Corporate Kicker on the Ropes?
The Oregonian reports today that support is building for a change to Oregon's corporate kicker.
The state AFL-CIO has filed a pair of initiatives asking voters to change the Oregon Constitution to pare back or end the kicker tax rebate for corporations.Separately, Sen. Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, who leads the Senate Revenue Committee, said he may try to broker a deal to end the corporate rebate in exchange for a pledge to businesses that the Legislature would put the money into a rainy-day fund or spend it on projects such as higher education upgrades that businesses favor.
One major concern is that most of the corporate kicker funds go to out-of-state corporations - so there's little, if any, economic impact here at home. Even AOI is receptive to reform:
"Is it going to be horrible for business if they don't have the kicker? No," said Joe Schweinhart, lobbyist for Associated Oregon Industries, which helped create the income tax kicker refund law.
Discuss.
(Previously on BlueOregon, Chuck Sheketoff wrote "The $62.6 Million Question")
|
Dec. 05, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:20 a.m.
Dec 5, '05
It strikes me as a bit strange that Sen. Deckert is trying to broker a deal that the players are totally different in. That is, the players who would repeal the corporate kicker (voters, as it's in Oregon's constitution) are different than the players who would promise more funding for "things business likes" (the legislature).
That said, I suppose if Deckert can convince the business lobby he's got the votes (among an Oregon House and Senate whose composition will change substantially before they meet again) to do things AFTER the voters weigh in, perhaps they'll play neutral at the ballot box.
Or is Deckert planning to satisfty business, then hope AFTER the 2007 session to refer something to the voters?
Ah, the initiative system. Gotta love it's ability to deal with complex give-and-take issues.
Dec 5, '05
Ah, the voters. Gotta love their ability to deal with complex give-and-take issues.
At least we've nixed their voting on transportation.
nic nic nic
Dec 5, '05
It's a start.
Don't forget that Measure 5 was one of the biggest stealth corporate giveaways we've seen. It was so good, in fact, that most voters don't even realize how badly they got screwed on that one.
2:41 p.m.
Dec 5, '05
The corporate kicker was in statute long before it was redundantly enacted by initiative. Ah, the Legislature. Gotta love its ability to deal with complex give-and-take issues.
2:44 p.m.
Dec 5, '05
Correction:
The corporate kicker was in statute long before it was redundantly enacted by legislative refereral. Ah, the Legislature. Gotta love its ability to deal with complex give-and-take issues.
Evan, the kicker "initiative" never existed. Measure 86 (2000) was a referral, not an initiative.
3:47 p.m.
Dec 5, '05
Thanks, Dan, for the correction.
Complicated decisionmaking, or timely decisionmaking, is problematic when the voters put strange things into the Constitution. So, yes, I should have made a snarky comment about the ballot measure process, not simply the initiative system.
Dec 6, '05
I must protest Deckert on this -- business has no more right to select what their tax dollars are spent on than the rest of us and the legislature doesn't need to give that take. It doesn't matter that we all agree that higher ed and a rainy day fund are important. Earmarking into the next century isn't OK and neither is allowing business to choose where their tax dollars go. If they want to donate to those causes, that's an entirely different thing.
8:01 a.m.
Dec 6, '05
Naaaah, MsBlue.... Ryan's not arguing that they should get to specifically earmark. He's engaging in the same sort of thing that "the rest of us" do all the time: 'Want to raise my gas taxes? Spend it on roads!' said the voters, etc.