NC

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by cab

Portland is simply a small business town. Nothing wrong with that. Quality of life comes before ones job. We don't tend to play the keep up with the Jones games so we can do more with less. People come here to live; they take pay cuts for the lifestyle. Go read the other post about Frugal Portland. We just are not the type place to sell out our souls for corporate shill jobs. I think long term as the country moves away from the giant corporations, too big to fail model, places that do well with small, local business philosophy's will lead the next generation of US capitalism. Portland is primed for this, our streets are filled with people taking chances and starting businesses. But then again I guess we can keep complaining and dream of being Charlotte, NC

I can't even begin to describe how naive it is to pretend that having a healthy economy, and a happy lifestyle, are mutually exclusive.

[bvpcvm]

I don't think that's quite what Cab is saying. Yes, we could lower our taxes and cut services. After all, gotta compete with Bangalore. And that might draw some companies in. But how sustainable is that? Somewhere else will just cut their taxes further and then "our" companies are gone. Meanwhile, our quality of life is diminished. It's called a "race to the bottom". It's healthy for no one, and I don't see how it leads to any overall increase in happiness.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

I don't think that's quite what Cab is saying. Yes, we could lower our taxes and cut services. After all, gotta compete with Bangalore. And that might draw some companies in. But how sustainable is that? Somewhere else will just cut their taxes further and then "our" companies are gone. Meanwhile, our quality of life is diminished. It's called a "race to the bottom". It's healthy for no one, and I don't see how it leads to any overall increase in happiness.

It's a false dichotomy is what it is.

"Play games", "lifestyle", "sell out", "corporate shills", "giant corporations", "being Charlotte, NC"... a small list of the pejoratives contained in a post only 139 words long.

First, the idea that lowering taxes reduces the quality of life is a bit ridiculous. I'm not even quite sure where you're going with that. The steps listed by both you and cab seem to be:

1. Lower taxes
2. ???
3. Life sucks

And you gloss over step 2 quite a bit. Why does quality of life reduce? Further, if the contention is simply that someone else will "lower their taxes more" and then all our business will evaporate, you seem to be saying that ALL the business that exists in Portland now is immune to tax burden. If that's the case, lets go ahead and just raise taxes a bunch, since the businesses we have now don't seem to care.

I'm curious what makes you think that another locale dropping taxes will destroy our "business friendly" model, even though it hasn't done so with the business we do have. Are the businesses that exist in Portland now somehow different?

Further, I find it specious to act like Portland is a bastion of small business. I know cab tried to imply this, I don't know if you believe it. This sounds like the statements of someone who's never been outside the state.

A lot of the tax and regulation burdens affect small businesses MORE than large businesses. They always have, and always will, and it's one of the primary reasons that almost every business tax break in the last 25 years has been almost exclusively targetted at small businesses.

SSP clearly isn't the place to discuss economics.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by JordanL

And you gloss over step 2 quite a bit. Why does quality of life reduce?

Because now instead of waiting 10 minutes in the rain for your bus, you have to wait 30 minutes, and when the rain lets up, that park they wanted to build by your house is still a vacant lot full of weeds. If I ever gloss over "step 2" it's because it seems so utterly obvious to me.

[urbanlife]

JordanL you do realize who gets hurt when you cut taxes right? We are all going to have to pay taxes for the rest of our lives...that is a given...the cost of a healthy city comes at the expense of taxes cause I am guessing you dont willingly donate money to the school system so the teachers could afford a healthy salary to pay for the cost of living.


And yes, Portland is a great city to start a small business in and still enjoy having free time to spend on one's personal life without having to have all our money go to pay for housing. There is something to be said for that.

[cab]

Actually Jordon your model has utterly failed and you still don't see it. Can you explain to us SSP economic heathens why the social democracies of the world with those high taxes have the highest quality of life? Your model has failed. The US is a case study of what happens when men that think like you destroy the very foundation of our country for short term economic gain for a few. Your model has turned the US into a would be third world country. Capitalism is a great engine for a society, but in no way should it be the entire car. You need a strong social democracy to allow a fair and equitable playing field for capitilism to survive. I'd argue that Portland is one of the places in the US that is in the process of re-defining the game to a more equal and just system. While this takes place, you're still trying to play by Gordon Gecko rules. The facts have spoken, It's time for a change. Be happy you live in a place that is trying to offer an alternative to a failed world view.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

Because now instead of waiting 10 minutes in the rain for your bus, you have to wait 30 minutes, and when the rain lets up, that park they wanted to build by your house is still a vacant lot full of weeds. If I ever gloss over "step 2" it's because it seems so utterly obvious to me.

I'd assume you think all taxes are created equal... right? Any tax that brings in $10 in revenue is the same, no matter how it was acquired?

JordanL you do realize who gets hurt when you cut taxes right? We are all going to have to pay taxes for the rest of our lives...that is a given...the cost of a healthy city comes at the expense of taxes cause I am guessing you dont willingly donate money to the school system so the teachers could afford a healthy salary to pay for the cost of living.

Look, I'm 22, so I have relatively recent experience with teachers and schools. You aren't going to generate sympathy from me via teachers. The school system we have is an utter failure, and it's a dual-headed problem of both the teachers and administrators. The purpose of schools is to provide education to children, yet NONE of parties involved are rewarded for doing so.

Teacher unions screw kids over, period. That has nothing to do with whether or not they help teachers... they hurt students, and for me, that is a bottom line that undermines the entire purpose of a school system. The purpose of schools is to educate kids, not pay teachers. That is an effect of properly educating students.

I think your actual point was that lowering taxes (any kind of taxes anywhere, presumably) will result in prisoners being released and teachers being fired, and THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Unfortunately, our tax code is so complex that this isn't even close to the case. Taxes are levied for specific purposes, and nothing about even our local taxes are simple enough to pretend that any taxes cut would result in class sizes increasing. (This coming from someone who has worked for PPS as well.)

Actually Jordon your model has utterly failed and you still don't see it. Can you explain to us SSP economic heathens why the social democracies of the world with those high taxes have the highest quality of life? Your model has failed. The US is a case study of what happens when men that think like you destroy the very foundation of our country for short term economic gain for a few. Your model has turned the US into a would be third world country. Capitalism is a great engine for a society, but in no way should it be the entire car. You need a strong social democracy to allow a fair and equitable playing field for capitilism to survive. I'd argue that Portland is one of the places in the US that is in the process of re-defining the game to a more equal and just system. While this takes place, you're still trying to play by Gordon Gecko rules. The facts have spoken, It's time for a change. Be happy you live in a place that is trying to offer an alternative to a failed world view.

It really is incredible how many pejoratives you can squeeze into such a small space.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who has no intention of considering my point of view.

[cab]

The nation has not only considered your point of view but as implemented it for the last 30 years. You act as if some how you are a persecuted minority. You had your chance and your system has failed (as it does every time its been tried). We're done with the boom and bust economies. Move aside and let others have a chance on creating an economy on sound economics and not some delusions of trickle down wealth.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by JordanL

I'd assume you think all taxes are created equal... right? Any tax that brings in $10 in revenue is the same, no matter how it was acquired?



Look, I'm 22, so I have relatively recent experience with teachers and schools. You aren't going to generate sympathy from me via teachers. The school system we have is an utter failure, and it's a dual-headed problem of both the teachers and administrators. The purpose of schools is to provide education to children, yet NONE of parties involved are rewarded for doing so.

Teacher unions screw kids over, period. That has nothing to do with whether or not they help teachers... they hurt students, and for me, that is a bottom line that undermines the entire purpose of a school system. The purpose of schools is to educate kids, not pay teachers. That is an effect of properly educating students.

I think your actual point was that lowering taxes (any kind of taxes anywhere, presumably) will result in prisoners being released and teachers being fired, and THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Unfortunately, our tax code is so complex that this isn't even close to the case. Taxes are levied for specific purposes, and nothing about even our local taxes are simple enough to pretend that any taxes cut would result in class sizes increasing. (This coming from someone who has worked for PPS as well.)

Well, now knowing your age, I think I am gonna have to let this one go...this is something you will have to learn in life. In the world of careers, people are often going to take higher paying and better rewarding jobs...if one is an excellent teacher and great at urban planning, why would they want to work for less money at a school? That is a serious issue when it comes to educating...when it becomes hard to find qualified teachers to teach, then you end up with a failing school system...and regardless of how you cut it, tax money is what pays for the schools. While I do agree that the tax system is a big system, when cuts happen, it will have effects on departments that are receiving tax money.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

In the world of careers, people are often going to take higher paying and better rewarding jobs...if one is an excellent teacher and great at urban planning, why would they want to work for less money at a school? That is a serious issue when it comes to educating...when it becomes hard to find qualified teachers to teach, then you end up with a failing school system...and regardless of how you cut it, tax money is what pays for the schools.

Yes, unfortunately that's the way it is here. Countries like Denmark help prevent brain/talent drain from one career field to another by limiting the differences in pay between all jobs (barista vs. teacher vs. pilot vs. doctor).

People have a better opportunity/incentive to find a job that fits them the best and makes them the happiest instead of merely being driven by what pays them the most. That said, it's also a little easier to do this in a less consumer-driven culture, compared to ours, where the products that we buy with our salaries connotate social status/belonging.

Here's where they/we lie on OECD's "happiness" survey...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...st-places.aspx


We've been told/taught that this flatter pay differential is a socialist/social welfare approach, but unfortunately we get too caught up in the emotional response to the "S" word instead of looking at the end results.

The quality of life, health, educational attainment, and street-safety in the Scandanavian countries is some of the best in the world, and at the same time they're also some of the world's most efficient and competitive economies, even with their taxes, as shown in this report from the World Economic Forum...

http://www.weforum.org/en/fp/gcr_200...ghts/index.htm

As someone who has an econ degree it's dismaying to see people get over-focused on just one or two data points (e.g., taxes) without taking the many, many other variables into account (along with their dynamic interactions/complexities) in their discourse.

Dealing with our educational problem is similarly complex. Yes, if talented teachers are incented to leave education, then that's not going to have a positive effect on the next generation. But we've also got a problem with the average number of days in a school year compared with other better educated countries: US- 180, South Korea- 220, Japan- 243.