Spread the news

SAVE & SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Stakes are high in campaign on 66, 67

Politics | Tue, 12/08/2009 - 7:10 am | Read 2756 | Commented 20 | Emailed 0

See a graphic explaining Measures 66 & 67. This is a PDF document.

If money talks, then opponents are speaking a lot louder than supporters when it comes to Measures 66 and 67 on Oregon's January special election ballot.

Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes had raised $1.9 million as of Friday, compared to Vote Yes For Oregon's $750,000.

Vote Yes lists 18 sources, led by the Oregon Education Association. The OEA, aware thats public education funding will inevitably be slashed if the measures fail, has donated $300,000.

Other major contributions have come from the Oregon Public Employees Union, Oregon Healthcare Association and two smaller education groups.

Job-Killing Taxes is drawing a wide array of support from companies doing business in Oregon, as most of them face a tax hike if the measures are approved by voters. It lists 270 contributors, led by Nike CEO Phil Knight, who gave in $50,000.

The Oregon Restaurant PAC has contributed up $65,000, the Oregon Bankers Association $100,000, Associated Oregon Industries $168,000, the Oregon Realtors Association $50,000 and the Oregon Local Grocery Committee $75,000.

Local political analyst Sal Peralta said $65,000 is a very big sum for an organization like the restaurant PAC, to cite just one example. "That goes to show what the stakes are for some of these groups," he said.

The Longview Timberlands LLC donated $26,000 to the opposition campaign.

That seems odd at first glance, as LLCs only stand to pay $150 a year to the state Department of Revenue under Measure 67, the corporate income tax element in the package.

However, Peralta said the principals in such organizations stand to be affected by the state income tax hike called for in the companion Measure 66. In addition, many LLCs hold stakes in publicly traded companies destined to be hit much harder under Measure 67.

Peralta said the sums on the books today may seem large, but a deluge of additional money is expected to roll in over the course of the coming weeks. "If less than $10 million gets spent, I'll be surprised," he said.

Ballots will begin arriving in mailboxes around the state on Saturday, Jan. 9. They are due back by 8 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 26.

Both sides feel they need to get their message to voters before they begin filling out ballots. That dictates a campaign running right through the holiday season, which already features an onslaught of commercial advertising.

"The proponents believe that if they can accurately convey who these taxes impact, they will win," Peralta said. However, he said conservatives are more motivated than usual this year, and can be expected to turn out at a high rate.

The campaign has turned sharp and negative almost from the outside, he said.

"I've been surprised by the level of vehemence, frankly," he said. "And the wording is going to get stronger."

Print | Email Updated 38 weeks 1 day ago

Comments (20)

We welcome your thoughts, stories and information related to this article. Click here to read our "Policies and Standards for Comments".

Tue, 12/15/2009 - 1:06pm - Posted by: GlockGal

There are just a few whopper lies circulaiting about these taxes...here are the top 10

There is no “third way” or “Plan B” or “alternative” if voters reject these
tax increases. If voters reject these measures there will be further dramatic
budget cuts to Head Start, K-12 schools, community colleges, universities,
health care, state troopers, etc. The tax increases protect nearly $1 billion
in vital services like education, health care and public safety.

The Facts
According to the Legislative Revenue Office, the state will only have a $318 million
deficit if voters reject these permanent tax increases and the legislature uses the funds
in the state’s two major reserve accounts. If the two tax measures are defeated, the
legislature could maintain current budgets by dipping into existing state agency cash
reserves, reducing personnel costs or even crafting more responsible tax measures
when it meets in February.
For example, the legislature could refuse to fund state employee salary step increases or
require the governor to re-open the state employees’ contract. Or, the legislature could
require state workers to contribute to their health care coverage at the same level
Oregon public school teachers contribute to theirs. The one-year savings on this alone
would be $131 million.
Neither tax increase is specifically tied to a particular expenditure so the defeat of one
or both tax increases will not lead to specific cuts. Legislators will choose what
programs services to cut if cuts are necessary.

Whopper No. 2

The 2009 Oregon Legislature made $2 billion in cuts before increasing
taxes to balance the 2009-11 Budget.

The Facts
The 2009-11 All Funds Budget is $4.7 billion higher than the 2007-09 All Funds Budget.
That’s a 9 percent increase. Tax proponents say that increase is primarily because of
federal stimulus dollars, but that’s not true.
The fact is that the 2009-11 General Fund budget, which includes only state funds, is
$485 million higher than the last General Fund budget. Those are spending increases by
anybody’s definition but somehow not in state government. The touted budget “cuts”
actually reflect an increase in spending, just a smaller increase than anticipated.
The legislature’s half-billion dollar increase in General Fund spending included $259
million in salary increases for state employees.
The 2009 Legislature should have tightened its belt like the rest of us instead of asking
for more tax dollars to uphold its runaway spending.

Whopper No. 3
Big corporations are getting away with paying Oregon’s $10 minimum tax,
which hasn’t changed since 1931. Measure 67 will make big corporations
pay their fair share.

The Facts

The corporations that pay Oregon’s current $10 corporate minimum tax are businesses
that have not made a profit or have no taxable income. Businesses that make a profit
pay the corporate income taxes on these profits.
Measure 67 changes the $10 flat fee for businesses that have no taxable income to a
sliding scale between $150 to $100,000—based on a company’s gross sales, not net
profits. This new gross sales tax disproportionately impacts high-volume sales, lowmargin
businesses like grocery stores, restaurants and gas stations.
In fact, most states have no minimum tax on businesses that aren’t making a profit.
Among those states that do levy a minimum tax on corporations with no profits, 17
charge an average of $200. All but two of these states have a flat rate minimum, like
Oregon’s. Only New York and Minnesota, have graduated minimum taxes based on
total sales, similar to Measure 67. Those two states levy a maximum of $5,000. Measure
67’s so-called minimum tax would make Oregon’s 20 times higher. Measure 67 would
give Oregon the highest corporate minimum or “no profits” tax in the country.

Whopper No. 4
Measures 66 and 67 protect the equivalent of $285.5 for K-12 education,
$24.4 million for Oregon’s community colleges, $39.9 million for the
Oregon University System, $5.1 million for student assistance, $4.1 million
for Oregon Health and Science University. The funds from these tax
increases preserve class sizes, save jobs for teachers, provide seniors with
in-home care and provide health care for thousands of Oregonians through
the Oregon health plan.

The Facts

Neither tax increase is specifically tied to a particular expenditure so the defeat of one
or both tax increases will not lead to specific cuts. It could just as easily be said that
Measures 66 and 67 protect the $259 funding for public employee salary increases the
2009 Legislature approved. The Legislative Revenue Office has reported that the state
will only have a $318 million deficit if voters reject these permanent tax increases and
the legislature uses all in its two major reserve accounts. That’s less than three percent
of the state budget to cut!

The legislature could maintain current budgets by dipping into other state agency cash
reserves for financial emergencies, cutting personnel costs or even crafting more
responsible tax measures when it meets in February.
For example, the legislature could refuse to fund state employee salary increases agreed
to after the 2009 Legislature adjourned or require the governor to re-open the state
employees’ contract. Or, the legislature could require state workers to contribute to
their health care coverage at the same level Oregon public school teachers contribute
to theirs. The one-year savings on this alone would be $131 million. The legislature
could redirect $13 million of the $63 million currently in the Risk Assessment Account
used to cover lawsuits against the state.

Whopper No. 5

Measure 67 increases the marginal tax rate on corporate profits above
$250,000 by only 1.3 percent.

The Facts

Measure 67 supporters are playing games with numbers. They’re afraid to let voters
know that the corporate tax hikes under Measure 67 alone amount to a 40 percent
total increase in state corporate taxes for 2009-11. Economists say this kind of business
tax, coupled with the personal income tax, would result in 70,000 more Oregonians
losing their jobs.

Measure 67 supporters try to create the illusion of a tiny increase by only mentioning
the percentage point increase in the rate. In fact, the corporate income tax rate will go
from the current 6.6 percent to 7.9 percent in 2009 and 2010. That’s nearly a 20
percent increase in just one of the three components of Measure 67’s corporate tax
hike. (Corporate income tax increase, corporate minimum tax increase based on gross
sales and corporate filing fee increases.)

Whopper No. 6

Measure 66 increases the marginal tax rate on personal income above
$250,000 for couples by only 1.8 percent.

The Facts

Measure 66 supporters playing games with numbers. They’re afraid to let voters know
that this tax increase amounts to a 20 percent increase on personal income above
$250,000 for couples. Voters would see that kind of tax increase would contribute to
the 70,000 additional jobs economist estimate Oregon would lose under Measures 66
and 67. The reason: 66 percent of the tax filers targeted for the legislature’s increase in
personal income tax rates are small and family-owned business owners who report their
business profits on their personal income tax statements.
Measure 66 supporters try to create the illusion of a slight increase by only mentioning
the percentage point increase in the rate. Under Measure 66, the tax rate goes from 9
percent to 10.8 percent -- a 20 percent increase. Measure 66 also moves the tax rate
for certain filers from 9 percent to 11percent. That’s a 22 percent increase!

Whopper No. 7

Business doesn’t pay its fair share of taxes in Oregon.

The Facts

Tax proponents say the “corporate share” of Oregon taxes has declined over time. One
reason is the number of S-corps has increased drastically.
99 percent of Oregon’s 55,000 S-corps pay no corporate income tax other than the
corporate minimum, but that doesn’t mean the state is not collecting tax revenues from
these enterprises. More than half of all business income in Oregon is reported on
personal income tax filings.
In tax year 2006 Oregon taxable income for all corporate filers was $7,727,887,000. In
the same year, business income on personal income tax forms (by full year filers) was
$8,307,555,000. Small business owners report their business profits on their personal
income tax filings.
The Legislative Revenue Office reports that 66 percent of the tax filers targeted for the
legislature’s increase in personal income tax rates are small and family-owned businesses or farms.

Whopper No. 8

The wealthy don’t pay their fair share in Oregon.

The Facts

The Oregonians whom the legislature singled out to pay higher taxes make up 2.27
percent of all taxpayers, but in 2007 they paid 32.4 percent of all income taxes
collected, according to data from the Oregon Department of Revenue analyzed by
ECONorthwest. That’s right: 1 in 3 teachers, 1 in 3 fire fighters and 1 in 3 state workers
are all financed by 2.27 percent of our population.
Economists and public policy analysts look at a tax system’s “progressivity” to determine
fairness. A progressive tax system is one in which the share of income paid in taxes rises with income. How does Oregon’s tax system measure up? ECONorthwest concluded, “The progressivity of the Oregon income tax is clear. The effective rate rises with income.”

That’s also a conclusion held by tax-friendly public policy analysts when they’re not
campaigning for permanent income tax increases. Len Burman, a senior fellow at the
liberal Urban Institute and a favorite analyst of progressive Chuck Sheketoff and the
Oregon Center for Public Policy, wrote in an April 18, 2005 memo to Sheketoff, “The
reliance on income taxes rather than sales taxes also means that Oregon’s tax system is
more progressive than most states.”

Whopper No. 9

Last year the average family of four paid $3,100 in taxes. That’s more than
300 corporations combined. Oregon can no longer afford for two-thirds of
corporations to pay just $10 a year while Oregon’s working families
struggle to make ends meet.

The Facts

The businesses that pay the $10 corporate minimum tax are business that have not
made a profit or have no taxable income. Unlike the average family, these businesses
don’t have any income to tax. Increasing Oregon’s corporate minimum tax based on a
company’s gross sales between $150 to $100,000 will harm Oregon working families.
Companies that are not making a profit will increase prices, reduce wages and benefits
and even lay off workers.

Most states have no minimum tax on corporations.

The job stoppers’ new corporate minimum tax would give Oregon the highest minimum
income tax or “no profits” tax in the nation. Only New York and Minnesota have
graduated minimum taxes based on total sales, similar to Measure 67. They charge a
maximum of $5,000. Measure 67’s minimum tax is 20 times higher—at $100,000.

Whopper No. 10

Oregon will continue to have the lowest corporate taxes on the West
Coast. Washington’s Business & Occupation tax, at 0.47 percent, is almost
5 times higher than Oregon’s new corporate minimum tax, at 0.1 percent
of Oregon sales, and has no upper limit on what corporations pay.

The Facts

In this whopper, the job-stoppers employ the magicians’ misdirection trick. For
unprofitable manufacturing & retail companies the statement is true. (Washington’s
Business & Occupation tax for services is 1.5%). But for profitable companies the tax is
higher in Oregon because Washington does not have an income tax. A large employer
like Microsoft would pay about five times more state taxes if it were in Oregon.
Measures 66 and 67 will make our state less inviting to employers big and small and
force Oregon businesses businesses to lay-off workers, reduce wages and benefits and
even close their doors.

Again, the legislature’s new corporate minimum is a tax on businesses that have not
made a profit. This new tax on 0.1% of gross sales means that these unprofitable
businesses will face a tax increase of as much as $100,000.

I know facts are difficult for tax proponents to swallow....but try because these are the facts, not feelings our outlandish statements. They are not fear mongering statments, so you probably won't understand them in the least.

Fri, 12/11/2009 - 12:54pm - Posted by: zeke

One thing needs to be made clear. These measures were not the result of a bipartisan effort in the legislature, not even close.

The Dems have a 36 - 24 advantage in the house, 18 - 12 in the senate.

The house voted 37 - 23 and 36 - 24 on the two measures. The senate vote, 18 - 11 -1 on both measures. The roll call vote is, with one exception, along party lines.

Fri, 12/11/2009 - 8:13am - Posted by: carlrye

winchester we have had the dems in charge of this state for how long? Hows that been working out for you with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation? Why has spending gone up in a bad economy when us people have to cut back? And read the article. Looks like local spending on the measure is what it is saying. Both parties are corrupt.

oh and no answers to the questions?

Aaron good post.

Fri, 12/11/2009 - 7:56am - Posted by: Winchester

Aaron: “The one thing we will always remember are the Nasties, tyrants and outright liars when election time comes again, no matter who they are.”

Aaron, the problem with your assessment regarding the anti 66 & 67 campaign is the fact those forcing and funding this attack were not elected. They are wealthy behind-the-scene corporate folks subverting our Democracy. Our legislature, with bipartisan cooperation, acted in our benefit.

Cynicism is always promoted by the minority party. In this case, “voting the bums out” would remove the good guys -- while replacing them with the opposite. We’ve just experienced eight years of that on a national scale. The Oregon legislature, with then Governor Kitzhaber, got a taste of it as well.

The adults are in charge now, don’t let the tantrums of a minority muddy the waters~

Fri, 12/11/2009 - 4:42am - Posted by: Fleadog

It will get worse Carl. Everybody gets so polarized in their opinion and then starts to believe all the B.S. that they hear and will not even listen to what the other guy is saying because they believe they are on the side of truth. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and that is exactly where no one wants to look, because now a days compromise is an admit of defeat. I hate to say it but what the heck is a voter to do but wade through all of the crap and try and make a good, solid choice on what we have to go on. The one thing we will always remember are the Nasties, tyrants and outright liars when election time comes again, no matter who they are. There are no angels in politics, everybody wants their way and will stop at nothing to get it no matter what side of the aisle.
Aaron Van Beurden
Sheridan

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 11:23pm - Posted by: carlrye

Winchester...........Looks like someone ignored your request... (you spoke one post too soon ;-) ...........

If your refering to me I asked you some questions. But of course i do not expect you to answer. That was not an attack but serious questions. It might help you to answer instead of the usual rhetoric.

As far as the lady that withdrew her posts, she was threatened for her views. That was the reason she had her posts deleted. It is sad when that is the way people try to change someones opinions is threats. Unfortunately I think it will get worse.

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 7:53pm - Posted by: Winchester

“GlockGal” asks: “After reading the link provided and reading the other posts...it appears the other person was threatened. Is this so?”

Actually, that “person” was attempting to make the same points (in the same way) as you. I suspect the so-called “threats” were made up, as she appeared willing to say just about anything to support some very convoluted accretions.

Said Aaron: “Now boys and girls be nice. You are not going to change anybody's opinion by spouting your rhetoric. We can all read the propaganda coming from both sides and can also decide which way to vote with out being attacked from someone on the other side.”

Looks like someone ignored your request... (you spoke one post too soon ;-)

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 1:24pm - Posted by: GlockGal

After reading the link provided and reading the other posts...it appears the other person was threatened. Is this so? What? I'm shocked...union thugs threatening someone who doesn't think like them and can't be intimidated easily. Hmmmmm starting to see a pattern...threats, intimidation, and fear tactics all to get more money out of people. Unions are legalized extortion...nothing more. How disgusting.

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 12:46pm - Posted by: Retired

Even though I do not fall under the catagory to have my taxes raised under these measures, our household is voting "no"! I for one am tired of the mentality of providing more to those who maynot (or may) have at the expense of just a few. Both Federal and State Government Officials promise the moon to those who control voting blocks, and then when elected, try to provide all those promises at the expense of the top income earners. This is not always the case. Case in point, the current administration wants to tax "Cadillac" health plans as one avenue to pay for the health plan until the UAW balked at this proposal because, OMG, they happen to have these plans. Unions are backing these measures because they will directly benefit from them. I say to the politicians, "reduce the expenditures and tell the voters I tried but the public can't afford to provide you with all the entitlements you want." Have we forgot when Obama campaigned he will not raise taxes on those earning less than $250K. What do you call raising the tobacco tax, as he did, in the first few months he was in office. Guess what, so did the State. Studies show the vast majority of "smokers" earn very minimal wages. By the way, I'm a non-smoker so I don't have to pay this additional tax. I know, this isn't really a tax. Yeah right!

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 9:46am - Posted by: GlockGal

Are all the taxes really falling on the average working person? Really?

Oregonians who would pay higher personal income taxes make up just 2.27% of all Oregon taxpayers. In 2007, that group paid 32.4% of all the state personal income taxes collected. That seems like they are paying their fair share already. Under the legislature’s plan, fewer than 12,500 Oregon taxpayers out of more than 1.8 million would be asked to increase the taxes they pay by more than $236 million a year. That doesn’t sound fair to me.

We have a tax system that doesn't reward success. It punishes it. The more you make the more you pay both in percentage and in actual dollars. What you also don't understand is that the state is increasing the rate of unemployment insurance (which for those of you who don't own a business means it costs more now to employ the same person.) Also the Bush tax cuts are sunsetting, which means another actual increase. All of these will hit right around the same time which will be a substantial burden for businesses.

I'd like all of you who work for someone else to have the guts to say to your boss to their face the rhetoric you spout on this website. Tell them to their face that you want more when they are making less. Tell them to pay more when many of them haven't taken a paycheck to keep you employed. I suggest you count your blessings if you have a job, and if you don't well you should thank those employers who are paying for your unemployment benefits as well.

I think its very sad that in the same breath you can curse the one who pays your bills and then ask them to bail you out.

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 9:36am - Posted by: carlrye

wini states.........Class warfare? Those allied to keep from paying their fair share don’t look like working folks to me. ............

Have you ever owned a business? Do you know the fees and taxes involved? Do you work? Do you buy products? Do you really beleive the the cost of doing business is not passed down to the consumer? Do you really think business stays in states that cost to much? Can you answer these questions honestly? Did you know that the unemployment tax is also going up for employers? Where does it stop? Why did the state raise the budget when money was not and is not available?

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 4:59am - Posted by: Fleadog

Now boys and girls be nice. You are not going to change anybody's opinion by spouting your rhetoric. We can all read the propaganda coming from both sides and can also decide which way to vote with out being attacked from someone on the other side.
Aaron Van Beurden
Sheridan

Wed, 12/09/2009 - 11:24pm - Posted by: Winchester

This has been a Republican rallying cry all summer with their political booths across the state pressing for signatures to get this on the ballot. Now that its arrived, the so-called “tea party” crew have climbed aboard!

Attacking support for schools is the number one desire and drive of the hardcore right. They also preach “trickledown economics” – where the wealthy can afford private schools, public schools become a catch-all -- and the bulk of society lives on the crumbs of the rich.

Class warfare? Those allied to keep from paying their fair share don’t look like working folks to me. They’re Corporations. Unions, attempting to stand up to them, represent the working class.

…Actually, we’ve already had this conversation – with most of the same players – check it out: http://www.newsregister.com/article/42304-letters+editor+november+21+200... Note: one poster had her name removed, after adding far more to the conversation than most. So excuse the holes, though it appears they’re being back-filled.

To win this, ordinary working folks will have to vote. As mentioned, the opposition will! It’s our state legislature’s bipartisan effort to keep this state going. A vote against it is a vote against your own best interests.

As for what piles up above … it’s all too familiar. They’ve steered you wrong before, lets not follow their lead again.

Wed, 12/09/2009 - 10:28pm - Posted by: carlrye

It does amaze me how people think that increase in costs to business does not effect them. Get a clue. Any increase from anywhere is attached to the product or service. A business has to make a profit or it does not stay in business. Common sense people. All businesses has a bottom line it must make.

So to you people who want to attack the businesses in this state here is a question for you. Can you afford to pay more for everything? Can you afford the possibility of more layoffs? Remember at the very least costs of goods and services must rise if the costs of doing business goes up. Simple economics. But it is a free country. You are allowed to bite the hand that feeds you. Class warfare is all this is about.

Of course ignore the increase in government spending.

Wed, 12/09/2009 - 10:12pm - Posted by: GlockGal

For those who naively believe that the cost of business increases without the cost being passed to the consumer, hey I've got free healthcare for you too!

Businesses re-invest their money into new jobs, products, and services. Are you employed or do you live off the hard work of someone else? If you believe that you the consumer will pay less even when businesses get squeezed you are sorely mistaken.

Again, this tax package isn't even on profit, It's on gross revenue. So businesses that have lost money but have kept people employed with their retained earnings are now going to get an extra tax. Brilliant people...what's next? The mentality of people who believe they can get something for nothing and just charge someone else is staggering.

Why is our country in such huge debt? People like you who just want someone else to pick up the tab instead of reducing the tab to begin with.

Im waiting now for the thugs to start name calling and making threats....ready set go.

Wed, 12/09/2009 - 9:35pm - Posted by: OSC

I am going to vote for 66 and 67. I am tired of the taxes all falling on the working person.
Maybe it is a bad time to try to get this passed, but when is a good time? We wont pass a sales tax, we have to do something, our kids and services are suffering.

Wed, 12/09/2009 - 2:02pm - Posted by: GlockGal

Figures, those who aren't going to pay the tax are going to vote to increase the tax. Why am I not suprised?

The Constitution of the state of Oregon states that education is must be funded first, and yet the legislators in the state chose to raise budgets in virtually every department and then threaten to slash the budgets of the schools when they can't balance the budget. Some department increased as much as 48%...in a recession.

The fact is the law makers in this state chose this budget hoping for class warfare, against those who create jobs and those who need their jobs. Figures that the unions in the state are willing to spend money to fight this but aren't willing to cut their pay to save a few teachers. Every business is making cuts and yet the state budget increased by over 9% this year. Make sense? I don't think so.

If these taxes don't pass it will mean legislators going back to the budget and trying again, but keep your head in the sand people and keep expecting businesses to foot the bill for your spending.

ymigettingscrewed - sounds like your not getting screwed...sounds like the businesses who pay the salaries are. And just there...let me guess you work for a government run agency who wouldn't have enough money if you took every penny of what we earn right? There's always somebody who need it more than those who earn it right?

Wed, 12/09/2009 - 12:55am - Posted by: carlrye

Makes sense to me. Keep raising taxes in a recession. It does not matter what population the tax is targeted. If these pass we all lose. Do your research. But if you want to believe the scare tactics that are being used (they are used in every attempt at raising fees and taxes) go right ahead. We do not have a shot fall when the state actually raised the budget. A short fall is when the budget stays the same and the money coming in is less. Most people right now no matter what they are worth are actually cutting their budget because the money coming in is less.

If you want this state to look like Cal budget and money wise keep going in the same direction.

Tue, 12/08/2009 - 11:16pm - Posted by: ymigettingscrewed

I have a disabled son and I am learning if this measure does not pass he will loose services and also the school year will be shortened by 2 weeks. Im voteing yes especially sice 97.5 of us wont be effected by a tax increase!