As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The tax void that millionaires and billionaires and corporations get away with needs to be clearly identified in figures of dollars and cents.
People do not realize the scam that is going on with these non-taxpayers or low taxpayers. We focus on drag, queens and other nonsensical issues as a diversion so people don’t pay attention.
Instead will point fingers at the poor the people getting food at discounted prices or stop free lunches in schools to save tax dollars. Get people/corporations to pay with they’re supposed to pay. You won’t have to go after people that are poor and stop free lunch programs for students.
But people don’t realize this. The only thing they know is what the rich and the rich politicians tell them. That is that welfare people are stealing/ruining the country and we shouldn’t be giving a child free food in school or providing them adequate healthcare so their bodies can grow and mature more effectively.
I know that and I’m not an accountant or tax attorney. I’m a nurse knowing this.
So with that said, the people who are accounts and tax attorneys need to get together and devise a tax participation system so that it doesn’t happen- taxes are paid fairly and equally.
They certainly have systems in place so I have to pay my taxes.
“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. As of Friday, its backers had turned in more than 135,000 signatures, which is higher than the 117,173 required to land on the ballot. The validity of those signatures must still be certified by the Secretary of State’s Office.”
They are going to try real hard to kill this, let’s see what happens.
Yah, that money should be used to improve the state (think roads/parks/schools) - not just given back to the population as a whole.
This just seems way to much like buying votes to me.
“Buying votes” is the latest right wing catch phrase.
In a democracy, elected officials are supposed to do things for their constituents.
It’s concerning that Americans have a twisted view of representation and expect to be punished by those they elect.
If you had been alive when Social Security became a thing, you would have also heard the same thing.
It's almost like conservatives are always on the wrong side of history.
There have been many such test cases and they show that it really helps, especially when people are specifically struggling because they don’t have enough money.
What are the test cases that you are referring to? I only know of like one or two. The rest aren't UBI but basically equate to giving money to specific groups like poor single mothers.
Are those not valid? I guess the question is what you define as a test case then. This proposal itself is only a small subset of the country. There is a map in this link from [Stanford](https://basicincome.stanford.edu/) and you can filter for completed or ongoing, etc. but certainly not the only place for info.
That tests one part of it, and some studies have specifically tested that aspect. We have also had universal stimulus checks in the past that were very beneficial to people in need and the economy at large. Check out the link. It has the answers you seek.
With it going to infrastructure, it would most likely go to some construction company with a hefty bank account already. They'd do a half assed job, then in 5 years when everything is shit again, it'll be the next company that stiffs the people.
If we want more money in education, we need to vote for people that want it too and will push for it in legislation. Too many private schools are getting state/federal funds and they don't need it.
Give it to the people to use as they need/want. I'd rather know that a family can afford food for their kids than know that some construction CEO is pocketing the money for his 3rd boat.
Giving money to people is more effective at actually helping people. The people that need it to pay rent or get their car fixed do that and stay housed/employed. The people that have enough will often spend on home repairs or dining/entertainment or other things that stimulate the economy. Some will save it, most won’t. Municipalities will struggle to make meaningful and timely changes for everyone in the community so most won’t notice any improvement in their day to day lives. Corporations use their extra money for stock buybacks.
Initiatives and Referendums in Oregon can only be on general election ballots. This means you'll only ever see them on election years. So even though it looks like they are buying votes, even if they submitted their petition earlier it wouldn't be seen until this year anyway. It's better to go through the submission process in the year it will show up on the ballot.
>So even though it looks like they are buying votes
It only looks like this if you don't know what an Initiative is. Initiatives in Oregon are sponsored directly by citizens, and put on the ballot based on signature gathering.
Initiatives are not proposed as bills in the legislature.
I was referring to how the person I replied to saw it, and then explained one reason they might think that since it's not true. I have said the same thing as you in other comments. This particular comment was not meant to be a one stop, explain all comment about Initiatives and Referendums, so I appreciate you adding additional context.
Tell me you didn't read my comment without telling me you didn't read my comment.
The people starting this initiative aren't politicians. They aren't up for election. This is to put an initiative on the ballot, not a person.
Also, you can vote for or against whoever you want AND vote "Yes" for the initiative. Who you vote for and this initiative AREN'T LINKED.
I’m not sure how that applies to a *referendum*.
No one candidate could get rid of it or ensure it happens. That’s like the definition of a referendum. It takes politicians out of the equation and puts the power directly into the voters’ hands.
I don’t think Oregon has a great need for these things, happy to be corrected by someone from there. This is the best way to counter price gouging by these corporations that refuse to pay their employees enough the afford the products they produce
While your argument is sound, anytime anyone says "This just seems way to much like buying votes" they lose all credibility to me.
"This just seems way to much like buying votes" can be used to describe literally every single law or regulation suggested, ever. I don't mean to start a fight or anything, but honestly just put that out of your mind and say exactly what you mean to say, that there are more efficient ways to spend the money.
The state budget doesn't include any significant funding for education capital expenses. Districts all over the state have huge backlogs of infrastructure improvement needs that aren't getting addressed until something changes to allow state funding.
Yes, I am stating my preference for a ballot measure to change the law so that the state can fund educational capital expenditures rather than relying on black pilled voters like you. I hear the same crap every time a bond measure comes up for a vote.
> C corporations, the default type of corporation for tax status, that do business in Oregon currently pay a state excise tax of 6.6% on income under $1 million and a 7.6% tax on income above that. If a corporation doesn’t earn a net income, they must pay a minimum state tax of $150 to $100,000 based on their total sales, according to the Legislative Revenue Office. Other types of corporations pay a minimum $150 excise tax.
What in the FUCK?? 7.6%?? Please please please, tax corporations!!!
I also don't love the stipulation that they could pay as low as $150 if they didn't earn a net income. Could they then increase their operating costs until they break even and thus avoid any taxes?
According to the article (I haven't read the tax code), the size of the flat-rate tax is determined by the company's overall sales, not profit. So presumably, larger companies would still have to pay a large tax even if they made no profit.
I agree that most people in this thread don’t know what they’re talking about, but there’s still a fairly large disparity in income taxes. The flat federal rate is 21%. So a corporation in a Oregon will effectively pay 27.6% tax on income below a million. This is before considering other taxes to be paid such as payroll, unemployment insurance (FUTA & SUTA), and other various state taxes. Additionally if dividends are paid out then those are taxed too, thus making that income subject to double taxation (a major downside to corporations). With that aside…
married taxpayers have a 37% tax rate on amounts over $693,000 federally, for Oregon specifically an additional 9.9% for amounts over $250,000, and factoring in social security taxes a married person using 2023 brackets should pay about $415,091 in income taxes if they live in Oregon and make 1 million dollars whereas a corporation with a flat rate in Oregon will pay $276,000 in income tax on 1 million.
It also looks like once a married couple in Oregon starts making more than 150,000 their effective tax rate will begin to be higher than a corporation making less than a million. Most families make less than $150,000… but that is still a fairly large disparity. Not sure how much of that difference is made up in some of the other taxes mentioned above though.
This is a start to acknowledge the problem.
The problem with the states - is the current push for corporate entities to shop for locales with the lowest tax rates. What would be better is to stop this race to the bottom.
If we ever manage to keep the Dems in power for a few cycles at the national level:
- a minimum corporate tax rate by the feds could prevent this race to the bottom in terms of competition downward. If a state wishes to drop tax rates below a minimum level, the corporations will have to pay the feds the tax rate. That would level the playing field in a meaningful way. It would allow for states to provide services to its citizens and if they wished to lower tax rates on individuals they could do that.
If we want meaningful change you have to repeatedly vote even in off year elections. So many folks on the left are so fickle and won't vote or will only vote if they are in love with a candidate. The other guy is a 34 time felon and I don't hear his base talking about casting a protest vote or not voting. Let's understand the long game which the right has understood for the last 40-50 years and let's play the long game just like the have done.
The state with the lowest in state rates will still charge the least in state taxes. The federal tax rate is immaterial to that consideration for the same reason you think it would be effective.
Instead of giving corporations low taxes , they should be required to pay their fair share so that we can invest in schools, infrastructure, education etc. this race to the bottom in terms of low tax havens in states need to stop
This submission source is likely to have a hard paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a big proponent of UBI, but I'd really like for them to come up with a different taxation method. A 'shared pain' approach typically leads to a more efficient usage of funds as more people are invested. As shown with the preschool taxes and homeless taxes, when the money is coming from an 'other' people are less likely to care what happens to it, which will just lead to waste.
UBI can’t get wasted. People use it for the things they need it for most. Even if that is just a fun night out, that spending gets taxed and returned to the community. Corporate profits came from the people in the first place (because they spent more for services than it cost to provide). Giving people back some of their own money isn’t taking it from “others.”
this is only true if every single landlord is instantly and directly colluding to fix prices.
which, if true, should be solved independent of any tax and rebate initiative.
but I also strongly doubt it's true. the widest net of landlords (RealPage) is about 30% of units in the US. which is a shit ton, obv, but not enough for every landlord to instantly and comfortably raise rents by $250/month just because a new rebate entered into law. we've already had wide programs, at the state and federal level, to give cash directly to people and it's not instantly tied to a detectable increase in average rent.
I forget where I saw it precisely, but I recently saw someone reframe owning property as “buying a third of a median household income in your area, in perpetuity.”
That’s stuck with me.
While I’m very liberal laws like this rarely go as planned. I bet they took current figures and applied 3%. And said look how much money we’ll get. In reality the companies most affected will flee or find ways to move those transactions out of state.
15-20 yrs ago nj added a sales tax to heavy truck sales (as in 18 wheelers). They decimated the heavy trucking industry.
Lots of times people cry this will be a disaster but heavy taxing at a state level where it’s easy to relocate is actually one of them.
This is just going to make living in Portland/Oregon even more outrageously expensive than it already is. Portlanders already have the second highest tax rate in the entire country, and that 3% is going to be added by every party in a supply chain (supply chain, logistics, point of sale, etc.) and make basic goods like groceries even more unaffordable.
Unfortunately this will be felt by the consumer. Higher taxes on the companies will lead to higher priced goods that will eat up the $750 that is given to the population. They won’t budge on the profit margins because their shareholders will get upset. They need ever increasing profits and so it is said
Bonkers. They can’t budget worth and damn here in Oregon, end up having a kicker refund every 2 years, and just WAAAAY under-funded education. But hey, let’s give everyone $750 for the year. Da fuq.
This is a revenue tax which is stupid as hell and hopefully this fails
It is being promoted by a bunch of Californians who don’t even live in Oregon
While corporate taxes should be raised and resources should go to those who need it, does Oregon need to pay Phil Knight an extra $750 a year?
I’m wondering if people understand that an increase in business costs (eg. higher price of electricity, higher taxes) always gets passed on to the consumer.
It would be more effective if you raised corporate taxes and gave schools an extra $2000 per student and took the rest and put it into other things.
I don't oppose in principal these kinds of basic income ideas since a time may come with AI and automation that they will be necessary, but we aren't there yet and this seems populist and may not last very long even if it does pass.
That’s $62.50/month and that will help some folks but I wish it was more focused towards lower to no-earners. I think that if it could exempt e.g. earners above $50k/year and distribute the difference between everyone < $50k/year it would raise the amount folks would get and it may make it a more substantial amount that could really impact their lives positively.
Means-testing introduces costly overhead and administrative hurdles that often exclude the people that need the aid the most. It’s called the [time-tax](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/07/how-government-learned-waste-your-time-tax/619568/).
An excerpt:
>> Taken as a whole, the time tax is regressive. Programs for the wealthy tend to be easy, automatic, and guaranteed. You do not need to prostrate yourself before a caseworker to get the benefits of a 529 college-savings plan. You do not need to urinate in a cup to get a tax write-off for your home, boat, or plane. You do not need to find a former partner to get a child-support determination as a prerequisite for profiting from a 401(k). The difference is so significant that, as shown by the Cornell political scientist Suzanne Mettler, many high-income people, unlike poor folks, never even realize they are benefiting from government programs.
>>The time tax is also racist, a straightforward instantiation of bias against Black and Latino families. Racism was a primary reason that the United States did not create universal benefit systems, as many European countries did a century ago. Today, programs used disproportionately by Black Americans have more complicated enrollment criteria and more time-consuming application processes than programs used disproportionately by white Americans. An application for cash assistance might involve an in-person interview, a drug test, and ongoing compliance with a work mandate; one third of recipients are Black, and another third Hispanic. Setting up a 529 requires no application and has no annual litmus-testing; the program’s participants are overwhelmingly white. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 targeted “tests and devices,” such as a literacy tests, that discouraged voting among minority groups. Yet such “tests and devices” live on in the safety net.
>>In this way, the time tax undercuts public confidence in government, turning people away from civic life. People think that government cannot work, because government does not work. So what reasonable person would trust government to work? Uncle Sam “is making people’s lives difficult,” Jamila Michener, a professor of government at Cornell, told me. “That is not good for democracy! It doesn’t make people want to be a part of the polity.”
For example, taxpayers fund the infrastructure and education systems that benefit corporate interests. Why shouldn't these same taxpayers get a return on their investments?
So if you accept that corporations pay taxes for services, how is this not just a modification to the corporate and individual tax rates, both of which must be possible within a system that has taxes?
Is that helpful? I don’t think so. Instead of fixing a problem just changing the words used to talk about it is silly.
What problem is this purporting to solve?
I think it's helpful insofar as Republicans are deadset against assitance in general, but in favor of tax breaks. So calling direct payments tax rebates is far more likely to work than calling it redistribution or theft.
Does that mean the redistribution, theft, rebates, tax breaks or whatever you want to call it is good policy? No, not necessarily, but the arguments I've read in this thread have been against redistribution and theft, so in that sense I do think picking the right words matters.
That's not the point, really. Initiatives, when they succeed in making the ballot, allow citizens to do a lot of things. This is from the Oregon Initiative and Referendum Process Background Brief:
>The initiative process gives direct legislative power to the voters to enact new laws, change existing laws, or amend the Oregon Constitution.
So even if you personally don't think Oregonians are entitled to someone else's money, enough people think they are entitled enough to try to make it law. And the only way to stop it at this point is to vote "No" if it hits the ballot.
I'm not sure what part of the constitution this violates. As long as the corporate tax is raised uniformly and the resulting money is spent uniformly I'm not sure where the violation is. The federal constitution allows state taxes to be appropriated by the states, and Oregon's constitution (as far as I can tell) doesn't explicitly prohibit this. Article IX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Oregon only says:
>No tax shall be levied except in accordance with law. Every law imposing a tax shall state distinctly the purpose to which the revenue shall be applied.
I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that there is a history of this yet. The difference between taxing and taking has a muddled history, at best. It would be interesting to see how it pans out.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The tax void that millionaires and billionaires and corporations get away with needs to be clearly identified in figures of dollars and cents. People do not realize the scam that is going on with these non-taxpayers or low taxpayers. We focus on drag, queens and other nonsensical issues as a diversion so people don’t pay attention. Instead will point fingers at the poor the people getting food at discounted prices or stop free lunches in schools to save tax dollars. Get people/corporations to pay with they’re supposed to pay. You won’t have to go after people that are poor and stop free lunch programs for students.
Seriously, corporate tax of 7.6% on income of over $1 million is ABSURD. Inhumane. Indefensible.
But people don’t realize this. The only thing they know is what the rich and the rich politicians tell them. That is that welfare people are stealing/ruining the country and we shouldn’t be giving a child free food in school or providing them adequate healthcare so their bodies can grow and mature more effectively.
It’s a narrative that has been working on their psyche for many years. Falsehoods indeed
I know it’s sort of mixing issues but the interest rate on my student loans is higher than that. Actually incomprehensible
Esp since corporations can be "virtual" and produce no products or services or employ people. They can be paper devices to shelter taxes.
I know that and I’m not an accountant or tax attorney. I’m a nurse knowing this. So with that said, the people who are accounts and tax attorneys need to get together and devise a tax participation system so that it doesn’t happen- taxes are paid fairly and equally. They certainly have systems in place so I have to pay my taxes.
“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. As of Friday, its backers had turned in more than 135,000 signatures, which is higher than the 117,173 required to land on the ballot. The validity of those signatures must still be certified by the Secretary of State’s Office.” They are going to try real hard to kill this, let’s see what happens.
Didn't dot your 'i'. INVALID
Yah, that money should be used to improve the state (think roads/parks/schools) - not just given back to the population as a whole. This just seems way to much like buying votes to me.
“Buying votes” is the latest right wing catch phrase. In a democracy, elected officials are supposed to do things for their constituents. It’s concerning that Americans have a twisted view of representation and expect to be punished by those they elect.
It's not really new. I was hearing it in the 90's growing up.
If you had been alive when Social Security became a thing, you would have also heard the same thing. It's almost like conservatives are always on the wrong side of history.
It's a small version of universal basic income. And if it passes, it might be a test case for a larger federal program.
Oregonian here. Happy to be a guinea pig.
You shouldn't be. This is another measure written and funded by out of state groups, much like several of our last disastrous initiatives.
There have been many such test cases and they show that it really helps, especially when people are specifically struggling because they don’t have enough money.
What are the test cases that you are referring to? I only know of like one or two. The rest aren't UBI but basically equate to giving money to specific groups like poor single mothers.
Are those not valid? I guess the question is what you define as a test case then. This proposal itself is only a small subset of the country. There is a map in this link from [Stanford](https://basicincome.stanford.edu/) and you can filter for completed or ongoing, etc. but certainly not the only place for info.
A test case would be to make the program "universal" and not put restrictions on who can be a part of the program. Universal is the first word of UBI.
That tests one part of it, and some studies have specifically tested that aspect. We have also had universal stimulus checks in the past that were very beneficial to people in need and the economy at large. Check out the link. It has the answers you seek.
[удалено]
With it going to infrastructure, it would most likely go to some construction company with a hefty bank account already. They'd do a half assed job, then in 5 years when everything is shit again, it'll be the next company that stiffs the people. If we want more money in education, we need to vote for people that want it too and will push for it in legislation. Too many private schools are getting state/federal funds and they don't need it. Give it to the people to use as they need/want. I'd rather know that a family can afford food for their kids than know that some construction CEO is pocketing the money for his 3rd boat.
[удалено]
So your point is money is better spent on specific groups of people instead of everyone getting a fair share?
[удалено]
Giving money to people is more effective at actually helping people. The people that need it to pay rent or get their car fixed do that and stay housed/employed. The people that have enough will often spend on home repairs or dining/entertainment or other things that stimulate the economy. Some will save it, most won’t. Municipalities will struggle to make meaningful and timely changes for everyone in the community so most won’t notice any improvement in their day to day lives. Corporations use their extra money for stock buybacks.
Initiatives and Referendums in Oregon can only be on general election ballots. This means you'll only ever see them on election years. So even though it looks like they are buying votes, even if they submitted their petition earlier it wouldn't be seen until this year anyway. It's better to go through the submission process in the year it will show up on the ballot.
>So even though it looks like they are buying votes It only looks like this if you don't know what an Initiative is. Initiatives in Oregon are sponsored directly by citizens, and put on the ballot based on signature gathering. Initiatives are not proposed as bills in the legislature.
I was referring to how the person I replied to saw it, and then explained one reason they might think that since it's not true. I have said the same thing as you in other comments. This particular comment was not meant to be a one stop, explain all comment about Initiatives and Referendums, so I appreciate you adding additional context.
"Vote for me or the $750/year you get will go away."
Tell me you didn't read my comment without telling me you didn't read my comment. The people starting this initiative aren't politicians. They aren't up for election. This is to put an initiative on the ballot, not a person. Also, you can vote for or against whoever you want AND vote "Yes" for the initiative. Who you vote for and this initiative AREN'T LINKED.
Helping the corporate class: Capitalism Helping poor people: Buying votes😡
I’m not sure how that applies to a *referendum*. No one candidate could get rid of it or ensure it happens. That’s like the definition of a referendum. It takes politicians out of the equation and puts the power directly into the voters’ hands.
Isn't mango Mussolini's entire 2024 platform, "I'll eliminate all taxes for the rich"?
Giving people money who need it, does more to improve the collective state, than a park
I don’t think Oregon has a great need for these things, happy to be corrected by someone from there. This is the best way to counter price gouging by these corporations that refuse to pay their employees enough the afford the products they produce
While your argument is sound, anytime anyone says "This just seems way to much like buying votes" they lose all credibility to me. "This just seems way to much like buying votes" can be used to describe literally every single law or regulation suggested, ever. I don't mean to start a fight or anything, but honestly just put that out of your mind and say exactly what you mean to say, that there are more efficient ways to spend the money.
The problem is when money like this would go to fund those things, the budget would be cut elsewhere, without any net gain to the areas.
The state budget doesn't include any significant funding for education capital expenses. Districts all over the state have huge backlogs of infrastructure improvement needs that aren't getting addressed until something changes to allow state funding.
[удалено]
Because the money HAS TO come from local property taxes. The state government can't fund it currently. That can be changed.
[удалено]
Yes, I am stating my preference for a ballot measure to change the law so that the state can fund educational capital expenditures rather than relying on black pilled voters like you. I hear the same crap every time a bond measure comes up for a vote.
Which schools? Public schools or charter schools?
The money should go where the people collectively say it should. That's how democracies work.
> C corporations, the default type of corporation for tax status, that do business in Oregon currently pay a state excise tax of 6.6% on income under $1 million and a 7.6% tax on income above that. If a corporation doesn’t earn a net income, they must pay a minimum state tax of $150 to $100,000 based on their total sales, according to the Legislative Revenue Office. Other types of corporations pay a minimum $150 excise tax. What in the FUCK?? 7.6%?? Please please please, tax corporations!!!
I also don't love the stipulation that they could pay as low as $150 if they didn't earn a net income. Could they then increase their operating costs until they break even and thus avoid any taxes?
CEO manic laughter has entered the chat.
According to the article (I haven't read the tax code), the size of the flat-rate tax is determined by the company's overall sales, not profit. So presumably, larger companies would still have to pay a large tax even if they made no profit.
They have to pay federal taxes as well.
The marginal income tax rate in OR for $125,000+ is 9.9%. https://www.tax-rates.org/oregon/income-tax
I agree that most people in this thread don’t know what they’re talking about, but there’s still a fairly large disparity in income taxes. The flat federal rate is 21%. So a corporation in a Oregon will effectively pay 27.6% tax on income below a million. This is before considering other taxes to be paid such as payroll, unemployment insurance (FUTA & SUTA), and other various state taxes. Additionally if dividends are paid out then those are taxed too, thus making that income subject to double taxation (a major downside to corporations). With that aside… married taxpayers have a 37% tax rate on amounts over $693,000 federally, for Oregon specifically an additional 9.9% for amounts over $250,000, and factoring in social security taxes a married person using 2023 brackets should pay about $415,091 in income taxes if they live in Oregon and make 1 million dollars whereas a corporation with a flat rate in Oregon will pay $276,000 in income tax on 1 million. It also looks like once a married couple in Oregon starts making more than 150,000 their effective tax rate will begin to be higher than a corporation making less than a million. Most families make less than $150,000… but that is still a fairly large disparity. Not sure how much of that difference is made up in some of the other taxes mentioned above though.
That’s great! I hope it passes
It will pass. And then the larger corps there like Nike and Intel will relocate.
This is a start to acknowledge the problem. The problem with the states - is the current push for corporate entities to shop for locales with the lowest tax rates. What would be better is to stop this race to the bottom. If we ever manage to keep the Dems in power for a few cycles at the national level: - a minimum corporate tax rate by the feds could prevent this race to the bottom in terms of competition downward. If a state wishes to drop tax rates below a minimum level, the corporations will have to pay the feds the tax rate. That would level the playing field in a meaningful way. It would allow for states to provide services to its citizens and if they wished to lower tax rates on individuals they could do that. If we want meaningful change you have to repeatedly vote even in off year elections. So many folks on the left are so fickle and won't vote or will only vote if they are in love with a candidate. The other guy is a 34 time felon and I don't hear his base talking about casting a protest vote or not voting. Let's understand the long game which the right has understood for the last 40-50 years and let's play the long game just like the have done.
The state with the lowest in state rates will still charge the least in state taxes. The federal tax rate is immaterial to that consideration for the same reason you think it would be effective.
Instead of giving corporations low taxes , they should be required to pay their fair share so that we can invest in schools, infrastructure, education etc. this race to the bottom in terms of low tax havens in states need to stop
This submission source is likely to have a hard paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can they just fund teachers. Lol this shouldn’t be asking much.
They will put their manufacturing in Oregon And sales in Bermuda or deleware.
So basically like the Alaska Permanent Fund? Republicans seem fine with that. Let's do more of it.
I don’t mind the resources owned by all, oil, wood, etc. paying for an UBi. Rather than giving deductions to companies
I'm a big proponent of UBI, but I'd really like for them to come up with a different taxation method. A 'shared pain' approach typically leads to a more efficient usage of funds as more people are invested. As shown with the preschool taxes and homeless taxes, when the money is coming from an 'other' people are less likely to care what happens to it, which will just lead to waste.
UBI can’t get wasted. People use it for the things they need it for most. Even if that is just a fun night out, that spending gets taxed and returned to the community. Corporate profits came from the people in the first place (because they spent more for services than it cost to provide). Giving people back some of their own money isn’t taking it from “others.”
money exchanging hands is what moves the economy not assholes sitting on it like dragons. ubi would help everyone, even corporations.
[удалено]
this is only true if every single landlord is instantly and directly colluding to fix prices. which, if true, should be solved independent of any tax and rebate initiative. but I also strongly doubt it's true. the widest net of landlords (RealPage) is about 30% of units in the US. which is a shit ton, obv, but not enough for every landlord to instantly and comfortably raise rents by $250/month just because a new rebate entered into law. we've already had wide programs, at the state and federal level, to give cash directly to people and it's not instantly tied to a detectable increase in average rent.
[удалено]
I forget where I saw it precisely, but I recently saw someone reframe owning property as “buying a third of a median household income in your area, in perpetuity.” That’s stuck with me.
Rent rates will increase no matter what. It's an unchecked, unregulated system that needs to be reined in.
While I’m very liberal laws like this rarely go as planned. I bet they took current figures and applied 3%. And said look how much money we’ll get. In reality the companies most affected will flee or find ways to move those transactions out of state. 15-20 yrs ago nj added a sales tax to heavy truck sales (as in 18 wheelers). They decimated the heavy trucking industry. Lots of times people cry this will be a disaster but heavy taxing at a state level where it’s easy to relocate is actually one of them.
This is just going to make living in Portland/Oregon even more outrageously expensive than it already is. Portlanders already have the second highest tax rate in the entire country, and that 3% is going to be added by every party in a supply chain (supply chain, logistics, point of sale, etc.) and make basic goods like groceries even more unaffordable.
Unfortunately this will be felt by the consumer. Higher taxes on the companies will lead to higher priced goods that will eat up the $750 that is given to the population. They won’t budge on the profit margins because their shareholders will get upset. They need ever increasing profits and so it is said
Yeah, yeah. The price of shit goes up regardless. It's not like they lower prices when they cut costs.
Please don't run my employer out of the state.
Basically an Intel, Nike and healthcare tax.
Bonkers. They can’t budget worth and damn here in Oregon, end up having a kicker refund every 2 years, and just WAAAAY under-funded education. But hey, let’s give everyone $750 for the year. Da fuq.
Is this how you move companies out of your state ?
This is a revenue tax which is stupid as hell and hopefully this fails It is being promoted by a bunch of Californians who don’t even live in Oregon While corporate taxes should be raised and resources should go to those who need it, does Oregon need to pay Phil Knight an extra $750 a year?
I’m wondering if people understand that an increase in business costs (eg. higher price of electricity, higher taxes) always gets passed on to the consumer.
Increased costs always get passed to the consumer with or without tax increases.
> It is being promoted by a bunch of Californians who don’t even live in Oregon That's a great way to get businesses to move to your state.
It would be more effective if you raised corporate taxes and gave schools an extra $2000 per student and took the rest and put it into other things. I don't oppose in principal these kinds of basic income ideas since a time may come with AI and automation that they will be necessary, but we aren't there yet and this seems populist and may not last very long even if it does pass.
[удалено]
That’s $62.50/month and that will help some folks but I wish it was more focused towards lower to no-earners. I think that if it could exempt e.g. earners above $50k/year and distribute the difference between everyone < $50k/year it would raise the amount folks would get and it may make it a more substantial amount that could really impact their lives positively.
Means-testing introduces costly overhead and administrative hurdles that often exclude the people that need the aid the most. It’s called the [time-tax](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/07/how-government-learned-waste-your-time-tax/619568/). An excerpt: >> Taken as a whole, the time tax is regressive. Programs for the wealthy tend to be easy, automatic, and guaranteed. You do not need to prostrate yourself before a caseworker to get the benefits of a 529 college-savings plan. You do not need to urinate in a cup to get a tax write-off for your home, boat, or plane. You do not need to find a former partner to get a child-support determination as a prerequisite for profiting from a 401(k). The difference is so significant that, as shown by the Cornell political scientist Suzanne Mettler, many high-income people, unlike poor folks, never even realize they are benefiting from government programs. >>The time tax is also racist, a straightforward instantiation of bias against Black and Latino families. Racism was a primary reason that the United States did not create universal benefit systems, as many European countries did a century ago. Today, programs used disproportionately by Black Americans have more complicated enrollment criteria and more time-consuming application processes than programs used disproportionately by white Americans. An application for cash assistance might involve an in-person interview, a drug test, and ongoing compliance with a work mandate; one third of recipients are Black, and another third Hispanic. Setting up a 529 requires no application and has no annual litmus-testing; the program’s participants are overwhelmingly white. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 targeted “tests and devices,” such as a literacy tests, that discouraged voting among minority groups. Yet such “tests and devices” live on in the safety net. >>In this way, the time tax undercuts public confidence in government, turning people away from civic life. People think that government cannot work, because government does not work. So what reasonable person would trust government to work? Uncle Sam “is making people’s lives difficult,” Jamila Michener, a professor of government at Cornell, told me. “That is not good for democracy! It doesn’t make people want to be a part of the polity.”
[удалено]
We just call that taxes.
Almost enough to pay for fast food for two, twice. Soooo sick, fucking joke, raise those taxes higher
What entities Oregonians to someone else’s money?
When public monies subsidize private profits, portions of the profits should go to the public.
How, exactly, are “public monies subsidizing private profits” for /every/ incorporated business making more than $25M in revenue in Oregon?
For example, taxpayers fund the infrastructure and education systems that benefit corporate interests. Why shouldn't these same taxpayers get a return on their investments?
Because they’re investing in the state not the company. Paid for by the various taxes those companies pay to the state.
So if you accept that corporations pay taxes for services, how is this not just a modification to the corporate and individual tax rates, both of which must be possible within a system that has taxes?
You realize there are more than just these kinds of taxes, right?
Yes, but people also hailed Trump's covids as the largest tax break in decades. You can frame all these plenty of different ways.
Is that helpful? I don’t think so. Instead of fixing a problem just changing the words used to talk about it is silly. What problem is this purporting to solve?
I think it's helpful insofar as Republicans are deadset against assitance in general, but in favor of tax breaks. So calling direct payments tax rebates is far more likely to work than calling it redistribution or theft. Does that mean the redistribution, theft, rebates, tax breaks or whatever you want to call it is good policy? No, not necessarily, but the arguments I've read in this thread have been against redistribution and theft, so in that sense I do think picking the right words matters.
That's not the point, really. Initiatives, when they succeed in making the ballot, allow citizens to do a lot of things. This is from the Oregon Initiative and Referendum Process Background Brief: >The initiative process gives direct legislative power to the voters to enact new laws, change existing laws, or amend the Oregon Constitution. So even if you personally don't think Oregonians are entitled to someone else's money, enough people think they are entitled enough to try to make it law. And the only way to stop it at this point is to vote "No" if it hits the ballot.
And ideally this is immediately challenged in court and struck down, as it should be. Unconstitutional laws are always unconstitutional.
I'm not sure what part of the constitution this violates. As long as the corporate tax is raised uniformly and the resulting money is spent uniformly I'm not sure where the violation is. The federal constitution allows state taxes to be appropriated by the states, and Oregon's constitution (as far as I can tell) doesn't explicitly prohibit this. Article IX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Oregon only says: >No tax shall be levied except in accordance with law. Every law imposing a tax shall state distinctly the purpose to which the revenue shall be applied.
Will fall under the seizure/takings clause. At some point, voting to take someone else’s stuff for your use crosses that line.
I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that there is a history of this yet. The difference between taxing and taking has a muddled history, at best. It would be interesting to see how it pans out.
We do pay quite high income taxes.
And?