This was so great it deserved it's own post? You've really taken insulting your regular readers to new heights.

In the 1970's corporate contributions in taxes to oregon were about 18%. The projection for this current cycle is about 6%.

Not to let facts get in the way of a good talking point, but since 1990:

<h1>of c corp filers in Oregon DOWN 7%</h1> <h1>of individual filer in Oregon UP 31%</h1> <h1>of S corp's that have their business income taxed as an INDIVIDUAL UP 200%</h1>

Also, it is important to note that the: % of taxes collected from individual taxes DIRECTLY attributable to businesses or business activity EQUALS 9% of total.

If we are going to talk about the # of c corps that are paying the minimum tax, let's at least be honest about the reasons for it:

20,547 of the 20,803 C Corps that paid the $10 minimum did so because they either had no income in the current year or used a loss carried forward from another year to result in zero taxable income.

Source: Oregon corporate tax statistics

Quoting the commenter: "I mean hello?"

Sez everything you need to know doesn't it.

OK, let's be clear about what this means:

"20,547 of the 20,803 C Corps that paid the $10 minimum did so because they either had no income in the current year "

Does it mean that the price of what one needs for business (raw materials for manufacturing, fuel for deliveries, wholesale price of what a store sells) outpaced the amount of money coming in?

In that case, with 0 taxes, how long could that company stay in business?

OR, as a chart about the different effects of Measure 67 depending on the details of companies said in an SJ front page chart in the print version (3 companies: one with sales over $100M, one with net under 250K, one with no net income) could it be more like this:

Oregon Sales: $140,303

Total Income $170,958

Deductions $182,323

Taxable income 0

This business had $11365 more in deductions than income. Sounds like they had a good accountant.

Here's a question, MP:

Suppose M. 67 fails. Why not start the job of filling the resulting budget gap by saying no business can deduct more from their taxes than there is income?

Then, let's start looking at all these deductions like there are already efforts to look at all tax breaks.

Or are you saying that individuals should carry the tax burden because businesses deserve deductions individuals would never qualify for?

I read a column in a business section yesterday saying creativity causes more business innovation than tax policy.

Think about it. When Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were doing the proverbial "tinkering in the garage" which later led to Apple and Microsoft, were they thinking most about creating something, or most about tax policy?

And do you believe that large corporations (as Apple and Microsoft now are) can't afford to pay taxes? Or that Oregon should not get taxes from multi-state corporations?

It's not surprising you guys are so taken aback by the Oregonian Editorial Board's recommendation to vote NO on 66 & 67. When you spend all your time canvassing only friendlies, you exist inside that bubble, and think you're "winning". Now, I'm not saying the measures aren't going to pass - but the latest polling data offered by the YES groups was taken by the same firm who had Corzine winning his re-election bid.

As usual, the key words to always be aware of when us Democrats go populist: for our children, for our (failing and miserably performing) schools, for our future, for our well-being and "essential human services". Another favorite of mine is railing against the "unfair business practices of the evil corporations" who are putting bread and butter on the tables of families through employment. I also almost laughed out loud over how the measures stand up to the "corporate lobbyists".

2003 was 2003. These are different economic times. It is, as I've recognized previously, and the Oregonian confirmed, the wrong time, and almost hysterically so, to be promoted tax increases on those who employ people in our state.

And then there's President Obama, out there on the stump touting his Jobs Bill - complete with tax credits for businesses. Why" Because President Obama believes that tax breaks and tax credits will help kick start the economy and create jobs in the private sector.

So it's a double-whammy. You may not realize it, but you are working against the people of this state's economic interests, and you are working against President Obama's economic plan.

And of course, anyone who doesn't agree with you on a particular issue, whether an individual or the states largest newspaper, sends shock waves through the closed "progressive" circle.

Which is more important, numbers or kids? Numbers? Oy! If you think it's about numbers you probably do have a hard time making up your mind. Vote "yes" on the ballot measures, for Oregon's future. For our kids. Kids = future. That's funny. My arithmatic seems to be better than the number chewers!

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

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

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/01/moral_hazard_of_the_goody_bag.html David Ignatius: The U.S. economy survived the traumas of 2009, thanks to good policy and good luck. What worries me, looking ahead, is what might be called the “Californiaization” of America -- the growing tendency of our political system to make promises in social spending programs that it isn’t prepared to pay for with tax increases.

Here's the deal:

Not only will there be budget cuts if the measures go down later this month, Oregon will lose federal matching funds.

Or maybe that is the point--social darwinists thinking if you aren't rich you don't deserve any help.

LT: the right-wing nuttery on this blog must hate you with your reality-biased critical analysis

LT

What you are failing to grasp is the difference between "financial" accounting and "tax" accounting. Financial accounting is governed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and tax accounting is governed by the IRS. While many of the rules are the same, there are some significant differences.

Let me give you a super simplistic example of how a company could have a tax loss while still having an actual profit.

COmpany A buys a piece of equipment that costs $100,000. Even though they paid cash for it in 2008, the IRS requires them to depreciate it over its useful life, say 5 years. That means that even though the company paid out $100K in 2008, they only get to claim $20K on their taxes for 2008. However, in 2009,10,11 and 12, they get to claim $20K in expenses. So, they might have made $15000 in actual cash profits for 2010, they will have a taxable income of $0 due to the depreciation.

If you want to get into a pissing match over who pays what in taxes, I would be glad for my business to pay more as soon as YOU start paying some of the taxes I pay that YOU do not. For instance, the business property tax. That is a tax that I pay on all of my tangible assets like, machinery, desks, chairs, computers, office paper, pencils and paper clips. When YOU start paying taxes on your furniture and flat screen tv's, then we can talk.

MP is this all about you?

Not about all businesses in this state but just about you?

Do all business owners feel as you do? Not the lobby, not the chambers of commerce, but individual business owners?

As I recall, there was a story on Oregonlive.com (may have been on the Mapes blog) where AOI put some restaurant guy's picture in their publication without asking his permission----then it turned out it was a picture of someone voting yes on 66 & 67.

Love Joshua's comment and Pat's poem.

We don't have a flat screen TV, and our furniture has been around for a long time. Depending on your age, MP, some of our furniture may be older than you are.

Making assumptions about people you never met is not great political strategy.

But maybe MP fits my old friend Julie's remark about campaign rhetoric and actions,

"when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

MP, you may be angry that the ballot measures would end the tax on umemployment benefits. You may believe that unemployed people should pay taxes at the same rate as business people. If so, I urge you to run for the legislature on that platform and see what voters say to you when you speak about your platform.

From day 1, Defend Oregon(??), Chuck, Steve and most of the others here have made this an issue of FAIR SHARE. That somehow businesses don't pay their fair share.

About 3 weeks ago, I asked them what my fair share should be. I asked for a specific dollar amount or percentage of sales, profits or taxable income.

I am still waiting...

If you think any business in this state only pays $10, you are delusional.

Ricky sez:

Another favorite of mine is railing against the "unfair business practices of the evil corporations" who are putting bread and butter on the tables of families through employment.

Which they do out of the goodness of their hearts? From their desire to share the wealth their companies create with the employees who helped create it? Because its the right thing to do?

Bwahahahaha!!

Paying employees is and only ever is a means to an end: increasing profits and shareholder wealth. Companies will hire as few people as they can and pay them as little as they can get away with. Cut their taxes and they might hire more people, but only if they think it will make them more money. Otherwise, they might just stash it, or spend it on themselves. (To another company paying as little as possible to as few employees as possible.)

We've had 30+ years of testing the theory that, "If we cut taxes on corporations and the rich, they'll use that money to create jobs and that will help everyone more than if we keep taxes where they are and spend them to help people directly." It is and has always been a complete and total failure. Compare US prosperity in the 1950s to the 2000s, then compare tax rates.

And as far as Obama's tax policies are concerned, 99% of competent economists will tell you that you get more economic stimulation out of direct government spending than you do from tax cuts--especially tax cuts on corporations and the rich, because they don't spending them at nearly the percentage that the poor and middle class do. That's why the stimulus should have had a far higher % of spending than it did.

But in addition, targeted tax credit programs reward companies for behavior that's in the public interest (at least, in the opinion of the government, which given that they are bought and paid for by corporate interests, makes it somewhat dubious). In other words, it's not just a give-away with hopes that we'll get something back, it's a bargain; a deal. "Create XX jobs doing YY things and we'll lower your taxes. Locate a new facility in a community that needs jobs the most, and we'll lower your taxes, or reduce the cost of employing each new hire."

Supply-siders have played Americans for suckers every since Ronnie. "Give us a bunch more money and things will turn out great. Trust us!" And time after time, we're like Charlie Brown with Lucy (corporations) and the football (tax cuts).

Stupid is as stupid does. Here's hoping Oregon voters aren't.

MP, I went to a social event yesterday--the sort of folks who vote but aren't politically active. The only conversation about this was about whether some people are registered to vote (one person there needed to call their county clerk because of a recent move from one county to another) and "gee, I will have to start studying those measures".

My guess is that most of them could not identify the names Steve Novick or Defend Oregon.

But those are the folks who make up what is maybe 90% of the population---not very politically active, but they vote.

THEY will be deciding this election, more than anyone here who has strong feelings about Steve, Chuck, or DEFEND OREGON.

Oh, yeah, the Legislature also gave corporate business their own wet dream -- a huge new set of taxes on all motorists. Those taxes are HATED by Oregonians far and wide - last time we voted them down 88% to 12%.

Where were the anti-tax folks then? Nowhere, because they were bought off by huge hundred-million-dollar highways to their funders' homes and businesses.

So, business lobby: tax everyone to fund highways is OK, but tax the well-off to fund social services - not OK?

The biggest fault in the Oregonian's editorial is common among editorial boards - a naivete about power politics and the way the initiative and referendum process works. Novick nailed it.

@jaybeat

Congratulations! You are the first person to address how 66 & 67 go directly against what President Obama wants to do for businesses when I bring it up. Even though by doing so, you are stating your opposition to President Obama's economic policies, which is probably why no other person wants to deal with that issue.

Regarding the Stimulus' effect on Oregon - where did those dollars go? Government projects, mostly infrastructure related, road and sewer maintenance, jobs for shovel holders.

It might also interest you to know that the stimulus package - the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act - included $40.6 billion for local school districts to "prevent teacher layoffs and education cuts by the states."

Out of the 40.6 BILLION, the state of Oregon received $475 MILLION dolllars for "our schools" and to prevent layoffs and cuts to our school system.

Now, if that $475 million dollars, almost half a billion given THIS YEAR wasn't enough to save our schools, and we need to pass 66 & 67 to "save" them, what we are really saying is the stimulus package was a failure.

There is some serious incompetence in Salem if we blew through the half billion given to save our schools by the Stimulus Act in less than one year, and need more.

So I don't buy the argument that the sky will fall if 66 & 67 fail to pass.

The more I research how the state is handling funds, the more I disagree with the YES side of these measures. And believe me, I have fallen for it many times in the past, voting to increase my property taxes time and time again, voting for new income taxations like the Multnomah County tax, etc., all "for the children".

I won't fall for it this time. If I have to tighten my spending, make some cutbacks on my lifestyle, watch my budget during these economic times, so should the state.

What you are failing to grasp is the difference between "financial" accounting and "tax" accounting. Financial accounting is governed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and tax accounting is governed by the IRS. While many of the rules are the same, there are some significant differences.

Let me give you a super simplistic example of how a company could have a tax loss while still having an actual profit.

COmpany A buys a piece of equipment that costs $100,000. Even though they paid cash for it in 2008, the IRS requires them to depreciate it over its useful life, say 5 years. That means that even though the company paid out $100K in 2008, they only get to claim $20K on their taxes for 2008. However, in 2009,10,11 and 12, they get to claim $20K in expenses. So, they might have made $15000 in actual cash profits for 2010, they will have a taxable income of $0 due to the depreciation.

In your example, the company has the asset and the depreciation shield.

I will be voting yes on both measures.

I think the weakest part of the editorial is that it's really about what the editors don't like about the political process; it has no analysis of what happens if these measures fail. So the Oregonian is asking voters to make a public policy decision, with no apparent appreciation for the consequences. That's just plain stupid.

LT commented: ...you may be angry that the ballot measures would end the tax on unemployment benefits.

For the record, M66 would eliminate income taxes on the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits received in 2009 ONLY. It doesn't eliminate taxes on ALL unemployment benefits - nor is the exclusion permanent.

When YOU start paying taxes on your furniture and flat screen tv's, then we can talk.

My assumption is I pay that within the price of what I purchased.

My assumption is I pay that within the price of what I purchased.

Not a sales tax, but a property tax. Businesses pay property taxes EVERY year on all of their fixtures (ie. machinery, desks, chairs, tools, etc)

jaybeat commented and Kevin cheered on: '...Compare US prosperity in the 1950s to the 2000s, then compare tax rates.'

Actually, prosperity was not as widespread in the 1950s as you'd like to believe. US poverty in the 1950s was still well in excess of 20% during the 1950s despite the significantly higher income tax rates on 'the wealthy' and the super-charged US economy emerging from WWII. Poverty in the US during the 2000s (up to 2008 - the latest year for which data is available...) has been near historical lows - even slightly lower than the vaunted 1990s Clinton era.

As Robert McChesney and several other media scholars have consistently argued, corporate interests (read: advertisers) are the true clients of the organs that constitute the mainstream media.

Because Measures 66 & 67 are unpopular with the Oregonian's clients and funders, their rational response is vehement opposition to policies resisted by these corporate entities.

Not a sales tax, but a property tax. Businesses pay property taxes EVERY year on all of their fixtures (ie. machinery, desks, chairs, tools, etc)

I understand the reality of paying property tax. My second assumption would be that if equipment is necessary for a business to operate then it is business property. If you do not want ANY property taxes for business and individuals I can get on board. How lost government revenue will be made up for would be another debate.

Given todays tax structure, If I had to write the state and feds $1 million dollar checks every year, I'd consider myself a fortunate individual.

This time the Oregonian has it right! The cuts Oregon’s one-sided legislature is threatening are cuts to a nine percent increase in spending. Some of that excessive spending includes healthy raises to well paid state managers and huge, even gigantic subsidies to targeted businesses through BETC that an incompetent Governor promoted using corrupt accounting. Meanwhile, many average Oregonians are just treading water to stay afloat. Huge tax increases, especially to high volume low profit businesses like grocery stores will be passed through to consumers, possibly causing more families to go under. It is good to see far left wing publication like the Oregonian finally seeing the light of day and at least inching more towards the center. Bravo!

I was shocked to see the Oregonian actually use some common sense on a topic for once. They usually just run the DNC talking points for editorials. Maybe they finally hired an editor who has a brain? Guess I'll start reading something other than the sports page in that newspaper.

I thought the editorial was right on. The idiots in Salem continued spending increases in the face of a major recession. They also voted for pay raises while others were cutting back. And now they want someone else to pick up the tab for their spending. Not to mention all the stupidity surrounding these measures in terms of the timing, the inability of the Salem morons to work out a compromise bill, etc. The idiots in Salem who created this mess need to be given the boot. They obviously can't govern.

Given todays tax structure, If I had to write the state and feds $1 million dollar checks every year, I'd consider myself a fortunate individual.

So would I. However, that is NOT the reality for 99% of the businesses in the state.

It always amazes me that so many people can claim, as do many on this site, that we need to "fill the budget gap."
When you have a budget gap at home, you don't "fill it," you cut costs. You have difficult decisions to make. You sell one car and ride a bike or carpool more. You move to a smaller apartment that you can afford. It is not fun, but that's life. The Oregonian editorial is not perfect, but it is right. The legislature did not make the tough decisions to make needed cuts. Instead they just pitted taxpaying citizens (like teachers and farmers) against one another.
If we keep passing more taxes, when will the Legislature cut costs? The answer is, "Never."

Contrarian: Very few on BO will respond to McChesney-related positions. (He's a progressive after all, and BO is a forum for rightwingers and far-rightwingers.)

Similarly, BO regressives will ignore the obvious answers to our economic strangulation: end corporate personhood and return to the definition of corporations that existed pre-1880; end the Bush/Obama bailouts for the rich and support the lower and middle classes instead; cut military spending in half; resurrect Glass-Steagall; dump Geithner, Summers, et al.

No, Virginia, The Economy Is Not Getting Better As Banks Still Rule

Wall Street's 10 Greatest Lies of 2009

Les Eavull commented: '...BO regressives will ignore the obvious answers to our economic strangulation: end corporate personhood and return to the definition of corporations that existed pre-1880...

Well, if we're REALLY going to avert our 'economic strangulation' by going back to the pre-1880 definition of things, let's also go back to the pre-1880 definitions of constitutionally-authorized federal government spending (i.e., no Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and other entitlement spending programs of dubious constitutionality...) Or is that more obvious answer than you bargained for?

"This was so great it deserved it's own post? You've really taken insulting your regular readers to new heights." - Sam Houston Clinton

Comrade Clinton, I thought you were done with politics: So, I'm done with politics for a year. Full stop.. Now you're back on BO whining?

Solidarity, Demetri

"you cut costs."

Tom, which members of Ways and Means have you spoken with?

Which should be cut more: public safety, education, health care, transportation, programs for needy people?

Are there really the votes to cut education, public safety, programs for needy people on the current Ways and Means committee, given that not every member back in the days when Republicans controlled the House and the Senate was 15-15?

Back then, the Republican subcommittee chair of Ways and Means --Human Services subcommittee said there was a point beyond which "as long as I am subcommittee chair" services for needy people would not be cut.

This shocked the House co-chair, Randy Miller.

But that's the way the system works.

If you want new people on Ways and Means, go find a legislative candidate to work for.

LT,

You make a good point. I have not spoken with anyone on Ways and Means.

I would look at the efficiencies of each of those areas and cut as needed. You are probably right that the votes are not there to make such cuts. Therein lies the problem. If the votes aren't there, then we don't have elected officials who have the strength to do what needs to be done. That is my fault and those who didn't get involved enough to elect people who could make the tough decisions.

I don't have to like the way the system works. I don't like that our elected leaders cannot stop spending more than they have. I don't like that they first (and only seriously) look at raising revenue rather than lowering costs or providing less services.

I have not worked for anyone to help them gain political office for over ten years. I could work for a person like Sal who seems bright, well intentioned, and more reasonable than most, but fear he would be swallowed by the system. Unfortunately, keeping my costs under control, living within my means, working three businesses allows no time for that. And, since I don't see it being worth my time without systematic change, I do not prioritize it.

Back to the subject of the Editorial (about which this post was concerned), I still believe the Oregonian got it right even if it ruffles the feathers of many who believe life can go on as it has at the Oregon Legislature and we can spend our way out of deficits. To me that is caused by people who have been insulated from reality working at 'protected jobs' for so long they make decisions based on a lifestyle and work position that cannot be enjoyed by 90% of the rest of the population.

One of my biggest wishes for the New Year; along with peace, love, jobs and prosperity for everyone-no exceptions; is that journalist in 2010 rediscover and embrace the practice of actual journalism-as opposed to just feeding us stenographic variations on conservative talking points and press releases.

Call bullshit on people. Hold their feet to the fire-all parties. Freaking use Google to fact check what people tell them. It's not that hard. Maybe even take the time to learn about a few issues.

Sadly, as it stands, "The Oregonian" could not be found guilty of the practice of journalism in a court of law.

I'd love to see that change in 2010.

Steve,

You are right. I am ignorant of much of what is going on with the State of Oregon. However, my ignorance of the current condition does not hold a candle to your statement, "... all the cuts that make sense have already been made long ago." To say that, you must be ignorant of the state of the economy and completely out of touch with the real world. I don't know what you do but my bet is you work for the government or are a consultant to politicians.
Have all employees of our government taken cuts in pay and benefits? Have all non-essential services been cut? Those are the things that are done by businesses and households when they can't balance their budgets. I am finding that most people I meet who are in favor of 66 and 67 are either employed by government agencies or their jobs depend heavily on government contracts. None who favor 66/67 whom I have spoken with about this have ever had a cut in pay or benefits exceeding 5%. In fact, the majority have yearly cost of living raises. I therefore conclude that they have no real world experience in making the tough decisions that our legislators must (and fail to) make.

Tom, you're dead nuts on. The main support for 66 and 67 comes from government employees who want more revenue to protect their jobs and their ability to control the economy. The more money they control then the more secure they are.

Nobody in Salem seems to have any concept of cutting costs. They actually increased spending during this recession in spite of decreased tax revenue and now they are asking us to bail them out.

The additional taxes to support unnecessary spending is troubling enough but these measures target only specific groups to pay the extra taxes. While the benefits are for everyone, the burden is going to fall on carefully selected targets. One has to really question the reasoning behind public policy like that. If the benefits are for all then why target some specific people to pay for it?

This specific targeting isn't about fairness. The people who claim this is fair are liars and not to be trusted on the subject. The rich already pay the vast majority of income taxes collected in the state so it isn't even close to fair to ask them to pay more. No, these measures are nothing more than mob rule where a bunch of people decide to force a minority of others to pick up the tab.

The way I see it, these two measures add insult to injury. First we see additional taxes being requested because Salem can't control spending. But rather than broad based taxes on everyone who would benefit from the spending we see very targeted taxes on political opponents.

The whole situation shows a lack of integrity by the team in Salem who cooked it up.

"Tom, you're dead nuts on. The main support for 66 and 67 comes from government employees who want more revenue to protect their jobs and their ability to control the economy. The more money they control then the more secure they are."

Gee, I guess that comes from a belief that no one who runs a private business will vote for it.

But is that true?

If it is not true, how will demonizing public employees convince voters to oppose the taxes?

Only one of many examples which shows that those like Andy don't know what they are talking about.

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

Given that the photo ran with the article under the headline: "These tax increases could drown Oregon's small businesses," you'd be excused for thinking that the Testus are opposing the tax measures on the Jan. 26 ballot.

Not the case.........................It's absolutely deceptive," said Sheketoff, who called up Testu and found he didn't have any objection to the tax increase (in fact, Sheketoff said he wasn't even sure Testu knew about the tax hike; I couldn't reach Testu this afternoon).

In addition, Testu has a limited liability company, so he'd pay a new $150 minimum corporate tax. He would not be liable for the new minimum tax based on sales, which has got many businesses fired up. That would only be paid by so-called c-corporations that are subject to the corporate income tax.

LT,

You said, "...a belief that no one who runs a private business will vote for it." I'm not sure where you got that. I said that most of those I had spoken with who favored the bills were in government or government protected jobs. How does that imply that "no one" who runs a private business will vote for it? Of course some business owners will be in favor and some will oppose.

And, your, "... one of many examples which shows that those like Andy don't know what they are talking about," One example of one post on a "progressive" site shows that "those like Andy" (whatever that means) don't know what they are talking about? Wow.

The subject was the Oregonian Editorial opposing 66/67. Jon Isaacs and Steve Novick didn't like it. I did like it and said why. We disagree. I also think you are stretching to find backing for your view and make really weak arguments. You feel the same about me. At least we are not yelling or using expletives.

Yet today we have an Oregonian reporter busting one of the key tv commercials that is anti 66/67. Go figure.

<h2>http://taxvacancies.com is a top site that gives away information about jobs Banking & Finance / Tax Structuring, Corporate Tax / Income & Direct Tax, Carbon Tax,Funds Management / Life Insurance,International Tax / M&A / Private Equity,Personal Tax / Individual Tax,Superannuation / Financial Planning,Technology & Systems,Employment Tax / Expats & Benefits Tax, Tax Other</h2>