224
I can't imagine who would be opposed to this that isn't brainwashed by corporations.
they had "death panel" conspiracy theories when they tried to do the affordable care act and the brainwashing was so effective that private insurance still dominates and the affordable care act is likely to die out.
I'm largely opposed to it. Because it's (seemingly intentionally) mis-marketed as a corporate tax when it is definitely by any sense of the word a sales tax. Sales taxes on gross receipts are inherently regressive and passed onto those consumers who are dis-proportionally impacted more the lower their income.
The impact in this case benefits lower income people as the proceeds are distributed equally regardless of income level. Though it does feel like it couldve just been an income tax.
Supposedly. My other problem is sales on all gross receipts multiply on finished goods. as now you're charging 3% on raw materials, 3% on any intermediate goods, and 3% on final products, plus whatever % the companies are going to redirect to administer the collection of the tax... so what was a reasonable tax at first now results in a possible 9% or more increase in costs on all finished goods, which further eliminates a lot of the lower income benefit.
It would have been fine if it was a profit tax, since the point of profit taxes is to disincentivize profit hoarding and promote reinvestment/wage growth. Thats why the ridiculously high federal marginal corporate tax rates of the 50s and 60s actually worked, businesses would make more overall by keeping profits (percentage wise) low but reinvesting their excess in the business and their workers.
Of course theres a downside on profit taxes too, if implemented in this manner, they have the additional knock on effect of driving business (and higher paying jobs) away from the state and are harder/way more expensive to quantify/administer if you want to do it per product sold in the state.
I fully expect to get railed in the ass by the average Lemmy left-winger by this but I'm honestly not voting for it.
Not to rail you in the ass, but why isn't this making the perfect the enemy of the good?
The benefit to low-income families seems massive, and it's hard for me to accept that taxing revenue instead of profit is enough of a marginal negative to outweigh that benefit.
The corporations will simply raise prices to make up their deficit. What's stopping them?
The real question will be is +3% on everything you purchase greater or less than $1600. If you spend less than $53,000.00 per year it’s a benefit. We know the corporations will simply pass the 3% on to consumers (likely with additional percent or three thrown on for good measure). But if you’re spending less than 50K with those corporations it’s still beneficial.
That's not how it works - the $1600 is an estimate for what each individual would receive. The total amount collected each year is split evenly between every resident in the state, how much ever it happens to be. So anyone spending less at the taxed companies than the average amount for Oregon will come out ahead. Worth noting that since it targets total sales in Oregon, that tax seemingly applies to corporate-to-corporate sales too, meaning the vast majority of regular people will end up below the average, with a net benefit.
Can we talk about the guy wearing a Yankees hat and a Red Sox shirt in the thumbnail?
In Oregon you are so far away from sports teams in MLB, NFL, etc. that you get to pick any team. Not rare at all to see people wearing stuff for random far away teams, and the lack of loyalty to one team feels right at home too.
Won't the corporations just raise their prices to make up for the tax? Not trying to be a party pooper, but these businesses have entire offices full of people whose job it is to ensure they continuously turn a profit. Every action taken by state and local government is immediately reacted to by the corporate world, and then the state is by its nature slow to respond to the new input.
It's almost like we have let capitalism go wildly out of control.
Even if they do, which they probably will, it still works out as a net positive progressive policy. You can view it like an added 3% sales tax for everyone, including corporations and out-of-state tourists. Everyone gets the exact same rebate on this sales tax at the end of the year - so those who spend the least, the poorest, benefit the most because they paid the least of that tax. Anyone who spends less than the state average (which should be the vast majority of regular people) should see a net benefit. And for those spending above average it'll just be a 3% tax on everything they spend above that statewide average. Kinda just straight-up small scale wealth redistribution.
Plus a lot of smaller companies and stores never reach the 25 million so not need to pay the tax and raise their prices. Meaning mom and pop shops will get a small edge over large corporate outlets.
Meaning mom and pop shops will get a small edge over large corporate outlets.
This would be an outstanding outcome. It's about time someone working towards the American dream gets a break.
The question is probably if it is enough to compete, but it's something.
That's a very good point I didn't rhink about.
As far as I know, corporations are generally unable to raise prices enough to make the price difference terrible for the consumer. E.g. invisible prices (taxes) are more effective on a company because companies can’t change their visible prices by much.
Yooo this would double my income
$1600/yr is $133/mo
They said what they said
I misread lol I'm at work but still that's like half my taxes for the month. Also tax the rich
I was initially on board with this, we should absolutely be taxing large corporations more and using that revenue to fund those struggling to get by. But the details of this bill seem to me to be problematic. This video by the Oregon Center for Public Policy (a non-partisan/non-profit research organization) does a great job of breaking it down for anyone interested and for those who aren't I'll summarize my takeaways below.
-
It will inadvertently redirect funds from the existing Oregon General Fund which pays for critical public services like education and since the rebate is likely to be considered taxable income it means a percentage of the existing state tax revenue is likely to be exported to the federal government.
-
The extra income could end up reducing Oregonians' eligibility for income-limited public benefits. The bill aims to reimburse what financial support is lost as a result of the rebates but that could create a cycle of disqualification and reimbursement, all being paid for by the state rebate fund rather than the federal funds currently paying for those services.
-
This fund could be a lot more effectively utilized to target those who would meaningfully benefit from the extra cash rather than splitting it evenly amongst all Oregonians, including the extremely wealthy among us.
-
Lastly, this would take up political bandwidth and make it difficult for any further corporate tax legislation to pass in the near/mid future.
I generally think good now is better than perfect later but I think this bill has some significant unintended consequences that will effectively hand Oregon tax dollars over to the federal government while not doing enough for those in need of assistance and I believe we can do much better.
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
224 points (99.6% liked)
Oregon
429 readers
2 users here now
Welcome! Alternative to Oregon Reddit on Lemmy.
Here you can post anything about Oregon State.
Active stats from all instances
/c/oregon@sh.itjust.works
Created on July 7th, 2023
Subscribers: 336
User Guide
https://join-lemmy.org/docs/introduction.html
c/Oregon Rules
1. Server Main Rules
The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently.
2. No brigading/ harassment/ usernames, etc.
All usernames and display names must be censored, unless it's a well known public figure.
Do not:
Encourage the brigading or trolling of other communities. Harass/mass ping. Use racist language. Post about getting banned on other communities.
3. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments
Discussion is healthy.
However, spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.
Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the mod's discretion.
4. Post must have Oregon explicitly involved
Post must have Oregon explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about oregon, a city in Oregon, laws, and ext.
5. Educate don’t attack
No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.
If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there won't be problems.
6. No Advertising
Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service
8. No factually misleading information
Content that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.
8. No Editorialized Headlines
Please try and keep headlines similar to the source articles headlines.
9. No Political Ads or Posts
No political ads of any type are to be posted on r/oregon. Discussion is fine. This includes Oregonians' posts telling people who or what to vote for.
No "vote for" No “vote yes/no”
Other Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS