Archive for Oregon Businesses

Wall Street Journal on 66 & 67 ” This is a disguised sales tax”

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

Friday, January 15, 2010

Wall Street Journal

A ballot showdown over higher rates.

A great beauty of the American federal system is that any of the 50 states can offer its policies as an experiment for others. So the nation owes some gratitude to Oregon for testing whether it is possible for a state to tax its way from deep recession to prosperity.

Oregon’s unemployment rate is 11.1%, among the nation’s highest. But Oregonians are now voting by mail whether to endorse a pair of tax increases passed by the legislature last year: one to raise the state’s top personal income tax, to 11% from 9%, and another to raise the business income tax, to 7.9% from 6.6%. Both tax hikes would be retroactive to January 1, 2009.

The legislature and governor argue that only the state’s wealthiest 2.2% percent of residents will pay this tab. Nonetheless, the liberal Portland Oregonian has editorialized against the new taxes, which it says would target “the very businesses and employers that Oregon is depending on to lead an economic recovery, start hiring again and pay the wages that support state services.”

The battle in Oregon is a case study in the political drama now unfolding in many states. Essentially, it’s about whether a state’s wealth belongs to its public employee unions or to everyone.

The public unions are the primary drivers behind the Oregon tax hike campaign. In recent weeks, national powerhouses AFSCME and the SEIU have poured close to $1 million into the state campaign to secure passage. Oregon’s public employees have one of the sweetest deals in America. Their average pay is about one-third higher than that of private Oregon workers, and Oregon public employees don’t have to pay anything toward their health-care benefits.

In the last budget, the Democratic controlled state legislature doled out a $259 million pay raise to the government work force, even as the state was facing a near $1 billion deficit. In the last three years, the state has added 25,000 new public employees while losing 40,000 private sector jobs. The union TV ads say the tax hikes are needed to preserve schools, roads and public services.

The 11% income tax rate will make Oregon’s income tax about twice as high as the national average. Businesses in Portland can move across the Columbia River to Vancouver, Washington and pay zero income tax. Oregonians used to argue they didn’t have to pay a state sales tax. But the current tax proposal imposes a first-ever “gross receipts tax” on certain retail and wholesalers. This is a disguised sales tax.

Despite the state’s well-earned reputation for sympathy with all manner of liberal causes, Oregon voters trounced two major tax-hike initiatives in 2003 and 2004. Now Oregon has reached a crossroads. If Oregon enacts these tax hikes to fund its rising public payroll after a severe recession and amid a slow recovery, we’ll revisit the state in the future to see how many private workers are still there to pay the taxes.

Comments (2)

Yes, You can still love someone and disagree on 66 & 67

Friday, January 15th, 2010

We all have friends that feel the opposite as we do on political issues. Sometimes it can divide us. The last thing that we need in times like these is further divide. We all need to better understand the facts and after light is shown on a measure or candidate and we still disagree then I can accept it and be happy that we still have to opportunity to disagree.

I have someone in my life that  has political views that often run opposite of mine. We have had to learn to avoid some topics or keep our conversations away from politics.

When asked by this person  ”how many jobs will be lost if it doesn’t pass? Honestly.” I gave the following response:

Public Sector or Private Sector? The Public Sector (government) will always claim losses YET they still somehow seem to grow. Salem will aim for a 20% budget increase and when they get their 10% increase they will claim that they took a 10% cut! It is deceptive, it is a lie and we can’t continue to be played the fool. There is plenty of money sitting in Salem to cover shortfalls. We are not having a revenue problem, we are having a spending problem. NEA, OEA, SEIU have always held children hostage on these measures…it is wrong, it is sick. The states own economists project tens of thousands in Private Sector job losses if the RETROACTIVE taxes were to pass. The poor and middle class will be hurt by higher prices on items that they buy.These taxes are a backdoor business sales tax. These taxes are GROSS SALES TAXES…Make money or lose money you will be hit with a new tax. Our very good friends own a car dealership in town, they employ around 60 people. Last year they did 30M in sales (wow, they must be rich) NO, They lost money. The amount of total taxes and fees that they paid to government last year is in the $1,000,000 range. After all was said and done they lost 3/4M for the year AND NOW with the retroactive tax measures they have an ADDITIONAL $30,000 tax bill. If the people that provide jobs decide to leave ( and those that can, will) who will provide the jobs? We can’t ALL work for the State. Charities will suffer…When local charities are in need where do they go for help?? Business, Big & Small, provide time and money in support of local charities. I have non-profit clients that have told me that they have seen donations drop off because businesses are getting killed by multiple new taxes and fees and that they see even more coming down the road. Business is the backbone of a strong community. Kill the business and you kill the community.
70,000 jobs lost would be on top of the 131,000 that have already been lost. Want to see what happens when a city is run by the unions and corrupt government? Look at Detroit.
Yesterday I attended a board meeting for a prominent business group in Multnomah County, Early last year we had a split vote to support the proposed temporary tax increase. What came out of Salem was not what we signed on for.We took a vote yesterday on how to side on 66 & 67..there was not a single YES vote. Businesses are not against fair taxes.
We can’t afford to be fooled again. All the States major newspapers have come out to support the NO Vote. I love my community and work hard to support local causes, charities and businesses and I would hate to see the damage that these measures will do.
For more info you can go to www.rebuildoregon.com this website was put together by a very small group of local business people that have devoted much time and money to the community and feel strongly enough about the harm of these measures that they have built this site last month to provide a place for people to read information and post comments about what is happening in Oregon and what we can do to keep us from becoming a wasteland. (end).

I hope that this response although passionate remained respectful. I had no intent of posting this as a open letter on the website but after I sent it I realized that there are many people in my situation of having people that they love on the opposite of these measures and maybe they could find some value in this email.

Jeff Anderson

Jeff

Categories : Oregon Businesses
Comments (1)

Another Major Oregon Newspaper – NO on 66 & 67

Friday, January 15th, 2010
Political and Business Leaders Must Do Better
Monday, January 11, 2010
ThinkOregon in Economy, Education, Government Spending, Jobs, Measure 66 & 67, Taxes

Time and again, Oregon’s editorial boards are voicing their opposition to Measures 66 and 67. Oregonians clearly support our schools, but we understand that schools must be built on the rock-solid foundation of a sound economy… and now is simply not the time to shake that foundation with additional tax increases. 

From the Medford Mail Tribune – January 10, 2010:

They are the wrong solution; business community must help find a better one

Two things are apparent to us as Oregon and its political and business leaders try to cope with a crushing economic downturn:

  • Oregon voters should reject two revenue-raising ballot measures that will be decided this later month.
  • Legislators — from both parties — and the business community must come together in the February session and ensure that Oregon’s critical services — education, health and public safety — are not further jeopardized by budget cuts.

It may sound contradictory to urge on one hand that a funding source be denied, while on the other hand expecting budget cuts to be avoided. But it is only contradictory because the state’s voters have been given a false set of choices: either balance the budget on the backs of already recession-battered businesses or cut schools, human services and other essential services to the bone.

Measures 66 and 67, which will be decided in a vote-by-mail election ending Jan. 26, are efforts to raise $727 million in the current 2009-11 biennium.

Measure 66 would raise state income taxes for individuals with incomes of more than $125,000 ($250,000 for couples) and Measure 67 would increase corporate minimum taxes for most businesses.

Proponents say the antiquated $10 corporate minimum tax is long overdue for an increase and that individuals with higher incomes should step forward in tough times and help the larger community. Opponents say both measures are likely to hit business owners and that a provision taxing corporations on revenues instead of profits is unfair. They also object to the permanent nature of both taxes, which are being passed to help resolve what we all hope will be a temporary crisis.

We understand that huge portions of the state’s “all-funds” budget are dedicated to particular services or projects. And yet no one has ever adequately explained how the state of Oregon finds itself in crisis even as it records an increase of $4.7 billion in its all-funds budget for this biennium. The Legislative Revenue Office reports the state’s general fund and lottery fund total $14.2 billion, 1 percent below the previous biennium. But that’s before more than $1 billion in federal stimulus funds were added in. Is it any wonder that business owners who have seen huge losses in their own revenues wonder why the state can’t make ends meet?

Do business taxes in Oregon need to be raised? Yes, even most business leaders agree with that. But measures 66 and 67 take a ridiculously low $10 minimum tax and replace it with a multi-headed tax that hits businesses whether they are profitable or not and then hits many business owners and managers in the pocketbooks on their personal taxes. That swings the pendulum too far, and voters should send a message to legislators and the governor that they need to try again.

And try again they must. We do not accept the argument that the Legislature would be in crisis mode and unable to offer other funding solutions if the measures fail. Rather than spend the February session in crisis mode trying to cut the budget, why can’t our elected officials spend it in crisis mode trying to fill the gap with an acceptable alternative?

There is ample reason to believe a compromise can be reached. Business organizations such as the Oregon Business Association and the Portland Business Alliance, both longtime supporters of education and essential state services, have said they would support more moderate increases, and even larger temporary increases. Leaders of the Chamber of Medford/Jackson County have vehemently opposed measures 66 and 67, but pledge they would support efforts to find a less onerous solution.

Those business organizations, along with the Republican Party, should be prepared to put their words into action when the Legislature convenes a week after the vote. They must work with Democrats to forge a different path, one that will likely involve some taxes, some use of rainy day funds and, yes, some cuts. But if those cuts are not greatly reduced and instead fall heavily on education and human services (which make up more than 75 percent of the general fund budget), they should recognize that the entire state, along with the state’s business climate, will suffer mightily.

The state’s K-12, higher ed and community college systems can ill-afford any cuts, let alone major cuts. Oregon already ranks near the bottom among the 50 states in funding for education — at all levels — the number of days kids spend in school and class size. The clearest path to destroying the state’s livability and its economy is to make that situation worse.

Business and political leaders from both sides of the aisle must not take the easy way out by declaring, “The voters have spoken,” and then standing aside while the fallout devastates fundamental services and the communities those services support. The burden will be on them to put aside their partisan wrangling and come up with an equitable solution.

That solution exists. But it is not measures 66 and 67.

Categories : Oregon Businesses
Comments (0)

Why Mike is worried…Why we should all be worried.

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

The Northwest Connection

By Mark Ellis

Mike is not a corporation. He’s a sole proprietor who earns his living as a licensed contractor specializing in carpentry—frame to finish. He and his wife won’t make $250.00 dollars this year—or even $125,000—not even close. But Mike is worried about Measures 66 and 67, the new taxes Oregon is attempting to levy on corporations and high income earners in the middle of the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Mike pays his state and federal taxes faithfully. He carries the license, bond, and insurances required by the state to ply his trade as a legal contractor. His wife, Cheryl, works only part-time as office assistant for a home heating company, so they pay for the family’s high-deductible health insurance out of their own pockets. He doesn’t mind that his taxes are needed to pay for schools, roads, police and fire departments, and a safety net for society’s most vulnerable.

Mike and Cheryl are native Oregonians. He has a reputation among his customers as a dependable, honest, and skilled tradesman. She works while their two children are in school. Her income goes preponderantly to the various taxes and insurances they pay so they can have Mike’s earnings free and clear to live on, and plan for the future.

Mike has lowered his prices to remain competitive in these tough times, but can’t bid low enough to compete with immigrant laborers who work under the table, who regard $40 a day as a great wage, and who send the lion’s share of the money they earn out of the country. All while taking advantage of the entitlement programs Mike’s leaders have granted to the undocumented with the taxes he has paid.

While he works, climbing ladders, setting timbers, and installing trim moldings with his nail gun, Mike reflects on acquaintances who happen to be public employees. They seem to be doing OK—the ones who still have their jobs—but after reading the paper he wonders how their retirement benefits will ever be paid in this shrinking economy. He supports robust municipal permit/inspection regulations for his industry, but couldn’t suppress a gallows smile when he learned that many in his county’s building permits department were being laid off for lack of construction activity.

The year 2002—in the shadow of 9/11—was the last year he can remember it being bad, but that was nothing compared to now. After the “meltdown” of fall 2008 his phone just stopped ringing. He sent out flyers and made phone calls, but the response was politely nil. A couple of jobs he had lined up for spring of 2009 fell through. People were understandably holding on to their money. Mike was grateful when one of those customers let him keep the token down payment they’d made.

In May things picked up. A local corporation which has a chain of tanning salons got his name through a referral, and asked for a bid to transform some unused space at their locations into more tanning booths. After sharpening his pencil, he was awarded the contract, and with the checks from the corporation was able to start replenishing his family’s meager savings and paying down the credit cards he’d begun to use for everyday expenses like groceries and repairs to his work truck.

Then, in August and September, a welcome flurry of residential work: two additions, some room remodels, and some dry rot repair. In almost every case, as evidenced by the comfortably upscale homes he worked on, Mike knew that the people who were hiring him were the very people targeted by the new taxes.

When he and his wife count their blessings, they always include the people who provide the work to make their standard of living possible. They consider her fuel company’s loyal customers, the owners of the tanning salon chain, and the residents of Upscale Acres to be earthly angels.

They are thankful that the new corporate and high earner taxes will at least be put to a vote. They accept as part of life in the 21st century that the language on the ballots was made purposely obtuse in the hopes of clouding the picture. They, and just about everybody they know—not counting the public sector employees — will vote against Measures 66 and 67. But there is a sense that they may be outnumbered now. That they, the ones who sustain a vibrant work ethic in the private sector, who don’t think in terms of government help beyond a societal infrastructure, and who only want the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness, are now in the minority.

Then again, Mike and Cheryl won’t be paying as much as in past years. In fact, if things keep on the way they’re going they may join a silent majority, the ranks of a vast underclass which pays no taxes at all.

Now, multiply Mike, and you’ll see why we all should be worried.

Comments (1)

Measures 66 & 67: Economy and Jobs

The State of Oregon is in a financial crisis. Like most states, Oregon’s revenues are down and its costs are up. Although individuals, families and businesses have cut back to deal with these hard times, in the current 2009-11 Budget, Oregon State has expanded programs, added 1540 additional employees, increased spending by $4.7 Billion (9.3%), and increased long-term debt by $4 Billion. All of this spending in 2009 was on top of a 21% General Fund spending increase in 2007. In short, Government spending compounds and Oregon’s spending is unsustainable.

Oregon’s problem is not the need for more revenue, but the need for more discipline in spending. The total State Budget for 2005-07 was $40.8 Billion, and for 2009-11 it is $56 Billion—a jaw-dropping $15 Billion, 37% spending increase in only four years. (Click here.)

The consequence of the State’s insatiable appetite for additional revenue through tax increases will be a slower economic recovery and the loss of thousands of jobs for Oregon workers. In sum, Measures 66 and 67 send the following message to high-earning Oregonians and their businesses: If you live in Oregon, move away, and if you are considering business investment, take your money and jobs elsewhere. If you think this is mere hyperbole, read what the economists have learned from other states that raised such taxes. (Click here.)

It might be helpful to review what occurred in the crafting of our current 2009-11 State Budget. Even though Oregon’s economy was in recession and State revenues were down, the All Funds Budget rose by $4.7 Billion–a 9.3% increase in spending.” (Click here.) To compensate for inadequate revenues, the solution of the House and Senate Democrat Majority and the Governor was to create new revenue streams. These new revenue sources included increasing our gas tax, vehicle registration fees and multiple other tax and fee increases. (Click here to see the entire list of new taxes and fees passed by the 2009 Legislature.) In addition, the Democrats increased the state’s debt load by borrowing an additional $4 Billion of long-term debt. (Click here.)

The increased gas tax, the substantial increase in vehicle registration and title fees, the new sales tax on health insurance policies and hospital bills, as well as the other new taxes and fees are now in force, and we have no choice but to pay them. These new taxes and fees will generate an additional $916 Million of revenue this biennium to the State (without even mentioning the $4 Billion in new State debt).

Unfortunately, $916 Million in new revenue was not enough. The Democrat leaders and Governor wanted $1.650 Billion to pay for expanding programs and government expenses.

To get the additional $733 million to cover the additional spending, the Democrats passed additional tax and fee increases on high-earning Oregon individuals and businesses. Many believed these additional taxes went too far, and 120,000 Oregon voters signed petitions to give Oregon’s voters the final vote on these tax increases.

This brings us to the January 26th vote on Measures 66 and 67.

The voter’s pamphlet, the news media, and our mail boxes are full of information and misinformation–Pro and Con–seeking to influence our votes.

The proponents of these Measures would have us think life as we know it will end without these two tax increases. We heard such fear-mongering in the campaigns for tax increase Measure 28 and Measure 30 (both of which the voters defeated). We are hearing it again. Proponents of Measures 66 and 67 are wringing their hands and pleading that K-12 education will be decimated, senior citizens will lose their access to basic care, criminals will be set free, etc., etc. We have heard this propaganda before.

Such scare tactics cloud the fact, there will be no automatic cuts in programs if the tax increases in Measures 66 and 67 fail.

The Legislature is already scheduled to meet in February. If these two tax measures fail, I believe there will be a vote to raise the corporate minimum tax from $10 to $150, without imposing a permanent tax based on business sales—a tax that would have to be paid, even when the business is losing money—like the tax increase contained in Measure 67.

Next, the Legislature will look at existing pools of money sitting in various accounts, and decide how much would be prudent to use. Finally, the Legislative leaders and Governor will calculate what amount, if any, will need to be cut from the State Budget.

Any actual cuts will be made where Legislative leadership and the Governor choose to make them. Such cuts should start in places that will have the least affect on our children and actual programs benefiting our citizens.

Nevertheless, it may be tempting for Oregon voters to pass these Measures. After all, don’t they just affect rich people and big corporations?

Since Oregon’s unemployment rate continues to hover around 11%, let’s consider the consequences of these Measures on Oregon’s families and their economic survival. In other words, how will Measures 66 and 67 affect the Oregon economy and our desperate need for more jobs?

As stated above, knowledgeable economists have demonstrated that Oregon will lose thousands of jobs, over time, if the voters pass these permanent tax increases on Oregon’s high-income-earners (business owners), and Oregon’s successful corporations (job creating employers). The analysts have reviewed other states that have increased such taxation, to learn from their experiences. They found that when income taxes are increased, wealthy people leave high taxation jurisdictions and move to lower taxation jurisdictions. Recently, a Medford C.P.A. told me that Reno, Nevada is actually recruiting Oregon residents and businesses to “come to Nevada, where there is no income or inheritance taxes.”

This is common sense. If you were an employer and were looking for the best state to move or build your business in, would you go to a state with the highest income taxes in the nation?

If Measure 66 passes, Oregon will have a top personal income tax bracket of 11%, and will tie with Hawaii’s new tax rate and share the distinction of having the highest tax rate in the nation. Washington and Nevada collect zero personal income taxes and Oregon will be at 11%. (Let’s see, which sounds more attractive…the lowest tax in the nation or the highest?) I know that Oregon could point to the fact that we have zero sales tax, but that does not change the national income tax rankings, and the adverse publicity high-taxing states receive. (Click here.)

Like most of you, the Measure 66 tax increases will not affect my wife, Cathy, and me. Nevertheless, our votes should not be based on class envy. With the Measure 66 rate fixed at $125,000, and with income creep and inflation, those who do not earn $125,000 now may well be subject to the higher tax rate in the future. When I was a boy, my father, a contractor, earned a good wage, $7,000 per year. Today, that same job would pay more than $70,000 per year. Those of us who have been around for awhile have felt the affects of “bracket creep” during our careers.

High Income Earning taxpayers already pay most of Oregon’s taxes (Click here.) They should be rewarded for their success and thanked for the jobs they create for Oregon workers. Instead, we punish them. If the proponents of Measure 66 want to increase Oregon’s revenues, they are free to increase the taxes they pay on their own State Income Tax returns. To me, it makes little sense to drive those who create Oregon jobs and pay most of Oregon’s taxes across the Columbia River to Washington State or other low-tax states.

Regarding Measure 67, I have already pointed out that an increase in the minimum filing fee is not the issue. The problem is that Measure 67 will tax Oregon corporations on their sales and not profits. Here in southern Oregon is located Town and Country Chevrolet. Yesterday, I talked to its owner. Alan Deboer. He confirmed that their profit margin on new car sales is so low that the dealership lost $250,000 in 2009, even though it did $14 million dollars in business. For Town and Country, $15 million is the break-even point. If Measure 67 passes, Town and Country Chevrolet will have to add $15,000 in additional taxes to a balance sheet already dripping in red ink. Such will be the case with all high-volume, low-margin Oregon corporate businesses.

The Measure 67 tax increase is 1/10 of 1% of sales, and when the profit margins are only 1-3%, it can represent a 10% tax increase on profits. It is unwise to burden Oregon’s highest income earning taxpayers and high volume businesses with additional, permanent tax increases such as those contained in Measures 66 and 67. We cannot tax our way out of this recession. It is time for a change in spending habits in Salem. Oregon’s economic problems will not be solved by raising taxes on those who own Oregon’s businesses and hire Oregon’s work force. Although Measure 66 and Measure 67 were passed by the Legislature, by Referendum their future will be determined by the voters. Will these Measures pass or fail? It is up to you, me and the other Oregon voters to decide.

Sincerely,

Dennis Richardson
Oregon State Representative – Fourth District

Categories : Oregon Businesses
Comments (1)

Think, the Norwegian electric-car company had Portland on top of it’s short list on places to build their electric cars. After working with the Governors office and getting a better taste of the non-friendly business envrironment, Think thought again and chose Elkhart, Ind, as the place to build its cars.

 On Tuesday, Indiana officials joined Think North America managers to announce the company would hire as many as 415 people by 2013 to make cars in a plant that once made parts for recreational vehicles. Think plans to invest more than $43 million in Elkhart, where November’s unemployment rate was 14.5 percent, down from a March peak of 18.9 percent. 

Indiana is quickly becoming an international leader in advanced, clean technology manufacturing. Michigan hoped to land the plant as it works to establish itself as a hub for battery and electric vehicle manufacturing. Last year, Michigan received $1.35 billion in federal grants for advanced powertrain projects in the state.

The Norwegian company wants to begin selling the Think City in the U.S. later this year, largely to fleet customers, with vehicles imported from Europe until the U.S. vehicles are ready.

Oregon could still get some business from Think. “They are a great company,” said Jillian Schoene, a spokewoman for Gov. Ted Kulongoski. “We hope to continue to work with them, particularly as they look for U.S.-based parts suppliers for their U.S.-made vehicles.”
 
Think plans to begin assembling vehicles next year in Elkhart, where it aims to produce more than 20,000 vehicles a year. The Think City model can travel more than 100 miles on a single battery charge.
 
Indiana offered Think more than $3 million in performance-based tax credits and up to $65,000 in training grants. Elkhart also approved tax abatements.

So, Indiana gets the jobs and Oregon is left wishing again. What more could we do to drive business away from Oregon?

Categories : News, Oregon Businesses
Comments (0)

“We care about the kids” Really? Who is funding the Pro Tax Measures.

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

 Public Employees Unions shovel money to the Vote Yes for Oregon campaign.

Perhaps most important was the $250,000 given by the national leadership of Service Employees International Union. That’s the first real significant money coming from out-of-state, although it should be noted that SEIU Local 503 is the largest union representing state workers in Oregon. Local 503 recently gave another $210,000 (bringing its aggregate contributions to nearly $493,000).

Other big contributors to the pro-tax campaign: 

  • Oregon Education Association, $1,000,000 ($1,327,000 aggregate for campaign).
  • American Federation of Teachers, Oregon chapter, $200,000
  • Oregon Health Care Association, $75,000 (101,000 for campaign). The association represents nursing homes and assisted care centers, which rely heavily on state and federal health care spending.

Additionally, the Salem Statesman-Journal reported this weekend that the national headquarters of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has pledged $500,000 to the pro-tax campaign. Oregon AFSCME has already given $250,000 and pledges another $250,000, according to the story.

Do you think for one second that they are done throwing money at this fiasco? Money will continue to be poured into this campaign at a blistering pace but it will be pouring from the unions to the Yes side to benefit the union and the democratic party.

According to the Oregon Employment Department, Oregon tends to have a higher concentration of state and local government employment than the nation. Oregon’s employment is 20 percent more concentrated in state government than the nation as a whole. In the second quarter of 2009 the average cost of total compensation for all private employment was $27.42 per hour compared to $39.66 for state and local government employees (statistics are not available for federal employment). In general, state and local employees across the nation tend to have higher wages and benefits than private employees.

Do the math and follow the money. These measures benefit few and harm many.

Please get out the word. No on 66 & 67.

Categories : Oregon Businesses
Comments (0)

Measure 66 and 67: Failing the clear and objective test

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

The voters’ standard for a ballot title isn’t too steep: something that’s clear, objective and allows for an informed and educated decision on the measure. Oregon law requires a “simple and understandable statement.” Unfortunately, the ballot titles for the January tax referrals drafted by a legislative committee meet neither of these standards.

As one of the six legislators appointed to draft the ballot titles, I was one of only two who voted against the final drafts. Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, and I were also the only two on the committee who voted against the two House bills that are being challenged by Measures 66 and 67. The final committee product is both biased and misleading. Reading the ballot titles for the measures is more like reading a piece of campaign literature than an objective description of the facts.

For example, the description for the result of a “yes” vote is nearly twice as long as the result of a “no” vote. The description also leaves out the fact that the Legislature’s tax package includes a brand new tax of up to $100,000 on businesses that do not even make a profit. And the ballot titles are grossly misleading and speculative about the possible affects of the measures if they are to pass or fail.

Oregonians have the right to a clear, concise and unbiased official description of what they are voting on, not campaign rhetoric.

I appreciate that the committee co-chairs were willing to listen to some of the overwhelming input requesting clarification. They made some additions to the explanatory statement and in a round-about way acknowledged that the tax increases are permanent and retroactive. But those inferences are only clear if you read the ballot title with a very discriminating eye. To my disappointment, of the 46 people who testified to the committee either verbally or by written submission, only nine were in favor of the initial tax referral drafts. All nine of those in opposition were representing organizations that would directly benefit by receiving state funds raised by these tax increases.

Perhaps my biggest concerns are the blatantly false statements in the explanatory portion of Measure 67. As a CPA and the only member of the committee with a tax background, I cannot ignore the misleading and incorrect explanations. One states that all other businesses that are not impacted by the proposed tax increase will pay no minimum or profits tax. This is incorrect. All businesses will pay tax on their profits. Secondly, Measure 67 claims that Sole Proprietors will not be impacted. But any Sole Proprietor filing under an assumed business name, or DBA, with the secretary of state will pay double in fees.

The fact that these taxes go into effect starting at the beginning of 2009 and that they continue in perpetuity are important factors in voters’ decision, and important in the bill language. To purposefully leave them out or muddy the truth around those facts is disingenuous at best. At worst, it’s an intentional attempt to deceive and mislead voters.

If the quality control test for these ballot titles is clarity and ease of understanding, then they most certainly fail.

Decide for yourself. You can read the entire ballot titles here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/jcomm66_67

Chris Telfer, a Republican, represents Bend in the Oregon Senate.

Comments (0)

A Thief is A Thief, No Matter How They Are Dressed.

Friday, December 25th, 2009

There has been a lot of government talk about Redistributing The Wealth lately.images-1 Somehow those individuals who provide jobs have become the enemies of the state. Oregon is planning to punish business in ballot measures 66 & 67, for simply trying to make a profit. They cloak the plan by implying that profitable corporations only pay $10 in state taxes. The truth is that profitable companies pay a huge portion of the state revenues. If there were more profitable corporations in the state may not have the current shortfall.

The only corporations who pay a $10 corporate minimum tax are those companies, which did not make a profit. All of their expenses like buildings, machinery, utilities, salaries, payroll taxes, advertising and other business related expenses were greater then the revenues they took in. They certainly helped the local economy by spend the money, but the company needed to rely on reserves or loans to keep the doors open. The owners of the company (shareholders) also lost money.

Under measures 66 & 67, those corporations will need to pay more of what they do not have. Where will they get the money? Banks will not lend to companies who are loosing money. The bank wants to be able to be repaid with interest. Are you as an employee, willing to give up more of your paycheck? Often pay cuts cause companies to loose even more money.

It is simply robbery to require unprofitable corporations to pay more in taxes. Maybe the money jlvn1713lshould come from the legislators who are required to manage Oregon’s funds. Maybe they could take a 20% pay cut and give up travel and car allowances like many Oregonians.

Taxing unprofitable corporations will cost jobs. Will you loose your job?

Ken Bear Cole

A Second Look Business Consulting LLC

Categories : Oregon Businesses
Comments (3)

Using the bible to support a tax hike is odd Mr Speaker.

Monday, December 21st, 2009
Dave Hunt - Oregon Speaker of the Housebr /Click photo to eMail Dave

Dave Hunt - Oregon Speaker of the House - Click photo to eMail Dave

Dave Hunt, (D) Oregon Speaker of the House, last week responded to a Facebook posting in favor of measures 66 & 67 in this manner:

“To whom much is given, much is expected. (Or, in the case of Measures 66 and 67, just a little bit more is expected.)”

Speaker Hunt, who is the Past National President of The American Baptist Churches USA, chooses to quote Jesus speaking in Luke 12:48 as approval from above for his support of the job killing, backdoor sales tax measures 66 & 67.

“To whom much is given, much is required” is what Speaker Hunt has on the front of his Facebook page directly below his picture.

.Luke 12:47 “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, Luke 12:48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more”.

What are we to take from the Speakers posting, Are we to assume that as citizens we are to act on the will of the State and prepare for our lashes?

Could the Speaker be unaware of the 2nd half of Luke 12:48 that states “and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more”.

As citizens, we have entrusted much to our representatives. We work very hard to support our family, we work hard to grow our businesses, and we work hard to provide jobs and security for our neighbors.

As citizens, is it to much to ask that our representatives, to whom we have entrusted much, that they act in our best interest and not do the bidding of the unions and special interests that will be the only true winners if this backdoor business sales tax is to pass?

Jeff Anderson

Fairview, Or

Categories : Oregon Businesses
Comments (4)