http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2686 A subject area in economics, called the incidence of taxation, says that the party upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily pay the tax. They might shift it onto some other party. That's precisely what corporations do. They are merely tax collectors.

The real problem is that Oregon does not have enough business to continue funding the current system. We can blame this on many factors including "progressive" politics, sustainability, intricate land use laws that violate landowner's 14th amendment rights in the name of Urban Growth Boundaries, etc.

Have we forgotten about why Louisiana Pacific left Portland, OR?

I hear a lot of talk about sustainability and green buildings being the wave of the future, yet I ain't seeing it. If there is such a huge market for it here in Oregon that attracts people here from all the other states, then where are the green corporations who would love paying 17% corporate taxes and investing heavily in the public sector?

I believe we should work on attracting business back into Oregon by keeping corporate taxes stable or lowering them and throwing out our land use system altogether. There is no reason that the State of Oregon should be in direct violation of the U.S Constitution by enacting a system of land use laws that violate 14th Amendment due process rights.

When analyzing the $10 corporate minimum you have to take into account all the "S" corporations and LLC's where the owners are paying the taxes on the profits at their much higher, personal tax rate. Raising the minimum is appropriate for "C" corporations.

BTW, any astute student of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson would know that statements such as:

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." -John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government

Both refer to private property. The pursuit of happiness can be read accurately as the pursuit of private property as Thomas Jefferson was a fervent student of John Locke.

I am not a supporter of "sin taxes" but if the Oregon legislature can't get the votes to tax cigarettes - which are basically poison advertised as a "lifestyle choice" - I would not hold your breath waiting for the legislature to raise the minimum corporate tax.

By the way, I think the minimum corporate tax in CA is now around $800.00 per year. Not sure if there are exceptions for Mom and Pop businesses.

"Public Structures?"

Nice work Chuck...welcome to the latest poll tested political buzzword from the left. You saw it here first!

Chuck--well said. What is sad is our current state lack of leadership. Our Governor, if he chose, could stand up and put together a funding package that would fund all education--not pit it against each other--but that would take leadership. It is clear that standing tall and leading is not what he does best.

It is also unfortunate that the legislature, both chamber held by democrats, have done little to help. If the democrats want to change the direction of the state--and the state of education--stand up and do it. They might be amazed by the support they would receive.

Chuck,

Since you brought Intel into this by throwing out the statement,

"a company that 10 years ago paid over $50 million a year in income taxes. Today they are likely a ten bucks a year taxpayer." ,

shouldn't you complete the other side of the equation?

How many thousands more employees (and vendors, realtors, teachers, etc., etc.) serving Intel workers are now paying state income and property taxes?

You and I both know that tax revenue attributed to this group is huge. Please be more intellectually honest in your arguement next time.

Maybe the other guppie liberals who read this simplly nod their head like Ichiro bobble head dolls, but most people understand that taxes generated through Intel wages (and related property taxes) have paid their fair share.

TJ,

You are choosing to ignore the point. Through Intel's growth and good business judgement, they've grown the Washington County labor base, which has resulted in many multiples of tax revenues to the State than the $50 million suggested by Chuck.

If Intel decides it doesn't like a mandatory profit tax, and skips Oregon on a new production factility in favor or San Antonio, how effective will the mandatory tax have been?

You see TJ, wages and property taxes (or sales tax) are better anyway. Corporations can adjust the income statement in any of a number of accounting changes. Wages and property values can't be adjusted using accounting techniques. If you W-2 wages say $65,000, then those are your wages. If you property taxes come out to $7,000/year, then there you have it.

If Intel has record revenues, it doesn't mean they'll have any profits from the Oregon segment.

Why do people use the term "fair share" when discussing taxes? What exactly does that mean? Who could possibly know what Intel's "fair share" is? There is no such thing, it is just a tax rate.

Personally my feeling is that Oregon should eliminate all taxes for corporations. We're in a competition with the other states for good business jobs so why not attract some employers. You can then tax the income that the employees receive.

I'd also suggest a cap on personal income taxes. Make the cap at $100K per person per year or something along those lines. See if we can attract some more high wealth people to the state. Having a few rich people around is always a good thing. Not sure why so many people on this site are anti-business and anti-rich people. Who exactly do you expect to pay for all of those things that you keep wanting like health care, education, mass transit, etc? Poor people can't pay many bills.

Well, no sense in arguing with a bunch of Portland, liberal elitists. The will of the people will show in the initiative process.

I want ya'll to gut and throw away Measure 37. This will ensure another Measure 37 concerning private property is on the ballot in the next election cycles until the land use system is obliterated.

Measure 7 passed with 53% in 2000 (struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court) Measure 37 passed with 61% in 2004 Measure 39 passed with 66% in 2006

So far you guys have the failures of Measure 65 in 1998 and Measure 2 in 2000.

The accurate score is 3 to 2 for those who believe in protecting Oregonians due process rights of private property.

Torrid,

Thank you for the history lesson. Are you counting 1 to 3 man nonprofits in those 200 green businesses? If they are 200 and continuing to grow, then how come the service industry is employing a bunch of 18-24 year olds? If the number is big, then one would reasonably expect to feel their impact.

TJ,

You spoke quite clearly the liberal party line. Thank you. Your lack of ability to look at the complete picture with respect to how money flows into the State's tax receivables is completely expected.

Hello Intel. I've a suggestion for you. Simply fire all of your workers that can be replaced by temps. This will allow you to hire them back without benefits at a lower wage. Your profits will go up. Sure, you'll pay more in mandatory taxes, but think of all the savings in benefits. The state of Oregon will have to pick up all of the health care costs as these working poor move onto the Oregon Health Plan.

The actual pass through of your revenue to the State of Oregon will plummet, but at least you'll finally be paying your "FAIR SHARE" according to Torrid Joe.

And State or Oregon, in order to make up for the lost revenue because "Intel could leave for whatever reason it likes" (what a bold statement TJ), make sure to raise the cigarette, beer, and gasoline tax (all favorites of the Libs) that will hit the working poor disproportionately hard. You may want to put in a few more slot machines while your at it.

Maybe, just maybe, corporations look for more than tax breaks. Maybe they look at the quality of the infrastructure in an area(investment in public capital). Maybe they look at how educated the workforce is in the area(investment in human capital). Sure, they notice how much they'll have to contribute in taxes, but it's not the be-all-end-all in the process of choosing corporate locations. Intel or Apple or Microsoft would NEVER move their corporate offices to rural Oregon, even if they could get away with paying NO taxes. Rural Oregon doesn't value investment in public capital, or human capital. That's why 70-80 percent of the residents lack a college education. That's why the Jackson County libraries are closed. You think a corporation is more inclined to move their operation to Jackson County because the libraries are closed?
It's not an accident that the most successful corporations set up offices in 'bluer' regions of the country. These bluer regions have voters who ELECT to pay higher taxes in order to attract these corporations. They pay higher taxes, and they attract jobs that pay more, jobs that see wage increases that far outpace the slightly higher tax rate. Despite conservative efforts to demonize taxes as a cost, they aren't. Taxes are an investment in the community and corporations are quite aware of that.

Chuck,

Your references lose their objective appeal when the first one checked is a left wing advocate of socialist(tax and redistribute) solutions.

Matter of fact, you appear to be a leading contributor. Sorry, that doesn't do anything to back up your weak claim of little correlation between taxes and business decisions.

Let's do better.

Russ,

You may want to ask yourself why those libraries in Jackson county are closed.

Have any businesses or industry, that use to employee people, shut down or shrank considerably due to environmentalists shutting down portions of the forest?

Thanks for making my point.

When you have an anti-business philosophy (think the Fur shop in downtown PDX or the special business tax that has driven 13 of the 15 big venture capital firms out of Portland proper), pretty soon, you don't have as many businesses.

Businesses leave, payroll taxes go down, services provided through tax revenue shrinks as well.

Uh TJ,

How many temps does Intel employ. It sounds like you have the number.

Actually TJ, employers don't just fire everyone they can and replace them with temps. In your anti-business mind site, that might fit the stereotype of your left wingnut opinion of how businesses operate, but it isn't how successful businesses operate.

Successful businesses invest in their employees. They also reserve the right to move their margin production requirement, as well as labor and talent, to the place that most maximizes profit.

If marginal return on investment in a lower tax state is materially higher than a higher tax state, guess where the new talent, and production equipment go?

In Intel's case, the profits are shared by the workers in a much larger degree than most companies. Do you understand the concept of bonuses and stock options? These get taxed TJ. Do you understand the concept of high wages? Intel employees earn them. They don't employee many $10.00/hour temp workers.

I will compare my leftist credentials to anybody on this blog, but this whole "taxing corporations" discussion makes no sense to me. If you and I shake hands and become 50/50 partners to manufacture lamp shades, there is no tax on our "company" (a partnership) but we will each pay Oregon income tax on our individual 50% share of the profits. But if we decide to form a corporation so that some idiot cannot sue us personally when he wears one of our "defective" lamp shades on his head while driving home drunk from a party, suddenly we are expected to pay tax at the "corporate level" before our profits are distributed and we (as before) pay tax at the individual level.

Corporations are merely a tool. They should not be allowed to be used as a tax dodge (as many are - and this I think is the problem) and they should not be used as a tax whipping-boy.

The people of Oregon should have the best public services in the country. K -12 Education. Higher Education. Police. Fire. Medical Care. Senior Services. Services to the Disabled Community. Services to Chronically Under-served Communities. Etc. Etc. Etc. Conversely, the people of Oregon must pay for a high level of public services by taxing THEMSELVES - not some mysterious "corporate interest" boogie man.

I support raising the income tax and property taxes to provide more money for needed and necessary services. Anything else is just window dressing and likely to cause more harm than good in the long run.

TJ,

I think you just said it best:

" why should Intel shirk its tax responsibility to the state that provides its profits?"

Earth to TJ: the State doesn't provide Intel with it's profits. Intel creates them through their own hard work, investments, and decision making.

By the way, how many big public employers (employ more than 500 employees) have relocated into Portland in the past five years? How many have left?

I know that the facts of reality are an inconvenient truth, but the numbers tend to speak for themselves.

And yes, I've answered your question. The State of Oregon receives plenty from Intel.

I need to get back to work TJ, that public funded pension you will enjoy needs to be funded so I'd better get back to work.

As a person who spends 2000 (very enjoyable - ha ha ha ha) billable hours a year kissing the ass of an endless string of corporate CEO's, I still say corporations are merely a tool. (Still wonder why I use a fake name?) But seriously, why should corporations pay more tax than general partnerships or limited liability companies or limited partnerships?

The real issue, in my opinion, is to immediately close the endless variety of tax loop holes used by all businesses - regardless of form - to avoid paying taxes. Why should a company be able to deduct the cost of buying (oops, lobbying) politicians? Also, close loop holes that allow businesses to deduct $500 bottles of wine at Pearl District restaurants as "ordinary and necessary business expenses". (You wont' get a lot of waiters supporting that measure.) Raise business property taxes so that the fair market value of every business property is taxed - no more special tax breaks. Quit allowing Mr. Williams and his friends to build endless condos without paying for the actual cost of infrastructure to serve the developments.

Anyway, enough ranting. Time for my medicine.

As someone who knows that the original meaning of Progressive grows out of the days of Teddy Roosevelt, I think we should distinguish between Intel and other major corporations, and the folks who (to use a previous example) get together to make lampshades. Perhaps sales per year or number of employees could be criteria for evaluating corporations.

I happen to like the Hopeful Tax Reform which Sen. Frank Morse and others are advocating, as it has a number of parts rather than just one simple idea such as raising the corporate minimum tax.

What we need is tax fairness. Yes, I do believe that a large corporation (esp. one which is national and not just Oregon) such as Intel or any other example should pay more in corporate taxes than someone who files an Oregon 40S individual tax return on at least $200 of Oregon taxable income. Look at the tax tables for this year's Oregon Income Taxes.

But that isn't the whole story. As has been discussed everywhere from a Sunday Oregonian story to local discussions of school budgets, there is an imbalance between what Oregon spends on prisons and what it spends on schools. Discussions of the structure and functions of corporations, or even of the changes to the Oregon tax system in the last couple decades won't change that.

I'm still not sure what the big deal is. The tax rate in Oregon is 6.6% for corporations correct? Plus there is a tax on the personal property that the corporation owns and there is a mass transit tax in the Metro area.

So why all the crying? 6.6% seems kind of stiff to me actually for corporate income. We might very well generate more tax revenue in total if that particular tax rate was reduced.

Tax rates are for giggles. The issue is what "taxable income" do you apply the tax rate to.

So your basketball company made 1 million adjusted gross. Cost of goods plus employees is 700K, which leaves 300K Buying (oops, lobbying) and Hawaii trips cost 100K Business expenses (Pearl Dist. Dinners) cost 100K Research and Development (Cheerleaders & Fun) cost 100K

Wow, your "taxable income" = 0

No tax this year, but maybe next year!

My point - stop BS deductions, and quit worrying about minimum taxes.

Damn! I recently paid my tax bill and it was more this year than last.

Makes me mad that some large corporation paid less than I did, especially when I remember once upon a time when business and folk paid about the same.

The problem with the discussion about fixing the corporate tax structure (and yes, I support resoring the balance) is that nobody is talking about relieving the tax burden on individuals. I mean really, while large corporations got away with carving out more and more tax giveaways for themselves, us working folk ended up picking up the tab more and more.

To me, tax equity means restoring the balance by both raising the corporate tax while lowering the tax burden on working families and family businesses. It does not necessarily mean a windfall in state income (although there would be a slight overall increase nonetheless).

In a consumer-driven economy, it is the consumer who dictates how business is run. And as the working class makes up the bulk of the consumer class, the more money that have the more they spend. The more they spend, the more business works to provide that demand. And the more that can be collected in taxes, despite a lower tax rate for working folk. Supply-siders seem to miss that important little fact.

Now, here is the part that "progressives" should be really embracing. More money in the hands of the working-class does not necessarily mean that more will be spent on "disposable junk." In fact, I would argue that because working folk have less real money to spend, disposable junk is about all they can afford. Give them more disposable income, and a significant number will opt to spend their additional money wisely (not all, but a significant number will, and certainly more than those who already are).

Simply increasing the tax on big business without a corresponding cut to the working-class will be nice in the short-run, but I fear it would only lead to long-term atrophy in the economy and subsequently the financing of state and local government.

Real tax reform is just that...reform for all. So, initiate a restoration of tax equity by increasing the tax on thosew who can afford it most while reducing the already high burdon on those who can least afford it, and let simple economics do the rest.

I believe some would call that real progress.

As I've said many times before: ditch the corporate income tax and impose a gross receipts tax. I would use Washington's Business and Occupations Tax as a model. There's a pretty strong argument for it, since we can look right across the Columbia and see how it works. There certainly hasn't been a mass migration of businesses from Washington trying to escape the tax, nor has the state economy tanked. And it's been around since the 1930's, so there's a good track record as to how it works.

Tax the gross income of corporations and you go a long way to eliminating various tax dodges that as possible when only taxing net income.

No one has given any guarantee that if we pay more taxes it will go to schools. Again, Teddy K is looking at a 20% upside in revenue and how much goes to reducing student-teacher ratios - 0%, its all for benefits.

Do we really need more revenue when we have people like TJ with enough time on their hands on their govt job to make blogs all day long? Lets think about making things more efficient. Then you may just convince taxpayers to put up more money.

Chris,

The working class doesn't pay much in taxes. What they pay wouldn't keep the government running for more than a few weeks a year. The vast majority of the income taxes are paid by the rich. Yep, the same rich people that progressives love to hate are the ones that pay the bills. Ironic isn't it? Eliminating the corporate tax completely would be a good experiment to run. Ireland has seen some pretty good results from their lower corporate tax rate and you're now starting to see the same effect spread thru the Eastern European countries. Many of those countries are adopting flat taxes and that is having the effect of pulling business out of high tax regions such as France and Germany. Oregon could play this game if we had politicians that thought at a higher level but I guess we didn't get around to electing that kind.

Anyone else notice that "Young Oregon Voter" throws a stinky bomb, then when we throw the defused bomb back in her lap, she runs away???

If Oregon taxes (less than one percent) are hurting businesses, why are dozens of new businesses opening on Belmont, Division, Powell and even Foster Road?

Hmmmm, YOV?????

YOV sounds like a young, sheltered type, probably living at home in the comfy burbs, with Fox TV on 24/7, so I would suggest she come on down to Pudddletown some time... beats The Couv... every time!

The poor don't pay diddly. The bottom 50% of wage earners only combine for about 3% of the total income tax revenue. That amount wouldn't keep the government running for more than two weeks per year. The rich pay almost all of the taxes. The top 10% pay around 70% of all income taxes.

I don't have any idea what you mean about tax credits for the rich outweigh what they pay in taxes. The only thing that matters is the size of the checks that the rich write to the IRS. Those checks provide almost all of the income taxes that the IRS collects regardless of any tax credits or exemptions.

Not sure why people argue over facts that are easily checked. Besides, shouldn't you be happy that those rich people that you hate pay so much in taxes? Just hope they never get around to deciding that they shouldn't need to pay so much in taxes to support such a bunch of losers who dislike them so much.