• 

Sal Peralta: Buyers, beware

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Don Dix

Or take this attitude ... defeat every tax increase, make the state government accountable for every penny, and when the money is gone ... tough sh*t, you caused it, deal with it on your own!

Horse with no name

Mr. Peralta how would you solve the inequality of what working people are getting for their tax dollars as opposed to what business owners receive for their tax dollars? The old trickle down idea (which Reganites loved because it said let business do it's thing and everything will be fine) has long since ran it's course as a losing strategy. Business and Labor are not opposing enemies fighting the battle of good and evil for all eternity, but are two cogs that need to work together for everyone to prosper. How do you envision everybody getting a slice of the pie we all pay for?

Michael

I like Horse's question. He is asking for a substantive solution or recommendation to deal with inequity. This tax proposal when I study it may be a awful as you suggest. What is your alternative other than "just don't do it".

kona

Horse with no name, are you suggesting there be price controls and profit controls on "business owners"? What is your suggestion? Business owners have their capital at risk, while labor does not.

Michael

I've seen no suggestions from anyone except kona doing a shuffle about price controls and profit controls. Horse is correct business owners and workers need to work together. To the extent so many very large business owners are stock holders who gamble on the rise and fall of their "capital" on the stock market, it is hard to sort out who owns what. There is an irony that many of the labor unions and other worker funded retirement funds have most of their 'capital' in the stocks of big business.
'Capital' is not worth much without the workers to make it productive and the roads, safety, and other government provided infrastructure to enable it to function. This is especially true at the local level.
Our Oregon tax burden is out of balance and has been for a long time. Trying to find a way to have large businesses share in the financial burden there rest of us have to endure is not unreasonable. Is IP28 the way to do it. Maybe not. Having any additional income be directed to a specific area like K-12, when there are many necessary areas to have our burden lifted is not good policy.

Bill B

I agree with Kona. I'm not a business owner but I don't begrudge them making a profit. They are taking risks that those complaining about inequality never do. Those that complain about inequality want the government to take care of them. I'm a middle classer and have no complaints!

Don Dix

Remember M 66 & 67 back in 2010? Those were touted as 'the fix for education funding' by educators and the public employee unions.

However, those measures only garnered about 6o% of expected revenue. Now it's IP28. Another attempt to raise taxes.

And through all this, there is always the push to eliminate the 'kicker'. Just think of the size of Oregon's budget would have grown to without the kicker in place!

Nine (9) times Oregon voters have rejected a sales tax. The primary reason seems to be the state would not discard any of the other tax structures -- income tax, property tax -- and instead add to them.

The state is hungry for any source of money. Fees, fines, and licensing have been raised significantly, for that purpose only. It's a money grab at every turn!

If one wishes to know who might benefit from a raise in taxes, just identify who is pushing the proposal. Spending 'your money' is easy, and they wouldn't even blink if there wasn't a little something promised! It is just that simple!

Michael

Why do you think big businesses demand big tax breaks and put communities in bidding wars against one another to attract the business? They are looking for the community who will tax their citizens more, a community, those hard working middle class and lower class workers who will carry the tax burden to help with the infrastructure that the big business does not what to carry.
Those who talk about inequity are not talking about government taking care of them. We are talking about large corporations not getting welfare of tax breaks and making money of the tax burden of the middle class.

kona

Michael, those "tax breaks" are a balancing act. Each government affected makes the choice whether the value of the tax breaks exceed (or not) the value of the business operations. If the business operations (payroll, etc.) are more valuable than the tax breaks then they often will approve the concessions. It is all in the numbers. Businesses can "demand" as much as they want, but it is the involved governments that have the final say.

Sal Peralta

Horse With No Name - Business and labor are not enemies. I agree with that. So why are Oregon's public employee unions trying to mug Oregon businesses? A 600 percent increase in their taxes? 2.5 percent tax on total economic activity? That is not good public policy, it's a holdup.

I think a better way of capturing business taxes is to get rid of the state's single sales factor and go back to a three factor apportionment like we used to have. It would more accurately capture economic activity in the state than this shotgun approach.

In terms of addressing inequality related to political power, I think we should take steps to reduce the influence of money in politics -- limit campaign contributions, ban the use of public money on partisan activities at the Oregon legislature, close the revolving door between state government and the industries we regulate, and increase competition for seats in the Oregon legislature.

In terms of addressing tax inequality at the state level, I would like to see them increase the Oregon standard tax deduction equal to full time employment at the minimum wage which is something like $20,000.

My back of the envelope calculation is that this would put between $1200 and $2000 back in the pocket of a minimum wage earner and probably $2000 - $3000 back to a middle income family and it would significantly help retirees. The state could offset that with a far more modest increase in corporate taxes. I think that would create a "rising tide lifts all boats" scenario since we know that increasing discretionary income of working people tends to correlate strongly with increased consumer spending.

Sal Peralta

Michael - I have no problem with getting businesses to pay their fair share, but I will not support a ridiculous tax policy that will also hit working families hard in order to accomplish it.

Horse with no name

Mr. Peralta - Thank you for the thoughtful reply. That was refreshing, much more so than "tough sh*t", or Kona's "balancing act", even your own reference to mugging does nothing to advance a solution. Now you have presented some ideas which could be further discussed or contributed to without all the sh*t getting in the way.

kona

Horse with no name, Sal asked a question, "So why are Oregon's public employee unions trying to mug Oregon businesses?"

What is your answer?

Horse with no name

Like I said...

Michael

Thanks Sal. A modest increase in corporate taxes makes sense. Putting forth an unbalanced proposal to present to voters does not necessarily qualify as mugging. It is an opportunity for those who might be inclined to be 'independent' to have counter substantive proposals that make sense.

Don Dix

When Ted "do nothing' Kulongoski spoke to public union reps. during the 2006 election, his words were, "It's us against them". Hardly a thoughtful and refreshing statement.

The unions are coddled and pampered by the complicit government establishment -- have been for years. And for years, a timid, soft response has garnered nothing but more ways to increase the tax burden on the citizens, to the benefit of the unions.

If the desire is to correct the inequity, maybe it's time to stand up and speak clearly, so there is no confusion ... Like I said ... !