As I’ve mentioned before, I’m working for the Yes campaign
on Measures 66 and 67. Facing an opposition effort led by a tobacco lobbyist,
we suspected we might have to debunk a few false claims, and we’ve yet to be
disappointed. But this week, Mark Nelson took it to a whole new level.
As reported by the Oregonian’s Jeff Mapes
and noted here by Carla,
voters around the state have gotten an unexpected letter in the past few days
from Tillamook dairy farmer Carol Marie Leuthold, opposing Measures 66 and 67.
BlueOregon readers have probably already smelled the sour
milk. What’s really interesting about the Leuthold letter is how thoroughly the actual facts behind it reinforce the udder emptiness of
the opposition’s arguments.
Here are the facts:
1. This letter came
from tobacco lobbyist Mark Nelson and his sidekick Pat McCormick, who are
running the opposition campaign. The return address is nowhere near the
fields of Tillamook, but rather an abandoned mattress superstore in industrial
Salem. The letters were hand-signed to look authentic, but all in different
handwriting. (Good to see there are still job opportunities available for
Sizemore’s old signature gathering team.)
2. There is no actually no Leuthold Dairy Farm registered
with the Secretary of State. There is a Wilsona Farms, LLC,
under the Leuthold family name.
3. That “LLC” after the corporations name means that Wilsona
Farms is, in fact, a Limited Liability Corporation. That means the Leutholds’
tax under the new corporate minimum will be $150. Period. (Leuthold herself has
now acknowledged this.) So in a way
Leuthold is a great poster child … for the Yes campaign. We’ve been explaining
all along that nearly 90% of Oregon businesses will pay just $150 under the new
corporate minimum.
Incidentally, as far as farms are concerned, $150 is actually
on the HIGH side in terms of taxes that will be owed under Measure 67. Overall,
Oregon farms are disproportionately UNAFFECTED by the measure. 85% of farms are
sole proprietorships and will be paying $0 (that's zero) under Measure 67. (See
upcoming posts for more information on Measure 67 and farms.)
4. Among other things, Ms. Leuthold claims that “We're
worried that the new permanent tax increases legislators passed in June will
hurt our farm and the families it supports" and “Facing higher taxes,
small businesses like ours would be forced to lay off workers, reduce wages and
benefits, or close their doors.” Again, Ms. Leuthold's farm’s total tax
liability under Measure 67 will be $150.
If Ms. Leuthold and her friends need to “lay off workers” (plural) to
save $150, we really have to wonder about how those cows are getting milked.
5. The Leutholds have said that they may pay slightly more
in personal taxes under Measure 66. But
Ms. Leuthold has acknowledged that that’s not because they make over $250,000
from their dairy farm; she told Jeff Mapes that she makes most of her money
from (to quote Mapes) “other activities, which she declined to discuss.” (Very mysterious! Are the Leutholds the kingpins of that Tillamook gun-running ring we've all been hearing about? Stay tuned!)
6. The Leuthold Saga
also demonstrates yet another important point for our side: Taxing rich people
doesn’t cost jobs in Oregon. All of the money raised by the taxes (plus
matching Federal funds) will be spent on people and businesses in Oregon,
preserving jobs in health care, education and public safety. By contrast, most
rich people spend their money in more places than just Oregon. Last year, Ms. Leuthold took cooking classes
in France and Italy while her husband went on safari in South Africa[].
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that - we're not here to criticize how they
spend their personal income (from whatever mysterious source they received
it). But let’s be clear: They are NOT
struggling farmers. They are in the top
2.5% of Oregon taxpayers.
7. Just one other thing: between 2002 and 2006, the Leuthold
farm took in $92,753 in Federal farm subsidies.
Again, the Leuthold Saga illustrates one of our key points: We all benefit from
the services that taxes make possible. However, most of us don’t get to claim
tax benefits and subsidies and, at the same time, travel to Europe and go on
African safaris.
As Chuck Sheketoff said the other day, Mark Nelson “can’t
find the poster child” for his fight against raising the $10 corporate minimum.
So he’s been reduced to trying to paint a wealthy globetrotter facing a $150
tax bill as a struggling farmer who will have to lay off employees. Nelson and
his corporate backers know that they can’t have an honest conversation with
voters about the facts on these measures.
We knew that they couldn’t. But even we are a bit surprised at just how
brazenly they will lie about the impact of these measures.
Pat McCormick wondered aloud to KATU’s Melica Johnson: “Does
it make a difference, do you think, to people?”
Does it make a difference to voters that the opposition has
based their entire argument on a phony story and bogus information? McCormick
and Nelson may not think it matters, but we do.
Between now and January 26, we’ll need to help voters see
through these kinds of misleading tactics. Help us. Head here to watch our TV
ad and forward it to your friends and family.
Most importantly, for fifty bucks, you can buy a cable TV ad to get the
truth in front of more people[]
That’s the best way to deal with the lies – help us tell the truth louder.
3:45 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
Just one other thing: between 2002 and 2006, the Leuthold farm took in $92,753 in Federal farm subsidies.
That can't be right Steve. That would mean that the Leutholds are benefitting from my hard earned tax dollars while I get nothing for it.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for multi-million dollar fighter jets that don't work in the rain, Islands cut out of the middle of Beaverton to protect indigent sneaker manufacturers from being destroyed by municipal funding needs, and letting no-bid contracts to psychopathic mercenaries with God on Their Side, but don't be taking my hard earned pennies just to give it to people who should rightfully be starving in the streets.
That just wouldn't be fair now, would it?
Dec 2, '09
"The return address is nowhere near the fields of Tillamook, but rather an abandoned mattress superstore in industrial Salem. "
Pat and Mark have both spent enough time in Salem to realize that locals would recognize the address. It is no wonder a store wanted to move to Lancaster, this location is not easy to find (an offshoot of Salem Industrial Drive, it can be hard to see the street sign) and doesn't look like a nice place to be, esp. at night.
The painting is still on the windows "SLEEP BETTER" sort of thing from the bed store. A paper "Bedmart is moving" sign is inside one of the doors. Very interesting: 2 doors obviously once belonged to the bed store. The windows on one said are clear glass, and all one can see through them is an empty room.
The windows next to the other door (and the glass in the door itself) are covered with paper.
If Mark thought no locals would go look at the location, he has lost any common sense he ever had.
If Pat and Mark don't think this is the stuff that word of mouth stories are made of (and these days, all such stories can be told online, not just to people one talks to face to face and on the phone) they are out of touch with ordinary folks---the sort of people who will be the deciding factor in January.
Dec 2, '09
Thanks for following up on this letter. I got one in the mail yesterday--recognized Mark Nelson's handiwork even before I opened the envelope. Usually it's a PO Box address in Salem, not an actual location. Still not convincing.
Dec 2, '09
Didn't a regular poster here at Blue Oregon call Mark Nelson one of the brightest, most honest man in the business not too long ago?
Dec 2, '09
Oh, and a piece of irony. Anyone who is familiar with N. Salem/Keizer will know about Cherry Street, a major street.
The way the road winds off Salem Industrial Drive, the old Bedmart location with paper on the windows and a couple of no on 66 & 67 (just the kind on printer paper, not actual substantial signs) looks directly across Cherry Street. There are a couple of state office buildings in view of the doors. One is OFDW. The other is Senior and Disability Services.
Maybe Mark and Pat would like to campaign to have those buildings closed to make up the budget hole?
Or don't they want to admit budget cuts will be necessary if their side wins?
4:24 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
Corporate welfare is the conservative way, as the Leuthold's demonstrate. That they are the happy recipients of taxpayer largesse while complaining bitterly about the possibility of having to pay a piddlin' $150 neatly frames conservative ideology. They're not against welfare or against taxes. What they're against is welfare that doesn't go to them and against taxes that have to be paid by them.
I do have to correct Pat on one point. Nike's World Campus wasn't carved out of Beaverton. It's never been part of any municipality. The city of Beaverton doesn't bring anything to the table that Nike needs or wants. The roads surrounding Nike were nice before Beaverton expanded into the area. The fire station across the street is TVF&R, not Beaverton. Etc. Nike is pretty much self-contained and every single area in which they weren't already self-contained is an area that was fully met when the entire area was unincorporated.
The propostion for Nike really boils down to being taxed by a new entity in return for absolutely nothing that Nike needs or wants or didn't already have fully met before Beaverton came a knocking.
However, there have probably been numerous Nike employees living in Beaverton all along and paying taxes in Beaverton using the salary they collected from Nike to pay said taxes. So Beaverton has benefitted from Nike all along while Nike hasn't benefitted from Beaverton and doesn't stand to benefit from being part of Beaverton in the foreseeable future.
4:24 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
Did anyone else get a letter addressed to the wrong person? The address on the envelope was mine, but the letter inside was addressed to my neighbor. Just wondering how many of their envelope stuffers screwed up...
Dec 2, '09
“Does it make a difference, do you think, to people?”
Wow. Pat McCormick doesn't know if the truth matters to people. He's been a corporate lobbyist for too long.
Dec 2, '09
Cheesus, the truth doesn't matter to him, so he doesn't realize it might to normal people.
5:01 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
We got 2 copies at our house.
5:10 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
They're [Leutholds] not against welfare or against taxes. What they're against is welfare that doesn't go to them and against taxes that have to be paid by them.
and
The propostion for Nike really boils down to being taxed by a new entity in return for absolutely nothing that Nike needs or wants or didn't already have fully met before Beaverton came a knocking.
eerily similar arguments Kevin. One you support and the other you oppose.
In the case of Nike, the city grows around you and you wind up in the city if you are a home or business owner. It doesn't seem fair but that's how it's always been, unless of course, you're Too Big To Pay.
Dec 2, '09
I was so pissed when I got this letter! - totally suspicious. It was fantastic to get on the computer, google Lethold, and see what action has already been taken. THank you.
Dec 2, '09
The sig on mine doesn't match any in the scan, could it be a fake? :)
Dec 2, '09
I cant understand why Oregon is so afraid to tax businesess? They dont have a problem raising the taxes on the so called rich.. Which Liberals dont have a problem with either.. What oregon needs is a flat tax not this current uneven playing field where a majority of Oregonians dont pay any income tax..
Dec 2, '09
There've been a number of letters like this in the past. No one ever wanted to discuss it here. Why the sudden interest? This is standard American marketing.
In fact, wasn't the last one I got like that from a certain junior, Oregon senator?
This is really simple. Are the Leutholds making a complaint? Who wouldn't, if they're not involved? American marketing is about letting someone that isn't whatever use whatever's name. If they make a complaint, then the outrage is understandable. This really smacks of southerners that are always the first to vote against individual liberty, but, as soon as the Fed does something they don't like, they shout "states' rights"!
Fess up. This whole thread exists because "one shouldn't let the oppositions charges go unaswered". This is what is disgusting about American politics. No trust whatsoever that anyone can make a rational decision, unless you tell them the facts. And there, you're right. That isn't democracy, it's mutual dysfunctional dependency. It disgusts anyone that can think. This is why you will have maybe 40% voter turnout in January.
Dec 2, '09
Maybe Mark and Pat would like to campaign to have those buildings closed to make up the budget hole?
They could cut almost half the hole simply by taking a hard look at the Dept of Corrections new budget. Can any of you explain to me why they are getting a 22% budget increase, $300,000,000 when they themselves are only projecting an increase in "clients" of 3%?
Dec 2, '09
There are 15,000 +/- businesses with zero (or a loss) actual income who pay $10 and will pay $150 if this passes. Since it is claimed by so many that "that's not asking much", why don't we impose a $150 minimum on the 152,465 individual taxpayers who paid NO minimum on their no taxable income.
That's not asking much...
5:49 p.m.
Dec 2, '09
This whole thread exists because "one shouldn't let the oppositions charges go unaswered".
No. This thread exists because our opponents are lying through their teeth.
<hr/>I just got my copy of The Sandy Post and there's another one in there by Gresham City councilor Matthew Wand, citing "economists" and repeating the tired old "70,000" jobs lost no fewer than thee times in about 800 words.
Having studied this thing from the beginning, I know that the alleged "economists" that pulled this number out of their asses, ar both employed by the Cascade Policy Institute and are paid to have this particular opinion.
The voters, most of whom have actual lives, might not know these little details, so as long as our opponents are lying, we're calling them out.
Dec 2, '09
Carol Marie Leuthold---The New American Welfare Queen---desperate for government handouts while having impeccable discernment for varietials of Swiss chocolate.
Dec 2, '09
I know that the alleged "economists" that pulled this number out of their asses, ar both employed by the Cascade Policy Institute and are paid to have this particular opinion.
ROTFLMAO
Dec 2, '09
The voters, most of whom have actual lives, might not know these little details, so as long as our opponents are lying, we're calling them out.
That's why we can't just look at the letter and see it for what it is! And why I don't understand the need (not having a life, and all). Funny. I remember great umbrage being taken when I said, "political parties exist mainly so people don't have to research all those nasty details themselves".
I've got it now. Dems' behavior is motivated by righteous indignation, not tactical thinking!
Let's bring back those southern "poll tests", only let's give them to everybody!
Dec 2, '09
I am so glad the Leuthold farm is being investigated and hopefully shutdown, and then with Allah's help turned over to the State. We need to cap upper incomes via taxation, and then use this money to fight corruption and global warming. I will be piercing both of my nipples this weekend, while meditating for the passing of 66/67 and the end of the Right Wing conspiracy that is dominating Oregon.
Dec 2, '09
Carol Marie Leuthold, new American Welfare Queen, has apparently directed the Tillamook Creamery folks to take down her world travel diaries from their website. It seems that galavanting the world while accepting tens of thousands dollars in government handouts is an embarrassing topic for Carol.
What strikes me as embarrassing, Carol, is your true lack of patriotism. As you conveniently accept goverment handouts while earning more than $250,000 a year, the public school classrooms in your Coastal Oregon neck of the woods are breaking at the seems with 35 to 1 teacher to student ratios. You are willing to send kids down the road so that you don't have to pay an additional $140 a year in taxes. That's not Christian. That's not American. That's just pathetic.
Dec 2, '09
MP--how much of that " zero (or a loss) actual income " is businesses who have lots of deductions the ordinary min. wage worker does not have.
Now, if you want the same tax rate on min. wage part time workers and businesses BEFORE deductions, that might be an interesting debate.
Dec 2, '09
"They could cut almost half the hole simply by taking a hard look at the Dept of Corrections new budget. Can any of you explain to me why they are getting a 22% budget increase, $300,000,000 when they themselves are only projecting an increase in "clients" of 3%?"
Measure 11 and all the other bright ideas of Kevin "tough on crime no new taxes" Mannix.
Dec 3, '09
Posted by: mp97303 | Dec 2, 2009 5:46:39 PM
They could cut almost half the hole simply by taking a hard look at the Dept of Corrections new budget. Can any of you explain to me why they are getting a 22% budget increase, $300,000,000 when they themselves are only projecting an increase in "clients" of 3%?
Because you can never spend too much on prisons! "Criminality" is a key concept in human domestication. Regardless of peoples' behavior, you will ALWAYS have an increase in criminality, right in lock step with increased domestication. As domestication efforts increase every year, with greater success, the prisons budget will as well. I've seen the future. Schools and Prisons are in one budget. You go to indoctrination. If you don't come out right, it's prison. But the budget will have to grow a lot more, and become a crisis, before any will even consider that.
What a complete waste of bandwidth this thread is. Like you won't beat this thing off for another six weeks (and thank you Pat for doing our job for us)...can anyone explain to me why this was worth the effort, while a very critical what-we-voted-for-you-for vote is coming to the floor?
Yeah, you've got the message out on M66/67. Quick show of hands. Who's heard of the Mikulski amendment?
Dec 3, '09
That's not Christian. That's not American. That's just pathetic.
Actually, it's all three, as the third term includes the first two.
Dec 3, '09
My address for "Carol" was a large empty former "Big Box" store for bedroom furnishings off the Parkway in Salem. Our top people suspect that this "Big Box" is in reality a "Phone Hive" where thousands of unsuspecting minions will be paid to make non-robo calls starting SATURDAY... Here's The Schedule. We will continue to stake out this hive...
~EIO
Dec 3, '09
Mark Nelson also currently represents the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which includes full-time (not adjunct) faculty at Portland State University...
Perhaps it's time to leave the guy to Carol?
Dec 3, '09
"Just one other thing: between 2002 and 2006, the Leuthold farm took in $92,753 in Federal farm subsidies."
Nothing like subsidizing one of the most unsustainable and environmentally destructive industries.
Dec 3, '09
Check out the "Note from Tillamook Cheese" on this issue... http://www.tillamookfanclub.com/carol-marie-leuthold.cfm
Not exactly a profile in courage.
But there are plenty of great Oregon cheese and ice cream makers besides Tillamook... http://www.oregoncheeseguild.org/cheesemakers.html
Dec 3, '09
Add me to the list of outraged Oregonians. As a retired CEO and entrepreneur, my perspective on the letter and on the funding of the anti-tax campaign may be helpful. I've posted a copy of "Carol's" letter on my website as well as a copy of the reply I sent to her.
http://www.dismountingourtiger.com/politics/reply-to-anti-tax-letter-from-carol-leuthold/
Dec 3, '09
That's not Christian.
Not very Christian at all.
Let's remember that in Acts chapter 4, the apostles had everyone in town pool their resources and then redistribute it according to everyone's needs: "... not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them." (ACTS 4:32)
And in Chapter 5, when Ananias decides not to pay the full rate of the apostle-tax, the Peter clearly states that this is Satan's influence! (ACTS 5:3) And the tax evader is struck down.
So I hope that all those voters who were so keen on waving their Bible, suggesting that we ought to vote against gay marriage because the Bible says so, vote yes on 66/67.
And any Bible-owner that spewed their argument against equal rights... but fails to speak out in FAVOR of 66/67 with the same fervor is, in my opinion, a hypocrite of the worst order.
Dec 3, '09
Saw that letter last night and hoped someone would debunk it. Great job, Steve!
Here is a large missing angle on this whole deal: nonprofit orgs pay more than these for-profit corporations! We must pay an excise tax based on total assets. I work for a small, 9 staff statewide nonprofit that provides a vital health service for preschool kids at 7 Oregon locations. We just cut a check for more than $650 to the State of Oregon to send in with our CT-12 tax return. And yet these creeps paid $10 all those years and complain about $150? UGH!! I wish someone would take on this angle! Thanks for all you do, excellent post.
Dec 3, '09
Awesome! Now how do we find a message that voters care about to make them vote yes?
Dec 3, '09
Now, how do we go about removing her status that allows her to receive subsidies. If she so concerned about seeing her taxes go up I would like to do my part to reduce her tax liability by driving her out of business. To start with I will boycott all Tillamook products unless they come out with a very public statement denouncing her, and her tactics.
Dec 3, '09
I just received this letter a couple of days ago, and it immediately made me think "this has to ba a scam." I did some quick Googling and confirmed that this letter was absolutely contrived. Thanks Steve for putting this article out. I hope that we can get the radio, television and print media to help expose this disingenuous "Cowpie" (resulting from these slimmers injesting so many of these right wing lies. Wow, remember the days when people told their story, but actually told it truthfully? I hope we can bring back those values one of these days.
Dec 3, '09
"Tillamook products unless they come out with a very public statement denouncing her, and her tactics."
Actually, when they replaced the page about Carol's world travels (linked from Carla's piece on this) and replaced it with a statement that she only speaks for herself and that dairy farmers are divided on the ballot measure, that seemed to me to be their way of avoiding a boycott.
Dec 3, '09
"Actually, when they replaced the page about Carol's world travels (linked from Carla's piece on this) and replaced it with a statement that she only speaks for herself and that dairy farmers are divided on the ballot measure, that seemed to me to be their way of avoiding a boycott."
Not public enough for me. You have to seek that out, if they don't want her name tainting their product, they need to far more outgoing with their efforts to distance themselves from her.
1:14 p.m.
Dec 3, '09
they need to far more outgoing with their efforts to distance themselves from her.
Waydaminit, Dang it.
Is the goal here to build as much opposition as possible?
There's nothing in the letter or anywhere else in the "anti" campaign that cites either the Tillamook Chamber or the Creamery Association as taking a position on either of these measures.
There's lots of variations on the issues, and a position of---"I don't like taxes in general, but this one's not going to kill me, so I'll stay neutral."---is a clear win for us. We don't have to demand loyalty oaths......
Dec 3, '09
We don't have to demand loyalty oaths.
Thank you, Pat, for being a voice of reason (as usual). Besides, if I boycott Tillamook dairy products, who's the clear loser there? Me.
Now, how do we go about removing her status that allows her to receive subsidies.
I believe it would be permissible for the State (through legislation) to create an option for business that allows them to, say, reset their minimum tax to $10 if they forward the federal subsidies to the Oregon Department of Revenue. (The State can't come in and take the subsidies, but they can make the receiver declare 11 times the amount of federal subsidies as additional taxable income... that'd bump 'em over the minimum threshhold pretty quick.)
There'd be no takers to such a crappy deal, but at least we can say, "You don't have to see your taxes raised... just give up your tax-supported welfare and we'll call it a deal."
Dec 3, '09
Brilliant, JHL!
Dec 3, '09
"What oregon needs is a flat tax not this current uneven playing field where a majority of Oregonians dont pay any income tax."
A so-called flat tax creates an "uneven playing field. If a tax is 5% and I make $10,000 a year, taxable income, I pay $500 in taxes.
That leaves me with $9500 to get through the year.
If you make $100,000 and pay 5%, you pay $5000 and are left with $95,000 to get through the year.
That's why we have richer people pay more: they can afford to and still have plenty left over.
And don't make the case that people who make more work harder for it. Not unless you have the facts to support that statement.
Dec 4, '09
" if I boycott Tillamook dairy products, who's the clear loser there? Me."
If you boycott the dairy industry, the planet wins.
Dec 4, '09
Thanks, Bill.
And the question which always stops flat tax proponents in their tracks is this:
Does the proposal include withholding?
Because if it does, then the rich person has no trouble coming up with the money, but the poor person might have to skimp on essential spending like food to save up the money.
The smart ones respond "we would exempt the first $20,000 (or whatever) to avoid that problem".
Dec 4, '09
if you boycott the dairy industry, the planet wins
You WIN at crying rivers.
However, you FAIL at deliciousness.
Dec 4, '09
"Besides, if I boycott Tillamook dairy products, who's the clear loser there? Me."
There are plenty of other options besides Tillamook. They may represent the lions share of dairy goods in Oregon, but they are by no means the only players in the game. If we support some of the small farms, ones that probably could really use our support anyways it just might send them a message. Tillamook definitely makes a good product, but I for one will be exploring the many other options that our state has.
Dec 4, '09
"if you boycott the dairy industry, the planet wins
You WIN at crying rivers.
However, you FAIL at deliciousness."
And you win "Commenter most likely to be in middle school"
Dec 4, '09
Can someone please explain why this group would pay to send this obviously ridiculous letter to a Democrat in 97214?
Dec 4, '09
Bowerick:
Don't get me wrong pal, I'm open to compromise. If we could figure out a way to divert the hundreds of billions of gallons of waste from this industry, say..........into your mouth instead of the land and water, I would be open to that. But that obviously wouldn't work w/ so much pollution already coming out of your mouth.
Dec 4, '09
"[cow poop] into your mouth..."
Excuse me, did you just break a time-honored internet argument rule by zinging me twice without an intervening retort? Lame.
And did you accuse ME of being childish and then turn around and tell me to put poop in my mouth? Seriously?
I was thinking of shooting back something along the lines of, "Well you win at being most likely to have birkenstocks that smell like unwashed hair," but now it just doesn't seem worth it if you're not going to be playful about it.
So keep up that crack strategy of bolstering your arguments by telling people to eat poop.
Let me know how that works out for ya. :)
Dec 4, '09
Jonathan Radmacher---probably for the same reason that the 2 lobbyists running the campaign thought Salem residents were stupid enough they wouldn't notice the return address is on a street that connects to Salem Industrial Drive.
Dec 6, '09
Bowfuck, So keep up that crack strategy?
Cut the support for the War on Drugs, hypocrite. Anyone that unaware of their linguistic assumptions should shut the fuck up!
Dec 6, '09
"Anyone that unaware of their linguistic assumptions should shut the fuck up!"
Hey asshat -- I get my definitions from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: [3]crack Function: adjective Date: 1793 :of superior excellence or ability a crack marksman
I'm obviously using the word in this context as a bit of sarcasm.
You must be a real delight to be around in social situations. (By the way, that's sarcasm too.) Do you always call people names when they use a word that you don't know?
Dec 7, '09
How do you respond to my accountant's assessment of tax liability for this measure, if passed? He says that this increase will impact businesses that are losing money, and will not have the desired impact as stated by proponents.
Businesses pay a Corporate Minimum tax only when they pay no income tax due to negative (zero) taxable income. Why would we want to suck tax money out of a business that's not making money? To put them under?
I'm confused... Help me understand the real impact.
Dec 7, '09
Kyle, in the days before PGE was part of ENRON, this might have made sense.
"Businesses pay a Corporate Minimum tax only when they pay no income tax due to negative (zero) taxable income. Why would we want to suck tax money out of a business that's not making money? "
Except the real furor over the corporate min. started when it was discovered that PGE/ENRON only paid the corporate min.
Shall we have an open public discussion about what businesses are allowed to deduct if the measures fail?
A Mom and Pop store which is barely breaking even is not the same as a large business that uses deductions to avoid taxes.
If the Mom and Pop operation had to pay 0 taxes, and an increase in the cost of supplies, new credit rules by vendors, or competition moving in across the street happened, would they still be able to stay afloat or have to go out of business?
I once worked for a small business in a mall. Mall management raised the rent to the point the store could no longer stay in business.
To claim every business can be successful if only they don't pay taxes is not reality.
Dec 7, '09
Posted by: Kyle | Dec 7, 2009 11:10:51 AM
How do you respond to my accountant's assessment of tax liability for this measure, if passed? He says that this increase will impact businesses that are losing money, and will not have the desired impact as stated by proponents.
Businesses pay a Corporate Minimum tax only when they pay no income tax due to negative (zero) taxable income. Why would we want to suck tax money out of a business that's not making money? To put them under?
I'm confused... Help me understand the real impact.
FOUL!
I specifically said, on one of these threads that this wasn't the case, and not one person said a word. Since you posted I have checked with my tax accountant who agrees.
Just got off the phone to 4 non-profits where I know the owners. 3 will be considering shutting down, if this passes. They incorporated for various reasons, but have almost no economic activity. Too stupid to have paid full-time positions like Steve and Chuck's favorite orgs, seems because they don't ever use donations for anything except direct disbursement, they deserve to go under. One had 0$ activity this year; only donated manpower (1537 hours!!!). A cat rescue site had $50 activity. And they can pony up or shut down.
Full disclosure: all four polled are voting for this measure. Now, watch the responses. See if Novick, Kari, Chuck, Carla...give a good goddamn about them. No. Keep the system juiced. What goes around comes around. Well this is it for me. I won't be voting for the first time, since I turned 21. I will be taking down the license numbers of TEA protesters and paying them personal visits. Enough of this systematic abuse of a discipline invented particularly for that abuse! Fuck the system and fuck both sides of this argument!
Dec 7, '09
Posted by: Cheesus Cripes | Dec 2, 2009 4:54:50 PM
“Does the truth make a difference, do you think, to people?”
Definitely not. It's down to who you screw. Reps and Dems are gang banging us. It was the lege's responsibility to pass a reasonable bill, not push all tax hikes out to the voters. Talk radio is not that powerful. They are clearly being used as an excuse for Dems to not lead, as usual.
Why the fuck isn't Kulongowski a Republican?
Dec 7, '09
Kyle asked:
Businesses pay a Corporate Minimum tax only when they pay no income tax due to negative (zero) taxable income. Why would we want to suck tax money out of a business that's not making money? To put them under?
Well, not quite. The difficulty you have is that your accountant did not explain about who has to pay taxes. Those of us who make a modest living pay taxes. Those of us who make a fortune have whole skyscrapers full of accountants who make sure they have no profits on paper come tax time.
This is done legally. They take advantage of every loop hole, every expense, they have filing cabinets full of documents to back up their claims. The truly small businesses don't have the resources to track all of that or calculate every last legitimate deduction.
My husband has a very small LLC business. In a great month he may make $500. His expenses are about 50% of his revenue. We have discussed this and we are both going to vote for 66/67. $150 in taxes will not put him out of business and he utilizes city, county and state roads and agencies in the course of doing business. It is only fair to pay our share.
Someone mentioned Enron. Did you know that they collected millions from the ratepayers to pay taxes to the state of Oregon? And then, when the accountants were done, they paid only $10. Very legally. They were even audited by the state. The law has since been changed - if a corp collects for taxes (like the utilities do) they must pay the taxes they collected or refund the ratepayers.
If a business is going to go out of business over $140, then maybe they need to change their business model.