Oregon voters passed two measures late last month that will levy higher taxes
on the wealthy and corporations. Facing a severe recession-driven revenue
shortfall to the state’s General Fund, Measures 66 and 67 measures are intended
to raise an additional $727 million for the 2009-2010 biennium.
Measure 66 raises the rate for the individual taxpayer’s taxable income over
$125,000 by 1.8 percent, rising to 2 percent for income over $250,000.
Households will see a similar rate increase, but for taxable income above
$250,000 and $500,000. Measure 67 increases the minimum corporate tax from $10—a
rate that has remained unchanged since 1931—to a still paltry $150.
Studies have shown that 65 percent of corporations in Oregon, through tax
credits and accounting gimmicks, are able to reduce their profits to zero or
less, allowing them to pay the minimum $10. This will now be raised to $150.
Measure 67 also raises certain corporate taxes on profits by 1.3 percent.
To be clear, this additional $700 million-plus still falls woefully short of
addressing increasingly desperate social needs. According to the Oregon Center
for Public Policy (OCPP), the intent of these measures is “to help avoid deeper
cuts to vital state services than those already taking place.”
The General Fund provides funding for education, human services and police,
but it relies on a volatile personal and corporate income tax for slightly over
85 percent of its receipts. (Corporate income tax amounted to 5.7 percent of the
general fund in the last biennium.) This revenue plummeted when the recession
hit in 2008. In May of 2009 the state budget forecast anticipated a shortfall of
$3.6 billion for the upcoming biennial budget cycle beginning July 1.
Oregon’s Democratic Governor, Ted Kulongoski, and the state legislature, with
a Democratic supermajority in both chambers, responded with $2 billion in cuts,
including 10 furlough days for state employees, and $1 billion in new taxes, of
which the $727 million income tax increase was part. A business sponsored group,
Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes, spent $800,000 to gather sufficient
signatures to put the $727 million taxes to a referendum.
True to their name, this organization’s constant harping on supposed job
losses that the new taxes would unleash was a deliberate attempt to stoke the
legitimate fears of an unemployment-plagued workforce. The group writes on their
web site, “Small businesses would be forced to lay off their workers, reduce
wages and benefits, or close their doors if voters approve the legislature’s
permanent tax increases. Economists estimate these higher taxes will cost as
many as 70,000 Oregonians their jobs.”
Job losses in Oregon have been extraordinary. Between the second quarter of
2008 and the second quarter of 2009 job losses were at a greater rate than in
California—more than double—and outpaced those of any other state. Oregon’s
December 2009 jobless rate stood at 11 percent, up from 10.7 percent in
November.
Additionally, Oregon has a history of anti-tax groups successfully plying
their trade in the state. Beginning in 1990, with the passage of Measure 5, the
state’s constitution was amended to drastically restrict property taxes and
shift much of the responsibility for school funding to the state. Measure 47 and
its revision, Measure 50, were passed in 1996 and 1997 respectively. These
measures further restricted property taxes and introduced the requirement of a
double majority to pass any local tax measure. Tax increases to address the
state’s budget crisis due to the 2001 recession were defeated in both 2003 and
2004.
These “tax revolts” were engineered by a series of right-wing,
anti-government organizations—Taxpayer Association of Oregon, Oregon Taxpayer
United, Citizens for a Sound Economy, etc.—which exploited the discontent of
working people at their stagnant or falling wages in order to effect a shift of
the tax burden from the wealthy and corporations to the middle and working
class, and to eviscerate social services for the poor and vulnerable.
An analysis by the OCPP shows that the wealthiest 1 percent of families in
Oregon pay a miserly 6.2 percent in state and local taxes (this will climb to a
still minimal 6.6 percent with Measure 66). However, for the poorest 20 percent
of the population, with an average income of $10,000, the tax burden is greater
than for the top 1 percent—8.7 percent. For corporations, their percentage of
all income taxes paid will rise from 6.3 percent to 6.8 percent. This compares
unfavorably to an 18 percent share of all taxes paid in the mid-1970s. According
to the Oregonian, Gail Padgett of the pro-business Tax
Foundation “acknowledged that the Oregon increases were relatively modest and
that the state still ranks low nationally on its business tax burden, chiefly
because Oregon has no sales tax.”
In contrast to the minimal nature of these increases, the vehement and bitter
opposition of the wealthy and ultra-wealthy to even the meekest infringement on
their wealth was epitomized by the comments of Phil Knight, chairman of the
Board of Nike, Inc., and the 30th wealthiest individual in the US. (Nike is
based in Beaverton, Oregon.) In a letter to the Oregonian, Knight
wrote: “Measures 66 and 67 should be labeled Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law II.”
He described the measures as “anti-business, anti-success, anti-inspirational,
anti-humanitarian…”
Forbes lists Knight as the world’s No. 73 billionaire with a net
worth of $10.4 billion. Currently the national poverty level for a family of
four is $22,050, less than a quarter of the $100,000 that Phil Knight donated to
try to defeat Measures 66 and 67. Oregon voters rejected Knight’s efforts and
the anti-tax campaign and chose to approve the limited tax increases.
WSWS