Tax measure causes titanic tussle in Oregon

[TexasTowelie]

SALEM, Ore. -- A campaign in Oregon is being bitterly fought, with vast sums spent by both sides on TV and other ads, even more money than for the governor's race.

The titanic tussle is over a proposed tax that is aimed at the companies making the most sales in the state, but opponents — including major corporations — say every Oregonian will be affected.

Both sides have arrayed armies of experts who say the tax on companies' sales of more than $25 million will trigger a rise in prices, or that such a scenario is bogus. The conclusions of the assessments, broadcast on TV and blanketing social media, depend on whether the well-heeled campaigns are for or against Measure 97.

While it might be impossible to predict if companies will raise prices if the measure passes, this much is certain: Oregonians abhor sales taxes. Oregon is one of only five states in America that doesn't have them. Oregonians have rejected sales tax proposals nine times in nearly 90 years.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article109904217.html

[classof56]

1. Yep, a majority of Oregonians do hate that sales tax thing.

All the Measure 97 opponents had to do was use those words many times in each and every commercial, and they knew what would happen. I'm hoping voters will look beneath all the fear-mongering and focus on the good this measure would bring to children, schools, health care and seniors, with little to no financial impact on taxpayers in general. I've read every argument pro and con in the voters pamphlet, and I'm voting yes. Have a sort of sick feeling it won't pass, in which case the $18 million or so the big corps have put into their campaign will, I suppose, be worth it to them. I, however, do not anticipate my taxes or costs of goods and services will decrease one iota. In fact, I'm guessing they are going to continue to increase. Funny how that works...

Thanks as always for your post.

[LWolf]

2. I voted for 97 yesterday.

But then, I'm a teacher, and I'm too well aware of how state revenues affect state public services. I'm leaving in a bit to meet my mom in Bend for brunch; one of my goals is to get her to do the same. I'll pull the "your daughter is a teacher whose income, retirement, and ability to help take care of you depends on state revenues" card if I have to. She's already well aware of what budget cuts do to me, and to my students.

[classof56]

3. Good for you! Hope your mom listens and votes yes on 97.

Lots at stake here in OR, especially as relates to public education, in particular teachers. Telling her it will help you take care of her really brings 97 home IMHO. I greatly admire your commitment to our schools and students, as you doubtless already know. Hope your year's going good thus far. I'm grateful to Bernie and the role he played in defining the Dems' platform. On to the future!

Aren't the mountains gorgeous, all covered in that much-needed white stuff? Let's hope it sticks around!

Cheers.

[LWolf]

6. I'm loving seeing snow when I look to the west.

The year is going well so far, with a couple of exceptions; students who are in very serious, devastating circumstances. Keep good thoughts for my 2 boys.

[TexasTowelie]

5. You're welcome.

Reforming tax policy is always a strong topic for discussion and trying to get corporate interests to pay their fair share does seem like an elusive goal.

[TonyPDX]

4. Yes on 97!

Less than 1% of corporations are subject to the increase, and only after the first $25 million.
80% of the corporations subject to the increase are from out-of-state.
Just as prices for items are not lower here with our present give-away to corporations, consumer prices won't be higher when corporations are required to pay the small increase.

They've gotten a free ride here for far too long. It's time they pitched in like the rest of us.

[classof56]

7. Well said!

[LWolf]

8. +1

[Qutzupalotl]

9. I'm leaning toward a Yes as well,

but I thought the structure of the tax was strange. They tax sales, not profits. That seems a little unfair. The example the opponents use is of a tech startup that doesn't realize profits for several years; they'd have to pay the tax anyway, making them more likely to fail. However, I think such a startup would be unlikely to do $25 million of business in Oregon.

The other objection I keep hearing is that it's a "blank check" with no requirements the legislature spend it in a particular way. To which I say, DUH, that's what a legislature is for. I don't have a problem giving them more funds to allocate as they see fit. On the other hand, my party is in the majority and likely to remain so, so I'm more likely to trust them. I can see how Republicans might balk at that. But they claim that WE will be paying the tax, when it's the large corporations who will, only some of which will pass the costs along to Oregonians. Most businesses in Oregon will be unaffected. There may be some costs added throughout the system, but I expect them to be minor.

One voter guide I received recommended a YES vote on all initiatives for the first time in their history. They all sound pretty good.

Thanks for letting me ramble. I'd love to hear your comments on this.

[0rganism]

10. i suspect the gross receipts tax is intended to avoid accounting tricks played with "profit"

if you try to tax a big corp. on profits you'll be lucky to get a penny out of them

[Qutzupalotl]

11. I had my suspicions it was something like that.

I'm more inclined than ever to vote Yes on 97. Thanks for your input.