Another lobbyist flip-flops on taxes
Carla Axtman
First it was the lobbying /PR group Conkling, Fiskum and McCormick changing their tune on ballot initiatives and taxes, now uber-lobbydude Mark Nelson making excuses for his own flip-flop:
Businesses have plenty of reasons to object to the current tax increases, Nelson said. For one thing, they’re subject to a drastically increased minimum tax under Measure 67, even if they don’t make a profit. In addition, many businesses transfer their profits to individual executives or owners, subjecting those dollars to Measure 66’s increased personal tax rate hike on top earners.Steve Novick, an adviser to the campaign to pass the two measures, said that while researching his campaign adversaries’ backgrounds, he discovered Nelson had once supported raising corporate taxes.
The sales tax proposed 16 years ago would have raised $1 billion a year, hitting all individuals and businesses when they bought certain goods and increasing business taxes for all corporations, Novick points out. The tax hikes in Measure 66 and 67 raise a combined $733 million over two years, with the added revenue coming from the wealthiest 2.5 percent of households and Oregon businesses.
When it comes to business taxes in Measure 67, the non-partisan Legislative Revenue Office calculates that 90 percent of the revenue will come from the biggest 1 percent of corporations: those with annual, in-state sales topping $100 million.
That, Novick said, is where he agrees with Nelson’s “totally different animals” assessments of 1993’s Measure 1 and 2010’s measures 66 and 67.
“If Mark Nelson’s sales tax had been adopted,” Novick said, “it would have been a much, much bigger tax increase on corporations than what we’re talking about now.”
Gee, who else is shocked?
Especially given that we're in a recession and it's WORSE to cut spending than to increase taxes, one would hope somewhere in Nelson's Grinchy lobbyist heart there's a memory of when he actually had his head pulled out.
 |
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
4:58 p.m.
Oct 30, '09
The problem is that paid lobbyists are political mercenaries. They get paid to accomplish a goal, not to be consistent with their own past positions.
It certainly is more than reasonable to hold their feet to the fire as you are doing here. All's fair in love and war and mercenaries are nothing more than warriors for hire. But I think we'd all do well to realize that all paid lobbyists are mercenaries, whether they're fighting for "our" side or for the "other" side.
Oct 30, '09
"The federal match is an undeniable economic boost to Oregon’s economy and an important reason why voters should join these economists and say ‘yes’ to the tax measures in January."
Great, now the rationale to raise state income taxes is to allow increased state spending so the federal government can send us more $ they (i.e., we) don't have... ~$1.4T federal budget deficit be damned.
8:18 p.m.
Oct 30, '09
Great, now the rationale to raise state income taxes is to allow increased state spending so the federal government can send us more $ they (i.e., we) don't have... ~$1.4T federal budget deficit be damned.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong again. But at least you're consistent.
The rationale to raise the $10 corporate minimum tax and personal income taxes on people making over $250k is so that we don't have to further drastically cut spending, making the recession in Oregon even worse.
Oct 30, '09
Let me ask you a variation of what I ask conservatives when it comes to raising taxes to fight the war on terror...if we are in such dire straights right now and those cuts would be so damaging to the state, why don't we raise those funds by raising the taxes on everyone? You can't tell me a family of four making $60K can't pay a little bit more in taxes to save the state. I sure know that a family making $100K sure as hell can kick in some more to save our children.
Why not take the stance of WITT? Don't be a NIMBY! All for one and one for all.
Oct 30, '09
why dont we quit whining about how short of money the state is when they are wasting millions of dollars on consultants and other garbage at the same time?
Oct 31, '09
A commenter asks: why don't we raise those funds by raising the taxes on everyone?
Because the polls read by the Democratic leadership in the legislature said that a broad based tax wouldn't survive a referendum.
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that 'rich' guy behind the tree."
Oct 31, '09
Carla commented: The rationale to raise the $10 corporate minimum tax and personal income taxes on people making over $250k is so that we don't have to further drastically cut spending, making the recession in Oregon even worse.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong again. But at least you're consistent.
The state DOES propose to increase spending over the prior biennium budget. Personal income taxes would be raised on people making over $125K (mind you, ~1/3 of the population is single these days) And we're not only raising the corporate minimum tax, we're changing the basis on which it's assessed as well as increasing the corporate income tax rate for corporations with income more than $250K.
Additionally, we're raising the gas tax from 24 cents to 30 cents per gallon, increasing the charge to renew license plate tabs every two years from $54 to $86, and more than tripling the vehicle titling fee to $78. Plus increasing taxes on all tobacco products other than cigarettes - including a $2.14 minimum tax for any retail smokeless tobacco container.
And we've now got a new 1% tax on health insurance premiums and an increased tax on the state's largest hospitals to reap more federal dollars - following the familiar pattern of the federal government paying states to raise their taxes.
Like Hillary said in Pakistan yesterday: 'We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move...'
Oct 31, '09
Great, now the rationale to raise state income taxes is to allow increased state spending so the federal government can send us more $ they (i.e., we) don't have... ~$1.4T federal budget deficit be damned.
We'd like for Oregon to at least get back as much in Federal money as we pay out in taxes. Is there something unfair about that?
You want Federal spending to go down, you might suggest that the Feds stop overspending on the Southern and Farm Belt states that claim to hate all taxes, but get more Federal money than they've paid for.
Oct 31, '09
Lobbyists are paid mouthpieces for their clients? Wow, I have been stunned and it is still 5 1/2 hours before the SC ducks game! That a lobbyist would have a different message for a different client with a 16 YEAR lapse is not newsworthy.
What is newsworthy is that had Oregon voters passed a reasonable sales tax along the line we might not now be faced with the deep issues currently facing the state. I'm in favor of reasonable rises in the corporate minimum tax. The manner that Salem went about it are not reasonable. the Gross Revenue Tax is not reasonable. I expect M67 to go down in flames.
I am in favor of a reasonable state sales tax that exempt basic food, medicine and gives a credit to those with an AGI under the poverty level. At say, 5% it is still well under the sales taxes enjoyed by our neighbors in Washington and California. It is also a behavior related tax. Don't want to pay more taxes? Then don't purchase expensive toys or other higher priced items.
12:30 p.m.
Oct 31, '09
Why not take the stance of WITT? Don't be a NIMBY! All for one and one for all.
The tax burden is already heavily tilted toward the middle class. Is it your contention that we should further tilt it in that direction?
Lobbyists are paid mouthpieces for their clients? Wow, I have been stunned and it is still 5 1/2 hours before the SC ducks game! That a lobbyist would have a different message for a different client with a 16 YEAR lapse is not newsworthy.
Except in these cases, these lobbyists are getting TONS of media time and not talking about the paid mouthpiece part. They're just citing alleged expertise and all that.
So if they wanna flip-flop, they get to be called on it.
Oct 31, '09
The tax burden is already heavily tilted toward the middle class. Is it your contention that we should further tilt it in that direction?
We are not talking about taxes under normal circumstances here. As I have stated before, I have no problem with raising the rates on TAXABLE INCOME of the "rich" and business.
But we are not in a normal situation. We are in a crisis. I believe it has been stated here numerous times that if these tax increases don't pass, CATASTROPHIC cuts will be made in critical areas of education, public safety etc.
Don't you think EVERYONE needs to step up to the plate in these critical times to prevent this catastrophe? WITT or not.
5:52 p.m.
Oct 31, '09
But we are not in a normal situation. We are in a crisis. I believe it has been stated here numerous times that if these tax increases don't pass, CATASTROPHIC cuts will be made in critical areas of education, public safety etc.
Don't you think EVERYONE needs to step up to the plate in these critical times to prevent this catastrophe? WITT or not.
"Normal" for the Oregon budget for many years has been catastrophe..because we've constantly been cutting (except for 2007). And the middle class has continued to shoulder this burden. It seems to me that asking everyone to carry a more equal load is the best place to begin.
I'm still wondering why you don't think so?
Oct 31, '09
Carla, you have as much credibility as one of those talking heads on Fox Noise:
What part of the following statement is beyond your comprehension: As I have stated before, I have no problem with raising the rates on TAXABLE INCOME of the "rich" and business.
8:47 p.m.
Oct 31, '09
What part of the following statement is beyond your comprehension: As I have stated before, I have no problem with raising the rates on TAXABLE INCOME of the "rich" and business.
Yeah, it seems like you do when you say stuff like "shouldn't we all share the load and have everyone taxes raised"? (paraphrasing) from the outset, ignoring the fact that the middle class already carry most of that burden.
So you're gonna need to pick which side of your mouth to talk--cuz it isn't working to do it from both.
Oct 31, '09
Carla
Why don't you feel like to should contribute more to avert this crisis. Do you really hate kids that much?
Nov 13, '09
I'm really very useful to follow a long-time see this as a blog here Thank you for your valuable information I'd love to take one of those for a spin. We need a lambo rental service in Pittsburgh. Any takers. Thnx for the interesting post.I found it very useful for myself.Keep writing. saç ekimi laptop
Nov 19, '09
For those of you thinking that if they implement this it will eliminate some of the waiting and lines… I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it. acı cehre koçluk vajinismus
Nov 29, '09
Thanks for the informations and good news. I was searching everywhere at internet but i never could find these informations. They are so successful and too neccassery for me. Thank you again. I bookmarked your site because it seems like having beatiful informations. panik atak nlp eğitimi
<hr/>