Of course, no mention of the missing sales tax component in Oregon. Californians, for example, also pay 8.25% minimum in sales tax.

The WSJ doesn't need to mention that business people ARE working people. They understand that when that is raised=it's passed on to the worker/consumer.
Economic laws are actually not that hard.

Actually Jack, HB 3405 does tax gross Oregon sales of C corps.

Links to the entire bill, official summaries and fiscal impact statements, and Oregonian news coverage can be found here:
http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/HB3405/

The first section makes clear that the minimum tax will now be based on gross Oregon sales:

Enrolled
House Bill 3405

CORPORATE EXCISE TAXATION

SECTION 1. ORS 317.090 is amended to read:
317.090. (1) As used in this section, “Oregon sales” means:
(a) If the corporation apportions business income under ORS 314.650 to 314.665 for
Oregon tax purposes, the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax year, as
determined for purposes of ORS 314.665;
(b) If the corporation does not apportion business income for Oregon tax purposes, the
total sales in this state that the taxpayer would have had, as determined for purposes of ORS
314.665, if the taxpayer were required to apportion business income for Oregon tax purposes;
or
(c) If the corporation apportions business income using a method different from the
method prescribed by ORS 314.650 to 314.665, Oregon sales as defined by the Department of
Revenue by rule.
(2) Each [taxpayer named in ORS 317.056 or 317.070] corporation or affiliated group of corporations
filing a return under ORS 317.710 shall pay annually to the state, for the privilege of
carrying on or doing business by it within this state, a minimum tax [of $10.] as follows:
(a) If Oregon sales properly reported on a return are:
(A) Less than $500,000, the minimum tax is $150.
(B) $500,000 or more, but less than $1 million, the minimum tax is $500.
(C) $1 million or more, but less than $2 million, the minimum tax is $1,000.
(D) $2 million or more, but less than $3 million, the minimum tax is $1,500.
(E) $3 million or more, but less than $5 million, the minimum tax is $2,000.
(F) $5 million or more, but less than $7 million, the minimum tax is $4,000.
(G) $7 million or more, but less than $10 million, the minimum tax is $7,500.
(H) $10 million or more, but less than $25 million, the minimum tax is $15,000.
(I) $25 million or more, but less than $50 million, the minimum tax is $30,000.
(J) $50 million or more, but less than $75 million, the minimum tax is $50,000.
(K) $75 million or more, but less than $100 million, the minimum tax is $75,000.
Enrolled House Bill 3405 (HB 3405-A) Page 1
(L) $100 million or more, the minimum tax is $100,000.

They must have been confused by the fact that the legislature passed two corporate tax increases in the same bill.

The legislature just passed a corporate AMT based on gross receipts with HB 3405, so the WSJ must have accidentally applied the numbers for the corporate income tax increase (from the same bill) to the gross receipts tax.

So the truth is probably worse than they reported. We increased corporate income taxes AND added a corporate AMT based on gross receipts. (meaning even if a wholesaler lost millions of dollars it might still pay $150k in taxes based on the value of its gross receipts).

The Wall Street says that Oregon has been taxing gross receipts, and it simply hasn't.

Yes, corporate income taxes were increased, and the corporate minimum tax was changed from a ridiculous flat fee to one based on gross sales. Washington State has a gross receipts tax. No one is going to die.

Economic laws are actually not that hard.

No, they aren't. When business taxes are increased, they're passed on to the consumer. When they are cut, the investors take them. Great system.

When business taxes are increased, they're passed on to the consumer. When they are cut, the investors take them. Great system.

Oh, if human reactions to tax laws were that simple. In the real world, economists generally admit that they simply don’t know which individuals bear the brunt of business tax increases, or reap the benefit of business tax decreases. What they do know is that businesses don’t pay taxes – individuals do, be they consumers in the form of higher prices, employees in the form of lower wages or fewer job opportunities, and/or investors/owners in the form of lower dividends/profits.

No one is going to die.

Probably true, but someone is going to lose his or her job, or not get a job that wasn’t created because of these higher taxes. Probably a lot of someones.

Thanks, Steve, for the Bush perspective. It's done our country so well -- I really miss it.

One thing mentioned brielfy in the WSJ but not in the recent Oregonian discussion about state budgets is the fact that the last biennium budget increased state spending by almost 20%. The original budget proposal for the next biennium claimed that another 20% increase was necessary to "maintain current services." The budget compromise settles for a "cut" that is a 4% or so increase over the last biennium.

So, the cut is still an increase year over year.

It is one thing to raise taxes to cover a shortfall. It is another thing to take an increase in funding to justify higher state expenditures year after year.

The schools and public safety are placed front and center as the victims if budgets are to be cut.

No one has the answer as to what is a fair level of taxation.

No one has an answer to controlling spending.

Businesses have immediate feedback - reduced revenues lead to reduced profits or even losses, resulting in lost jobs or worse, the business failing and shutting down.

If companies are successful, companies grow and probably require more tax-paying employees. Drive a business out of business and there are less tax revenues and more unemployed workers.

Tax incentives are offered to companies like Intel, Nike, Adidas, and others. Once they are established, they are then the targets for further tax extraction.

Though only a handful of executives may be the >250K targets for new taxes, they are also the decision makers who determine whether to setup or expand operations in Oregon. Making them the whipping boys when times gets tough surely causes them to think carefully about the future.

While I am definitely not in the >$250K salary segment, I don't like the trend downward if things get worse. What next, an asset tax on our retirement savings or other equity holdings?

To me, there's nothing more depressing than middle-class people defending the money of the filthy rich. Let them come in off their polo ponies and make their own case.

Under HB 3405, the alternative tax on Oregon sales primarily affects unprofitable C corporations. Some of these are mom and pop's. It also affects start-ups, funded by venture capitalists and angel investors. Since the company by definition is not profitable, the minimum tax will have to be paid by either further investment by the investors or cutting expenses (which as a practical matter means
payroll). Ironically, this tax increase (and disincentive) will be most noticeable in the more successful start-ups (the ones with the largest sales traction), which are the start-ups that produce the most jobs in the short-term and have the prospect to be significant
long-term employers. And since the base of the minimum tax is Oregon sales, it will affect software companies particularly, because their out of state sales are "thrown back" to Oregon (absent nexis with another state). To the extent the state increases taxes on an unprofitable investor-funded start-up, the state will be creating a disincentive to
start such businesses here.

Bob Wiggins
Mount Hood Equity Partners

Get used to it, fellas. The party's over. And appears likely to stay over for quite some time. Unless you have somebody better than Kevin Mannix and Sarah Palin.

A company grossing $5 million can afford to pay $4,000 to the State of Oregon. That's less than a round of golf and a dinner for the CEO and his friends.

Yeah...

I mean this is a great time to raise taxes, with Oregon unemployment only trailing Michigan's by a hair.

Jack, what you got against "the rich?" Being wealthy isn't a crime. Besides the rich already pay the vast majority of the income taxes in this country.

Why don't all those others pony up something themselves? It's easy to rant against the rich when it mean you won't have to pay your own fair share of tax.

Jack,

Depressing?

Remember that when at some point you fall into the category of being considered "filthy rich". I am sure you know the poem, "first they came. . ."

Yes, those with means need to pay for a safe and just society.

Just be careful with the broad brush.

I am not defending the filthy rich.

I am defending those who have been successful in life and work (some who may even be donors to your employer; you know very well that tuition does not pay all the costs). I am simply pointing out that class warfare when it comes to taxation is a slippery slope.

No, it isn't. $250K a year is a good dividing line for filthy rich. I say let's go back to the JFK years when the top rate was 92%. Or 50% under most of Reagan. I know, I know, that will be such a disincentive for work that people like Henry Paulson won't get out of bed in the morning and rob the rest of us blind for another day. What a great moment for America that would be.

I mean this is a great time to raise taxes, with Oregon unemployment only trailing Michigan's by a hair.

When times are good and Oregon has a surplus, you guys demand that it all get paid back as a kicker. This is the same thing.

People are losing their jobs in America with or without tax raises. Put your rose colored glasses away. Let's talk about all the off-shoring and out-sourcing to India, China, the Carribean, etc. where labor is cheap. Oh, and, where the US gov't gives big breaks to US corporations that do this say like Nike and Intel. Nike did the recent set of lay-offs while it was profitable so let's be clear that business agendas/actions are more often about raising stock prices so executives benefit from stock options soar.

It seems to me that increasing taxes on the very rich would be an incentive, not a disincentive, since they will have to work harder to pocket the same amount of money.

Not that they need all that money. Executive compensation is mostly tied to egos, just as it is in professional sports.

Raising taxes on corporations might cause them to raise prices, but if they are in a highly competitive field, the can't do that or some other company will go lowball and steal their business. Or it may cause them to reduce payroll, but believe me, they already are trying to get by with as little payroll cost as they can get away with. If they need well trained personnel, they can't afford to cut pay--other than the top execs, who probably are overpaid. So the tax increase for a lot of companies will hit investors and owners, and these groups have reaped big windfalls over the past eight years.

Oh, one place they might cut is their annual gifts to PACs and single-minded business lobbies. Which then might even out the political playing field. (Well, not really, but the tilt may not be as extreme.)

Jack wrote: "A company grossing $5 million can afford to pay $4,000 to the State of Oregon. That's less than a round of golf and a dinner for the CEO and his friends."

Are you kidding me? The new minimim tax on gross receipts arises in cases where the company is NOT MAKING ANY MONEY. My world is start-ups. CEOs of unprofitable start-ups do not spend their companies' scarce resources buying golf and dinner for their friends. In almost every start-up I have been involved in, at one time or another, the CEOs have taken reduced or no salaries so the rank and file could get paid. (And most of these companies ultimately survived and went on the become successful businesses.) In two of the start-ups my current fund is invested in, I personally advanced money to each company so it could make payroll. In a start-up, $4000 is a significant amount of money. It's the cost of a medium-sized trade show. It's one employee's salary for a month.

When a company is actually making money, I think it's very reasonable to discuss what an appropriate rate of tax on the company's income should be. This new gross receipts tax on unprofitable businesses is a very big deal and a terrible idea, and your remarks above are arrogant and ignorant Jack.

Bob

You can scream all you want, but if a company is grossing $5 million, it can pay something more than $10 to the state. Even if it is, as you put it, "NOT MAKING ANY MONEY," it can set aside a big $4,000 of the $5 million it brings in to pay some taxes, just as it needs to put aside something for rent, fuel, utilities, materials, employees' wages, property taxes, etc. The services that the state provides are not conditional on the constituents making a profit, and the taxes that pay for those services need not be, either.

As for "ignorant and arrogant," that's a pretty funny comment, Mr. Big Shot. A little touchy about one's political philosophy being laughed out of the state and the nation? Please don't take it out on me. Maybe you and Merritt Paulson could meet up for a nice, relaxing sauna.

This is a good blog entry!
If your making hefty profits, why should you be whining about paying more taxes?
Anybody with an income over 200k needs to pay a much heftier part of the burden of keeping this great nation going!

This is the only country in the world where you get to make so much filthy wealth and horde if all for yourself.

AND THAT FOLKS, is why all the rich from all over the world set up shop here!

"You guys?"

Jack, you're engaging in class warfare. It's very unbecoming.

You don't get it. All of us already pay too much in taxes. Government just spends it inefficiently and unwisely. It's pretty simple. I mean I don't get a guaranteed 8% return on my 401k like some PERS do.

All this government spending is just unsustainable. You don't have to listen to me. The Chinese will soon tell you through the bond market.

If you believe $250,000 is the threshold of the filthy rich then you are out of touch with financial reality. Those people are hardly even upper middle class, especially if they have 3 or 4 kids.

Sometimes I wish Rush Limbaugh had a Sunday show, so that the rightwingers could hear their soothing talking points seven days a week and not feel that they have to repeat them here.

All this government spending is just unsustainable.

Where were you for seven years while Bush-Cheney bankrupted the country to satisfy their blood and oil lusts?

People are losing their jobs in America with or without tax raises. Put your rose colored glasses away. Let's talk about all the off-shoring and out-sourcing to India, China, the Carribean, etc. where labor is cheap. Oh, and, where the US gov't gives big breaks to US corporations that do this say like Nike and Intel. Nike did the recent set of lay-offs while it was profitable so let's be clear that business agendas/actions are more often about raising stock prices so executives benefit from stock options soar.

DINGDINGDING !

Someone can see the forest for the trees.

This is where I part ways with my Libertarian brethren. The reason America became a world power with a great standard of living in the first place, is that it was an industrial powerhouse. Lots of things were made here, some of them the highest quality on Earth. Ever looked at tools (or firearms or automobiles or sewing machines) made here from the 30s through the late 60s ? Best in the world.

A while back, a customer of mine from India was telling me about his Dad. Apparently, the old man, who wasn't all that well-to-do, swore by American footwear. He was willing to pay extra for it...in a third world country...because it was the best. For decades.

Everyone wanted to buy our stuff. Of course, this had a lot to do with the fact that after WW2, we still had factories and cities that weren't bombed to pieces by ourselves, the National Socialists, and our Communist allies...but our stuff was still the best in the world.

Now we sell entire foundries to China.

Their culture is thousands of years old, they are not stupid people. Now, there is even serious talk of the Yuan going on the gold standard at some point, as an international reserve currency. That will be the death knell of the value of the Dollar. Think Wiemar Germany in the early 20s. Of course, the fiscal policies of The One and his Bankster masters are only increasing the likelihood of hyperinflation.

How has this short-sighted policy of outsourcing benefited our country in the long run ?

I'm all for those nations industrializing and so forth. But why do we have to subsidize this at the expense of the long-term prosperity of our people ?

Yeah, I'm an isolationist. America first, as jingoistic as that may sound. Unfortunately, I have this sinking feeling that by the time I'm old, there won't even be scrap left here to sell...

If you believe $250,000 is the threshold of the filthy rich then you are out of touch with financial reality. Those people are hardly even upper middle class, especially if they have 3 or 4 kids.

And yet they're in the top 1% of all income earners. Top 1% is upper middle class? Who is it you think is out of touch?

Mom-and-pops are more often S corporations or LLCs than they are C corporations, and would pay a $150 tax instead of the graduated tax that rises to $100,000. (And if a mom-and-pop business is grossing $100,000,000/year and paying that $100,000, it's not the corner grocer.) I would expect startup firms, such as those funded by Mr. Wiggins's company, to be S corporations during their period of unprofitability, or to be LLCs if their owners are ineligible to own shares in S corporations, if this tax is truly a major disincentive to be here.

Issac, I suspect you are right on mom and pops, though I haven't seen any statistics on that. Before receiving venture or angel funding, start-ups are sometimes LLCs or S corporations. However, venture funds cannot invest in S corporations, as the fund, which is a limited partnership, is an ineligible shareholder in an S corporation. We also do not invest in LLCs, because of the effect of rules that affect our retirement plan investors. We're basically stuck with C corporations at this point. Bob Wiggins

After reading the above comments I'm stunned by the general lack of knowledge about business economics some have. It is apparent that those who have never run a business have no understanding of the cash flow of a business. Mr Wiggins is correct. I am a retired banker. I had a family owned business that was doing so well they invested in a plant expansion and hired six new employees. Then they got the tax bill for $200K. The money was out the door for the expansion and payroll for the new hires. There choice was to layoff two hires or borrower the money. I told them to borrow the money as the expansion would provide the $$ to payoff the loan. And by the way, the principal payments on the loan comes from profits as does uncapitalized capital expenditures. You folks who work for wages think what a company reports in profits is $$ laying around which are stuffed into the shareholders/owners pockets. I most cases these profits are reinvested in plant and employees.

Bob,

You make some excellent points re the potential for this new corporate minimum tax to hit start-up companies. Fortunately it's fairly easy for LLCs to convert to C corporation status should they need funding that cannot be obtained while an LLC.

But I don't think this new minimum tax is going to have start-ups running for other jurisdictions. Where are they going to go? If the argument were true that start-ups go only to low-tax jurisdictions, then there wouldn't be any start-ups in Washington (B&O tax imposes solely on gross receipts much harsher than Oregon's minimum tax) or California (don't get me started). Nevada is a low-tax state, yet I don't see start-ups fleeing the West Coast to be protected by the gang from Reno 911.

The truth is that start-ups consider taxes as one factor among many. Other critical items include infrastructure, talent pool, willingness of local government to provide incentives (such as Oregon's BETC), and competition. Using Jack's example, I don't see how a $4,000 tax bill on $5 million of gross receipts will become the determining factor for a start-up seeking to locate its business. Indeed, most start-ups I know pray for the day they will have $5 million in gross receipts - a $4K tax bill would be a nice problem to have.

Like it or not, the reality is that people and jobs will be leaving Oregon as a result of the increasing tax burden.

Moving across the river into Washington State and its lack of income tax (despite the sales tax) is a mathmatically sound way to acheive this. Then who will we tax? Beware the Pyrrhic Victory.

Meanwhile, Paulson's buddies at Sachs give us more to chew on... and get sick from.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/21/goldman-sachs-bonus-payments

Also, can we all stop using the term "mom n' pop" and "corporation" in the same sentence to further our strained arguments?

Oregon will not miss any of the innumerates who move to Washington for a better tax deal. Funny how companies just keep on moving and starting up here, and some fairly big ones stay -- I guess they just aren't very smart, looking at the whole package rather than just focusing on one line of one tax schedule.

Jack,

Just because some of us subscribe to an economic theory you disagree with, please don't assume that we're carrying water for Bush or Paulson.

Personally, I didn't vote for either President Bush, and I oppose Mr. Paulson's attempt to saddle Portland taxpayers with the costs of his ball parks.

There seems to be an assumption here that tax increases will hit only "the rich." HB 2649 will result in some increase in tax liability for most taxpayers. It collapsed the existing 5% and 7% brackets, which weren't very large to begin with. The 5% bracket used to go from $0 to $3,050; now it's $0 to $2,000. The 7% bracket used to apply to taxable income from $3,050 to $7,600. Now it's $2,000 to $5,000. Therefore, almost EVERY Oregonian with taxable income will see some increase in personal income tax liability.

The bill also reduced the standard deduction for single people, which hadn't even come close to keeping up with inflation over the years. This will also lead many residents to have slightly more taxable income. In addition, the deduction for federal taxes paid is reduced.

The creation of the new Oregon personal minimum tax will also hit people below the $125K level. I suspect that, over the next few years, the legislature will tighten the screws on "high middle income" taxpayers through this mechanism.

Finally, Jack, I don't agree that corporations with $5M in gross revenues can "afford" to pay an extra $4,000 in taxes. It isn't like they aren't paying any taxes now, including various payroll taxes, licensing fees, etc. It's very likely that much of that $5M is going to pay employees and/or buy goods or materials. If the business has $5.1 in expenses, it can't "afford" to pay anything. The assumption that businesses with this level of gross revenue are buying luxury boxes at the Rose Garden and buying dinners that cost thousands is far from reality.

Your blog Jack, but why would you belittle people making intelligent arguments? People and businesses are mobile and taxes will influence where they go. Taxes are a drag on the economy. Raise the rates and lower the incomes, and you may actually collect less taxes. Also, taxpayers hire CPAs and attorneys to rearrange their situations to minimize the tax.

Richard/s - You know some of us "workers" have actually studied finance (like with a capital F). And we do, in fact, understand business economics. Some of us in fact will be leaving the bloat that is corporate Amerika and starting our own businesses. I think you confuse small to medium size business realities with multinational mega companies. And if you understand that the value of a business is in long term growth and viability, then offering executive benefits that ensure short term profit taking and the "deferred maintenance (think of an apt. building owner)" set of actions... as in suck it dry and take as much out now as possible so I can get my pie, is one really stupid way to go. And really was does someone do to earn $4 or more million a year if they were not in on the founding of a company. Most execs cannot manage their own lives, let alone actually make sound decisions...

LucsAdvo: thanks for making my point. My comment had nothing to do with your incoherent post.