Chuck, once again please explain how the change from "income" to "revenue" for taxing corporations changes the mix.

So let me see if I understand this...my LLC, with NO TAXABLE INCOME will pay $150 in taxes? Does my neighbor, an individual taxpayer, with no taxable income have to pay the same?

What about the personal property taxes that my business has to pay on our tangible assets? I mean, we bought a lot of equipment and machinery this year, I suspect that is going to be a nice chunk of change. Does my neighbor have to pay property taxes on his furniture too?

So, is it only C-corps who are on the hook for the new corporate minimum based on total sales?

Thanks for the information, Chuck. Is there a website somewhere with complete and honest information about the revenue measures? That would be a great resource for those of us who are trying to defend them.

<del>Actually, almost all Oregon taxpayers will pay some additional income tax. One of the features of the tax bill was a reduction in the "width" of the 5% and 7% tax brackets. More income will thus be taxed at 9% than was formerly the case. This represents additional tax payments by those at the lower end of the income distribution.</del>

<del>There will also be some additional tax liability from changes to the "additions" (items taxable by Oregon that are not taxed on the Federal return) and "subtractions" (amounts that are part of Federal AGI that are not taxed, or not taxed in full, by Oregon) sections found on the Oregon tax return.</del>

Comment deleted by editor because patently false AND not addressing topic.

Bottom line is that you are permanently raising taxes during the midst of the worst economic climate since the Great Depression.

That should be contested by any means necessary because this state's government is full of profligate wastrels.

Chuck Sheketoff admonishing others to get their facts straight?

Thank you, Chuck, for a good laugh.

Here's the directly relevant comment on this topic:

It IS important to get the facts straight and to not mislead the public when debating issues such as these.

As evidenced in this earlier thread, however, Mr. Sheketoff is rather lacking in credibility on this very topic himself. In fact, Mr. Sheketoff still hasn't admitted his previous errors of fact in this debate, even after those factual errors were clearly shown to him.

"Hello, Kettle? This is the pot..." :-)

In any event, the legislature may have "targeted large corporations and wealthy couples" but in fact the vast majority of those caught in the crossfire (at least on the corporate side) have little or no Oregon taxable income (see the above-linked thread for details). In fact, as of 2006 fully 94.6% of all C-corps filing minimum $10 tax returns had $0 in Oregon taxable income (or a net loss) that year.

Why, if you consider "large corporations" to be, say, those with more than $50,000 in Oregon taxable income for the year (which seems a ridiculously low bar to me, but just for the sake of argument) -- that works out to a whopping 0.7% of all C-corps that filed the minimum $10 return in 2006.

Let me put that to you another way -- what proportion of those "large" corporations ($50K+ in taxable income) paid the minimum $10 in 2006?

Just 2.9%.

And as for misleading... let's look at how much of the additional corporate tax revenue this measure could be expected to bring in, and how much of that revenue will be raised from C-corps with no taxable income.

Using the latest available numbers for reference, if 20,803 C-corps paid the minimum $10 in 2006, that represents $208,030 in total income tax revenue from those minimum returns.

Raising the minimum from $10 to $150 would increase revenue from those corporations to $3,120,450, for a gain of $2,912,420.

Of course, those "large" corporations with $50K+ of taxable income from 2006 would contribute $20,020 of that gain.

No, I'm not missing any digits or commas there -- those big bad offending "large" corporations would kick in only $20K of extra taxes.

Leaving $2,892,400 of additional tax revenue to be paid by the "little guys".

So those sharpshooters in the legislature may need to work on their aim if they were "targeting" large corporations. Seems to me like an awful lot of collateral damage ($2,892K) to pick up just $20K from the big boys.

Allow me to clarify a point from my previous post -- when I asked "how much of that revenue will be raised from C-corps with no taxable income", I actually failed to answer my own question. Mea culpa.

The $2,892,400 of additional tax revenue paid by the "little guys" does include those C-corps with less than $50K of taxable income for the year. Please excuse the oversight.

The amount paid literally by those with "no taxable income" would in fact be $2,756,740. As compared to $155,680 paid by C-corps with any taxable income at all, and $20,020 paid by C-corps with $50K+ of taxable income.

Chuck, I'm not trying to start an off topic issue or argument. Many have been told that the legislature also changed computing taxation on corporations from net income to gross revenue. I was merely asking if that was true. If it isn't please let us know. If it is, but I'm somewhat misguided please let us know. If I'm correct please let us know.

Kurt, the legislature added to the corporate income tax a new minimum tax based on gross receipts (revenue). Even if a C corporation has no taxable income subject to the income tax, it will now have to pay a minimum tax based on its Oregon gross receipts. The basic rate is 0.1% of gross revenue (before cost of goods sold and expenses), though there are brackets, so the actual rate can end up somewhat higher than that.

Chuck, on your new friend from Ontario, you are incorrect on the result if he moves to Idaho. Since his business is an S corporation, even under current law, his pass-through income would be taxed at 7.8 percent if he were an Idaho resident, rather than Oregon's current 9 percent. And of course, if his business improves, under the new law, the top marginal rate in Oregon would be 11 percent, the highest in the country.

Bob Wiggins

Kurt, here's a link to the relevant bill (as helpfully provided by Chuck a few months ago).

Effectively what the bill does is create a sliding scale for the corporate minimum tax, which is based on "Oregon Sales". I'll let others explain how that differs from gross revenue.

The actual tax is not based on sales/revenue, it's still a percentage of taxable income. But now corporations with no taxable income at all will be subject to a minimum that starts at $150, and increases as the corporation's Oregon Sales increase. Look at page 2 of the linked PDF for the effective brackets of minimum tax. For example, a corporation with $1M in Oregon Sales (however that's determined) would be subject to a $1,000 minimum tax, regardless of taxable income amount (or even net loss for the year).

To put that in perspective, under the corporate tax rates in the bill, a corporation would need a little over $15,000 in Oregon taxable income to owe $1,000 under the regular tax plan. So for such a company, the minimum would apply if they had less than $15,000 of taxable income for the year.

The bill also creates a new $150 "entity tax" on partnerships, and increases the minimum for all S-corps to $150.

Continuing my earlier point -- how many of those "targeted" large corporations are partnerships or S-corps? Guess those folks get caught up in the net as well.

You see, this bill could have easily targeted large corporations (if you want to base that definition on gross sales) by making the higher-sales brackets large (which it certainly does), without making the lowest-sales bracket $150.

Funny, by the way, how all the talk on this site has been about just increasing the minimum from $10 to $150, and not about how that minimum can go up to $500, or $1,000 -- even up to $100,000 depending on gross sales.

It also introduces weird scenarios because of the bracket system, which unlike with personal income taxes is not a marginal tax. Not that this is going to be a common occurrence, but say your corporation on December 31 has a total of $499,990 in Oregon sales, and the company is just breaking even so no profit or loss. That would mean a minimum tax of $150. But if on the last day of the year you make a $20 sale -- oops, now you're up to $500,010 and subject to a $500 minimum. That $20 in sales just cost you another $350 in taxes.

If you want to take more money from bigger corporations, there are better ways to structure such a system than this, which ends up tagging a lot of "little guys" in the process.

Very interesting, David.

Did you speak with anyone on Revenue committee about this?

Apologies if you did, but I heard there were some people unhappy last June because people talking publicly about great ideas had never talked to legislators on relevant committees ( W & M or Revenue).

The guy from AOI was on OPB's Think Out Loud and he kept talking about studies and where Oregon ranks in "competitiveness". He said we would only get out of the recession when private employers rebound. Does he think private employers who deal with customers will be aided if some of their customers who work for public employers are laid off? I really wonder how people like that would fare in an audience not made up of their "base" but a college crowd or a church basement on Sunday morning, or a civic group like City Club or Rotary or some other group not defined by what sector they work in. Do people like the folks at AOI believe that no one who works in the private sector knows someone whose job is in some form of public employment (incl. police and fire, local government, schools, etc.)?

Here are some ideas for future debates:

Discuss all this out in the open (from what I have seen, OBA was operating on a strategy of "the fix is in", and as with any other open public process, no one who makes a private deal can guarantee that others not in the room will go along with it).

Advocate publicly for a specific proposal and answer questions more intelligently than "we have a study".

For instance, for those who want us to believe that taxes "kill" jobs and tax cuts created them, just how many Oregon jobs were created after the Measure 30 election? In which counties? How many manufacturing jobs, retail jobs, clerical jobs, technical (from technology to jobs like actuarial)jobs, outside sales jobs, construction jobs, medical jobs, etc. ? There isn't payroll or other data from a source not associated with a political movement to provide that information?

If someone has a store, restaurant, etc., do they really think business will increase if public sector employees are laid off? Or isn't it a "job killer" to lay off public sector employees because REAL work only happens in the private sector?

There are people (incl. one Republican I know) who think that tax credits for jobs created ("we got a tax credit for adding a technician to our staff") might be more efficient than "we'll give you a tax credit and you promise to create jobs".

From what I heard on Think Out Loud, this is not 2003 all over again. One problem the anti-taxers may have is that 2002-3 was NOT that long ago for people affected by the cuts after all the gimmicks involved with Measure 28 and 30 turned out not to have magic pots of money. Cuts which happened after those measure elections affected real people.

"the top marginal rate in Oregon would be 11 percent, the highest in the country."

For those not accountants, etc., let's see if I have this straight.

If the "marginal rate" applies to say, over $100,000, and the man who moved to Idaho has taxable income of $100,987, then he pays the lower rate on $100,000 and the 11% rate on $987. Is that correct?

An element of effective communication is making sure the audience understands what you are talking about. That is why some organizations penalize people who talk in jargon to an audience who may not be familiar with jargon (such as legislative committees which have a jar for everyone to contribute every time they use initials without explaining who they are talking about).

@Chris Lowe -- Large corporations are able to use dodges that keep them from paying their fair share of taxes for services from which they benefit extensively because of their size.

Can you substantiate these "dodges" you talk about? Please be specific.

Can you provide a reference in either the IRS tax code or the ODOR tax code giving a definition to "fair share of taxes."

Thank you.

@ Kari -- think of the $150 as an annual filing fee for the various services that the state provides

Fine, as soon as the state implements a filing fee for individual returns of $150.

@Chuck --Accountants and Journalists: Get the Facts Straight on the Revenue Measures and Stop Scaring People!

As a business owner since 1993 and as an ACCOUNTANT, let me call bulls**t on you. You are doing nothing but scaring the people into believing that businesses are not paying their "fair share" whatever that is supposed to mean. When in fact, they are paying EXACTLY what the IRS and ODOR stipulate they must pay, just like you and I do as individuals.

Now, if you can document some criminal act of tax evasion by an Oregon based company, please do so now!

As income taxes go, it is true that Oregon’s personal income tax rate and brackets structure is amongst the highest in the country. That's the way has to be in states without a regressive sales tax. Our personal income tax system asks families to pay more than they would in most other states. It helps make up for revenue Oregon isn’t collecting from sales tax. If Mr. Warrington did more to Idaho, he might pay a lower income tax rate on some of his income, but he'd add 5% in sales tax to his costs. He wouldn’t necessarily come out ahead.

What's been missing from Oregon's tax system is a way to get c-corporations to help pay for their share of the advantage of being in a state with no sales tax. The tax changes enacted with HB3405 are expected to bring the state $260 million in additional revenue in the next biennium. That's not much, but it's something. As Chuck has pointed out elsewhere, according to the COST study, if we were asking the same of businesses as the average state, our new structure would need to bring in $3.2 BILLION not $260 million. It’s hard to understand the consternation over the changes.

Obviously, if having low business taxes created jobs, we’d have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country rather than one of the highest.

OK, let me be as direct as I possibly can on this. The state of Oregon does not need more tax revenue. They need to get control of their spending and use what they already have. Just two years ago the Governor of Oregon lamented how we needed to increase taxes while cutting vital services to make up for the decreasing tax revenues due to the recession. Oregon cut its school year back so that we had the shortest school year in the nation, while at the same time we paid among top 5 highest taxes in the nation. Oregon tax revenues continue to increase every year, but our government continues to overspend that growth. Not one person reading this would call that a good way of running their own household, so why do we let our legislature continue down this path?

Increasing taxes during this downturn is going to hurt Oregonians, regardless of how small this tax is. When you combine that tax with the drop in sales and financial insecurity of the market you're going to get business owners looking for safer harbors. The politicians keep telling us . . . 'it's an insignificant increase, and it will bring lots of additional revenue the state desperately needs.' But it will only continue the downward economic spiral that they have already created. Or has anyone not noticed the record unemployment in Oregon? According to an article in the Wall Street Journal('Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich' May 18, 2009). Between the years 1998 and 2007 no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

How about they start spending the money they already have better first. If they can show some real gains there, then I would be happy to pay more on my tax bill, but we ARE NOT GETTING OUR MONEYS WORTH!!!

@jodywiser:What's been missing from Oregon's tax system is a way to get c-corporations to help pay for their share of the advantage of being in a state with no sales tax.

Can you please elaborate of what you mean by that.

from defend oregon "These reforms protect nearly $1 billion in vital services..."

how many families making over $250k, and corps (paying a propsed $150) does oregon have to reash the $1,000,000,000 mark???

Also from Defend Oregon "Corporate minimum tax: Two‐thirds of corporations that do business in Oregon currently only pay a $10 corporate minimum tax. That includes Sprint, Macy’s, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly* and many national corporations"

So those companies did not pay a penny above $10 in taxes to the state of Oregon?

@lance

Using an article by Arthur Laffer is hardly the way to be taken seriously here.

Yes Lance, only neo-marxism is credible here.

So job ONE in defeating the anti-school, anti-senior crowd is to make sure that every Oregon voter understands who is paying the tax increases and who is not.

If this discussion is any inducation of the comming campaign then we need to start blanketing the state with fact sheets explaining the truth and showing voters where to go to get an honest evaluation of all claims and soon. The Republican'ts will be buying a lot of air time to trumpet the same lies we've all heard before.

Let's not just react after the lies start this time. Let's get out in front wuth the truth!

Hats off to Chuck for this post

how is the tax supposed to generate $1b?

"The taxes don't raise $1B, but the assumption is that the state will lose federal matching funds if the tax revenue at stake is cut. Keep in mind that there are two taxes at issue, both corporate and high income individuals."

I seem to recall when GOP ran the legislature that there was a big debate----to be able to provide federal matching funds for some worthy program could have required more Oregon revenue than was available, and Republicans on Ways and Means didn't want to do that.

Fine---if they are honest enough to say "we would rather not have the federal matching funds, than to raise another dime in revenue". Then their base could say GREAT! and the people who believe that the matching funds would go to a good purpose could say "You are against funding_ because you might have to raise taxes? So doesn't matter to you? Handy information to have for the next election.

Fundamentally, this is about who has the right to express and act upon their own opinions. If all of Oregon was anti-tax voters, Republicans would still control the legislature. That is the sort of "voters have spoken" (who gets elected to public office) that many don't want to talk about!

TO: mp97303

Really? That's all you've got in response? No counter to my argument? Just "Using an article by Arthur Laffer is hardly the way to be taken seriously here." If you're going to disagree at least try and use some measure of thought. That was hardly worth the energy it took to move the digits that typed those words. This is the reason we lost to George W. twice. Too many of my fellow Dems with their heads in a place that doesn't promote thought. I can respect disagreement, but not following blindly like a lemming off an economic cliff. Finally, the statistics I mentioned from the Wall Street Journal originated from such 'right-wing' entities as Ohio University and the University of Colorado. (That last sentence should be read with as much sarcasm as one can muster.)

@Lance

As has been shown many times before, the internet has one great shortcoming...an inability to convey sarcasm, tone or facial expression.

My comment was not meant as a criticism of you, but of many here who look to dismiss anything they disagree with for the slightest of cause. Arthur Laffer would be that cause. Anything he has to say would be dismissed out of hand without regard to merit or fact.

My apologies for my failure to convey my true sentiment.

TO: mp97303

Ooops, ... guess I kinda went over board that just a tad. Thank you for your clarifying comment. Well taken. I guess I was expecting brutal opposition to my opinion. I'm not sure what I'm going to do if other Dems start thinking in similar fashion.

Which university economist in the last several years has verified that the Laffer curve exists?

Or is it such an article of faith that it needs no confirmation?

"Between the years 1998 and 2007 no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts."

Of the states with no personal income taxes, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming, only Alaska is riding out the recession without a catastrophic shortfall in their budget, because they have oil wealth. Nevada and Florida, always boom and bust states, are just at the beginning of their problems since their economies lived and died with the housing/real estate. bubble. I wouldn't trade Oregon's troubles with theirs.

It's difficult to argue with a general statement that the Oregon legislature or the government mismanages the money it has without any specifics. Our population has increased about 11% over the last ten years, demand for services go up. We aren't a household, we're a state.

Per Ron - I've seen people previously come to Oregon as medical services seekers. A sister of a friend left WA state and moved here to get her extensive back surgery on the public dime! Meanwhile, folks, locals around me, could not get the services they needed! She lost her job while assembling a huge passle of documentation on her injury. Assessed where she had to go to get her needs taken care of on the dole. And selected the family member who resided in teh state that best has served her.

Smart lady. Hard to swallow. Could not believe her brother was open about it!

Oregon seems to continue to be regarded as a destination! Mostly it's based on lifestyle. FOlks would rather be poor in Portland than in Salina, OK. :)

gl asked a good question. I'd like to see the clarifier viz how much tax those giants really have paid. Are they saying that the ten dollar minimum is too low, or that this is ALL they have paid? I'm absolutely interested!

"It’s a shame, though, that accountants and journalists who have a responsibility to read the actual measures are also confused and are scaring people like Dick Warrington and the public by not asking the right questions and drawing false conclusions."

I gave up that trope ten years ago, my friend. I respect journos. Am a fan. But have little respect for most of those in media - a press release is handy filler. If well-written, it passes through like grease thru a pig's alimentation.

Thank you, Ron.

I have a question for Jack Roberts. His background should equip him to answer this question:

Sometimes in the news there are stories like "The economy created _jobs, which was more/fewer jobs than predicted".

OK, that assumes some neutral source of job creation data.

About this whole "job killing taxes" slogan---Measure 30 election was in early 2004. Russ Walker & Co. had claimed that if they won lots of jobs would be created, if they lost then lots of jobs would vanish.

So Jack, how many jobs were created in 2004? Was it a minimal number or a dramatic number? How many private sector, how many nonprofit sector, how many public sector.

One other thing. If the measures qualify, it would be nice if someone from BO (or maybe a team) could contact all 90 legislators and ask them if they support the legislatively passed taxes being upheld. If they say yes, their names should be public so we can thank them.

If they say no, then they should be asked how they expect to fill the budget hole without gimmicks.

We deserve to have all legislators (and candidates) on record on this issue.

When did t.a. become the drive-by -- or I suppose in your case, "pedal-by"? ;-) -- ad hom guy?

If my facts are wrong, show me where.

If the conclusions I draw from my facts are wrong, show me how.

But at least I do use facts to construct an argument. :-)

LT, no I did not speak to anyone in the legislature about this. Are you suggesting that only those who actively participated in the creation of this legislation are allowed to talk about it now?

The system is working as designed. The legislature did its job, and when the work product is questionable the people have an opportunity to put that product to a public vote. At that point, it is fair for others to point out the pros and cons of the legislation in question and debate whether the product should be retained or rejected. Even if they never spoke to a committee member or sat through a hearing when the legislation was being created.

And by the way, while I do think this particular bill could have been better designed, keep in mind that the topic of this post was about how certain elements are misleading the public about the nature/effects of the bill. Mostly I was attempting to point out that the original poster has also been misleading the public about the nature/effects of the bill.

Partly that's an effort to encourage people to question Mr. Sheketoff's analysis. He's not always wrong. But he's wrong often enough that his conclusions ought not always be accepted at face value, as is rather encouraged here on this site.

And partly it's an effort to get people to think about the bigger picture issue of whether legislation will actually accomplish what it theoretically sets out to do. If, as Mr. Sheketoff claims, the legislature really was "targeting" big corporations, I believe it is worthwhile to really think about whether they will hit their target, and if they could have hit that target more directly without adverse effect on others. In other words, setting aside for a moment the question of whether their goal was valid, did they even do what they set out to do? If not, or if there were too many "side effects" of what they did, then that certainly is worth consideration, don't you think?

@Pat

The title of this article claims that people are trying to scare people with misleading info on this topic. Had you read and comprehended Mr. Wright's first post, he was calling into play the credibility of the author on this very topic:

As evidenced in this earlier thread, however, Mr. Sheketoff is rather lacking in credibility on this very topic himself. In fact, Mr. Sheketoff still hasn't admitted his previous errors of fact in this debate, even after those factual errors were clearly shown to him.</blockquote<>

The entire case made by Chuck and Defend Oregon is that those big bad evil corporations are screwing little ol' Oregonians by not paying their "fair share" of taxes. What I have shown is that those corporations have followed the tax law as laid out by the IRS and ODOR. Mr. Wright has shown that very few large corp's are actually paying only the minimum.

Pat, that's a fair criticism. The $50K figure is rather arbitrary, so let me explain further how I arrived at that.

Chuck claimed that "large corporations" were the target of this measure. Chuck has also repeatedly (over several threads) referred back to the report from the Oregon Dept. of Revenue regarding corporate tax details from 2006, the most recent year for which data is available. In that report, corporations that paid the minimum $10 that year are broken down in categories of Oregon taxable income.

So, which of those corporations could reasonably be considered "large" by that measure?

The lowest breakdown group with any income at all is the under-$50K group. So unless you wanted to consider every corporation with any taxable income at all a "large" corporation, $50K is the lowest bar we could set with data available. Personally, I'd set the bar for "large" corporations much higher than that, but I hoped that my point would be made sufficiently even at that ridiculously low standard.

Is taxable income the best measure of whether a corporation is "large" or not? No, I wouldn't think so. But that's the measure we had available, and that's the measure that Chuck has used in the past to complain about companies not paying their "fair share".

Now, to expand a bit on my point, if it is true that these changes are expected to bring in $260 million in extra corporate income tax revenue (I will grant you that number was not cited by Chuck, but by another commenter), and it is also true that the $150-level corporate minimum could improve revenues by on the order of $6 million (give or take, obviously it won't be exactly the same as in 2006, and that's now over 2 years instead of 1), then it stands to reason that some feature other than the $150 minimum level will account for the roughly 97% or so ($260M - $6M) of extra revenue.

Which means that either $260M is far too high an estimate, or the $150 minimum isn't a critical aspect of the plan.

So let me ask you this. Assume for a moment that the $260M figure is accurate. Assume for a moment that about $254M of that is due to corporations that fall into the higher than $150 minimum bracket.

Would you be willing to take $254M instead of $260M, if it would save a massive majority of corporations, those with little or no taxable income AND with $500K or less in annual sales volume, the extra bite into their bottom line? And dramatically strengthen the argument that the measure is really going after the "large" corporations?

And this is where Chuck has been misleading. Consistently he has touted that $150 minimum as a trivial additional expense to small corporations, but a way to make sure that large corporations pay their fair share.

And it just can't be so. To the extent that large corporations, however you define them, add hundreds of millions of dollars to the budget, it has to come from something more than $150. As I hope I've shown, the $150 bracket is really adding a trivial amount to the state budget (remember, $3M a year out of a nearly $7,000M annualized budget). So the vast majority of corporations -- relatively low sales volume, modestly profitable or not profitable at all -- must pay more but that's not where the state money is really coming from. The money has to be coming from those corporations who will be subject to minimums much higher than $150 (though I have yet to hear Chuck or any other advocates talk about that point).

By the way, to clarify MP's most recent post -- only the first paragraph in the block quote is mine.

I presume the second paragraph was MP's commentary which happens to be formatted in the same block.

MP97303 asked for elaboration on the no-sales-tax advantage.

If someone buys a ream of paper in Oregon, they pay no sales tax, as they would in most other states. The absence of that tax is a benefit, whether you’re buying for home use or for business use. Oregon families and all businesses not organized as c-corporations pay income taxes through the Personal Income Tax.

Oregon's Personal Income tax rates (5-7-9-10.8-11%) are higher than most. And the bracket at which one begins to pay taxes, and the steps to the higher rates are also tougher on families than most state brackets. Ours brackets begin low. At roughly $6000 of taxable income a family filing jointing begins paying Personal Income Tax. And our brackets advance rapidly, reaching the 9% rate at less than $16,000 of income, the 10.8% rate at $250,000 and 11% at $500,000.

Of the 41 states with income tax, the highest rate is usually under 7% and the brackets begin later and advance more slowly.

For comparison, in sales + income tax state California, the rates are lower (1-9-9.3%) and the brackets for joint filers begins at about $13,000 of income. The 9% rate doesn't come into play unless you’ve taxable income above $87,000, while 9.3% begins on income above $1 million).

This is how Oregon's Personal Income Tax adjusts for the absence of sales tax to generate income.

But our c-corporate tax rate is 6.6% on all income. That number is absolutely average among the states.

The income tax rate/brackets on all other filers is higher than average, than why wouldn’t the tax rate on c-corporate income also be higher?

Its an advantage both when one purchases business inputs and when one sells product to do busiess in a no-sales-tax state. But in Oregon c-corps are not paying for that advantage.

Yah. I don't make a lot of money per hour. ANd I get zero money back at the end of the year. I'm told that as an Oregon citizen I should feel really glad I am not owing every year.

I have no house, no land, nothing of value. Just me, my independent son and life. Yep, I'm salting away the max I'm allowed for my retirement.

But there is nothing extra in my economy and I take no help from anywhere to make things go and take care of backing my son in his start to his new life.

I guess I'm trying to leave behind an entitlements mentality that expects I should get a little tax money back at the end of the year. That little bump.

Apparently, that's an out of line wish. So my CPA friend explains to me.

I wonder if everyone else at my level in other states has the same experience? OR is this an Oregon joy?

Jodywiser, are you advocating the elimination of that "advantage" to business?

From your argument above, what I hear is: "The cost of doing business in Oregon isn't high enough compared to other states. We should mitigate that competitive advantage to some extent by driving up the cost of business with additional taxes."

David is right about my last post. I thought I had closed that blockquote. Sorry for any confusion.

"I guess I'm trying to leave behind an entitlements mentality that expects I should get a little tax money back at the end of the year. That little bump."

Would I rather have a taxable income which exceeded what I had taken out of my paycheck? Sure.
That the tax laws are written so that people who do the frontline work (often physically challenging and sometimes requiring a lot of patience) for low pay get their withholding back at the end of the year is an "entitlement" mentality?

When I was in college there was a Republican Gov. in that state. He wanted to end withholding because "it should HURT to pay taxes". Being an elected official, his tax returns were released every year. Turned out it didn't hurt him to pay taxes---accountants made sure every possible tax break reduced his tax liability.

Now who exactly had an "entitlement mentality"? Did I ever vote for that Gov. when I was old enough to vote (had to be 21 in those days)? Or was I one of those who thought the guy talked out of both sides of his mouth?

Do I have any sympathy for those with a lot higher income (and thus owe taxes) who gripe about tax burden?

I'm one of those people who would love to have a full time job but haven't had one for years. Does that make me "lazy" because like many Oregonians, the work I found was not full time (or was full time but temp)?

Yah, LT - I pay a more than reasonable amount for my medical, high copays, challenging caps, hefty-feeling taxes, but since my son was seventeen yet not out of the home, the small benefit allowed a single parent raising their kid sans any other contributors was removed. My CPA says that was a Bush Administration decision: to take away the tax credit given families like mine before their children were even of the age to graduate from high school. That sum returned each year was quite the godsend in terms of being able to flow it into basics and medical bills.

I have to admit I'm jarred that I pay all year long and it is the same percentage of my income I've paid all my life at all levels of earning, but not one penny comes back at return time. Not sure why I hear all the jabber about tax returns: I'm not getting them, and I am hearing that changes in the tax code have similarly gutted a lot of people who depended upon that small sum to give life a nudge. Can't figure out why we still hear the same noise about tax returns if so many no longer get them in Oregon?

I sympathize with you, and send a message to all temp workers in the weekly pay setup - be very very careful, as the state of Oregon tax software has a blind spot in it that injures the neediest of our workers. It does not recognize the mixed rates that you work. You MUST withhold at a substantially higher rate if you want to avoid owing taxes at the end of the year, and quite by surprise. Best of luck to you.

I guess I just have to buck up and lose the attitude of expecting tax monies returned me. I still don't quite understand why the change in my status, since the percentage of my earnings paid out every year continues to keep pace and bite my ass. :)

But numbers are not my special forte.

"A sister of a friend left WA state and moved here to get her extensive back surgery on the public dime! Meanwhile, folks, locals around me, could not get the services they needed!"

Why not?

Thanks Chuck, I think that I better understand the new corporate minimum tax and the new gross receipts tax for corporations under the changes. I'll continue reading and learning.

Ron: it's not unusual for a person without insurance and without the funds to buy it (most temp job workers who are at the same time seeking full time work) to find themselves literally twenty dollars above "the [earnings] line" and be unable to get basic care.

This lady had a known condition requiring surgery, was compiling the massive hx you CAN compile if you have stable healthcare (another cofactor to denial of needed care - those with no medical home often do not have continuous history or coherent charting on the part of the providers who have seven to ten minutes to chart them, and may not become the medical home as insurance is ripped away, or the person moves from one place to another, pushed out by rising rents, suchlike) so as to win an appeal. And she shopped her large family spread across the entire nation looking for who lived in the state she knew she could get herself and her kids taken care of. The home she found was here.

The brother who rehomed her an Intel executive. A good Mormon family to boot! Contemporary version of taking care of their own within the family, eh.

SO there are cofactors that are also social justice issues, that help interfere with folks' ability to get care basic or not so basic.

You cannot win an appeal to get the surgery to save your legs if you do not have the charts (nor the attorney!), but first and foremost, the charts, to stand on. You cannot get the charts if you are without care year after year, you cannot get the charts if you have chronically discontinuous care.

Another niche who suffer this are the contract workers/project workers, many of whom really don't want to be in that niche, but have to take whatever work comes, and finish it to stay in good name, and have to "explain themselves" to the disbelieving HR manager who is sure they would never want a stable job with benefits and clear expectations... erm.. :).... they suffer from teh perception that "you are highly paid, you can just buy your care"... adn so when they fall ill and work stops, that's it for them! Even if they saved judiciously, they can often suffer a faster than lightning loss of all they accrued and protected with carefulness.

I saw a lot of that. One friend, a veteran IT engineer, went down with the crash in 1999. Luckily, his wife had a PT library job. So when she had a massive stroke, they were in luck. Don't know what would have become of her otherwise. That was a lucky deal.

I think continuity of care is a thing of the past. My son has not had the same doctor ever in his childhood after we left OK. A physician who gets to know you will be more likely to give you the stiffer talking-to you may need now and again to help you discipline your way to better health. Personal story, I lucked out with one of those at KP before THAT insurance was changed! I learned SO much about the chronic pain I manage - and sometimes she was a little stern too! I trusted her. And she treated me with trust viz meds etc... unlike the jumpy, patriarchal docs who don't know you, so they ditch the teaching moment in favor of contracts and rules and extremely frequent visits that drain budgets, disrupt the life and job, and add no value to the patient's sense of health. That would be Providence. :)....

NARA is building a fine model of intervention right now - really fine model, but I'm not gonna go into it. Looks like their programming as it has evolved is working.

Posted by: Boats | Sep 25, 2009 12:31:22 PM

Yes Lance, only neo-marxism is credible here.

If you had a clue , you'd realize you just contradicted the pap mongers that feed your dittohead!

What makes it "neo"? I thought we were "classic marxists"? Any definition here, or just spinning verbiage? Let's guess. Heard it on talk radio. Had to come empty your copy buffer.

Now Boats is a good example for my immodest proposal. I say bring back contests on the field of honour. Gawd, everyone has to love that. No Boats, no me, and you can go on with bidness as usual, unperturbed! And yet another more practical use for Piggy Park than MLS.