How low can you go? Oregon's corporate taxes

Kari Chisholm's helpful (and informative) comments about Jeff Cogen notwithstanding, today's Oregonian article about corporate taxes in Oregon is all the more reason to vote into public office someone who actually advocates a more progressive tax policy.

I'm talking about Xander Patterson for Multnomah County Commission.

There's no reason why corporate income taxes, like personal income taxes, shouldn't be graduated according to income - the more money earned, the higher the rate of taxation. (See Adam Smith.)  That's true for any tax levied on business.  Kulongoski's proposal for an increase in the minimum corporate tax does just that- a "sliding scale" of $250 to $5000, up from the current $10.

But that still means Intel, Oregon's corporate behemoth, would still likely pay a mere $5000 in income tax.   A few years ago, according to the O, it paid $50 million in taxes each year.  And that's fine by Ryan Deckart, supposedly a Democrat, but in reality the Senator from Intel, who thinks jobs are the issue,  a stance taken by too many Dems in the legislature.  My pal Andrew Kaza calls Deckart a "classic corporate D", which brings to mind shameless centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman.

We need fewer corporate shills in public office and more true progressives like Xander Patterson.  Whether Patterson is a 'D', a 'P', a 'G', or an 'I' (the County Commssion is non-partisan), he does speak up for tax reform and increased tax revenue.  And that's THE issue in this election year.

******************************

Speaking of tax reform, corporate tax breaks, and the need for adequate tax revenue to fund little things like schools, roads, health, and public safety, let me repeat my criticism of the inaptly named Stand for Children, an organization that, if it truly stood for "children", would most certainly advocate for tax reform.  Unfortunately it doesn't.

It has recently repeated its calls for more lottery money for schools and a repeal of the state tax kicker.  But not for higher, and fairer, corporate taxes.  Why?  I don't know, but it could have something to do with it's reliance on business funding, which would account for its approval of Portland's school closures plan as well as it reluctance to tackle the business friendly-state tax code. 

 

Comments

[Jenni Simonis]

Thanks for writing on this. I did a write up early Sunday morning when I saw that story. While we disagree on the candidate (I'm a supporter of Lew), we do both see a huge problem here that needs to be fixed.

It makes me so mad that our family of 3 made less than $28K last year, but we had to pay $797 in state taxes. Intel will make $10 billion (yet under Oregon's new corporate tax structure will show less than $100 million), and will pay $10 in income taxes.

There's something majorily wrong there.

[gus]

Here is what Betsy Hammond wront on Intel's potential 2006 "tax bill":

"Intel -- Oregon's largest employer and a company that paid $50 million a year in Oregon corporate taxes a few years ago -- will see its 2006 tax bill fall to a fraction of that amount, potentially as low as $10. Businesses in Oregon benefit from $40 million in corporate tax breaks, more than $100 million in corporate kicker credits and the final phase-in of a $40 million tax cut from a new tax formula."

I do not know what Betsy means by "(Intel's) 2006 tax bill" or why she would use such vague references about Intel to represent the effects of Oregon corporate tax policy on all Oregon corporations.

If she means 2005 taxes due in 2006, Intel gets a 36% tax credit under provisions of the kicker in addition to existing corporate tax breaks and the new tax formula. The $10 minimum is the least amount of tax Intel will pay. Intel's actual tax liability dependent upon their profits, provisions of the tax code, the kicker and other factors.

All in all a hazy analysis by Betsy and a shaky foundation on which to construct meaningful conclusions.