Your assertion that Oregon companies have been paying ten dollars for years is not true. We have been in business 25 years. Two of those years we paid ten dollars. The two years we lost money. All the other years we paid between $1500 and $3000, depending on our net income. We are a 'C' corporation.

Most C Corporations will see no change in their tax bill, because they already pay more than the minimum. To do a quick calculation for your own business, go to http://www.jimrobison.org/node/64 and enter in the actual figures for your business. As an example, if you plug in $18,000,000 (for Timerline Lodge) and 0 profit (since they're saying they pay the minimum) the calculator shows a tax increase of $14,990 or 0.0833% of Gross Revenues. If you ask me, any company that has to lay off workers because their costs increased by less than one tenth of one percent of revenues is doing something else wrong. Other costs will generally vary more than that, as noted by the owner of Euphoria Chocolate.

Paulie asks us to do the math.

Here is the math regarding the increase from $10 to $150 for the corporate minimum tax, a $140 difference.

There are approximately 38,000 business that filed a corporate tax return.

38,000 x $150 = $5,700,000

$5.7M is not going to fill a $733M hole anytime soon. The arguments in favor of 67 are disingenuous when saying that paying $150 instead of $10 will be more fair and help close the budget gap. Helps a little, but not much at all. A rounding error perhaps when considering the overall budget.

So, as Paulie correctly points out, it is all about targeting the few remaining profitable and unprofitable businesses, as well as the rich folks to fill the gap. That is where the bulk of the money will be coming from.

Jim also points out that most families and businesses will see no increase in their taxes. True, but there will still be some who must pay to come up with that $733M.

In the end, the target is a handful of very large businesses and high income families. The same businesses also have a very large payroll. Paid employees that pay significant income and property taxes. As for the families most affected, they have the means to insulate themselves somewhat to avoid this attack. Some perfectly legal defenses are to defer compensation, or shift to tax-free securities.

Sure businesses should pay their fair share, but as mp97303 asks, what amount is fair? If 66/67 passes, will everyone be satisfied with this definition of fairness?

When the next budget hurdle is being addressed if 66/67 passes, we'll know that 66/67 tax levels were established as fair.

What argument will then be used, since businesses and high income families will already be paying their fair share?

What budget hurdles? - unfunded PERS obligations - money to replace fed stimulus funds - further increases in expenses "necessary to continue current level of services"

Measures 66 and 67 are a band-aid. What's needed is an "ouchless" band-aid.

I sincerely hope that our legislature is prepared for the next steps that must be taken, and yes, I will be there helping.

These convoluted arguments against any and all taxes that would target the most wealthy, or corporations in our state, or nation sound sickeningly the same. All taxes kill business, though if the services the personal taxpayers provide them to exist seems to be an entitlement they have no problem rationalizing as their right.

Prop 13 was over 30 yrs ago, and since the Reaganomics produced our current Norquist Approach to governance that was implemented in Colorado to disastrous effect, the argument seems complete undeterred by the suffering reality the states are experiencing.

People whom would make these arguments have the good fortune of never having to accept a helping hand to put a roof over your children's head, food in their belly until their parents can pull themselves out from under the burden of our Randist Utopia they are so anxious for.

I have been in business for myself, and managed others businesses thus perfectly understand the difficulties and benefits of free enterprise, but this Capitalists, Chicago School nirvana we constantly hear screamed at us is the Captain Quigley of our national voyage. Time for the mutiny before we go under.

The American Dream was to see our children reach higher than their parents, that's not the same as finally moving out of your basement before their middle ages.

Happy thoughts; Dan Grady

An analysis by the Oregonian shows that the tax increase is equivalent to 3,800 to 4,700 jobs statewide." Certainly not a match to the thousands and thousands of job losses claimed by the "No" on 67 crowd.

Be sure to tell THOSE families that their pain is no big deal.

Oregon, in effect, raised the minimum tax on corporations beginning in 2006 when OAR 150-317.090 was changed as follows:

Minimum Tax (1)(a) For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2006, the tax liability of an affiliated group of corporations filing a consolidated return may not be less than the $10 minimum tax multiplied by the number of corporations in the group that are doing business in Oregon. Example: Alpha Corporation and its only subsidiary, Beta Corporation, are doing business in Oregon and file a consolidated Oregon Excise Tax Return showing a net loss for the 2006 tax year. The Oregon minimum tax for the year is $20. (b) For consolidated returns filed for tax years beginning before January 1, 2006, the department determines that a $10 minimum tax is due for the consolidated group and the $10 minimum tax due for each affiliate included in the return doing business in Oregon is cancelled. This determination is made under authority of ORS 305.145(3).

If measure 67 passes the each corporation within a consolidated Oregon tax return will have to pay minimum tax of $150 even if it is not doing business in Oregon. Therefore, it is incorrect to say the minimum tax has not changed since 1931.

If the tax burden is so intolerable for these taxpayers, and they can find greener pastures, I say let the gate open already!

Please! This state's tax burden is carried by the middle class, if not the lower-middle class. You don't hear bloody screams about their burden the way you hear from these scoundrels whom will make up any story they can to dodge paying a their share. They have children in the crumbling schools, they live with the fear of losing everything so easily.

A rich man has the luxury time, the middle-class no matter how hard they may try ends up in poverty with ease in the America the anti-tax fanatics would wish us.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan,

The objective is to attract businesses to Oregon, or to encourage business already here. Expanding current businesses or attracting new businesses creates jobs.

Put up enough barriers - psychological or otherwise - and the capital necessary to create or expand business will go elsewhere.

Have I ever needed help from others? Yes, of course, as any of us here might have in the past, and yes, some people are truly in need today. I go over and above the taxes I pay to help where and when I can, focusing on education and local social services; and paying back those that helped me in the past.

I met a director for one of the food banks a few weeks back and we discussed Measures 66 and 67. As you can imagine, times are tough for this food bank as well as others in Oregon.

I probed to see what she did and did not know about the measures, and I encouraged her to read the actual measures to understand what they were instituting permanently for Oregon. And also to review the arguments for and against.

This food bank has a board that is split on whether to support the measures, so they will not be saying anything.

The only biased statement I made to her was to ask whether she would prefer that monetary donations come directly to her organization, or would she like them to pass through the state first. You can imagine her response. There are probably many more social agencies in a similar position.

There are many good people here in Oregon, that do quite a bit to help residents who need the help.

Don't take away their incentive to help out directly.

Some of the most well off people do quite a lot to help out those who need it the most.

The tax increases within Measures 66 and 67 build a larger state bureaucracy, with only a fraction going to the people truly in need. Little or nothing is being done to fund this larger bureaucracy for the long term. I didn't notice any phaseout provisions.

Has this site become the yes on 66 and 67 site now? It is really getting sick with lobbyist filth.

This quote really gets me: "A rich man has the luxury time, the middle-class no matter how hard they may try ends up in poverty with ease in the America the anti-tax fanatics would wish us."

What is rich Dan? If we compare you to some third world countries' living standards you are incredibly rich. Even our worse schools are better. Why don't you guys donate your own money and make their lives equal to ours. I bet I get no takers on that offer. Does not sound fair does it? As if people who make more money do not work for it. 66 and 67 is no more than legalized plunder. If this money is so small to these large companies, ask them to donate it instead of just taking it. Maybe if our government were little more than plundering thieves taking away our liberties and lying to use about how they spend it every chance they get, we would be a little more open to their ideas. They made their bed make them sleep in it. We all have to cut back. Government must cut back as well. We get no growth! They get no growth! Do not reward bad policy makers!

It's a fool's argument not to take into consideration the $733,000,000 in new, retroactive and permanent taxes that will be levied on Oregon employers.

It should also be noted that C corporations, as well as all other businesses, pay a good deal in taxes other than state corporate excise taxes. Businesses pay license fees, transit district fees, property taxes on personal property (that's durable business equipment, such as desks and copiers, in addition to taxes on real property they may own or lease), and dozens of other fees and taxes. But the most important contribution businesses make to funding state services is that they employ people. Employers are the state's primary generators of state funding by the employment they provide and the income they generate for working Oregonians. Employers also are the primary tax collectors, withholding from employees' pay the estimated state taxes they may owe and sending that money to the state. Private sector employers have shed 131,500 jobs since this recession started and re-growing that job base is the only sustainable way to rebuild state revenues.

Back to the onerous tactics employed by Oregon's Democrat Party. This excerpt from the Tax Foundation is apropos:

"As California has recently demonstrated, such a top-heavy tax structure can damage a state's finances on two fronts. Boom-time revenues from high-income earners often encourage profligate spending commitments with the assumption of further booming revenues, but the inevitable downturns that follow wipe out tax revenue from top income earners much more severely than revenue from more modest earners, leaving the state with massive budget shortfalls. Broad-based, flat-rate income taxes both encourage more production from high-income earners in good times and keep revenues from falling through the floor in bad times. Oregon is moving in the opposite direction, unfortunately, increasing the likelihood of major budget crises down the road. Significantly higher income taxes on the most mobile group of individuals and corporations may also convince a portion of these key economic actors to say goodbye to the Beaver State, and discourage others from entering. While California's imploding economy and even more onerous tax structure might not lure these Oregonians south, some firms and high-income individuals for whom sales taxes are not a major consideration might regard Idaho's 7.8% top income tax and flat 7.6% corporate tax rate as attractive. Washington and Nevada, meanwhile, both scrap income taxes altogether in favor of broad sales taxes. Now facing the highest state income tax rate in the U.S., Oregon's high-earning individuals have no shortage of greener tax pastures elsewhere."

If you read the comments on OregonLive.com, you'll this playing out in real-time.

ThinkOregon

TO: Are you a straight party Republic?

Talking about the "Democrat party" is a juvenile trick which has been around for about 3 decades now.

If you don't like Democrats, that is one thing. But if you are trying to be persuasive, insulting people by talking about the "Democrat party" doesn't help.

Thanks for making clear your political position, though. Anyone who says things like "Democrat party" and then expects us to respect the Tax Foundation because you quote it seems to forget that McCain did not carry Oregon.

On the board of the Tax Foundation (just another lobby group, not an oracle) Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He was CBO director when Bush was president, and he was McCain's economic advisor.

People here are allowed to disagree with others and not required to obey the "revealed truth".

If you were paying attention, you will have seen that in the debate prior to the House passage of the health care bill, Carla was angry because Kurt Schrader, freshman member of Congress, didn't declare how he would vote according to her timetable.

He voted for the bill, but he should have declared his vote early to please bloggers?

Anyone trying to win friends and influence people by talking about "the Democrat party" and quoting the Tax Foundation needs to find a blog where that will impress people. BO ain't that blog.

Dec 12, 2009 - Google is your friend. . .

LT commented: 'If you don't like Democrats, that is one thing. But if you are trying to be persuasive, insulting people by talking about the "Democrat party" doesn't help.'

Forgive me, but somehow, hearing such a vociferous complaint about one solitary person here using the term 'Democrat' in a place where 'teabagger' (and its many other various forms) is strewn liberally around in both posts and comments just doesn't engender a lot of sympathy... Raising the level of political discourse begins at home.

I like this blog because it allows that kind of talk. I told my husband years ago, listening to Hannity, "why don't the Democrats do that"? People like to get all hot and worked up. RyanLeo said it on here (can't remember where) best, "that's hard hitting journalism and that's what we want"!

Insulting people is how you get their attention. If you don't have their attention, how can you teach them? I think you could learn a lot from reading some of the regular contributors. Carla does that really, really well. Her points are impossible to ignore. That is leadership, not being wishy-washy!

"Vote DP; It's easier than thinking!"

• Carlita A. "Rudy" Verdugo Mt. Hood Christian Center, '88

Carlita A. "Rudy" Verdugo commented: I told my husband years ago, listening to Hannity, "why don't the Democrats do that"?... and Insulting people is how you get their attention. If you don't have their attention, how can you teach them? I think you could learn a lot from reading some of the regular contributors.

Hmmm... I can't recall my best (or even worst) teachers insulting me - and I seriously doubt teachers do it in today's politically-correct society sensitive and ready to go to court over the merest hint of offense... but maybe you're pioneering a new theory and method of education, I don't know. If so, I suggest you lawyer-up early and often! Is this a new 'Carlita's (sic) Way'? ;-)

I don't have cable/satellite TV and don't listen to Hannity that often but the few times I have his (and even Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's) language pales in comparison to the vituperous abuse projectile-vomited on conservative/Republicans by Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy every day locally on AM 620 KPOJ. Personally, I can't really recall learning much of anything from Rhodes/Malloy's platforms of 'leadership' with gratuitous and sometimes downright offensive language (other than to note how quickly and meanly Randi Rhodes turned on Hillary Clinton after Obama stole her heart and how she dropped Cindy Sheehan off her 'A-List' of best-buddy guests once Sheehan ceased to be of use to her for getting ratings...), but to each his/her own.

Just keep in mind learning is a 2-way street... 'teachers' can also learn from the 'students'- After all, it's what you learn after you know it all that counts...

Mike M | Jan 4, 2010 8:10:14 PM

I read your rationale of the empathy you have for those of us in your community, your city, your county, your state, your country that have fallen on the sword of Reaganomics. I hear these arguments the same way I hear arguments against the draft after 9/11. Nine years later and the burden is still being carried by a tortured few. Hardly Patriotic!

So, after 30 years of this 'tax cuts for the corporations and rich to facilitate jobs, and a growing economy' jive has been in play, and what do we have? A shrunk middle class carrying much more of the tax burden, getting much less for their tax dollar, while government protections that came through great sacrifice and suffering completely made useless.

Corporations welcome to plunder our economy and park their money in tax free havens like Dubai, and a growing impoverished population as every day passes watching their good jobs disappear to China, India, Indonesia and the like for the sake of the same rich, and corporations.

I got out of high school to the last big recession in the late 70's; double digit unemployment, interest rates, and OPEC. I remember sympathizing with the tax revolt to the extent that the only thing they every offered in the end was a tax cut for corporations that seemed to be doing pretty good overseas, nothing for Americans. In the end they just devalued working American wages, and gorged on the American Taxpayer while vilifying labor unions until they are now a whisper of themselves today.

Enough. We can't afford this insanity anymore. Either your in this boat with the rest of us, or your on your own with the money you already managed to save from paying for you country. The taxes my parents were paying, or even the rate during Clinton's day was enough to balance the budget, and support Medicare forever, and allow America to join the rest of the civilized world.

We handed off a historic democracy to this 'anti-tax crowd' only to be left with a banana republic on it's way to collapse. When will they ever accept their failure you may wonder? Never is the obvious answer, since ignoring our reality is so profitable for them no matter how much damage it does the rest of the country.

This is Real Republican Patriotism, the reguluar Bandaid Purple Heart Patriotism.

Our nation, our states, our communities have been reduced to being supported by a shrinking middle-class carrying a every greater burden while the richest among us get ever more richer. I don't care so much if it's not fair or not, as much as it has FAILED for 98% of the rest of us.

So, please step back from your greed for a few years while the rest of us try to save the little we have left, and restore America to her greatness, you know the nation our parents, and grandparents sacrificed so much to provide!

Posted by: Galen | Jan 4, 2010 8:30:03 PM What is rich Dan? If we compare you to some third world countries' living standards you are incredibly rich. Even our worse schools are better. Why don't you guys donate your own money and make their lives equal to ours.///

This is the reality they strive for? This is the nation they are working for, a few of us live like kings/queens no matter how much it cost the rest of us?

The Greatest Generation now nearly completely passed, would they have made the same sacrifices if they knew what their grand children would inevitably do with their nation. Reach as low as we can go, and if there is a profit in it for a powerfull few, then go even lower. Damn the planet, the your fellow American so long as you can hold onto as much of your money as possible. That's real sacrifice today!

Stupid Greed is not good Public Policy!

I just saw the latest Yes TV ad.

Since Wall Street bankers get big bonuses, you should screw your local small business.

Classic!

Forgive me, but somehow, hearing such a vociferous complaint about one solitary person here using the term 'Democrat' in a place where 'teabagger' (and its many other various forms) is strewn liberally around in both posts and comments just doesn't engender a lot of sympathy...

The Tea Party Protesters called themselves teabaggers, the Democratic party does not call themselves the Democrat party, but then I'm assuming that you know that the "movement" began around the metaphorical act of deluging the White House with tea bags for weeks before April 14th of 2009, and that the Tea Party events were originally held in response to this. They chose the unfortunate moniker themselves without knowing its derogatory meaning at the time, so they are now doomed to be referred to by something they are responsible for.

The problem with many of the arguments against an entity level tax is that they prove too much. For instance:

A tax on businesses is bad because it costs jobs: Really? Well then, maybe entity's shouldn't pay any tax? (Try that one at the ballot box)

A tax on businesses just gets passed on to consumers: Really? I thought businesses cut jobs to pay the tax. (actually studies show that when there are increased costs of any kind, businesses usually cut expenses, increase prices, and absorb some of the increases internally. i.e., they reduce profits to owners. Which I believe is the true reason some businesses don't like 67)

Opponents say the problem with M-66 is that most small business owners take business profits on their personal taxes, so 66 really is a tax on businesses just like 67: Well, does that mean that ALL business taxes are job killing taxes, and we should change the tax regulations so that business pay no taxes or any kind. No personal property taxes, not fees, no nothing. Should we make business profits sacrosanct and only tax wages. Then we'd have full employment right? Because that's where that argument leads. Lets just put THAT on the ballot next election.

There probably are people who would say we shouldn't impose any costs on businesses, but most would say that some costs should be imposed, so the question becomes what types, and how much.

Here is why an entity level tax is just and proper, and why larger entity's should pay more.

Entity's do consume Oregon taxpayer funded resources. They use our roads, our schools educate their workforce. Our water is used to manufacture their products. DEQ makes sure that they don't pollute our common resources. Sure, there are other taxes businesses pay, and jobs generate other tax revenue, but the out of state consumers who buy the businesses products and services, and the out of state shareholders who benefit from Oregon paid resources, should shoulder some of these costs as well. And the businesses that generate more sales are most likely to use more Oregon resources, so they should pay more. Other states recognize this and tax their businesses appropriately.

And a gross receipts tax is not perfect, but is a proper way to do that.

Take this example. Take two businesses making the same product with the same gross sales. One makes a profit. The other does not. They each put the same burden on Oregon resources. Shouldn't they each pay the same tax on their gross receipts? Why should the State favor the business that is so inept that it can't prodice a profit and force the rest of us to subsidize that business. And in fact the business that is profitable WILL pay more taxes, because they will pay part of their obligation by a gross receipts tax, and part by an income tax on its profits. So as between these two companies a gross receipt tax coupled with an income tax is fair.

I frankly think a flat gross receipts tax, similar to what most other states impose, would be preferable to the strange way the Legislature decided to impose the tax on gross income based on brackets. Waht the tax rate should be is open to debate. But M67 does improve the inequitable prior system, by more appropriately imposing some costs we bear onto out of state consumers and shareholders, just like other states impose their costs onto Oregon shareholders and consumers.

paulie

please stop confusing sales with earnings. What you detail is a tax on sales. Income taxes are a tax on earnings.

<hr/>

earnings

Definition

Revenues minus cost of sales, operating expenses, and taxes, over a given period of time.

100k, at Intel, is approximately 1 engineering contractor, maybe 2 lower paid ones. That's not even like them picking up a penny. That's nothing. If they were to shed even 5 jobs because Measure 67 passed, that would be an extreme overreaction. Chances are, there's probably a few people working there that are effectively redundant anyway. I honestly don't think Measure 67 goes far enough...it's a whole lot more dangerous to shortchange education in the state than to risk not being able to properly fund it. Oregon should really start considering cutting back income taxes to help generate personal revenue and start looking at a sales tax. It's not like people in Vancouver will stop shopping in Portland and start driving all the way up to Seattle, anyway. People aren't dying in other states because they can't afford to pay a few pennies more for non-essential, probably imported crap they bought at some huge chain retailer. It helps encourage people to save. I'd think real conservatives would be on board with that, but just uttering the word "tax" makes them go bonkers.

mattH commented: ...the "movement" began around the metaphorical act of deluging the White House with tea bags for weeks before April 14th of 2009, and that the Tea Party events were originally held in response to this.

eh... nice try at liberal/progressive revisionist history but not so - the protests began with the 'porkulus' term as early as mid-February 2009. On Feb 19, CNBC market commentator Rick Santelli called for a Chicago Tea Party and the movement grew from there - with over 40 tea party protests being held throughout the US in late February. So the 'tea party' protests pre-dated the sending of tea bags to the White House and the Tax Day tea party protests by well over a month.

Regardless who used the term 'teabagger' first - it is no less (and actually a lot more of) a putdown term than the use of the word 'Democrat'... so if you're going to feel free to use 'teabaggers' then get over occasionally seeing 'Democrat' - just like the tea party protestors are having to. Personally, I refrain from using either but that's me.

the protests began with the 'porkulus' term as early as mid-February 2009.

A reference to the stimulus, needed to repair the economy from the ills of the GWB years.

On Feb 19, CNBC market commentator Rick Santelli called for a Chicago Tea Party

For the rich commodity traders on the floor in Chicago.

with over 40 tea party protests being held throughout the US in late February.

Sponsored by big money interests like Freedomworks and Fox News.

So the 'tea party' protests pre-dated the sending of tea bags to the White House and the Tax Day tea party protests by well over a month.

In February 2009, a tea party protester held up a sign reading "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You!!". To me, that sounds like the tea party was using the term in a derogatory way before it lampooned them. You reap what you sow.

Regardless who used the term 'teabagger' first - it is no less (and actually a lot more of) a putdown term than the use of the word 'Democrat'

The tea party coined their own term. The teabag reference is less than a year old; the Democrat thing has been used by the right for, as LT mentioned, decades. Of course, GOP...I mean "tea party" hypocrisy knows no bounds.

so if you're going to feel free to use 'teabaggers' then get over occasionally seeing 'Democrat' - just like the tea party protestors are having to.

Occasionally...you mean like a sitting POTUS using the term in national addresses?

Personally, I refrain from using either but that's me.

If you roll with the pigs, you'll get up with mud.

If the benefits are for everyone then maybe everyone should be paying a little more in taxes rather than just trying jam on a few people. Interesting that those being taxed are disliked by the progressives. Why not a tax on trial lawyers or union members if we need to raise money? Oh, that is right, we like those people.

Of course there is the other angle which is maybe we should not have increased spending and handed out those raises to public employees during a heavy recession. Dang, that was a stupid move wasn't it? Lets see, keep spending recklessly and increase taxes or try out that new frugal thing I keep hearing about? What the heck, we're Dems so lets tax and spend!

<size+3>Electric car maker Think chooses Indiana

“We looked at a number of states out West and in the East, but at the end of the day it was Indiana that had a vision around electric transport and the desire to build an industrial base of key manufacturers,” Canny told the New York Times Tuesday.

But what about the streetcar. You can't get more visionary than that?

This is all so wonderful how little it affects businesses. This gives Teddy even less rason to cut spending and he can blow that on $100K/yr jobs.

Then guess what folks we'll get the same story from Ms Brading two years from now. Repeat after me:

"We need another couple of taxes on the evil rich for the kids who have even less education than they did 20 years ago."

You know what they same about doing the same thing over and expecting different results.

Meanwhile Oregon will nver look at cutting spending even thought revenues keep going up. We're all blowing a big chance to fix things.

John, you are dead wrong. The statute and rule were reviewed and inconsistencies were found. The rule was corrected to be consistent with the intent of the law. There is a public hearing process on rule changes. Where were you?

ThinkOregon, yes businesses pay other taxes and fees. THEY ALSO GET TO WRITE THEM OFF AS AN EXPENSE.

Ms Chan

Do you itemize your deductions? I believe that is also called a write off.

Ms Chan: Not all taxes are deductible.

ORS 317.314 Taxes on net income or profits imposed by any state or foreign country; nondeductible taxes and license fees; taxes paid to foreign country for certain income. (1) To derive Oregon taxable income, there shall be added to federal taxable income taxes upon or measured by net income or profits imposed by any foreign country (including withholding taxes upon the payment of dividends arising from sources within such foreign country), this state or any state or territory deducted in computing federal taxable income.

State income taxes imposed or measured by net income are not deductible by corporations.

Ms Chen: I stand by my statement.

From 1931 until 2005 corporations filing consolidated Oregon returns and paying the minimum tax only paid one minimum tax. After 2005, the Department of Revenue changed the rule to say each corporation within a consolidate return must pay at least the minimum tax.

Point being, corporations might not be doing business in Oregon, but by virtue of the consolidated tax must pay the minimum tax because of another member of the consolidated group is doing business in Oregon.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Hello Robert Harris, I read your post.

I have a question for you. I'm really trying to understand this!

The example of; "two businesses making the same product with the same gross sales. One makes a profit. The other does not." Same burden on Oregon resources? Yes... I thought the burden on Oregon resources was pay-as-you-go for everyone. You pay for water, you pay for electricity, you pay for raw materials, you pay labor, you pay all your overhead. So how would a business not creating a profit, or operating on a slim margin be a burden to Oregon?

Many businesses such as restaurants and grocery stores run on very slim margins. Is that a burden for Oregon? Don't they employ people and purchase mass quantities of raw materials? What about startup companies with big initial costs.

Also, isn't a gross receipt tax essentially a sales tax? It seems with a sales tax, we would all fairly and equitably pay. I have to wonder why people who are so concerned about proper support for schools, and infrastructure, and social services would never entertain the idea of paying a sales tax to ensure that these things are well funded. I don't get it.

To Lilly:

What I mean is that I believe there are costs that any economic activity (or human activity for that matter) puts on public resources that aren't going to be addressed by fees, taxes and assessments. Not only direct costs, like state regulatory functions that don't carry specific fees, but indirect costs, such as pollution.

For instance, the one that I'm most familiar with is courts. Businesses use our courts to enforce contracts, mediate disputes, enforce non competition agreements, address unfair trade practices. The cost of courts come mainly from general revenue. Income taxes that businesses may not be paying. There are filing fees, but they nowhere near cover the actual cost of courts.

It seems to me that its logical to presume that larger businesses will use more of these indirect costs and use more of societiel benefits that they haven't contributed towards. (Larger businesses have more lawsuits and enforcement needs and deal in larger numbers, in general)

I think a gross receipts tax is the best and fairest way to assess some of those costs, so that those general costs to society are born partly by the business owners who use them, whether those owners live in Oregon, or Arkansas, of Vancouver Washington, and the people who consume the products or utilize the services.

I don' know what that gross receipts tax should be. Not a large amount. But it should be something to address these costs.

I don't think its just like a sales tax. Though perhaps its similar. When you impose a sales tax, it definitely gets assessed 100% onto the Oregon consumer. When a business has a gross receipts tax, the business owners (whether they're in Oregon or Vancouver Washington) will likely absorb some of that tax. (I know conservatives argue that all taxes are passed onto the consumer, but how do you square that with the argumnet that businesses will cut jobs to make up for tax increases. All the studies I've seen state that new costs, whether they be taxes or otherwise, are partially passed on and partially absorbed).

It also differs from a sales tax in that I don't necessarily see a gross receipts tax solely as a way to raise revenue, unrelated to the cost of the transactional activity. I see it also as a true, albeit rough, assessment of ephemeral costs that are actually imposed by economic activity.

But I'm not opposed to a small sales tax either, as part of the overall tax reform that we need to have in this state. But I think a gross receipts tax and the income tax are far superior if you're concerned about fairness and stability

In comparing your blog to State Representative Dennis Richardson's explanation of the bill, I am left with this impression. The passage of these bills would, in effect, enact a back door sales tax on Oregonians. The tax would be levied on a corporation's gross revenues as opposed to their net profits. That means that every sale made in Oregon by corporations such as WalMart, Fry's, Best Buy and others would be taxed.

The problem is that the tax will not be disclosed on the sales ticket. It seems to me that if the state wants to enact a sales tax, they should have full disclosure and have the guts to go straight to the voters with one. Those in government know, however, that the voter don't trust them. They have continually enacted taxes through deception and by holding public jobs at ransom. It is time for Oregonians to demand full disclosure and truth from their elected officials.

Another thought. It's one thing to say Intel won't even miss the $100,000, but what about your local auto dealer or your personal dentist? What about the farmers up and down the Willamette valley? If you add another $15,000 in taxes to them it could be the difference between keeping an employee, making an expansion or even keeping their doors open. All too often, when we assume the "rich" can afford to pay more taxes, we miss the local consequences of our actions. Don't make that mistake. Don't add an unfair burden onto your neighbor's shoulders. Vote No!

"It's one thing to say Intel won't even miss the $100,000, but what about your local auto dealer or your personal dentist? What about the farmers up and down the Willamette valley? If you add another $15,000 in taxes to them it could be the difference between keeping an employee, making an expansion or even keeping their doors open."

1) The local auto dealer might need to pay the increased minimum tax, which will amount to roughly one tenth of one percent of revenues. So, for example, considering that auto dealers can generally pass along taxes in the price of the car, if the dealer sells a car for $15,000, he will need to add roughly $15 to the price of the car. It is highly unlikely that $15 would result in a lost sale.

2) I believe many dentists are organized as LLCs, or as S-Corporations. They will need to pay the $150 entity tax. If your dentist cannot pay $150 without laying someone off, then he is doing something else wrong.

3) Most farms are set up as sole proprietors, or as S-Corporations. Sole proprietors are unaffected by Measure 67 and S-Corporations pay $150.

Take figures for an actual business, and plug them into my tax impact estimator to see how that business will be affected.

In the last budget, the Democratic controlled state legislature doled out a $259 million pay raise to the government work force, even as the state was facing a near $1 billion deficit. In the last three years, the state has added 25,000 new public employees while losing 40,000 private sector jobs. The union TV ads say the tax hikes are needed to preserve schools, roads and public services.

The 11% income tax rate will make Oregon's income tax about twice as high as the national average. Businesses in Portland can move across the Columbia River to Vancouver, Washington and pay zero income tax. Oregonians used to argue they didn't have to pay a state sales tax. But the current tax proposal imposes a first-ever "gross receipts tax" on certain retail and wholesalers. This is a disguised sales tax. Wall Street Journal 1/15/2010

These tax increases are simply a reward to our state government for dismal management. I would be fired if I ran a private business like our government runs their business. In a time of declining revenues over the last few years, the state has added 25,000 public jobs. Who does that? This hike will make Oregon's top income tax rate DOUBLE the national average. This will just create even more reasons to not set up a business in Oregon. It is no wonder that our unemployment rate is so high.

The attitude I see presented in many posts on this topic ("those other guys can afford to pay more") appears to be systemic; that is a sad place to be, because at some point you will run out of other people's money.

It is no wonder that I am sending my engineering team across the country to help build new food plants, airplane factories, and other industries that could have set up shop here in the Northwest and chose not too because of unfriendly rules and regulations. Our government tends to treat a new business as a predator rather than part of the team.

Vote NO on these new taxes, and lets do even more to encourage business into our area.

"It is predicted that Intel would pay $100,000 in taxes if Measure 67 passes. One wag I know said it would be like Intel stooped over to pick up a penny."

Oh, and another thing I don't understand. How is it fair to assume that Intel can absorb another $100K+++ this year, and then keep on aborbing even more in the years to come? They had to shed over 5,000 jobs this year, right here in Beaverton, just to stay alive. They are like every other microchip manufacturer, they have lost money like crazy these last 3 years. Billions of dollars in losses. This is money straight out of the business coffers. How is it fair for the State of Oregon to hit a company while they're down and levy a tax on their gross reciepts? Seems to me that this would be the message to Intel... "If you don't like it, you can leave!"

"ThinkOregon, yes businesses pay other taxes and fees. THEY ALSO GET TO WRITE THEM OFF AS AN EXPENSE."

<h2>Not this one. This is a gross reciepts tax. It will work to increase the cost of their goods. You will be paying more for every computer you buy because of this tax.</h2>