measure 66-67 pass in Oregon

[clearconscience]

Welcome to another down turn in Oregon's law history.
This measure is going to put small businesses under, cause severe unemployment, and cause corporations to leave the state if not the county.
Boeing is already leaving, now Oregon is leaning on Nike and Phil Knight??? Are they stupid those two companies alone with crush Oregon's economy. We thought unemployment was bad wait another year or two.

Then we'll really see taxes rise, and you'll be sharing your "wealth".

It's mostly stupid people wanting more without understanding what their voting on.

A friend of mine in Oregon has his own business with his Dad, they do home remodeling and they may clear around 250k in a year but most of that goes back into the business or for supplies. You may get paid 20k for re-doing a kitchen, but 12k of that is for supplies/materials. Now they have to charge their customers more.

 

[ORBrit]

The measure 67 taxes are 0.1% of their gross revenues but maxing out at $100,000.
their gross revenues were $180 million last year. Profits were $300,000 (and that's only because they laid off 11 employees)

 

[ORBrit]

So you are saying that a 1.3% increase in their taxes created another $100,000 in additional taxes for them? So their gross sales measured in the $8,000,000 range after adjustments? That does not sound like any small business I know of.

The measure 67 taxes are 0.1% of their gross revenues but maxing out at $100,000.
their gross revenues were $180 million last year. Profits were $300,000 (and that's only because they laid off 11 employees)

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

These measures only affect small bussiness? Never heard that part of the propaganda.

You must double as an accountant PBP. If you want to know more about Wilcos dilemma ask them. All I know is that I heard it from the Vice-President. He's brobably full of bulloney!

So you are basing your opinion on second hand, unverified information that does not even add up mathematically?

I am not an accountant, but I do own my own business and have spoken to my accountant about this measure and how it will affect my bottom line. His answer was "not unless you start making about $200,000 more a year and even then you would probably end up paying less taxes despite a small raise in your tax bracket due to increased shelter opportunities."

 

[Partsproduction]

As far as I am concerned it is not to our best to keep giving money to a machine that is not using what it already has been given, for the good of the people.

I agree, this is a total outrage. My business is small, but we are seriously talking about moving to a state that doesn't hate business.

The drones got to vote! The welfarites, the state workers, all the tiny pigs at the teats got to hit my wife and I in the pocketbook.

To H*** with Oregon! I was born here, the only bad thing about Oregon is the liberal thieves who run it, both from Salem and from the ballot boxes!

 

[Mutoman]

By the way, the measures did not pass in Coos County; our new motto should be "Coos County, trying to make government run like our businesses" or "Coos County: Home of the sensible voter".

The old motto was, "Coos County: Ma...Pa's passed out in the barn again!"

 

[ORBrit]

So you are basing your opinion on second hand, unverified information that does not even add up mathematically?

I am not an accountant, but I do own my own business and have spoken to my accountant about this measure and how it will affect my bottom line. His answer was "not unless you start making about $200,000 more a year and even then you would probably end up paying less taxes despite a small raise in your tax bracket due to increased shelter opportunities."

It will affect your bottom line by at least $140 a year PBP.

If you have revenues (receipts, not profit) of over $500,000 but less than $1 million, you will pay a $500 annual filing fee.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The measure 67 taxes are 0.1% of their gross revenues but maxing out at $100,000.
their gross revenues were $180 million last year. Profits were $300,000 (and that's only because they laid off 11 employees)

That's a load. I would love to see the books on that one. No way did a company produce $180,000,000 and only show a profit of $300,000 and still have a viable product or service. A whole lot of money had to be diverted somewhere else (like payouts, dividends, off shore accounts) to show an earnings of only $300,000. That is an operating margin of less than 1/6th of 1% (.0016). They would make a ton more money just putting their assests in an interest bearing checking account.

Where can a public record of their accounts be viewed?

Like I said before, I know a local restaurant chain that shows a yearly profit of about $1 even though they actually net hundreds of thousands. That is because they divert the vast majority of their earnings.

And, does anyone in here consider a company doing business in the $180,000,000 range a small business?

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

Getting good.

I cannot believe that anyone would impose a tax on gross sales.

 

[Mutoman]

That's a load. I would love to see the books on that one. No way did a company produce $180,000,000 and only show a profit of $300,000 and still have a viable product or service. A whole lot of money had to be diverted somewhere else (like payouts, dividends, off shore accounts) to show an earnings of only $300,000. That is an operating margin of less than 1/6th of 1% (.0016).

Where can a public record of their accounts be viewed?

Like I said before, I know a local restaurant chain that shows a yearly profit of about $1 even though they actually net hundreds of thousands. That is because they divert the vast majority of their earnings.

And, does anyone in here consider a company doing business in the $180,000,000 range a small business?

Dividends are reported as profits: couldn't have been dividends.

 

[ORBrit]

How about this scenario.
A small Oregon based construction company built 50 homes in 2009 at a cost of $20 million. They sold 30 of them with gross revenues of $15 million.
Despite a huge loss last year, they are still solvent and in business, and trying their best to weather the storm.
They will now have to pay a retro active filing fee for doing business in Oregon in 2009 of $15,000.

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

And, does anyone in here consider a company doing business in the $180,000,000 range a small business?

They may be one soon.

 

[ORBrit]

So, PBP, you think that every Oregon company out there made a profit last year?

Many companies are only staying in business by laying off employees. They may still look profitable on paper, but in order to achieve that they are reducing operating costs, which in most cases means adding more folks to the unemployment lines, which, ironically in turn reduces the state and federal income taxes that are collectible.

The source for these numbers was the VP on the radio on a phone call with Lars Larson.

 

[ORBrit]

Like I said before, I know a local restaurant chain that shows a yearly profit of about $1 even though they actually net hundreds of thousands. That is because they divert the vast majority of their earnings.

and they'll now be taxed on their sales revenue, not profit.
If they sold a million $3 burgers for $10 each, they'll be taxed on the $10 million received, not the $1 profit after paying for land and buildings, salaries, taxes, utilities, insurance etc.

 

[tionico]

That statement makes no sense. You can't look at tax bases as simple numbers and say one is higher. So what if the wealthy companies pay 70% of the taxes if that 70% does not equal and even burden.

Lets say a family in NE PDX makes $75,000 and pays the state of Oregon $3,750 in taxes a year. A large company in NE PDX made $7,500,000 and paid the state $15,000 in taxes. The total taxes paid in is $18,750 and the large company shouldered 80% of the tax burden. However, the family making $75,000 sacrificed a full 5% (.05) of their gross income to taxes. The large company only sacrificed 2/10 of 1% (.002) of their gross income.

Does that seem like a fair share of the tax burden to you? Wouldn't it b a lot nicer if both the small family and the large compay paid 1% of their gross income. That way the balance is kept and the total taxes collected would go from $18,500 to $75,500 and schools can be funded and the common family still has more money to spend on food, clothes, cars, etc.

People need to stop letting themselves be manipulated by corporate mouthpieces who present numbers with no context and count on people to already be so angry, lazy, or stupid that they do not bother to find context for themselves.

Penguin, your logic and data are fine... as far as they go. What you fail to reckon in your accounting is that the corporation makes its profit partly on the wages it pays to the famlies such as your example, and partly on the markup above costs of goods produced and sold. Then, that family, cited above, has to take what remains of its income after taxes and spend it on the products of the above coropration.

Corporate taxes SHOULD be far lower than individuals, because of the above mentioned scenario. You also leave off such things as real estate (property, both real and "personal", as in, equipment) taxes, license fees, permits, excise taxes, costs of inspections, fuel, utility, and energy taxes, compliance with an insane number of federal, state, county, municipal, special district (port, transit, regional air quality control) restrictions, requirements, etc. Remember, the corporation's profit results only AFTER paying out ALL the above. So, when you're calculating the total tax burden, don't forget to include all of the above..... I do believe your final number will end up considerably above the one half of one percent you quoted.

Bottom line, corporations do pay some tax burden, much of it invisible. But, were they assessed twenty times what they are now, they'd certainly pay a larger "share" than they do now.... only to pass that amount on to their consumers (local, national, and worldwide) in cost of goods sold plus the needed profit margin. Thus, in fine, it is the guy with the $38,000 income above that ultimately pays the lions' share.

But the REAL issue here is that government refuse to spend wisely and frugally. I drive a twelve year old vehicle with close to a quarter million miles on it, and am scraping to replace the rear tyres soon (somewhat over $400) The "public" can squander forty thousand bucks on a new van every four or five years, when its got fifty or eighty thou on it, and runs perfectly. It is sold for a third new cost.... when the private sector purchaser gets two thirds the use left on it for one third the cost. That makes it about eighteen percent the cost per mile of service to the private buyer.... relative to the time the state use it.

Tell ME the government spends wisely? Fraud, waste, corruption, overspending, overbuying, poor management of assets...... things the private citizens simply cannot afford to overlook, particularly on $38,000 per year income.

I well remember when we voters in Washington voted in the "thirty dollar" vehicle tabs a few years back. Tired of paying up to a thousand dollars yearly for the priviledge of owning it, we said ENOUGH. What did they do to campaign for it? All manner of scare tactics. It passed, and I could not believe all the various "services" that would be cut because the revenue from this would end. They still put it to us every chance they get, and have worked out many ways to get back a part of it. New number plates every 7 years whether they need it or not... they now cost $25, not $2.50. New revenue source.

This bill, as mentioned, fixes nothing but only forestalls the inevitable. Oregon will be following California into the pit of bankruptcy. The basic values are the issue, and finding a few more dollars in taxes will only forestall the inevitable a little while.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

tionico,

You just described the reason there is a difference between "S" and "C" type corporations.

Plus, people are forgetting that we are dealing with a "minimum tax" scenario here.

That company mentioned above that sold 180,000,000 in product would be responsible for taxes in the amount of $5,400,000 if they paid the same percentage of their gross as I pay of mine. Instead they are being told that the minimum they will pay is $100,000 which would be 1/20 of 1% (.0005) of their gross compared to the full 3% (.03) I pay.

So some people are trying to pretend that people are running businesses on a profit percentage of less than 1/2 of 1%. That is absurd since they would make more money just sitting their holdings in a low yield savings account and skip all the hard work. No investor or credit lender would touch such a company.

 

[dtcgc32]

it is the tax on gross revenue that hurts. I heard on Lars today who intervied a gentleman from Wilco a company in he Portland area (dairy I think) who discuss the affect this will have on their business. in short 180 million in annual sales, $300,000 in profit. with this tax they have to pay the government $100,000 dollars for last year alone.

1/3 of their profit that would have gone to the farmers who supply goods to the company. SAD probably could have been a couple of jobs but instead it goes to our useless government donut eater. The people who voted this in are as dumb as they get

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

it is the tax on gross revenue that hurts. I heard on Lars today who intervied a gentleman from Wilco a company in he Portland area (dairy I think) who discuss the affect this will have on their business. in short 180 million in annual sales, $300,000 in profit. with this tax they have to pay the government $100,000 dollars for last year alone.

1/3 of their profit that would have gone to the farmers who supply goods to the company. SAD probably could have been a couple of jobs but instead it goes to our useless government donut eater. The people who voted this in are as dumb as they get

Lars is feeding you a load of crap. Let's see some books on this company that is only making 1/7 of 1% profit on it's sales. I bet you will not find it anywhere. Like I said, that would be considered a negative return on investment.

And even if they could present one company with properly cooked books to fit this scenario, that hardly makes it the norm. It would be an extreme anomoly and should not be treated as the norm.

 

[dobeman]

where does "government" rank overall in Oregon as far as employer size? I would guess 2nd or so, behind hospital systems. Can everyone work for the government? Maybe one day we will all work for the government and not have to worry about employment.

 

[trainsktg]

==========================================================

Don't do what? Do you mean I should continue to make uninformed posts on a subject that I don't fully understand?
Who does that benefit?

I believe in capitalism and a small government, these core beliefs is what I use to make decisions on how I vote, I voted no on both measures. Other then that I think I have little more to add on this subject.

You know more than the dummkopfs that voted for this stinker.

Keith