So, what is the Greek term for government by, for, and of corporations?

Hey Chucky baby, If you take into consideration the 170 NEW JOBS and the added payroll and other taxes how much will the new Yahoo facility be paying and/or generating?

With the genuine "creation" of new jobs I look at this as far better than one of the 1st towers in South Waterfront having neary all of their $66 millon value exempt from property taxes for 10 years.

Forgive me if I missed it but I can't recall you ever commenting on such givaways?

I suspect Chuck isn't opposed to any tax giveaways that feed union jobs, even if it building Trams, so it must be tha Yahoo is non-union. What do you say Chuck?

Yahoo! is 47% Blue, according to buyblue.org

"Yahoo! currently has a 47% BuyBlue rating due to political contributions for the 2003-2004 election cycle. Yahoo! is an interesting case because one would think that a company headquartered in silicon valley would be fairly progressive in terms of politics. However, during the 2003-2004 election cycle their CEO donated heavily to conservative candidates. Furthermore yahoo! does have a PAC and this PAC contributed fairly significant amounts of money during the last election, mostly to conservative candidates.

Technically this gives Yahoo! a "neutral" rating, but when you compare them side by side with their direct competitor Google you can see a huge difference in how they do things."

Google is cool. Yahoo is not. Firefox is cool. Internet Explorer is not.

That's about all I have to say today.

This whole question of corporate taxes is an interesting one and would benefit from some informed discussion.

Oregon like many states is in a desperate competition for jobs. It is not clear to me whether states like Oregon have any serious choice about taxing corporations if they want them to locate here. This of course is the achilles heel of the very idea of Federalism... corporations can play states off against each other in a race to the bottom. It is a prime example of why a federal tax system that redistributes income to states is essential if we are to build any kind of just society in which popular democracy provides some balance to the ravages of unfettered capitalism.

Yes corporations can also play national economies off against each other, but the Federal government has a fighting chance against the large corporations... the state of Oregon simply can't dictate any sort of terms at all (as far as I can see). Hell, it can't even negotiate terms. And this weakness is built into the very structure of the American economic system which gives corporations the freedom to choose the tax and governmental incentives that suit them best. They have a mobility that even individuals don't have and that gives them a power that individual people don't have.... does that sound like a democracy to you?

On a less serious note...

Google is cool if you don't mind having your email inspected and your brain targetted by it's computers.... otherwise Yahoo mail is much cooler.

And if Google is so cool how come they are locating in the Dalles? Even Hillsboro has more cachet, although maybe Google has such powers of coolness that it will transform any place it touches. But I'm glad to see Google, or any economic development, on the east side of the river.

What I don't understand also is why the Portland Downtown Coalition and Powers that Be don't make a serious effort to attract technology companies to industrial locations in central Portland.

Is it possible to imagine any combination of policies, taxes, advertising that would lead brain industries to want to be in Portland, downtown and inner east side, and North Portland and around the Airport?

Is it just that Portland doesn't stand a chance because of tax issues?

I've heard that you just can't build a chip plant or technology factory on much of the land in the Portland area because of.... geological reasons? lot size? what? any truth to that?

I understand there are shortages of suitable land for some of these technology applications... but if Google chooes the Dalles and Yahoo chooses Hillsboro and even a call center can't get set up on MLK (another story) how the hell is Portland ever going to maintain itself?

I wonder why they didn't move to Multnomah County, or Portland given the quality of life and infrastructure advantages of living in/near an urban center?

Mmmmm.

A side comment with some background on Google's data center in the Dalles; IIRC there's a major Internet backbone line that runs through the Gorge, so the location is valuable. Power is one of the biggest requirements for a data center, so proximity to BPA sources is surely a plus. And with a data center you're not really talking about lots of jobs, particularly for locals; Google is stacking up data center machines that run mostly unattended. Think of it as a warehouse-like distribution center for data and the siting makes a bit more sense.

Chris, here's a simple example for you (most real-life situations would be more complex but it's the same basic idea).

Let's say that my company produces widgets and sells them for $10 each. My total expenses run $9 per unit (including sales, overhead, etc.) so I have a corporate income of $1 per unit. Absent any corporate income tax, the company would get to keep that $1.

On the other hand, if the corporate tax rate is 35%, the company would have to pay 35 cents per unit, and would only keep 65 cents instead of the $1.

So if I still want to keep $1 per unit, I need only increase the price per unit by 55 cents. Then my profits before taxes are $1.55 per unit, less 35% works out to about $1. I still keep the same amount of profit, so my customers have effectively paid my tax for me.

However, if for some reason I'm unable to adjust my prices, then I can't really "pass along" my tax expenses at all.

Now, in the more figurative sense, I think when Republicans argue that only people ever really pay taxes, they're talking about who is ultimately paying the price. If a company pays 35% of income in taxes, the company may have literally paid the tax, but the burden of the tax falls on the people who own the company. If not for the tax, those owners would have retained more value in the company (or could have extracted more value from the company). So, indirectly, taxes are paid either by the customers of a company (in the first example I gave) or by the owners of the company.

Then you get into double taxation where the company profits are taxed, then any dividends passed along to shareholders are taxed as well. Hardly the only case of double (or triple or quadruple) taxation in the U.S., but it's one that tends to raise the ire of Republicans.

Google is way cooler than Yahoo. Do I Yahoo? Hell no. I Google.

Does Google make The Dalles cool? No.

It is partly about how the tax burden of business is stated. And maybe someone can offer the latest wisdom on the argument that corporations never pay taxes anyway; people pay taxes. Some Republicans love to argue that any tax on corporations is simply passed along to end consumers; but I've heard (without the benefit of data) that corporations' ability to pass through stops well short of 100%. Anyone have the facts?

At a candidate forum last fall, Kim Thatcher tried to say something like "only businesses pay taxes". Most people realize that in a Salem audience, there will be public employees.

Reportedly (heard this from a friend) Thatcher was really startled by someone walking up to her afterwards and asking something like "Are you saying that public employees fill out tax returns? Let me tell you--I am a public employee and I pay taxes.

It is like the current nonsense "The voters have spoken on taxes with Measure 30". I read at least one account of a woman from Ashland (a district which went Dem. in Nov. after years as a Republican district) who said something at the Ways and Means hearing in Medford like "it is a shame you are not talking about more revenue".

It would be interesting to hear Republicans explain why that woman had no right to express that opinion because "the voters spoke on Measure 30". I don't recall Republicans running on "Measure 30 closed the debate, therefore you aren't allowed to mention taxes" any more than they ran on "Vote Republican so we can take money out of the school budget to build the Madras prison".

"Then you get into double taxation where the company profits are taxed, then any dividends passed along to shareholders are taxed as well. Hardly the only case of double (or triple or quadruple) taxation in the U.S., but it's one that tends to raise the ire of Republicans."

The double taxation that raises my independent ire is that which taxes the same gross income for both federal income tax and FICA and Medicare.

Cognizance of that, and of all the income beyond wage and interest income, that is not computed into various taxations would be my idea of progressive.

Here's a question -- which Kari sort of raised earlier in the thread -- how much of Yahoo's income will be Oregon-based? I suspect the answer is: none.

The news item indicates that this will be a customer service call center. That may involve revenue for Yahoo, but more than likely it won't.

So effectively Yahoo's Oregon operations will be a cost center but probably not a revenue center. In other words, they may have an Oregon-based net loss rather than net profit.

Now, why should Yahoo pay Oregon income tax, if the company does not actually earn income within the state? Property taxes, yes of course. And they probably are getting breaks on that as well. But complaining about the $10 minimum tax when the company has no actual Oregon income seems a little silly to me.

By the way, the job training provided by the state is a benefit to the workers at least as much as to the company. And those workers, who will then be qualified (thanks to the training) to make $12-$14/hour, will be paying income taxes back to the state. And how expensive is this job training really going to be, anyhow? These are essentially entry-level tech jobs after all. It's not rocket science. It's not even computer science for crying out loud...

Chuck says ("Your Friend" - I don't talk to strangers who claim not to have a name.)

How convenient. And I was so looking forward to your answers.

Paul Gronke said "The corporate tax base in NC, where I moved from, far exceeds Oregon, yet they seem to continue to be able to attract jobs."

Well, maybe they have more favorable income and property tax rates, more affordable housing and other livability advantages.

LT says " ...the current nonsense "The voters have spoken on taxes with Measure 30". lt would be interesting to hear Republicans explain why that woman had no right to express that opinion (needed taxes) because "the voters spoke on Measure 30".

I don't hear any Republican declaring no one can speak about taxes. Is there any source of that notion? What should be made clear to the 60% of voters who defeated M30 is who was and is talking about raising taxes. It's nearly every single Democrat legislator. While few if any Republicans have or are doing the same.

Speak all you want and proudly declare what your group or party advocates for even if it is a minority viewpoint.

Why should corporations pay state taxes at all? They pay a fee to the state to form a corporation, perhaps that should be the sum total of their taxes.

Income (generally) is a strange thing to tax. It is not based on consumption; it is based on "success," an odd thing to deter. "Congratulations on that gold medal Mr./Ms Olympian. Now, because you won the gold and not the silver we will be adding 10 seconds on to your time for some of the folks who came in seventh and eighth. The Silver medalists will receive an additional 5 seconds."

As Kari pointed out, corporations tend to hire smart accountants who magically make all profits look like expenses. Imagine if they put that creativity into something that actually had a public benefit. Wow, better put down that pipe.

We continue to tax people based on their income - or to put it another way - what people can afford to pay. But why corporations? Corporations were created as a way to protect an individual's investment. It is their creditors who should be concerned with their progress, not the government. Corporations are a poor vehicle to tax.

Our problem is not corporations paying or not paying taxes.(btw if the law views Corporations as a person...Oh My God what if they need life support? What would Mr. Delay do?) Our problem is searching for a problem. We have more than 9 out of 10 Oregonians working. Is that bad? No.

Yet we call our unemployment stast unacceptable? It is not. Instead, the inspired will say "Yea, but those jobs suck." I don't think this is a "problem." I think we should have better jobs. We should have higher wage jobs. But lets not call it a problem in need of a solution. Its an aspiration that is in need of leadership.

Why is Yahoo locating here (because we rock)? Is it because of the taxes? NO. It is because, wait for it, it was the CHEAPEST LAND in the nation. Thank god, for a second I thought Metro would have to open up the Zoo and the Japanese Garden for development.

Our tax system makes very little sense. Who should pay for our society? How much should they pay? What about those nasty intangible benefits? Jennie stated that she didn't like the public supporting corporations. But the corporation will be locating in Hillsboro - they can tax them for basic services. Its likely that Hillsboro will experience more of their costs than the state. In regards to job re-training, 1. Those folks won't be on Oregon's unemployment roles. And 2. that training is for individuals and will last with those people forever. If we call training education we have no problem with it (just another semantic observation - like that problem/aspiration thing).

So, Jack Bog, why should corporations pay taxes at all?

MP3 maker to Vancouver

A Korean-owned maker of MP3 digital music players plans to relocate its American unit to Vancouver, Wash., from Milpitas, Calif., The Columbian newspaper reported Thursday.

Here's a cut and paste way to see the full story... http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2005/05/02/daily31.html?jst=b_ln_hl

EADS North America, set up by the European consortium that owns Airbus, hopes to build refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force. The company sought bids from throughout the United States for a manufacturing facility.

The company said it has narrowed its search from the original list of 70 cities in 39 states, including some cities in Washington. Airbus is now down to four finalists -- all located in the Southeast. They are:

Mobile Downtown Airport, Alabama Melbourne International Airport, Florida Stennis International Airport, Kiln, Mississippi Charleston International Airport, South Carolina

"After careful evaluation, four locations emerged as the sites most capable of meeting the transportation, personnel and manufacturing demands of large military aircraft assembly," Ralph Crosby Jr., EADS North America's chairman and CEO, said in a statement.