Talk about misleading--what about former Gov. Vic Atiyah's recent meandering complaints about 66 & 67 in the O? According to Chuck's letter today, in 1983 Vic oversaw "the biggest tax increase in Oregon history," far bigger than the tax fairness measures.

Do you think the old guy even knows what the anti tax fairness flacks have typed above his name?

So, since the property if Federally owned that means someone could go there and say, leaflet the patrons to educate them on the companies stance on the ballot measures...

So, a quick check with the calculator reveals that a $15,000 tax on $18 million in revenue comes to 0.083 percent of the revenue. Less than a tenth of one percent. Hmmm. And why does this mean they will fire two people? If you were to rent a hotel room there, or get a lift ticket and the price went up by less than a tenth of one percent to cover that cost would that keep you from visiting? For a room at $150 now that increase would amount to 12.5 cents. Imagine the unaffordability of charging the customer. For a ten day $1,500 stay, about $1.25. Well I know if I was going to lay down over a thousand bucks on accommodations, that $1.25 would just kill the deal for me.

I've been watching posts by BlueOregon contributors the past few weeks about measures 66/67, but I've been doing so from the sidelines.

Two thoughts:

1. I appreciate some of the reporting that's going on, like Carla pointing out the Timberline issue, and Kari with Paula's Bakery.

2. I can't support this measure due to an uncle who owns a business that's a C-corporation, and the negative impact he'll experience financially. (No, he's not wealthy by any stretch of the imagine, he just happens to have high revenues, but low gross profits.)

3. These measures are band-aids to cover up the gaping wound of Oregon's tax structure that needs to be overhauled. Until our elected leaders (in both parties) get the balls to actually make some fundamental changes, I'll continue having a difficult time supporting future tax measures.

" These measures are band-aids to cover up the gaping wound of Oregon's tax structure that needs to be overhauled. Until our elected leaders (in both parties) get the balls to actually make some fundamental changes, I'll continue having a difficult time supporting future tax measures. "

Jason, what have you done to further that goal? Have you, for instance, contacted Speaker Hunt and demanded that kicker reform and tax reform at least be discussed while the legislators are in the building in Feb.?

Not necessarily enough time then to put forth a plan, but could they have informational hearings on what to do? Or might that upset some insiders and therefore they will be silent?

Until ordinary voters start nagging legislators (on subjects like that and also whether Nolan is a successful Majority Leader or we can do better), too many legislators won't take this seriously.

Lord knows how many times I have nagged my Republican state rep. on this issue.

5% loss of re-elect percentage and our incumbent is out the door. But living in a "forgotten" district (don't tell me "lousy R to D ratio" or any of that garbage given the number of voters not registered in a major party!) will that ever happen? Many of us have beat our heads against brick walls year after year.

But obstinate legislators are no reason to reward the brainless, insulting NO campaign.

LT

What district do you represent?

How much money does the Federal government spend annually on Mt. Hood that benefits the folks at RLK and Company?

Jason,

If your uncle owns a c-corp outright, why did he choose that corporate model? As the co-owner of a small business in Oregon (LLC), we put alot of thought into our corporate structure. Seems odd to me that the C-corp model would be a smart choice for someone in your uncle's position... can you share the reasoning?

So the tax structure needs over-hauling? I wouldn't necessarily disagree... but what would you want in it's stead? Sales tax? A repeal of the property tax limitations?

Fact is, Oregonians who say they pay too much in taxes either forget that they don't pay sales tax or purposefully omit sales tax from the equation!

The Oregonian's editorial board got it right in the Sunday Oregonian today.

Jack Roberts commented: 'I'm sympathetic to that argument in principle, Jason, but whenever someone puts actual numbers to the situation, my sympathy level tends to go down.

Can you tell us just what your uncle's total revenues are versus his gross profits? It would also help, of course, to include shareholder compensation in considering profits, but even without that information the total receipts or revenue figure would help.

Unless it will extend to offering your services as a qualified business tax consultant at no charge and to make up any negative financial impact to Jason's uncle should M66/67 pass, I'm not sure why Jason should be particularly concerned with your sympathy.

I'm getting tired of people appointing themselves arbiters of whether or not the extent of the impact of M66/67 to ANOTHER person and/or business is significant enough to deem that person's or business's opposition legitimate or worthy of 'sympathy'... especially when those verdicts are based on incomplete/limited information and only look at the impact of M66/67 in isolation with all other variables assumed constant.

For example, people don't consider the domino-effect of higher taxes (not just M66/67 - but higher gas taxes and all the other Oregon tax/fee increases coming down the pike... not to mention the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, higher Medicare taxes, and other Federal tax increases in the wind) - and not just to the person's and/or business's own balance sheet in isolation... but the entire pass-through impact of the higher taxes from other businesses on expenses and revenue. Factors like these complicate the picture considerably.

This total impact is admittedly hard to quantify - and the extent of impact will vary depending on the individual business and/or person's circumstances. And the resulting uncertainty engendered in all this only makes business planning more difficult. Yet more reasons not to try to sit in judgement.

If you're in favor of M66/67 and want to convince others of why you think it's important to vote yes, fine. But I'd be leery of thinking I can calculate and always just serenely dismiss the total financial impact to those who will have to directly pay the tab as insignificant...

Sometimes law is not like it should be!!

Excelent points on . Timberline is quite impressive!!!

It's my wife's uncle, and I don't have specific numbers, but I could ask him. I was talking about the situation with my brother-in-law who is an accountant, and helped my wife's uncle choose the C-corporation model, and I honestly don't know the reason for it. But I will email my brother-in-law and ask him.

I fully support a sales tax, as long as income and property tax rates are reduced. I also support taking the kicker and putting in a rainy-day fund, rather than issuing checks to Oregonians.

The Feds should investigate them, and Blue Oregon for running a pro M66 PAC, without doing the proper registration.

To take a little more philosophical tack, legislation is increasingly an exercise in sausage making. As a result the "product" is impossible to explain simply and is open to attacks on ingredients. I would suggest the legislative leadership consider how they will explain to the voters their sausage, destined for referral, or subject to likely initiative response, in the process of crafting it.

Carla, What a whopper on several levels.

One big one is your BS that Timberline's "unpretentious retreat nestled among breathtaking views and excellent skiing is quintessentially Oregon"

Is was once quintessential Oregon but far from it now.

The dominating far left Oregon agenda would never allow such a facility to ever be be built if had been proposed any time in recent decades.

Certainly today the idea that it's a blight stuck in a prominent place on the side of mountain, destroying views of the mountain, paved parking lots full of SUVs, disrupting of the eco system, tarnishing the hydrology, spoiling our drinking water and using coal fired power to operate would not be acceptable by you and yours. The same way you have killed other various resorts.

No, your Oregon would rather limit public use to limited cross country skiing or hiking. or banned entirely.

But that's not your biggest whopper.

That would be the ultra hypocrisy in your notion of the public owned facility being used for the no campaign while at the same your yes side uses every school building in the state for the yes campaign.

Along with every other facility where public employees park their behinds every day.

Here we have a private operation endorsing a now vote and you cast it as the building, Timberline, doing so?

And it's your Timberline?

I have a news flash for you. I view it as MY Timberline, and I am a Timberline season pass skier. I use the government facility run by a private corporation and it's fantastic.

Fantastic that it was built before the arrival of your brand of progressive Democrat.

This is far less "A taxpayer funded building and land entity coming out against taxes" than all of the yes campaign's use of every other taxpayer funded buildings and land.

Of course it's not really Timberline Lodge, it's RLK and Company, the business who contracts with the feds to run the restaurant, lodging and ski operations at Timberline.

So what's Carla's intention here?

People should be "concerned"?

RLK and Company is obviously opposed to their operation being taxed additionally.

You're suggesting their opposition should not include that they run Timberline?

You'd dictate that any mention of Timberline be prohibited? Hmm...

This Timberline Lodge regular, Lodge guest/diner, lodge tipper, ski check tipper, friend of all Timberline employees and Oregonian appreciates RLK doing the right thing and opposing these tax measures.

Don't most folks who own S-corp file business income under their personal returns? I guess that's what meas 66 is for. Tax as much as we can for this growing government, eh? Speaking of which, when we're talking about closing down classrooms because of lack of funding if 66/67 doesn't pass, why are we talking about keeping Timberline open? If you are complaining about public services, schools, police/fire, etc. taking a hit - why not divert $$ from Timberline to the higher priority? After all, I don't remember seeing a lot of poor people at Timberline. We need to make sure we prioritize $$ for the have-nots and their public services and education. If you disagree with me, then you must be a rich bigoted Republican.

Here is the text of my e-mail to Jeff Kohnstamm at RLK & Company.

Good Morning,

It was a disappointment to discover that you have made the decision to use the good name of Timberline Lodge as a tool in your disingenuous and misleading campaign to defeat Measures 66 & 67. You oversee a privilege and special deed to the keys of one of Oregon's crown jewels.

Has the unending litany of the politics of greed these past 30 years been repeated enough that you find it appropriate to involve yourself in such a misleading campaign against the very citizens that subsidize and support your efforts ? Is everything to be supported only by the middle-class or do you want to secure the next generation of Kohnstamm's a future where no one can afford to make the trek to Mt. Hood? Or will it be easier to outsource and bring in employees from India or China?

I might have appreciated and be willing to understand your position if you had been honest enough to list your opposition as RLK and Company. Instead you have signaled a cynicism and distrust of those who support your core livelihood and provide you with the revenue stream that has guaranteed at least 2 generations of Kohnstamm's prosperity and success.

I look forward to the day when it is time to review the disposition of RLK & Company's contract with the federal government and the Department of Interior. Yes, it may be several years but this moment will not be forgotten. You have opened Pandora's box with your less than straightforward tactics. It is time for all Oregonians to take personal responsibility and share their fair burden with their fellow citizens.

Sincerely yours,

Gordon Rappole

Gordon,

I'm sure they'll receive your letter with laughter.

For it is you who is misleading. RLK runs Timberline Lodge and they oppose the tax increases.

There's nothing misleading about that and they have no "disingenuous campaign".

Your phony pretense that all, or even a majority of their customers are in favor of these tax increases is blatant distortion and asinine.

I'd wager a super majority oppose both these tax increases AND the rest of the left wing policies which threaten to increase the cost of doing business and the cost of enjoying the resort.

Your lecture about how RLK should have listed their opposition is pathetic.

Your attempt at speaking for their customers and all Oregonians is equally wrong.

From the young low income snowboarders to the luxury SUV driving skiers I hope they all recognize your "campaign".

The left wing one which not only lies about this campaign, but is also advocating policies which will drive up energy costs making it harder for everyone to enjoy Timberline.

Timberline guests and customers who don't want lift ticket, food and wine costs to soar vote no on both 66 and 67.

The few who could care less join Gordon.

Again those who oppose 66 & 67 manifest a campaign run from the shadows who lack the courage of their convictions to step forward with first and last names.

Richard (surname?), you have encapsulated in your vitriol and venom the campaign of fear and polarization that will be the outcome of this campaign. We will be no closer to full and comprehensive tax reform by simply labeling this a "left wing" vs right.

It is time for commonsense values and ideas to be expressed and discussed. That is what all Oregonians respect, not a campaign driven by fear.

Jack Roberts said "...my question goes to whether a tax of 1/10th of 1% (or less) of a company's gross sales poses a real hardship."

As I've mentioned to you elsewhere Jack, if Measure 67 passes, the legislature is more likely to raise that 1/10 of 1% in the future rather than reduce it. Oregonians have always rejected a sales tax added on to other taxes in the past.

Portland polster Adam Davis has told everybody who will listen that his polling and focus groups convince him that Oregonians will never pass a sales tax unless another tax is eliminated (not reduced, but eliminated).

Those who vote for Measure 67 may not think of it as a sales tax, but that's what it is; just one that won't show up as a separate line item at the cash register. And once in place, increasing the rate will be all too easy to do.

Oh for crying out loud Gordon, what the heck is "full and comprehensive tax reform?"

It's not something this State needs. The extraction from taxpyers process works too well already.

It's the spending and mission creep in need of full and comprehensive reform. This is the commonsense values and ideas in need of being expressed and discussed. Instead of mischaracterizing those who oppose 66 & 67 and labeling objections as "vitriol and venom".

"Fear campaign" central is located on the left with the controling status quo forever parading out "What's at risk? Our children our schools our future"

http://bojack.org/2010/01/election_porn_double_feature.html#comments

You might want to lecture the OEA and company that all Oregonians don't respect a campaign driven by fear.

I mean since you speak for all Oregonians.

Sal Peralta - You agreed with me and I'll agree with you -Wal-Mart may not need to raise its prices in Oregon at all. Especially in a recession it's hard for any company to raise prices. But Wal-Mart and every other company does need to cover its costs somehow. In a recession they're more likely to lay off employees or not hire new employees.

We might also agree that Wal-Mart should not have received benefits from the BETC program (of course I question the whole BETC program).

Actually, Steve, you raise another point. Far from hurting Wal-Mart, if other stores WERE forced to pass the tax along to consumers, Wal-Mart would love that. Using their size to shrug it off, the playing field would be tilted even further in their favor.

Zarathustra, you make a good point. In some ways M67 may actually tilt the playing field in favor of big firms like Wal-Mart and against their smaller competitors. Another reason to oppose the measure.

Pat Ryan states - "I somehow doubt that a firm that routinely pays multi-million dollar fines as a cost of doing business and was on track to gross $800 billion (with a b) for 2009 will wind up laying off any Oregon workers over a $100,000 corp minimum."

Remember, the corporate minimum is just that - it's the minimum Wal-Mart would pay if it's losing money in Oregon under M67. Assuming that it's profitable here, it will pay a lot more than that.

Pat, sorry if you think my added point about Wal-Mart paying more under M67 if it's profitable is off point. I thought it was adding some useful information to the discussion. Otherwise, readers would be left with the impression that Wal-Mart would not pay more than $100,000 under M67, which is likely not true.

Sal - I frankly am not very familiar with Wal-Mart's business philosophy, so don't know if your analysis of how they might cope with M67 passing is accurate or not.

But, your main point, that large corporations won't necessarily lay people off or raise prices just because Oregon is a small market for them, doesn't ring true. It might be just as likely that they haven't weighed into the debate because they don't care about this market enough to stay if their costs go up too much.

Not to open up the Phil Knight controversy here, but if someone with his strong ties to Oregon is considering leaving, why wouldn't we think that other large companies with fewer ties might be thinking the same thing?

Pat Ryan says "If Wal Mart pays for example $100,001.00, it would have nothing to do with Measure 67, as it would be the same exact dollar amount whether 67 passes or fails."

This isn't completely accurate. Besides raising the corporate minimum tax, M67 also raises the corporate profit tax rates. For Wal-Mart (or any other C corp) to pay $100,001 before Measure 67 it would have had a profit of about $1,515,167, because the current corporate profit tax rate is 6.6%.

If Measure 67 passes and Wal-Mart records the same profit, its tax would be about $119,698 because the new initial profit tax rate will be 7.9%.

Sal, originally you said:

"The main point I am making (obviously) is that it is a stretch to suggest that many of the largest corporations operating in Oregon - i.e. the 'hardest hit' under M67 - will necessarily lay people off or raise prices, given how small a marketplace this is for many of these companies."

I then paraphrased it, saying "...your main point, that large corporations won't necessarily lay people off or raise prices just because Oregon is a small market for them, doesn't ring true."

<h2>I think I did address your "main point." I will consider your other scenarios, but don't have time to respond right now.</h2>