For a while, I was amused by Oregon’s steadfast rejection of a sales tax. It was kind of quirky, kind of folksy. But after living here for 16 years, I think it’s kind of stupid. Our refusal to even consider a sales tax as the state’s service infrastructure crumbles before our very eyes is a bit like a hopelessly obese man proudly raising his middle finger to curious onlookers as he wheels himself up to the counter at McDonald’s to order lunch.
This year’s half-assed attempt to keep the state up and running comes in the form of measures 66 and 67. These two measures were approved by our legislature last year to make up for budget shortages. Then a group of individuals and organizations opposed to the tax implications gathered enough signatures to put both measures on a ballot and let the voters decide.
I was going to write about the dirty tricks on display from both sides, but I changed my mind. The camp in opposition is just doing its usual anti-labor, anti-teachers routine. But for today, I must say it’s the campaign in favor of the new taxes that is truly distinguishing itself when it comes to misleading language and system abuse. These are the people who supposedly stand up for educating our children, protecting our elderly and serving our disenfranchised. I’m not sure where I’ve been all my life, but I am shocked and truly disappointed. If our future is in the hands of these tacticians, I am scared.
I still don’t know how I’m going to vote, so in an attempt to make up my mind I decided to ask some basic questions. First, would the additional taxes that would be levied if these measures passed be assessed retroactively? The clear answer – and all answers in these matters should be utterly clear – is yes. That’s because the measures were approved by the legislature in January 2009, then put on hold when a petition was filed to vote for or against overruling them with the ballot. So if the measures pass, taxes are due from January 2009 forward, making them, in a word, retroactive. Not surprisingly, the word ‘retroactive’ is avoided stridently by the group support the measures. Second, trying to tie this issue to the fact that corporations pay a $10 annual tax in this state is troubling to me, so I asked after some particulars. According to those in favor of these measures, corporations in Oregon enjoy paying a corporate tax that hasn’t been increased in generations. Here’s my question: I own an LLC. I am one person who earns a comfortable income but is by no means wealthy. You could technically say that the only ‘corporate fee’ I pay is the $50 check I write every year to the secretary of state’s office for the privilege of having my LLC on file in the state of Oregon. Technically, that would not be a lie, but it would not be the whole truth either. The whole truth would have to include the other taxes and fees I pay to the state, to Multnomah County, to Tri Met and to the City of Portland. Although it makes for a great battle cry, I refuse to believe that corporations large and small, local and national and global, contribute only $10 per year to Oregon’s tax till.
For a week or so I believed I’d reached the bottom of the sneaky heap with the commercial trying to link our new taxes to Wall Street bonuses and excessive credit card fees. I know that in Oregon we love to insert ourselves into every national story. We may have a place in some of the stories, but this is not one of them. Raising taxes in Oregon is not in any way going to address the broken components of the country’s financial industry. It’s a false notion, period, an attempt to sway voters with emotional triggers (“let’s get the bad guys … together!”) that crumble quickly beneath the most cursory scrutiny. I called the campaign that sponsored the commercial and asked the woman there several questions, none of which she could answer without blatantly slippery qualifiers. “We are trying to reach a certain demographic,” she said finally, after I told her that there were easy holes in each of her statements. I was tempted to ask her if she’d ever considered going into PR.
But the commercial appears almost benign when compared to what I found in The Register Guard, in Eugene. If you read no other words in this post, please read these:
This year’s half-assed attempt to keep the state up and running comes in the form of measures 66 and 67. These two measures were approved by our legislature last year to make up for budget shortages. Then a group of individuals and organizations opposed to the tax implications gathered enough signatures to put both measures on a ballot and let the voters decide.
I was going to write about the dirty tricks on display from both sides, but I changed my mind. The camp in opposition is just doing its usual anti-labor, anti-teachers routine. But for today, I must say it’s the campaign in favor of the new taxes that is truly distinguishing itself when it comes to misleading language and system abuse. These are the people who supposedly stand up for educating our children, protecting our elderly and serving our disenfranchised. I’m not sure where I’ve been all my life, but I am shocked and truly disappointed. If our future is in the hands of these tacticians, I am scared.
I still don’t know how I’m going to vote, so in an attempt to make up my mind I decided to ask some basic questions. First, would the additional taxes that would be levied if these measures passed be assessed retroactively? The clear answer – and all answers in these matters should be utterly clear – is yes. That’s because the measures were approved by the legislature in January 2009, then put on hold when a petition was filed to vote for or against overruling them with the ballot. So if the measures pass, taxes are due from January 2009 forward, making them, in a word, retroactive. Not surprisingly, the word ‘retroactive’ is avoided stridently by the group support the measures. Second, trying to tie this issue to the fact that corporations pay a $10 annual tax in this state is troubling to me, so I asked after some particulars. According to those in favor of these measures, corporations in Oregon enjoy paying a corporate tax that hasn’t been increased in generations. Here’s my question: I own an LLC. I am one person who earns a comfortable income but is by no means wealthy. You could technically say that the only ‘corporate fee’ I pay is the $50 check I write every year to the secretary of state’s office for the privilege of having my LLC on file in the state of Oregon. Technically, that would not be a lie, but it would not be the whole truth either. The whole truth would have to include the other taxes and fees I pay to the state, to Multnomah County, to Tri Met and to the City of Portland. Although it makes for a great battle cry, I refuse to believe that corporations large and small, local and national and global, contribute only $10 per year to Oregon’s tax till.
For a week or so I believed I’d reached the bottom of the sneaky heap with the commercial trying to link our new taxes to Wall Street bonuses and excessive credit card fees. I know that in Oregon we love to insert ourselves into every national story. We may have a place in some of the stories, but this is not one of them. Raising taxes in Oregon is not in any way going to address the broken components of the country’s financial industry. It’s a false notion, period, an attempt to sway voters with emotional triggers (“let’s get the bad guys … together!”) that crumble quickly beneath the most cursory scrutiny. I called the campaign that sponsored the commercial and asked the woman there several questions, none of which she could answer without blatantly slippery qualifiers. “We are trying to reach a certain demographic,” she said finally, after I told her that there were easy holes in each of her statements. I was tempted to ask her if she’d ever considered going into PR.
But the commercial appears almost benign when compared to what I found in The Register Guard, in Eugene. If you read no other words in this post, please read these:
The group Our Oregon, which is leading the campaign to pass tax Measures 66 and 67, turned in to the Oregon Elections Division the first and last of the 34 submissions on which the “Argument in Opposition” circle was checked off. As a result, when Oregon’s 2.1 million voters thumb through the official voters’ pamphlet, which is to be mailed out at the end of the month, they’ll find pitches to vote [for] the increase in personal and business taxes in a section where they thought they were supposed to be getting the reasons to vote against them. Don Hamilton, the Election Division spokesman, said state law makes it clear: Submissions of pro and con arguments will go where the submitters intend them to go. And after double-checking with Our Oregon after receiving Our Oregon’s “Opposition” arguments, the Elections Division concluded that they should go in that section of the pamphlet.“That’s where they wanted them and that’s where they were placed,” he said. “It’s within the law.”
If that sort of move is within the law, I am starting to wonder if there’s any point to voting at all.
