'Gigantic' corporate tax hike likely headed to Oregon voters
Source: Associated Press
'Gigantic' corporate tax hike likely headed to Oregon voters
Kristena Hansen, Associated Press
Updated 7:13 pm, Monday, May 23, 2016
SALEM, Ore. (AP) A massive $2.8 billion annual corporate tax hike is likely headed to Oregon voters in November, a move that could create the most aggressive tax climate for big business of any state in the nation.
The ballot proposal comes as raising taxes on the wealthy and large corporations is at the forefront of a national debate especially among Democratic progressives such as Bernie Sanders and much of Oregon's electorate about how to close the gaping economic disparities between rich and poor in a post-Great Recession era.
The proposal's labor-union backers are just one step from getting the measure on the ballot after submitting 130,000 signatures to state elections officials last week. They say it would tap a tiny portion of Oregon businesses while bringing a huge boost to cash-strapped public education, health care and senior services.
. . .
Kaeding said the states actively looking into the wealth gap issue are mostly targeting rich individuals, not businesses. Over the years, states have moved away from a gross-receipts structure, not toward it like Oregon, she said.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Gigantic-corporate-tax-hike-likely-headed-to-7940874.php
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)Corporate welfare is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay larger than that for the mythical Welfare Queens and Kings.
"The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion mostly in the form of tax breaks."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#3d778ce06881
When Forbes publishes an article like this you know something's wrong!
scscholar
(2,902 posts)Getting rid of loopholes would create a much broader base of tax income without punishing the companies that already pay their taxes fairly.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Just saying 'close the loopholes, don't raise the taxes' is not really enough. Which 'loopholes'? How many of the subsidies you cite are Oregon's?
Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)
Kang Colby This message was self-deleted by its author.
jalan48
(13,798 posts)These Southern states are just an interim stop where the corporations can leave their pollution for the residents to deal with. I guess pollution is popular in the South.
Fear the corporations leaving! They'll take ALL the jobs! We'll die without them!
I wish they would leave so local people can re-open shop and we can make stuff in this country again.
zwyziec
(173 posts)There are only two major economic positions that one can have in the USA....You are either a capitalist who lives on the dividends and interest of your owned capital, including corporations whose executives are overpaid OR you are a member of labor, the working class.
By that definition, even if you are a salaried white collar worker, a bank VP, an Engineer, a Scientist, a Nurse, a Teacher, a Fireman or Policeman. an Electrician, a tradesman,....you earn your hourly salary by selling an hour of your time, the most precious thing you own.
The income inequality has its roots in that well known CNBC and economic parameter known as "Productivity" which simply means that those in labor are working more hours and not getting paid for those precious hours of their lives.
Since Reagan and his financial restructuring (Remember the Savings and Loan debacle), Corporate taxes have been reduced from 30% back then to lower than 14% now.
And then there is the Bush tax cuts. So what federal income made up the difference? Yes, from the labor class.
It's well past time that Corporations who enjoy the benefits of a socialist country (the community pays for the roads, the schools, the sewerage systems, the water purification systems, the police, the firemen, the libraries, etc. etc.) pays their fair share of the state and federal tax burden.
As an Oregonian with a small business, I am all in!! I love this state with its vote by mail, gas pumpers, auto registration, and a secular and progressive demographic.
AdHocSolver
(2,561 posts)You provide the best explanation for the difference between labor and capital which anyone can understand.
Labor creates value (wealth) by manufacturing goods and providing services using their skills, knowledge, and time to create that value.
Capital manipulates money (cash, credit, and debt) which is supposed to lubricate the economic gears by providing money to bring together producers and consumers.
Capital charges interest for the "service" of promoting "trade" (the income for this service is "interest" , but the value is produced by Labor.
Capital has gamed the system by deregulating banks and Wall Street, and decriminalizing financial schemes, that allow them to siphon the fruits of Labor away from the actual, and only, producers of real value and keep it for themselves.
Capital uses techniques such as setting interest rates favorable to themselves by the bank-controlled Federal Reserve, using workers' savings to finance stock market schemes, financing the moving of factories and service industries to low wage countries, gutting government services and using the "savings" to lower tax rates for themselves, and so on.
Laws such as the Glass-Steagall Act curbed such practices, while so-called trade deals such as NAFTA promote these scams.
metalbot
(1,058 posts)If you are "an Oregonian with a small business", I have to assume you'd include yourself in the capitalist group.
I don't think the dichotomy you propose is particularly helpful. If you have any form of savings, you are by definition a capitalist, unless you are stuffing that money in your mattress. If you have a pension, a 401k, or a an IRA, you are planning on someday living on the dividends and interest of your owned capital.
As a business owner, I perform labor, which I effectively sell to myself, but I also benefit as the owner of the business.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Wow, is that ever simplistic.
Lots of hard working people own stock in corporations, have retirement plans invested in stocks, etc. The State of Oregon is even one of those huge investors, with retirement funds for a lot of workers.
Agreed, the reduction in the share of taxation to the rich and the corporations needs to be reversed, likewise the laws that allow corporations to operate in Oregon and be headquartered at a PO Box in another state to avoid taxation.
Massacure
(7,498 posts)If it basically imposes a tax of 2.5% on sales of over $25 million, what's to stop an entity from forming a conglomerate which owns thousands of smaller but separate legal entities? For example, couldn't Walmart create various legal entities such as 123 Main St of Portland LLC, 456 Corporate Dr of Salem LLC, 789 Import Rd of Eugene LLC, and so on? The average Walmart stores gross earns are approximately $56 million per year ($288 billion across 5100 stores). Such a strategy could be the difference between paying $1.4 million per year per store and $800,000 per year per store -- a 40% tax savings.