Can someone, anyone, explain to me how a corporation with TAXABLE INCOME gets away with paying only the minimum?

RIGHT ON TINA!

The whole tax system in this state needs to be re-examined. There has been an imbalance (more tax burden on indiv. than on successful businesses) for a generation. It is time to look at the whole thing!

But lobbyists know they have a sweet deal.

Thanks for posting this, Carla. Very nice op-ed by Rep. Kotek and it reminds me why I am so pleased to have our democratic majority in the legislature. I remember the interminable 2003 legislative session, and so I know how much worse it can be when a majority of legislators are not able or willing to show leadership and make hard choices to try to protect important priorities in our state in a very difficult budget climate.

To MP's question: the answer is a combination of tax breaks, of which there are many for corporations. Many of them, like the Business Energy Tax Credit are controversial becasue they are very expensive but they are also believed to create jobs and move the state toward a renewable energy economy. Another main reason has to do with a technical but important aspect of our tax code called apportionment. Scroll back to one of Kari's or Chuck's posts which explain the issue very well.

And to Dave, I feel like you are being unrealistic when you complain about the fact that the session was mostly about budget balancing. This is the worst recession since the great depression, and the legislators were grappling with extraordinary problems with the budget. I also think that it is easy to forget that some of the problems they were tackling had been ignored for over a decade. Getting additional funding for transporation was a huge accomplishment, even though it was incremental. Of course Oregon still has huge unmet needs in roads, transit, and high-speed rail, but at least we are making progress, unlike the last 15 years. And some of your other issues, such as climate change, are beginning to be addressed on the federal level, which is where they will have the most impact anyway.

I, too, have some disappointments from the session, most notably the failure to move forward on kicker reform. However, I'm told that there were legitimate concerns about how it would interact with a potential referendum of the revenue measures, and there is a chance kicker reform will be addressed during the Feburary session.

Again, great job to our legislators and thanks for the great op-ed Tina Kotek!

Did either of these bills change the apportionment rules?

@MP: No, although some businesses that benefited from single sales will pay more due to the higher corporate minimum tax.

If the progressives really cared about schools, children and seniors, they would demand that these be funded at the beginning of each legislative session, before anything else can be considered.

In other words: Not legislative business of any kind will be performed UNTIL essential services are funded.

Who is willing to really stand up for children, schools and seniors? Instead of merely paying lip service after funding everything else first.

Note to Carla: You reasoned to another post on this topic by pointing out that some high percentage of the spending is for these things. But you completely ignored my main point (as restated above) that the really should be first in line BEFORE anything else is even allowed to be talked about.

If you really cared, you would really put children, seniors and schools first. That you don’t shows that you don’t really care - they are merely rallying point to get tax increases AFTER you have spent, what should have been their money, on frills and just plain junk.

Kevin: Jamie's screed is what I expect from knuckle-draggers. How is a legislature facing massive budget holes supposed to "fully fund" schools, children and seniors at the beginning of the session? By taking money from other programs? J: You just said that the “other programs” are more important than schools, children and seniors. Thanks for the admission, knuckle-dragger.

Jamie, Kevin is right about this statement, although I have no way of knowing if you are what he says, or just uninformed. Go to the legislative website http://landru.leg.state.or.us/index.html and find the name of a legislator near you who is on Ways and Means, esp. one on a subcommittee as that is where the real work gets done. Or click on the Audio/Video tab and listen to some of the hearings.

You said,

"If the progressives really cared about schools, children and seniors, they would demand that these be funded at the beginning of each legislative session, before anything else can be considered.

In other words: Not legislative business of any kind will be performed UNTIL essential services are funded."

You know for a fact that there will always be enough money to fund essential services, and that enough legislators to pass the budgets agree with your definition of "essential"?

Jamie, this state has had recent experience with several bad revenue forecasts in a row--each requiring cutting services or raising revenue. This session, they needed to balance the current biennium. (Ends June 30 and if income doesn't = expenditures, something must be cut to bring that into balance.)

LT: You said,

"If the progressives really cared about schools, children and seniors, they would demand that these be funded at the beginning of each legislative session, before anything else can be considered.

In other words: Not legislative business of any kind will be performed UNTIL essential services are funded."

You know for a fact that there will always be enough money to fund essential services, and that enough legislators to pass the budgets agree with your definition of "essential"? JK: Essential clearly refers to the above short list of items pulled from Carla’s original posing. Please confine ths discussion to these items.

Sorry for the typo, it should read: No legislative business of any kind will be performed UNTIL essential services are funded." And as I said “essential” clearly refers to the original posting’s specific mention of “schools, children and seniors”.

Are you somehow arguing that these should not be fully funded before any other legislative business is allowed? In other words, relegating what you claim are the most important needs to fight it out for money with the funding of fee soda pop for inmates. Or Trimet’s $1900MONTH health care? Or funding a light rail bridge where there is very little demand.

Give me a break!

The legislature increased spending by 9%.

The previous session they increased spending 20%.

Why can't blues take a wider, honest, view of things?

We all need Oregon to work better as a State for many reasons. Your limited and obsessed focus on taxing more without any skeptisism towards where and how the government grows and spends is irresponsible.

Talk of school funding always makes me thing of this sad tale my mother told me awhile back. She served on an LSAC for the S-K school district back in the 80's. One year, during a tense budget battle with voters, a school district official came to talk to them.

He described the budget as follows: budget #1 was the 'shoot the moon' budget that had every wish list item on it. They knew it wouldn't pass, but if it did by chance, boy would they be happy.

On budget #2, they would make some cuts to the wish list, still expecting it to fail.

Budget #3 still gave them extras, and they thought they might get lucky if they could guilt people into the "deep cuts" they made in the budget.

Budget #4 was what they really needed and what they always got passed. It worked great for them. They got what they wanted and were able to play the victim card at the same time.

Kevin: You just said that the “other programs” are more important than schools, children and seniors.

ROFL - and that made sense to you before you typed it out, did it? J: It still does. If you are unwilling to fund schools, children and seniors first, you are really saying that they are no more important than all the other spending items that you are making them compete with.

Kevin: Thanks for demonstrating once again why I addressed you the way that I did. J: You are the one who just demonstrated illogic. You also seem to be unable to articulate a position without the ad hominem.

Kevin: Let's say that schools, children and seniors are the three most important things to fund, bar none. Does it logically follow that therefore everything else is unimportant or undeserving of funding? Of course not. J: If schools, children and seniors are the most important, then they need to be funded first, or you are just paying lip service to the needy and are advocating spending on pet programs when no one is watching.

Jamie:

Yawn...old tired argument made by people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about. The Legislature funds those programs after the May revenue forecast - because they are largely dependent on the state's general fund - not fees for services, or federal funds, etc. Live the "other programs" you are talking about.

They need the Revenue forecast so they can balance the general fund budget. They try not to spend a lot of the GF before then. It is very simple and I am sorry that you cannot understand it.

Since you are obviously an idiot repeating only what some other idiot told you - go away. Don't come back, because next time I will not be nice when I slap you down.

Since you are obviously an idiot repeating only what some other idiot told you - go away. Don't come back, because next time I will not be nice when I slap you down.

Hey idiot, I have obviously I have hit a sore spot, so why don't you tell us the real reason for not holding off all business until after the revenue forecast? If they can't fund schools, seniors and children before the forecast, how can they fund the other things?

Yikes, I think we can have a dialog without name calling, don't you all?

Jamie, maybe this will make sense.

Let's say, in my household budget, the most important things are rent, food and my kids' college tuition. If I'm getting a new job, but I don't know what it pays, is it really smart to sign the kids up for the U of O, knowing that I might only be able to afford PCC? No. I need to wait to find out how much I'll have to spend before I decide how and where to spend it. Does that mean it's not important? No. Does it mean that, while I wait to find out what my salary will be, I shouldn't pay my electric bill? But tuition is on my "most important" list and electricity isn't!! Does that mean that tuition isn't really one of my top three priorities? No.

The thing is, there are a lot of "little" things in the state budget that can make a huge difference for a lot of people. But when it comes to the numbers, they are so small compared to the "big ones" (education, public safety/prisons, health), that they really don't make ANY difference in how much you can fund the big ones. The ONLY thing that matters is the revenue forecast. Until they know that, they can't know how much they can fund the biggies. But that doesn't mean the world stops turning.

What it sounds like to me is that you're trying to hide your agenda, which is no (new or increased or un-lowered) taxes, and no spending you don't agree with (like light rail). So you accuse Dems of not "really" supporting the big priorities that everyone agrees on, because they act like grown-ups in acknowledging that life goes on, even when you don't know, yet, whether you can afford PCC or U of O for your kids, and thus can't decide until you do know.

What a typical blue dance.

Why wait for the last revenue forcast when spending is going to be increased anyway by 9% in this deep recession?

I swear Blues are incappable of looking at the spending in front of their face.

Nevermind the perpetual dysfunction and crisis so many public agencies deliver year in year out. Which blues never recognize.

From CIMCAM to WES to many other example they simply want to give the same people more to spend. And always under the pathetic pretense it's only for the kids and other basic services conservatives want to kill.

Sooo...where was Jon Chandler's article wrong?

Did the governor NOT delay signing the bill to shorten the time to gather signatures?

Are almost 250,000 Oregonians NOT out of work?

Have economists said these taxes would NOT lead to further job loss?

Did the Democrats NOT pass a bill in the dead of night to make a yes vote no and a no vote yes?

Reasonable people can disagree, but I just can't see where his article is innacurate.

As noted, the effect of the hike in personal and corporate income tax rates might serve to keep more of the affluent and employers out of Oregon. Oregon's income tax must be drastically trimmed or scrapped in favor of a broad-based goods and services tax in order to compete with no-income-tax states such as WA. The federal gov already does a fine job of levying income taxes (including the much-overlooked payroll tax), so Oregon should resist piling onto the income tax. Forget about the fact that sales taxes are regressive. A rebate can be offered for those under a certain income (as in Canada), but the low income are already hurt by the state, fed, and payroll taxes, none of which have a floor.

Check this out:

http://us.macmillan.com/theconfiscationofamericanprosperity

by econ. prof. Michael Perelman

A recent alumni magazine had a section on recent writings by faculty, and this author was included.

In the article he said it would be sound policy to reward companies that actually create jobs, not just give them subsidies and trust them to create jobs.

Carla

Just curious, do these polls you cite account for all "taxes" ie fees? It can be so frustrating trying to get any useful info when every different poll you look at compares apples to oranges.

Suppose someone pays to renew a teaching certificate or other professional license. Add that to car registration.

The teacher is not going to decide to move a business if the fee goes up. The business owner may bike to work or live near transit.

Therefore, I think it is right for Carla to concentrate on taxes.

My parents spent a year in S. Dakota during WWII. If some people are so gung ho to avoid high taxes, I suggest they move to the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming. Those states could use economic development! If the "business climate" makes up for the snow and freezing temp in the winter, and they like Midwestern values of caring for neighbors, more power to them.

But they might come to miss Oregon's more mild temp and climate, and how's the education and infrastructure in those states?

Carla,

Sorry for the poor wording. I blame the heat.

jaybeat: Let's say, in my household budget, the most important things are rent, food and my kids' college tuition. If I'm getting a new job, but I don't know what it pays, is it really smart to sign the kids up for the U of O, knowing that I might only be able to afford PCC? No. I need to wait to find out how much I'll have to spend before I decide how and where to spend it. Does that mean it's not important? No. Does it mean that, while I wait to find out what my salary will be, I shouldn't pay my electric bill? But tuition is on my "most important" list and electricity isn't!! Does that mean that tuition isn't really one of my top three priorities? No. JK: Looks you are making the food, rent and electricity are more important than sending the kids off to college.

jaybeat: What it sounds like to me is that you're trying to hide your agenda, . . . and no spending you don't agree with (like light rail). J: Glad you mentioned Light Rail – a poster child of government waste. Light rail costs over $1.00 to transport each person each mile, while private cars come around $0.20.

If you think the money is worth it to save the earth from the CO2 fantasy, it really doesn’t reduce CO2 when you consider its construction emission, the coal power plant that runs much of it and the fact that cars will be getting even more efficient under the latest mandate.

Light rail does not reduce congestion and can actually increase it as we see on Interstate ave.

See PortlandFacts.com for details.

jaybeat: . . . even when you don't know, yet, whether you can afford PCC or U of O for your kids, and thus can't decide until you do know. J: In other words, you don’t know if you can afford the deluxe plan or must go economy. Perhaps you forget that you are spending other people’s hard earned money, money that, in may cases, would have gone to improve their kids nutrition, or pay for schooling.

Does anyone have a list of the businesses that are funding Chandler and the anti-tax measure?

I'm not particularly interested in patronizing any business who fights this hard to get out of paying their fair share of taxes.

anyone here care to explain the difference between 'book income' and 'taxable income'

JK: Looks you are making the food, rent and electricity are more important than sending the kids off to college.

JC: Because nothing helps your kids get ready for college better than starvation, homelessness and no lights.

Funny, too, how you can call climate change "CO2 fantasy" and then cite a website (ironically enough) called "PortlandFacts.com".

I swear, you can't make this stuff up, eh blues? ;-)

Jaybeat: Funny, too, how you can call climate change "CO2 fantasy" J: Do you know of any real evidence that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming? (Keep in mind even the IPCC, doesn't present any evidence of this critical link except computer models - which have yet to be proven correct.)