# Oregon collected 54.5 million in pot taxes this year.



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Oregon has collected $54.5 million in pot taxes so far this year - KPTV - FOX 12

That's lots of money.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Yes it is , but did you read the comments below ?


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

I read the first three and sounds like they really need tax revenue

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Just think how much they could make if they legalized all drugs? Heroin, cocaine and others would make them a ton of money,

And just think how profitable prostitution is in Nevada. The possibilities are endless.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

inceptor said:


> Just think how much they could make if they legalized all drugs? Heroin, cocaine and others would make them a ton of money,
> 
> And just think how profitable prostitution is in Nevada. The possibilities are endless.


Yeah it's a waste of time to fight people that want to do drugs. That has been proven over and over.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> Yeah it's a waste of time to fight people that want to do drugs. That has been proven over and over.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Yeah, I know. It's the same with sex. They have also been battling prostitution and pedophilia to no avail. The are still highly profitable even though it's illegal right now.

Yeah, the government would benefit greatly from lightening up on the laws. And we would spend far less in the judicial system. And we would not need to spend nearly as much for inmate care.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

If you'll indulge me a few minutes, I'll give you a short P&L primer @OakOwl.

In 2015 (Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2016) Oregon had Revenues of $25.937 Billion on Expenses and Other Charges of $25.974 Billion.

That, my friend is a $37 million dollar loss. Compared to a $1.18 Billion dollar profit in fiscal year 2014 (ending June 30, 2015).

Revenue don't mean shit if you have to increase expenses to manage that revenue.



OakOwl said:


> Oregon has collected $54.5 million in pot taxes so far this year - KPTV - FOX 12
> 
> That's lots of money.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Slippy said:


> If you'll indulge me a few minutes, I'll give you a short P&L primer @OakOwl.
> 
> In 2015 (Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2016) Oregon had Revenues of $25.937 Billion on Expenses and Other Charges of $25.974 Billion.
> 
> ...


Let me teach you about proving your point slippy not a single thing you posted proved that legalizing pot caused them to run a deficit. If you want to teach me something please show me you can back up your comments with facts.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

The single largest change in the state of Oregon from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015 was the Oregon Legalized Marijuana Initiative M91. In order to "regulate" a government needs people but a government also has to pay people. Oregon added people in 2015 just to regulate this new entity. In addition to salaries and short term benefits, Oregon also has a pension for its employees. Pensions typically show up on the Long Term Liability section of the balance sheet.

While Oregon has established what they call a "Rainy Day Fund" a nice little catchy government made up term, the long term liabilities of Oregon would consume the rainy day fund quicker than you can say "quit bogartin' my weed and pass the bong man."

My point is that bigger government will result from the regulation of pot easily making the revenue a pittance of the long term cost... and that is not good.



OakOwl said:


> Let me teach you about proving your point slippy not a single thing you posted proved that legalizing pot caused them to run a deficit. If you want to teach me something please show me you can back up your comments with facts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Slippy said:


> The single largest change in the state of Oregon from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015 was the Oregon Legalized Marijuana Initiative M91. In order to "regulate" a government needs people but a government also has to pay people. Oregon added people in 2015 just to regulate this new entity. In addition to salaries and short term benefits, Oregon also has a pension for its employees. Pensions typically show up on the Long Term Liability section of the balance sheet.
> 
> While Oregon has established what they call a "Rainy Day Fund" a nice little catchy government made up term, the long term liabilities of Oregon would consume the rainy day fund quicker than you can say "quit bogartin' my weed and pass the bong man."
> 
> My point is that bigger government will result from the regulation of pot easily making the revenue a pittance of the long term cost... and that is not good.


Again with not a single fact to back up your opinion. Pot is regulated right now when it's illegal.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Ma'am,

What I wrote was factual government policy based on Oregon's financial statements. Do you deny that Oregon pays both a salary/benefits and a pension to its employees? Do you deny that Oregon added human services in 2015 fiscal year? These are facts. You can deny all you want but the fact is that government regulation creates government growth and government growth creates more taxes needed to pay for the additional people and resources.

Eventually it craters in upon itself once you have more takers than makers.



OakOwl said:


> Again with not a single fact to back up your opinion. Pot is regulated right now when it's illegal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Slippy said:


> Ma'am,
> 
> What I wrote was factual government policy based on Oregon's financial statements. Do you deny that Oregon pays both a salary/benefits and a pension to its employees? Do you deny that Oregon added human services in 2015 fiscal year? These are facts. You can deny all you want that government regulation doesn't create government growth and government growth creates more taxes needed to pay for the additional people and resources.
> 
> Eventually it craters in upon itself once you have more takers than makers.


Yeah and spending money to stop other countries from growing drugs. To police, try and jail people in the us cost far more than it does to regulate revenue from legalizing drugs. We have spend almost a trillion dollars fighting the failed war in drugs.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn...on-drugs/index.html?client=ms-android-samsung

Stop wasting my tax dollars on failure. Prohibition on alcohol didn't work and it's been proven it hasn't worked with drugs too.

And you still haven't shown me a single facts stating that the government spend more regulating pot then it got in taxes.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Again, you are missing a huge point young lady. The Trillions spent on the war on drugs could have been greatly minimized had we secured the border. Cut off supply and you solve a huge portion of the problem. The Feds tried to fight demand and control distribution which was a huge waste.

But back to my point, increasing government through regulation of any kind is financially irresponsible. I'd rather see Oregon's Tax Revenue at $5 Billion and its expenses at $3.5 Billion vs th current $25B Revenue offset by $25B in Expenses.

Same with the Feds...Instead of a $4.3 Trillion dollar Revenue with Expenses of $5 Trillion we would be healthier as a country if our Federal Tax Receipts were $1.7 Trillion on $1.2 Trillion in Expenses.

That is the point that you are having difficulty comprehending.



OakOwl said:


> Yeah and spending money to stop other countries from growing drugs. To police, try and jail people in the us cost far more than it does to regulate revenue from legalizing drugs. We have spend almost a trillion dollars fighting the failed war in drugs.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn...on-drugs/index.html?client=ms-android-samsung
> 
> ...


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Why don't you you to legalize pot?
Should we get rid of police that's a major expense?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

OakOwl said:


> Why don't you you to legalize pot?
> Should we get rid of police that's a major expense?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Huh? Maybe someone should pass me the bong so I can keep up.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

A Watchman said:


> Huh? Maybe someone should pass me the bong so I can keep up.


Sorry on the phone. Why don't you want to legalize pot?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

With your logic nothing new can every be sold no new medication vehicles nothing. Because of a vague reason called regulations.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

OakOwl said:


> Why don't you you to legalize pot?
> Should we get rid of police that's a major expense?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


What I want is to reduce an out of control regulatory environment so that government stops its out of control growth.

As far as wanting to get rid of police, well in some cases Yes. I will assure you I could go to damn near any municipality and state, analyze their Law Enforcement Budgets and cut administrators and bureaucrats from their budget.

Since you obviously do not understand Financial Business Analysis and I'm bored while Mrs Slippy watches some Holiday Baking Show on TV, I'll give you another lesson.

"Out of Control Government Pensions 101"

For every handful of government employees who has a government subsidized pension, there is another government employee who helps to manage and provide oversight of these pensions. And this "extra" employee also has benefits and a pension so this requires more government employees to help manage and provide oversight etc etc etc.

Eliminate the government pensions and allow/require the employees to manage their own retirement like private sector employees do.

Additionally, eliminate government service unions like the SEIU who require that their members pay a portion of their salary to go to campaigns of politicians that they hope get elected. Once their candidate is elected, (with the service union's assistance) the service union then negotiates with the newly elected politician for their pay/benefits/pensions. The more government employees, the more negotiating power and the more dollars they can allocate to get the person that they want elected, elected.

Do you see the fallacy of the out of control regulatory environment in government? It really has little to do with "pot". The $50+ million that Oregon increased in revenue will quickly be consumed in both short term expenses and long term liability.

But then again, I've already said all this and you still want to make it about weed.

Silly little thing you are...


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> Should we get rid of police that's a major expense?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Getting rid of police would be good for this country. It worked for Detroit. Their police are leaving in droves.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

OakOwl said:


> With your logic nothing new can every be sold no new medication vehicles nothing. Because of a vague reason called regulations.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Good Gracious, you are an empty headed little thing aren't you? Public Government Schools sure did a number on your brain...:vs_worry:


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

OakOwl said:


> With your logic nothing new can every be sold no new medication vehicles nothing. Because of a vague reason called regulations.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


...But I'm feeling nice so I'll give you another economics lesson.

The Free Market and Government Regulations have an inverse relationship;

The less government regulations the more the free market thrives, hence the more products and services that can be offered without the shackles of regulations. Please tell me you understand this?


----------



## AnotherSOFSurvivor (Sep 7, 2016)

@Slippy if you ever get bored again want a job as a BIA? Ill make my SVP hire ya!

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Slippy said:


> Good Gracious, you are an empty headed little thing aren't you? Public Government Schools sure did a number on your brain...:vs_worry:


You're the one that cannot back up your point. What gives you the right to tell people what they can do to there own body? What new regulations do you support you aren't making your point of view clear at all. Why don't you support the legalizing of pot?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Slippy said:


> ...But I'm feeling nice so I'll give you another economics lesson.
> 
> The Free Market and Government Regulations have an inverse relationship;
> 
> The less government regulations the more the free market thrives, hence the more products and services that can be offered without the shackles of regulations. Please tell me you understand this?


Exactly you have finally started to listen to me. We have to stop regulating drugs and keeping them illegal it costs us too much money.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## azrancher (Dec 14, 2014)

inceptor said:


> And just think how profitable prostitution is in Nevada. The possibilities are endless.


And... prostitution is probably illegal, instead of regulated with Doctors Exams because of the Suffrage Movement where women decided that men shouldn't be out drinking and chasing women, we can now go out drinking but chasing women is against the law, or maybe catching the chased woman is against the law.

*Rancher *


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

azrancher said:


> And... prostitution is probably illegal, instead of regulated with Doctors Exams because of the Suffrage Movement where women decided that men shouldn't be out drinking and chasing women, we can now go out drinking but chasing women is against the law, or maybe catching the chased woman is against the law.
> 
> *Rancher *


Regulated Doctors exams? That's an infringement on people's rights.

And don't forget, pedophiles are people too. I bet Bill would be happy to come out of the closet.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Slippy said:


> ...But I'm feeling nice so I'll give you another economics lesson.
> 
> The Free Market and Government Regulations have an inverse relationship;
> 
> The less government regulations the more the free market thrives, hence the more products and services that can be offered without the shackles of regulations. Please tell me you understand this?


I went through this same exact argument a couple days ago with her using the numbers from Colorado that time. If I read this same exact thread for each of the remaining 48 states, blood is going to shoot from my eyes! :vs_shocked:


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Inor said:


> I went through this same exact argument a couple days ago with her using the numbers from Colorado that time. If I read this same exact thread for each of the remaining 48 states, blood is going to shoot from my eyes! :vs_shocked:


I was wondering where you were. It's not like you to pass this up.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Inor said:


> I went through this same exact argument a couple days ago with her using the numbers from Colorado that time. If I read this same exact thread for each of the remaining 48 states, blood is going to shoot from my eyes! :vs_shocked:


And you couldn't back up your opinion either. If you would just say because I don't like pot then i could believe that. But you had a temper tantrum instead when you could back up your opinion.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

:vs_gift: The gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

OakOwl said:


> And you couldn't back up your opinion either. If you would just say because I don't like pot then i could believe that. But you had a temper tantrum instead when you could back up your opinion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Its not really the pot I dislike ... its the dumbass liberal idiots that smoke it, that really piss me off.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

OakOwl said:


> And you couldn't back up your opinion either. If you would just say because I don't like pot then i could believe that. But you had a temper tantrum instead when you could back up your opinion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


I backed up my opinion with the numbers coming straight from the state of Colorado and you still did not believe it. There is nothing more I can say. This is strictly an emotional issue for you.

BTW: I really do not care much, one way or the other, about whether pot is legal (and totally unregulated and untaxed) or illegal. It is when you regulate and tax it that I have a problem. That means bigger, more expensive government and less freedom for the rest of us. Either way, I do not want to be around potheads.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Perfect opinions I can't stand people that smoke weed and lay around. I have fired many potheads. But saying it costs more is incorrect.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> Perfect opinions I can't stand people that smoke weed and lay around. I have fired many potheads. But saying it costs more is incorrect.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


And government regulation is good for the economy. It creates jobs. Well, we should still do away with the police but other than that, more government is good.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

inceptor said:


> And government regulation is good for the economy. It creates jobs. Well, we should still do away with the police but other than that, more government is good.


I love it when you get sarcastic. You sound like... me. :devil:


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Inor said:


> I love it when you get sarcastic. You sound like... me. :devil:


Now that I'm busted I gotta tell ya. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. :vs_lol:


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

The new taxes won't pay for the medical services granted to the over doses and lost wages from people to stoned to work any more, but hey they'd be free to drive your roads and kill ya though.



inceptor said:


> Just think how much they could make if they legalized all drugs? Heroin, cocaine and others would make them a ton of money,
> 
> And just think how profitable prostitution is in Nevada. The possibilities are endless.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

stowlin said:


> The new taxes won't pay for the medical services granted to the over doses and lost wages from people to stoned to work any more, but hey they'd be free to drive your roads and kill ya though.


But we would have more govt regulating all the stuff that would be legal. The Clinton Foundation would be legit, Bill would not have to fly off to remote islands. This would all be good for personal validation. People would not have to use their safe room nearly as much.

Think of the benefits.


----------



## hag (May 19, 2016)

Maybe the government could find a way to regulate other things at the taxpayers expense and we could go ahead and legalize rape murder and child molestation. Hey it's gotta be cheaper to legalize it than to prosecute and imprison the offenders


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

hag said:


> Maybe the government could find a way to regulate other things at the taxpayers expense and we could go ahead and legalize rape murder and child molestation. Hey it's gotta be cheaper to legalize it than to prosecute and imprison the offenders


And hell, the victims already dead anyway. What do they care anymore? :vs_lol:


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

hag said:


> Maybe the government could find a way to regulate other things at the taxpayers expense and we could go ahead and legalize rape murder and child molestation. Hey it's gotta be cheaper to legalize it than to prosecute and imprison the offenders


But it wouldn't be rape anymore. It would be letting someone feel good about themselves. The same with pedophilia. Heck, that's already happening in Europe.

https://www.rt.com/news/363890-iraqi-refugee-rape-austria/


----------



## azrancher (Dec 14, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Regulated Doctors exams? That's an infringement on people's rights.


I didn't think of that, I should have just told the Govmt to shove it when they selected me to take a "P" test...

*Rancher*


----------

