We need a "like" button for posts like these. Nothing like a good 'get', Kari. Way to go!

You know what? I saw a movie that was supposed to take place on Mars, and it was really filmed in California! What a rip!!! Who makes movies in California?!?

Mr. Chisolm, the commercial never identifies the bakery by name, so Paula's is no more what the commercial is about than Star Wars is about Oregon. Takes place in Oregon. I DEFINITELY recognize one of the forests. The characters lived in trees. How can you overlook where the trees are really at? Completely ruined the movie for me!!! It's not there as Paula's, it's there as a generic small business set.

In a typical rush to petty triumphalism you missed the real point to bust them on. They used a California production company to make the spot. You could have gotten MUCH more traction on this with the "care about Oregon small business, why don't you support it" angle.

Do people mindlessly yea say everything that gets posted anymore?

Rudy, just like Star Wars, this commercial is total fiction.

You didn't read the post all the way through, did you, Rudy?

I didn't say he didn't mention it, I said that was the point to bust them on, not at the end of a specious objection.

That was the point, Cheeses.

What a campaign they are running!!!!!!

OREGONIANS FOR JOB-KILLING OUTSOURCING

It figures they picked a California location to film because the consultant for OAJKT is Schubert Flint Public Affairs of Sacramento. This is the same firm that was behind the Yes on Prop 8 gay marriage ban in California.

Fact-checked against the glass!

Aren't these the folks who care so much about keeping jobs in Oregon? What a surprise: they're full of shit.

Makes much more sense to me now, Kari. Why didn't you say that?

Personally I thought the gratuitous use of gen X vocal inflections just shouts "fraud". I don't guess that's their big demographic, either. Yeah, it's a pitiful effort. That's why I didn't get why the excitement to call them out. They never showed.

As an aside, I have noticed a very definite uptick in the "grrrr" level and physical volume of right wing talk radio listeners in the last two days. They definitely feel like they're losing.

Why doesn't this surprise me? This happens all the time. Not as blatant as this but this happens all the time. It's all about the battle over AGENDA. Tanglewood homes

We need THIS kind of ad on TV, showing this hypocrisy (and lies).

What a freaking maroon!!!

Can you say dramatization? That's what this is, it isn't supposed to be a true representation.

A couple of years back I did spots for a conservative cause using a local supermarket. Now, we took great pains to make sure there were no names visible. Nonetheless, a couple of lame butt left-wingers recognized the store and complained to management who immediately asked us to pull the spots.

The moral of the story is, don't use Oregon stores as backgrounds...go out of state.

I guess there's no excuse for being a stupid, freaking maroon.

I'm laughing my butt off trying to figure out if that last comment is anti 'SC or anti spell checker!

Shouldn't laugh, since that was the same point I was making.

Maybe local businesses are afraid to be included in a political campaign because of the way "progressives" treat folks on the "other" side. Schumachers, Blue Hour, Nike, etc Or, maybe it was just a great place to make a spot.

What'd Blue Hour do?

So every YES ad has been conceived, produced and shot in Oregon?

Yes, conservatives are so good at treating their opponents with respect, Victoria.

Oh, wait, I've read your blog. I've listened to you on the radio, and Lars and O'Reilly and Savage. Conservatives called those of us who opposed the war all kinds of nasty names.

Many years ago the Oregon Lottery was ripped by Oregon Republicans for shooting lottery spots in California instead of Oregon. It was all about sending jobs out of state. This current crop of right wing loonies couldn't care less about their neighbors.

Pedro has it right.

MP seems to think behavior should be conditional--if the "good side" does something wrong that is OK because the real question is what the "bad side" has done.

As opposed to what many of us grew up with---regardless of what anyone else does, keep your own behavior above reproach.

This current crop seems to think winning is all that matters.

How essential to Oregon businesses is access to the courts in this state---contract disputes, etc.?

If the taxes go down, there have already been so many cuts to the judicial budget in this state (layoffs incl. central administrators for the drug courts and family courts in this state) there will be little choice if the court budget is cut but to close courts one day a week.

It wasn't some anonymous public employee union member who said that, it was the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court in a recent speech.

How's that "tough on crime no new taxes" ideology working out for you folks?

My wifes small design firm will probably lay off people if this passes. She did the numbers, they are an s corp. and have two employees. A lot of money passes through the business but not into our pockets. We are all just struggling to survive and then bam ,taxes. Its all very clever to laugh at the add, but they will be right in many cases if we will be hit. We are not rich fat cat bankers who are getting bonuses from public money like the other ridiculous adds state, I think neither adds are funny.

John, I'm afraid someone has lied to you or your wife.

If you're an S-corp, you'll pay $150 under 67. Period.

You won't pay more under 66 unless you and your wife take home more than $250,000.

Stop repeating lies from the opponents.

Good news, John! If your wife's small design firm is an S-Corporation (as you state in your post, her tax under Measure 67 will be $150. S-Corporations are not subject to the corporate minimum based on Oregon sales.

When these measures pass, 97.5% of Oregon businesses will pay $150 or less, or no more than what they pay today. Your wife is included in that 97.5%.

Hey Taft -- your blog is a cesspool of vile invectives, non sequiturs, and irrationality and it takes stones the size of Portlandia's head to come over here and bitch and moan about how we treat political opponents.

Cons like Taft are insufferable fools.

I said I shouldn't laugh.

I'm sorry, though. That isn't "cardinal". Don't care how 'SC care to re-baptize maroon. Has the Shopping Channel taken over the color lexicon?

The bad acting, ominous music and strange coffee shop scene remind me of The Room. Maybe Tommy Wiseau is behind the ad? Sorry for the (relatively) obscure bad film reference.

Great find, Kari.

Gee. It's astroturf and Tea Baggers all over again. What? Did you think they would learn? Thes GOP abhor education. They will never learn.

You go Kari! Columbo, step aside!!!

Just anti tax, freaking hypocritical, got paid money from somebody for putting this crap out, don't really care about the people of Oregon, WEASELS.

ROTFLMAO!!! Excellent investigative reporting, Kari!

"Maybe local businesses are afraid to be included in a political campaign because of the way "progressives" treat folks on the "other" side."

Well that helps explain your low ratings.

Scott has a point for the "Turnout" thread. Neither side have convinced neutrals to be enthusiastic about their position. This is a classic. Pure propaganda and misinformation, met with finger pointing and guffaws. A lot of people don't want to be on either side of that.

While the acting in the “no” ad is a bit overwrought, the underlying point is valid. If the business is a C corporation, it is pretty easy to see how it could be losing money and still have to pay the new gross revenue tax, and how this could affect employment.

But let’s take the case of a business run as an S corporation (implicit in Chuck Sheketoff’s comment above). This takes a bit of arithmetic (which obviously hasn’t been the legislature’s strong suit, but please bear with me). Let’s assume the business has one owner, an unmarried woman, who receives exactly $125,000 per year in salary from her business. The business has gross sales of $6 million, cost of goods sold of $4 million, and other expenses (salaries, rent, etc.) of $1 million. The company has “taxable income” of $1 million which has to be reported on the owner’s individual tax return, whether or not she receives any of that in cash from the company. The owner has to pay state income tax on the business' profits (beyond the income tax she pays on her salary)of over $100,000. She will also have to pay a federal income tax on the business income of about $350,000.

S corporations generally do not distribute all of their profits to their owners; they usually distribute just enough to provide the owners enough to pay their federal and state income taxes. So under our example, the company would distribute about $460,000 to the owner so she can pay her income taxes on the business ($350,000 for federal income tax and $110,000 for state income tax under M 66), leaving $540,000 of the profit in the company. This $540,000 isn’t just “fun money” for the owner. She’ll need it in the business to buy its inventory, any new machinery or other capital equipment, and to hire any new employees. If she has 4 inventory turns a year (hopefully not a bakery, but not unusual in other businesses), she probably needs $1 million in inventory, and if she’s like a lot of other businesses, the bank has reduced or shut down her inventory line of credit in the recession, so she may need all of that $540,000 in after-tax profits and then some to fund inventory. She really isn’t in a position to buy new equipment or hire new employees. In fact, if there is any further employees she can cut without hurting revenue, she probably should do so to make sure she can finance her inventory.

Does the additional $20,000 in annual state income tax the owner has to pay under M 66 guarantee that she’ll be firing an additional employee? No. Does it reduce the cash the business has to pay for everything it needs to pay for to stay in business? Definitely. Could it affect jobs? Most certainly.

Bob Wiggins

In contrast, here is a Yes on 66 & 67 video (produced by Oregon Rehabilitation Association) which WAS filmed in Oregon and shows REAL people who would be affected if the measures do not pass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2yeOI48Bg

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bq2yeOI48Bg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bq2yeOI48Bg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

ooooooh they filmed a commercial in CA! So fucking what?

How many public sector jobs have been lost in Oregon during this recession? ~200?

How many private sector jobs have been lost in Oregon? ~200,000!

All the "progressives" aka socialist democrats have to offer anyone is Higher Taxes, Increased Government Spending and eventual bankruptcy for this country. Enjoy your super-majority while it lasts.

ooooooh they filmed a commercial in CA! So fucking what?

How many public sector jobs have been lost in Oregon during this recession? ~200?

How many private sector jobs have been lost in Oregon? ~200,000!

All the "progressives" aka socialist democrats have to offer anyone is Higher Taxes, Increased Government Spending and eventual bankruptcy for this country. Enjoy your super-majority while it lasts.

Cool!

We'll get our "Top People" on this straight away! Maybe a tie-in with the latest love note from "CPA Wendy" on Del Webb Avenue. And we have our own local bakery too!

Great work, Kari!

~EIO

We need THIS kind of ad on TV, showing this hypocrisy (and lies).

Yeah well, this sort of thing actually lends itself well to this sort of thing! Here's The MacDonald Group's version of Please Remit. Think "What's Up Tiger Lilly."

~EIO

"ooooooh they filmed a commercial in CA! So fucking what?"

So, they are using a business in another state to try and show what their side says will happen in OREGON. After all their yammering about how many small business will go under in OREGON they apparently couldn't even find ONE of those businesses that they could highlight in an ad!

Seriously, you don't see why this is funny or worth noting?! Ooookkkaaaayyyyy, then.

Oh, and if fewer public sector jobs have been lost it may have something to do with the fact that so many of those in the public sector are in those evil, evil labor unions...and the fact that many CEOs in the private sector when faced with the choice of dropping their country club membership or laying off some people choose the later. Not that I buy your stats, I don't. Would you like to give the source for those numbers?

Interesting that Victoria Taft made a hit-and-run comment, and didn't bother to defend what she wrote here.

LT

1. Please refrain for using any phrase like "seems to think" or any derivative when referring to me in the future as you have proven yourself to be a pathetic mind reader.

2. Every hear of the parable about people living in glass houses? That was the point I was making. Hypocrisy.

Can't get enough of bad political ads? Get your "What a Crock!" T-shirt here!

Andrew Plambeck:

I know a few bakeries and coffeeshops here in Oregon that would probably open their doors for free to film an ad....for the Yes campaign...

Bob T:

Then they're saps. Every time taxes are raised the politicians get a pass on their failure to cut waste and to budget responsibly. Or did they promise to do that if they get more money first?

Bob Tiernan Portland

This thread has been illustrative to get a peek inside peoples' minds and see the level of logic that Americans are capable of. Bill B, Rudy, mp, Joelin...perhaps it's time to despair.

We face a lot of challenges. Most people don't care at all. Finding out that 1/2 the ones that care aren't competent to do what Piaget would call "formal operations" pretty much seals the deal.

Progressive government for a dying empire. I'm so psyched.

fbear commented: Interesting that Victoria Taft made a hit-and-run comment, and didn't bother to defend what she wrote here.

Well, someone using the name 'Victoria Taft' made a comment here - we don't really know it was THE Victoria Taft from 860 KPAM. Since the comment is timestamped 7:06:56 PM and she's normally on the air at that hour, my guess is it's just someone using her name. That plus I can't recall ever seeing a comment from her here at BO in the last 6 to 9 months I've been looking in.

Bob T:

Do you really believe that "the politicians" as a group (not indiv. members of Ways and Means followed by all indiv. members in floor votes) make budget decisions?

Or is this just spin/propaganda:

"Every time taxes are raised the politicians get a pass on their failure to cut waste and to budget responsibly."

OK, which politicians who serve on Ways and Means have you personally talked with about your views on how to "budget responsibly"?

Members of Ways and Means subcommittees ( where preliminary decisions are made---if they don't pass something it dies) members of full Ways and Means, your legislators about their floor votes?

I know people who serve on subcomm. and full committee. I have talked with many members of Ways and Means (and/or their staff). My state senator is an active member and has been a subcommittee chair.

It would be one thing if you spoke out on what one of the Co-chairs or subcommittee chairs did, or if you say you think Ways and Means blew it on HB 5555, sort of specifics.

But life is lived in details, not generalities.

Could we put together a counter-ad in which the employee getting axed says, hold it! To be losing the 17,000 you'd pay under m66-67, that means you've been making a million dollars a year salary! What's in these brownies anyway?

Or alternatively, "could you make 983,000 and let me keep my job?"

I'd love to see that Peter!

I own a small business and am voting no on 66/67. We have a total of 11 employees. The lowest paid ones make more than minimum wage. All employee's health insurance premiums are paid by the company, whether they're a family or single. Our business (sales and especially profit) is way down for 2009. According to our CPA - if this tax passes, the additional cost to us is almost as much as one of those "lowest paid" employee's yearly salary. You bet, we're rethinking whether we can trim one employee & improve efficiency. Or, maybe, we'll just make everyone kick-in $100 per month towards their health insurance premiums. Either way, you just don't get it.... It is not big 'fat cat' corporations or bankers, but S-Corps and their employees which (the latest Oregon Dept of Rev numbers are from 2006) comprise some 62% of Oregon corporations will be hit hardest by these measures. We report business income on our personal returns. Just because we show a "profit" of 300k on paper, doesn't mean that we actually have that money in our hands. It would be very bad business practice to remove all "profit" out of a business. The simple fact is that we have been paying our bills to our vendors on time. Many of our customers are paying later and later. That means that we use our "profits" sitting in the business bank account to cover the spread (timing) between our accounts payable and accounts receivable. We've had to cut our own salary in order to keep more and more in the business account to cover this spread. We also had been saving some money to expand and buy a new piece of equipment, but we aren't going to expand or buy new equipment now. The economy is too unpredictable.

And, I would never allow my business to be used as a setting in a political advertisement, not because I don't agree with their intentions, but because Oregon progressives are the first to picket you, call for a boycott and/or black-list you. Oh and I've seen one or two city/county agencies harass (via inspections, fines and extra red tape) companies. No wonder they picked a location outside of the state!

We have a "no" voters and small business owner commenting above who has been seriously misled by the "no" campaign and CPA.

Not-a-pigressive says the business has a profit of $300k. The extra M66 tax on that would be about $1,500. I certainly hope their lowest-paid employees make a lot more than that!

And for Bob Wiggins: I don't feel much sympathy for the S-corp owner with a million-dollar profit. The owner would still have half a million dollars more to invest in the business at the end of the year than at the beginning, even after paying the extra M66 personal tax. Portraying someone in this position as a poor, struggling entrepreneur just trying to make ends meet is just blowing smoke.

Bob and his ilk are simply perpetuating the Big Lie: the idea that we shouldn't tax businesses because these are the people who create jobs. It's the classic "trickle-down" theory and it just doesn't work. Let's try "trickle-up" instead, where we put our money to work creating jobs for working people, which will keep the economy going so the capitalists can keep making money.

The crowning irony of this campaign is that the business folks are arguing against their own best interests. It's easy to demonstrate that the measures will create more economic activity in Oregon (aided immeasurably by the added federal match dollars and tax deduction). If the measures pass, the average business will see an increase in sales and profits, quite possibly greater than any additional tax burden they may be bitching about.

RE: not-a-pigressive "I would never allow my business to be used as a setting in a political advertisement, not because I don't agree with their intentions, but because Oregon progressives are the first to picket you, call for a boycott and/or black-list you. Oh and I've seen one or two city/county agencies harass(via inspections, fines and extra red tape)companies. No wonder they picked a location outside of the state!"

I have a suggestion for you, and others such as yourself, - move. You seem so unhappy in Oregon that I would encourage to find a state more to your liking. For the past few decades Oregon, which use to have one of the most admired educational systems in the country, has fallen far behind, due to an anti-tax attitude. Overall, Oregon has low taxes. Too low. The problem is we have people who feel that businesses should not pay taxes. It is time that all persons with a business, even sole proprietorship, should have an annual business license. There are far too many people with businesses that the state doesn't even know about because they never pay taxes and are not required to register with the state. Pay or leave.

"Just because we show a "profit" of 300k on paper, doesn't mean that we actually have that money in our hands."

Dude, you should get a better accountant.

I call BS. As "Fair and Balanced" pointed out, your story doesn't add up. Or, more likely, you've been terribly misinformed.

Hey not a pigressive:

Are you saying that after the trillion dollar Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 you still can't turn a profit, can't control your receivables, and can't grow your business? Hell, you should go out of business!

But in your little world, whatever the problem, TAX CUTS ARE THE SOLUTION! Surplus? give it back! Defecit? Tax cuts will fix it! Recession? Tax cuts will end it! Economic boom? More tax cuts to keep it going! And don’t forget this includes getting rid of the inheritance tax. The beauty of the Bush/GOP approach is that you don’t have to think about it: just push tax cuts, whatever the economic situation! And of course, the tax cuts need to be for the upper 10% (better yet, upper 1%) of the population because they are the only ones to spend and invest. In fact, let’s get rid of ALL taxes then we would have infinite dollars in revenue!

Friggin' morons.

At least you're out front now, on dissing progressives!

Let's be real here for a minute...very few businesses are going to be hurt by raising the minimum to $150. Sure, some small startups are going to be pinched. I know, those of you who have never spent a day owning and running a biz will find that hard to believe, but it is true. They could have avoided that by putting some minimum level of sales in place before you pay a minimum tax, say $20,000, but they didn't. How many small businesses we might loose we will never know. Hell, even raising the business income tax is no big deal either.

But the idea of any business with no taxable income having to pay up to $100,000 is insane. $150 may be one thing, but tens of thousands of $$$ is another. Oh I know, how could a company with $25M in sales not make a profit. Take some time, go to Google Finance and start reading the financial statements of companies. (and stick your accounting tricks comments where the sun don't shine).

I voted YES on M66 and NO on M67

OK, MP, comment on this:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2010/01/journal_editorial_botches_fact.html

regarding this topic:

a) I like the comparison to Days of Our Lives. I think the acting is lousy.

b) the concluding line "Thanks a lot, Salem" sounds like consultant speak.

Did the legislature pass the budget that OAJKT opposes, or did the city of Salem?

Or is such a detailed question nitpicky?

not a pigressive's comments and analysis are spot on. We all have to remember that 90% of the filth that is spewed by the yes people is based on emotion and hate. not intelligent research of the facts. Just think of how many people here actually own a business or have to run one. His CPA is right. Your liberal socialist agenda is not. We can't all work for the state. So at this point I am prepared to allow the ignorant and lazy to work for them while the rest of us support them. It will change. Not now , but soon.

alcatross:

Well, someone using the name 'Victoria Taft' made a comment here - we don't really know it was THE Victoria Taft from 860 KPAM. Since the comment is timestamped 7:06:56 PM and she's normally on the air at that hour, my guess is it's just someone using her name.

Bob T:

She was on the air talking about this thread which she'd been reading and she gave no indication that someone had used her name. Most talk hosts have computers in front of them while doing their show so they can do e-mail and look at websites. Didn't you know that?

Bob Tiernan Portland

Fair and Balanced:

Bob and his ilk are simply perpetuating the Big Lie: the idea that we shouldn't tax businesses because these are the people who create jobs. It's the classic "trickle-down" theory and it just doesn't work.

Bob T:

"Trickle Down" was actually coined by the people who disliked cutting taxes and stuff, and not by those who proposed such policies. It showed that they didn't know basic economics then, or now. In truth, when a business is starting or doing a major expansion, etc, it may be some time before large returns materialize (which they all know and accept as normal). Therefore, the money invested is indeed trickling up because the employees are getting paid before the profits come in.

Fair and Balanced:

Let's try "trickle-up" instead, where we put our money to work creating jobs for working people

Bob T:

Nice slogan. People lacking in basic economic knowledge fall for this kind of stuff so easily. Now just how do you "create" such a job?

Fair and Balanced:

which will keep the economy going so the capitalists can keep making money.

Bob T:

You haven't explained how you "keep the economy going".

So far it's just blather. My guess is that you don't know the first thing about basic economics. There's a difference between what you think people should do, and what they actually do, in the face of incentives and disincentives.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Actually, Bob, "Trickle Down" was coined in reference to economic policies regarding poor nations, where it was thought that helping the better-off people in those countries would "trickle down" to those less well off. It tended not to work that way--rather, it just enriched those who were already well off.

The term was then applied to the domestic policies of Ronald Reagan, who pushed for and got passed a major tax-cut for the wealthy. According to "supply side" economic theory, the extra money the wealthy had would cause them to invest more, so the benefits would "trickle down" to the not-wealthy.

What followed after those tax cuts were passed was a terrible recession, with two years of unemployment over 9%.

Kari wrote: "Um, Bob, the $540,000 is profit. In other words, the funds left over AFTER they've bought inventory, new machinery, capital equipment, and paid payroll."

Um Kari, that's not right. You, many of the posters here, and probably most of the legislature don't seem to understand the difference between payments of cash by a business that are "expenses", reducing both cash and profit, and payments of cash that are for purchasing either assets or inventory, that reduce cash but not profit.

Payroll is an expense that reduces profit. Purchases of machinery and capital equipment reduce cash, but do not reduce profit until the machinery or equipment is depreciated (with certain exceptions for accelerated depreciation). Purchases of inventory only reduce profit once the inventory is sold, when it becomes cost of goods sold. While the inventory is held by the business, all it has done is to suck up cash. (It may be a necessary cash sink, but it's a cash sink.)

It is very possible, especially in bad economic times where lending has dried up, for an S corporation to produce a profit, but have less available cash at the end of the year than it had at the beginning. My point in my post was to observe that an S corporation could be "profitable", resulting in a significant personal income tax liability to its owner, and still not have generated enough cash not to have to make further cuts on cash expenditures, like payroll.

Bob Wiggins

So, Bob W., you're saying that the state should subsidize ineptly run businesses?

Yes, it is possible for those things to be true, but we shouldn't be basing our tax policies on businesses that are run poorly.

You're also leaving out the fact that payroll actually does cut their tax liability, so if that's a concern for a particular tax period, perhaps they should be paying more people to sell their products, rather than buying more products to sell.

@fbear

Please elaborate on your business experience.

...you're saying that the state should subsidize ineptly run businesses?

Yes, it is possible for those things to be true, but we shouldn't be basing our tax policies on businesses that are run poorly.

I have a challenge for any of you who think these statements are true.

1. Take out a mortgage on your house
2. Drain all of your bank accounts and retirement funds
3. Now, go start a business and show us how a business should be run

MP---do you really believe that no small business owners support yes?

If so, where does your data come from? You don't know every business owner in Oregon.

mp, if you're a "small" business with over half a million dollars in profit and you're having cash flow problems, there are some serious issues.

Sure, you may have had a large capital expense that ate up your cash, but it was your choice to pay for it in cash. Perhaps you should have budgeted for it over the last few years.

@LT

MP---do you really believe that no small business owners support yes?

Document where I have ever said that or shut your hole!

@fbear

Based on your answer, you have none.

Where do you get this, MP?

"But the idea of any business with no taxable income having to pay up to $100,000 is insane."

Are you saying that a business has no "taxable income" if they have tax credits and deductions which reduce them down to no tax liability (isn't that what Enron did with PGE which first got people interested in this issue?) will have to pay at the same tax rate as NIKE?

How do you figure that? Doesn't sound like a neighborhood small business to me.

If you don't want to believe this

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2009/10/the_restaurateur_that_wont_fee.html

or that there are business owners who say they don't oppose the taxes (got an email from a friend who employs several people and has a C corp but does not oppose the taxes), that is fine.

If you are this angry about the taxes, maybe you should run for the legislature. If you live in the 97303 zip code, perhaps your state rep. is Kim Thatcher? Or do you just use initials and a zip code but not live in that area?

LT

Tax credits offset tax due and do not reduce taxable income.

I really suggest you buy an accounting 101 for dummies and read it.

Born and raised in 97303 and live there for 36 years of my life.

Do you even live in Oregon?

Oh, come on, mp, a business making over a half million in profit is probably grossing $5 million or more. That's no mom & pop.

Give a realistic scenario of a company with a half-million dollar yearly profit having the cash-flow problems you're talking about.

It is amazing to me all the "tax professionals" that comment at Blue Oregon. They have offered insights as to how businesses - successful and unsuccessful - can prepare their tax returns, develop investment plans, and take the right steps to be more successful.

Seriously, I cannot believe the number of non-business owners that are giving tax advice to businesses. With this wealth of knowledge I am quite surprised there are not more successful businesses in Oregon.

Ever consider there are other factors other than taxes that people are considering when being opposed to Measures 66 and 67?

For everyone concerned about Oregon's finances,there is nothing preventing anyone from writing a check and sending it to Salem, or to forgo their refund if they have one, or to even overpay their tax withholding.

Whether the increase in taxes is $1 or $100,000, a business must make a decision as to what they perceive is right for them to do for their future business success. A $150 minimum tax of course won't break anyone; nor will it even come close to filling the $733M that Oregon is looking for. Measure 67 isn't just about a $150 minimum tax.

Again, people are ignoring the psychological impact of perceived budget shenanigans, and other steps Oregon has taken during this recession.

Great tax article. Well done, and good points. You can learn more from it!

LT, mp, don't know if you've noticed, but there are about 4 decent progressives left on this blog. Could we direct some of the fire toward the tepic, middle of the road Dems, and not each other?

Of course you're sniping at each other might largely explain why you all haven't ended up on the blacklist as well.

Wanna know how deep this blog's contempt for its contributors runs? Notice who's not an intern anymore? All teh civility of a spitting cobra...and very little substance to back it!

I have to vote all those "great shit Sherlock" and "well caught Kari" posters as the most nauseating combination of sycphantry and logic challenged in-group non-thinking over emotionalisation that I've ever read. So, when you're wondering, "in the 21st century do people still need political parties, particularly when they blatantly don't represent their interests", factor in the quality of the herd animal making the decision, as demonstrated here.

Make a beast of yourself and you end up in the avatoir.

fbear:

Actually, Bob, "Trickle Down" was coined in reference to economic policies regarding poor nations, where it was thought that helping the better-off people in those countries would "trickle down" to those less well off.

Bob T:

I'll take your word for it, but my point still remains that "trickle down" was not applied to Reagan's policies by his supporters, but was used as a term of ridicule such as "Star Wars", or more recently, "Tea-baggers".

fbear:

It tended not to work that way--rather, it just enriched those who were already well off.

Bob T:

Sounds like a failure of politics and corruption, which has been quite normal for foreign aid to such nations. Witness the state of Haiti despite President Clinton sending mega-millions there during his eight years. Or many dictators in Africa nations who siphoned off money, or Arrafat who loaded up a bank account and bought a mansion in Paris -- not much trickling down to his people.

Corruption will do that.

fbear:

The term was then applied to the domestic policies of Ronald Reagan, who pushed for and got passed a major tax-cut for the wealthy. According to "supply side" economic theory, the extra money the wealthy had would cause them to invest more, so the benefits would "trickle down" to the not-wealthy.

Bob T:

And you cannot argue that this did not happen, and doesn't happen. Where do you think it comes from? My point was that "trickle down" is inaccurate since in many projects, business start-ups etc the payoff for the owners/investors comes after many months of even years, while from the very start there are working people earning money as employees in the ventures.

fbear:

What followed after those tax cuts were passed was a terrible recession with two years of unemployment over 9%.

Bob T:

Bzzzttt!!! The economy was already weak enough at the end of the Carter years--very high inflation and interests rates will take their toll. And you are incorrect about the relationship of the tax cuts and the recession. The initial tax cuts were much smaller the first year than what the plan originally called for, so the larger cuts came too late. You also need to remember that during subsequent years there was a lot of industrial retooling going on and opportunities for all levels of manufacturing, most of which would not have been possible without the investment money being available directly and indirectly. The beneficiaries of these investments and the changes were those who were in the White House in the 90s. Geo. Bush I squandered it (like his son, he was a terrible president), while Clinton did a better job with it.

The trouble many people have is that they think economic policies have effects only in the short term, and that they happen quickly. Thus a president taking office in January is blamed for a recession that starts two months later. It doesn't work that way.

They also have this silly idea that a 10% tax cut means, "Oh no! Laissez Faire is back!".

Hardly. The problem with out economy is that it is too micro-managed and too heavily laden with anti-market controls that go far beyond basic safety standards. My oft-mentioned case of the Reverend Craigmiles' effort to do a simple thing like sell discount caskets being one of the effects of this, along with numerous other ventures that we never hear of because they never get anywhere. The squashing of such ventures that challenge established and state-protected cartels mainly exists under the guise of "protecting the consumer" and "regulating the market so it works". It's very difficult speaking out for these ventures for the rhetoric favors economic illiterates. Passion can always defeat dry statistics. As one observer noted, politics is "an exercise in concentrated interest at the expense of the diffused interest". That's why so many of these controls remain for many decades and are still with us.

That's why I don't even make a big deal over Reaganomics because in the big picture of what needs to be done (as I see it), it was just a little chip. Too many free marketers think all that's needed is some tax cuts and 20 pages torn from the regulation list. Sorry, no deal. The worst part is that the progressives also think that such a little blip defines free market policies. But consider the source and move on.

Bob Tiernan Portland

@Fbear

Actually many service businesses and software companies could have profit margins of 40%+ on up to 70-80%, so a company with 500K in profits could have sales less than 1M.

As for the second part, there was a family owned auto parts supplier down in Arizona that was making a profit in the high six figures but went out of business due to a lack of cash. See, they had a $300K line of credit that they used to finance the purchase of around $250K of inventory monthly. The bank cut their LOC to $30K and they lost the business.

A lot of businesses use a LOC to finance payroll since the employees get paid before the AR gets paid.

Here is a great 4 page guide to understanding CASHFLOW

so, mp, that business in AZ should have kept more money in the business. I suspect there likely were more underlying problems in the business that caused the banks to cut their LOC. Like maybe their profits weren't what they said they were.

MP, I once lived in 97303 but have lived in 97302 for almost 40 years.

Not only that, I have been involved in most of the legislative elections in my district in one way or another. Have you?

Now about taxable income.

Show me which business deductions individuals also have access to, and we can talk. Otherwise, businesses have ways to lower their taxable income that individuals do not have.

My memory is that the tax structure in this state shifted from equal burden (business and individuals) to greater burden on individuals than businesses around the time today's 19 year olds were born.

But I could be wrong. You could be a CPA who does accounting for some of the most famous businesses in Marion County for all I know. Maybe you authored a book on accounting.

Or you might be someone who wasn't quite old enough to vote on Measure 5 in 1990, but who claims to understand business and taxes inside out and anyone who disagrees can't possibly know what they are talking about.

Are you one of those who believes that the "all funds budget" is a magic wand which will balance the budget with no cuts, no revenue increases, and no legal hassles?

If so, did you support Doyle's Mystery Money crowd in the days of M. 28? Did you read Paulie's post on how the Republicans are now rerunning that rhetoric?

fbear

<h2>No, their LOC was cut simply because of the global financial collapse. They never missed a payment in 8 years. Your comments continue to show that you have never owned a business.</h2>