I'll be writing a check for $50 to the Oregon SOS today for the privilege of having an "assumed business name". Call it a fee if you wish, but it's only one of the "fees" a business pays. $10? Dream on!

Ralph has a point, which I was going to make to, since a lot of small non-profits incorporate rather than getting a dba name, plus there's Portland registrations, and the state fees have to be paid every year.

The problem with that logic is that, correct me if I'm wrong, the measure only deals with income tax, and if you don't owe any, you still won't owe any. I'm talking about the scenario of the cat rescue site that only, maybe, takes in $50/year. As I understand it, they won't find themselves owing $150.

Ralph, you could have gotten around that, again as I understand it, by calling your business Ralph Smith Services or such, instead of Portland Business Services, or whatever. I also think it's not a requirement if your business is 100% internet based, or if the brink and mortar bit is done from a different state, and no management decisions can be made locally. My pet peeve is that there is no enforcement or validation of the registrations. The only penalty in Oregon for failing to do so is that you don't have standing in the courts, and might have to pay $500 or the cost of determining who Portland Business Services is, whichever is greater. It's such a touchstone for consumer rights that the current situation can only be regarded as slanted towards business and away from consumers. I'd like to see another measure to fund a better system.

Let's see if I have this right. Conservatives set up a number of organizations dedicated to thwarting all new taxes. Fox decides to get in bed with them, and helps get the message out. Fighting back, liberals draft M66/67. They raise money from their supporters to promote the measures. Then they give the money to Fox to air their ad. If Fox is materially supporting any of the TEA groups, isn't that a closed revenue loop? All they have to do is whip up the right, and the left sends them more money!

So, keeping score, you've diverted time and energy from other liberal causes to address the effects of conservative policy, raised money from liberals, then handed it over to conservatives, and, when you do, it's a cause for celebration because it's a good ad.

Isn't that like Rush Limbaugh buying webpage space from the ACLU to advertise his show? He would never do it. So, why do you? Because you have to. So, who's in charge? Even when you're in power, we govern because the country, the "system", is conservative.

Excellent ad. I will make my donation now.

Nice post. Good ad.

The problems with 66/67:

1. If it was about increasing tax fairness, the increase in taxes for businesses would be offset by decreases in taxes for low/middle income people.

2. It's not temporary -- because the taxes are permanent, the measures cannot be couched as a response to the recession

3. Becasue the measures are about increasing revenues (not fairness) they will increase revenue instability (when the economy rebounds revenue will go up even more).

The public will support stabilizing revenue and increasing fairness but they will not support an expansion of government.

We had out first direct mail yesterday- as this is a rural area we get a lot of direct mail- this was your standard letter from Salem from a purported dairy farmer explaining how the measures would force lay-offs and make the old cows go dry in a matter of moments- A fairly well received pitch out here in cattle country-

Now I know you left the baby poop in the shopping cart anyway...

so so for me .

Sorry, just didn't seem like a good strategic ad. Started well, but then really made it sound like big business needed to finally pony up. I thought the key point was that business would see little change and hardly feel this. Remember, you don't need to sell those already on your side. Just my perspective.

From today's WSJ:

The city of Pittsburg, PA is considering a new tax to help address its deficit. They're going to go after another free-loading group who are not paying their fair share. This group numbers in the thousands and is dependent on a wide range of city services.

Small and large businesses? No.

They're going after the greedy college students. The city is considering a 1% tax on tuition.

What does this have to do with Measures 66/67?

Yet another variation of rallying a majority to target a minority with means to pay for ever growing government; all with the claim of asking that they pay "their fair share".

This Measure 66/67 ad focuses on the simple, yet misleading message that many businesses only pay $10 in taxes, while ignoring the other fees, property taxes, and other "dollar extraction mechanisms" that a business pays. No mention of the wages and salaries paid to employees, who in turn do pay a significant share of taxes to local and state government coffers.

This ad and the other messages we will see in the coming weeks diminishes the problem that Oregon faces in the future. After January, what else will we be seeing in the form of new tax proposals that will be necessary to address the other revenue shortfalls Oregon is facing?

The danger that the Measure 66/67 proponents face is they will need a new story line to justify the new taxes that will be necessary as Oregon lingers in its recession. Measures 66 and 67 alone do not fix Oregon's tax revenue problems.

Lord Beaverbrook, My given name is part of my "business name" and still the $50 bucks. All this does is protect my assumed name in my county, not statewide! The Oregon SOS does virtually nothing for this $50 not to mention the other state agencies I have to pay for the privilege of keeping THEM employed and their PERS, etc.

Why has there been no discussion of the propriety of our legislature approving a budget that is over 9% greater than that of the last biennium?

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Oregon_state_budget

I second John Calhoun's suggestion. It needs to be widely reported that the discredited anti-66 & 67 campaign had to use a Tilamook farmer, whose tax bill will only go from $10 to $150, for their one chance at an opening salvo.

As Chuck has widely documented, they have no legitimate arguments about impacts on small businesspeople like those farmers. Deception and disinformation loom large in the letter. This is the real news on the campaigns to dates - and thanks to Jeff Mapes for covering it.

As for KPTV 12, that's a separately-owned company that happens to have an affiliation with the Fox network for entertainment programming

Reality check. KPTV 12 NUS (neighborhoods under siege) is pure evil. The rest is worthless. It all conforms to what the far right want to see on a nightly news show. They- their words, now- are a "personality based news format". I would rather loan money to a veal startup than give support to a "personality based news format". That's what Sarah Palin wanted to be when she grew up. That's not some parallel existence. Those types directly suck the life blood of the Republic.

And what about that "roundup of the daily news segment" that is identical on all Fox affiliates? Better titled "some random events that we hope will really scare you". Maybe that's their idea of entertainment programming. It's no mystery that triggering the fight/flight response causes a kind of tunnel vision that makes a progressive view of the situation highly unlikely.

And let's hope strict Feynman style parallel universes don't really exist. If they do, in some dimension, this country is reeling from a Palin Presidency, and all because we haven't had the good sense to realize that in a simple 50%+1 vote style democracy, a personality orientated news format is absolutely no way to communicate civics relevant information, I don't care if you're talking about Lou Dobbs or Walter Cronkite!

The legislature could have dealt with this instead of kicking it back to the populace and then we could give $ directly to the ends these measures serve, instead of giving it to dieing media (to include more than Channel 12).

I think I might wretch at the thought of the Fox NFL team being entertainment.

I'm sure this sounds like utter nonsense. Everything has to be run through some kind of banal linguistic filter. OK. I'll give it a go, with Martha Stewart speak. She knows the lingo.

"When you're through changing, you're through. And we're not through, we're going to pass M66/67. It's not a good thing to have to address though, and, you know what? When you have to do something that's necessary but not so great, it's better to just get her done."

I received the letter from the Tillamook dairy farmer, and was just disgusted by how misleading it was. The Mapes article is a good one, but it might be nice to see a point-by-point takedown of the statements in the letter.

Also, somewhat of an aside, but the return address on the envelope was a little weird: 3421 Del Webb Ave NE, Salem OR 97303, which is apparently a furniture store.

"plus there's Portland registrations, and the state fees have to be paid every year. "

Only if one lives in Portland!

What do people want---regulation of business names without any charge, or anyone in any jurisdiction having the ability to use a business name (NIKE Greek restaurant, Powells shoe repair, etc.)?

Government services don't come for free. Unless you want anarchy. And this is not just an "attack on business". Anyone who doesn't believe there is a fee teachers must pay when they gain/renew a teaching certificate is clueless.

Very helpful post. I am going door-to-door in support of Measures 66 & 67 this weekend. Good to know that only 3% of individuals will be affected by the tax increases. Does anyone know what percentage of businesses will be affected?

I agree with LT that many of these posts are missing the point of the taxes. Taxes are primarily about paying for things the community deems are important. If we can make it fairer, that's great, but that is not the end-all be-all.

Julie, check out the post "I don't think those words..." to find out more. It is the former address of a bed store which has moved. Making it a vacant building ripe for a campaign office?

Oh Yeah; Employers, large & small companies, will be paying 2-3x plus for unemployment insurance for their employees. A tax increase here, a fee increase there, and pretty soon it adds up.

But you guys don't seem to care.

Guaranteed I will pass along all of these Increases, including my DMV, license, registration,etc., fee increases to the customers, all of 'em, Rich & Poor.

Kari,

I also think the ad is cute but not in the same way you do. I think it is a fuzzy, cute piece of class warfare. "...protect the middle class..."
"...make the big corporations finally pay their fair share..." Actually it's pretty crass, as are deceptive pieces claiming tax increases that don't exist.

The whole problem is that we aren't looking at the disease, only the symptoms. The real question is, "When do we stop spending more than we have?" If the legislature had adequately addressed that issue, there would be no need for new taxes nor tax increases.

Any parent who has propped up a kid who would not stop his excessive spending habits will tell you. The time to bite the bullet is yesterday. I don't care if it is Republicans or Democrats who do it, but, someone needs to say, "We can't afford it." If we approve 66 and 67, we will just continue to enable our Legislature to spend more money we don't have.

I think much of the general public is fed up with legislators justifying more taxes because they don't have the guts to cut costs.

@ Dylan You said, "Good to know that only 3% of individuals will be affected by the tax increases." I think you fail to consider that most of the increase will be passed on to the end consumer. I believe each new tax or tax increase effects all of us.

Ask yourself if you think this will be the last tax increase in Oregon. If you think it won't be, then this is not the solution. The solution is to provide less service/fewer services, deliver the same services more effectively, or raise taxes/fees. I'm convinced the wrong way, but the easy way out is to raise taxes and fees.

We're violently in agreement, LT. I think I actually called for more taxes to fund better oversight (having given up on asking for any from the current dole). I agree about anarchy. That was what I was trying to say about registration being the touchstone of consumer rights (and you point out it's pretty important for business too).

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but one nit would be that business don't get to deduct those fees, whereas teachers do.

Ralph, the matter of the counties it's registered for is usually just a matter of checking the boxes. I don't remember it costing more to do the whole state. I wasn't thinking so much about reserving the name. Believe me, the startups I've been associated with don't have names anyone would ever want to rip off!

Got the cow lady's email (Carol Marie Leuthold). Discovered she's owns a multi-million dollar corporate dairy and is all worried because she's a "small" business. BS, I say. Know what, Carol? Quit being a shill for your corporate masters.

Unfortunately, many will believe her swill and think that the poor, little farmer will get shafted.

We still have research to do on the 66/67 measures. We may end up thinking they're crap, but we're already getting crap from the right-wing astroturf organizations. It ticks me off.

LB, that might be true about full time teachers that itemize deductions. Substitute teachers make a lot less money (often are lucky to average 3 days a week --when I was a sub my average was less than that).

Marva, if your legislator is voting no, ask how they will fill the budget gap if the taxes are thrown out. The best will at least have some idea, the worst will say things like THESE ARE BAD TAXES as if that is an answer.

Even if I didn't think the taxes are needed to balance the budget (and the other side has shown no credible alternative) any campaign which makes as many mistakes as OAJKT makes deserves to lose.

Does anyone know how many C-corp's had more than $1,000,000 in Oregon taxable income yet paid only the $10 minimum?

We still have research to do on the 66/67 measures. We may end up thinking they're crap, but we're already getting crap from the right-wing astroturf organizations. It ticks me off.

That and those daily Comcast ads. printed on heavy paper. It's just a waste of trees.

If you've ever been in the Netherlands, you might have noticed that every door has a little sticker below the mail slot that says "Ja" or "Nee", on two lines. The first refers to unaddress mail (to the occupants), and the second refers to commercial mail. A simple "Nee", on line two and you never get anyone's stupid tree killing spam.

The UK has that option too, but it's little known. There was a huge near class warfare a few years back when a local postman told someone they could opt out and the management sacked him. There was a public outcry, and they eventually ended up giving him a desk job.

And then there's us.

First negative lawn signs appeared in Jefferson Co today as well- not many but they are out.

Actually, they had ANOTHER TV ad that never got past the YouTube and embedded on HomePage stage. They pulled it several days after "someone" sent the URL to MTV Production's Legal Department. Here's the official parody of that piece here.

~EIO

Sorry. I will vote for M67 because it has been a long time in coming. As for Measure 66, this is political slime in the worst way. First, the increase may only affect 3% of the people, but the tax jump is far more than the stated jump. Because it reduces the limit on Federal taxes that can be deducted on the state return, the actual marginal rate for anyone affected will be more like 12.48% if my calculations are correct. Second, it is retroactive to January 1, 2009. This means that the tax will apply to income earned before the law even goes into effect and will immediately put me in the position of an underwithholding penalty. I can't find any amnesty for underwithholding if the law passes. Were in NOT retroactive, and were it not tinkering with the linkage between the Federal tax code, I might vote for M66; however, the Legislature chose a small group of people who pay a lot of taxes - more than a fair share I daresay, since there are no places to take advantage of the legal deductions in the federal code, this is just another way of class warfare and taxing the rich. You wanna raise my marginal rate to 10.8%, just do it. Don't go screwing around with retroactivity, delinking from the federal code, and reducing the size of the Federal tax deduction. My wife and I pay a shitload of Oregon taxes and an even more massive shitload to the feds. We have the AMT to deal with and we're already screwed at the fed level. This change, if passed, would probably be enough to get us to move across the river in 2011 when my wife retires. We don't want to do that, but we are not going to be taxed to death by Oregon.

This ad is totally misleading in that it suggests to the public that both measures 66 & 67 relate to the corporate minimum tax and little else. In that only one of the measures is related to business taxes while the other measure relates to personal income taxes; the ad is yet another con job from the supporters bag of tricks designed to fool the electorate. This ad only exemplifies why the current legislative body can no longer be trusted.

It's about time that we reform our corporate taxes. Paying $10 a year is not enough.

I just hope our schools and students survive this vote.

Posted by: ZoMan | Dec 4, 2009 1:20:57 PM

I just hope our schools and students survive this vote.

They ultimately won't survive the blood sucking from middle management.

What I don't understand is why we have to tax the citizens of Oregon more to recieve the federal matching funds that should have stayed in the state to begin with. We send taxes to the Federal Government on income and just about everything you can think of and they waste half of it and then send back. What a load of crap! The other thing that is really annoying is the vilianization of corporations. Any idiot should know that the tax on any company, corp. or business is passed on to the consumer. So when the price of something goes up and people don't buy it anymore, yes people will lose thier jobs! Its very simple economics. I wish more politicians studied science, because political science is oxymoronic!

It should be illegal to tax based on revenue. Every business has different opperating costs. Some take a million to make 100,000 and some take a million to make a million.