6 ms·
Proposed ballot measure to raise corporate taxes, give every Oregonian $750/year
- underseacables 2y agoHow is this fiscally sound? What if major corporations say no and leave the state?
- scotty79 2y agoYou'd just abandon whole state of your paying consumers? Kick yourself of the market voluntarily? Of course if you pay in tax more than you earn than sure but if not?
- tacitusarc 2y agoYou only need a subsidiary in Oregon. So all major components get moved outside the state, including higher wage jobs, and leave bare minimum distribution in Oregon. Which undoubtedly contracts with another out of state subsidiary for "marketing" to ensure profits are below the 25m threshold.
- scotty79 2y agoThe tax should be on sales I think. You can't move out the customers.
- tehwebguy 2y agoA market full of people with an extra $750 to spend!
- altairprime 2y ago> What if major corporations say no and leave the state? Which major corporations would you predict are likely to forbid product “sales” in Oregon if this passes? > Initiative Petition 17 would establish a 3% tax on corporations’ sales in Oregon above $25 million
- ttt3ts 2y agoWhat stops them from just charging 3% more? Kinda sounds like an awkward sales tax?
- marcusverus 2y agoIt is a sales tax, they're just pretending that it will be paid by the seller--as though corps will just take a 3% hit on profit margin! The only differences I can see are A) the tax will be obfuscated (i.e. baked into the sales price, or shifted from low-margin to high-margin items), rather than neatly listed as a line item on the receipt, and B) businesses with revenue under 25M are exempt.
- altairprime 2y agoSales taxes are typically a geographic boundary and a product inclusion/exclusion list. The addition of “seller’s annual revenue” may not fit within existing legal definitions (I haven’t checked), and I expect that naming it a “corporate tax” serves various marketing purposes (both for the headline’s author, and for the proposal’s authors).
- itishappy 2y ago> The proposal, Initiative Petition 17, would establish a 3% tax on corporations’ sales in Oregon above $25 million and distribute that money equally among Oregonians of all ages. Just a flat tax into a flat stipend. I wish all taxes were this straightforward.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- oldpersonintx 2y ago[dead]
- junaru 2y agoThe only way to help people struggling with income is to lower their income taxes. That forces them to still be productive members of society instead of supporting populist handouts that are not sustainable once the ball gets rolling and corporations move out.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bell-cot 2y ago> The only way to help... Sounds like you're unfamiliar with the "working poor" in modern America. If your income is low, and rent/food/transportation/health care are expensive, then "pay zero incomes taxes" will not magically balance your books. (Not saying that this measure would balance them either. Nor that it's optimal tax policy/public policy. Nor that doing anything that's anywhere near "optimal" is even possible, in modern-day America):
- jimkleiber 2y agoIf a person is a stay-at-home homemaker, cleaning the house, shopping for food, cooking, attending to the children, and more, would you consider them a productive member of society? Edit added below: And what about someone who volunteers 80 hours per week maintaining an open-source software used by hundreds if not thousands of companies? Does one need to be directly paid to be a productive member of society?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- b112 2y agoEvery rule has exceptions. Removing incentive, and self sufficiency as a goal of our current system isn't the answer. The answer instead is to tweak it so other types of work have value, and result in support. We already have that, in the form of charitable and non-profit foundations, corps. We even encourage that, in the form of tax deductions for those donatong to the same. We have a patch already, it just needs to be deployed more if required. So we already have a mechanism to aid with non-profit open sauce work, Beyond that, there are many different types of hobbies people employ. But to the homemaker, caring for children, he already has a boon, at least where I live. Thousands in tax deductions and credits (eg, just cash) along with monthly cash, the more children, the more paid. The US might use more of that, to patch that hole.
- vsuperpower2020 2y agoI'll take the free money but I fully expect to have to move to another state once this proves unsustainable. Washington is close and has no state income tax.
- rootusrootus 2y agoWashington still has a higher overall tax burden than Oregon, though, so don’t fixate on just income tax. But it’s also the most regressive tax state (Oregon closer to the least regressive) so if you’re highly compensated it could still be a win for you.
- chrismcb 2y agoThey first could of hits on Google claim Oregon has a higher tax burden. Not by much, but still higher.
- rootusrootus 2y agoI'd question the source on that. Unless something changed in the last couple months, Tax Foundation puts the burden higher in Washington.
- nickpp 2y agoThis is exactly how populism rises: who will vote no to the simple proposal to take money from "others" and give it to them?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rpgwaiter 2y agoOthers in this case generally being corporations and rich folk
- nickpp 2y ago> corporations and rich folk In 2022, about 58% of American households owned stock, either directly or indirectly through mutual funds and other investment accounts. https://www.axios.com/2023/10/18/percentage-americans-own-stock-market-investing https://www.axios.com/2023/10/18/percentage-americans-own-st...
- lesuorac 2y agoI would expected an individual in the top 10% to have more than 30x the stock an individual below 10% but apparently not [1]. Although top 10% holding 89% of stocks does pretty much mean the rest of america is really just dabbling in the stock market. [1]: https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/#toc_stock-ownership-by-level-of-wealth https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/#...
- gus_massa 2y agoIt's a 3% sale tax on corporations. It's more complicated, but corporations will just increase prices 3% and the consumers will pay it. If you are earning more than 25.000 anualy, you will get a negative total.
- lucianbr 2y agoIf corporations can just increase prices with whatever percent they need to offset some tax, why don't they just increase prices with 5% or 500% already, and pocket the profit, despite there being no tax that requires the increase? Seems like an obvious thing to do, and the incentive is totally there (free profit).
- LUmBULtERA 2y agoI'm generally in favor of taxing things you want less of, and not taxing things you want more of. In this case, I'd prefer carbon taxes and refunding the collected amount to all tax payers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]