http://bit.ly/Wmhrr

If Oregon gets a more stable reserve fund, other states may follow our tax structure and look at eliminately their state sales taxes. The sales tax is the most invasive tax with the highest overhead, wasting billions every year across America.

Either way you spend the money though, for a short term fix or long-term stability solution, I just don’t think that “these tax measures would particularly harm the startup community and new proactive investments” and don’t like the fear campaign that is being run.

You point would be good if the new taxes actually made Oregon’s tax system more stable. My big beef with the package is that it doesn’t fix Oregon’s #1 problem-stability. Only an insignificant portion of the new tax revenue will go to a reserve fund.

For stability, the permanent portion of all the new taxes should go first to fill a reserve fund. Even better, the legislature should scrap the permanent portion of the income tax hike and instead reform Oregon’s unique-in-the-nation kicker law that sends checks back to taxpayers if the state economist made the wrong guess about projected revenue. That would fill the reserve fund without causing the uproar in the business community about highest-in-the-nation income tax rates.

Let’s focus on growing the number and quality of startups (as will as improving the education system to help with that), not trying to save a couple hundred bucks. Let’s not be “Penny-wise, pound-foolish.”

There is no perfect tax system

CNN ranked Oregon per capita taxes as 36th in the nation,
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/index.html

And in 2008, Oregon ranked 26th in per capita taxes paid to the state per the Tax Foundation.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/476.html

I doubt that the increase in taxes on top earners and an increase in the minimum corporate tax from $10 to $150 will seriously change those figures.

This technology professional much prefers paying higher personal income taxes over having sales taxes. Sales taxes penalize the poor for being poor by requiring that a higher percentage of their total income goes to the state. If technology entrepreneurs choose to start their businesses elsewhere, I would say they’re both lacking compassionate for those of lesser means, and uneducated in the facts of Oregon taxes.

http://www.stopjobkillingtaxes.com/faq/

and

http://defendoregon.org/thefacts.html

These seem to cover the details. And neither of the tax experts that Stop Job Killing Taxes cites actually have their reports available. The whole “don’t raise taxes on the rich people — they won’t invest” is factually and provably wrong. For the last 8 years every rich american has enjoyed the lowest tax rates in the history of the country. And what happened? They got richer, and the median wage and employment count flatlined. Any argument saying that the rich need to keep their money in order to invest is bankrupt. It didn’t happen.

I would be very curious what the argument is for this harming startups. Even if you have $5 Million in sales, your tax is only $2000. If you have less than $500,000 in sales, it’s $150. That is hardly a big barrier. Sure it’s greater than what it was, but if we’re faced with choices between being good for investors and business (let’s say, like California – not exactly a bastion of smart tax policy these days) or paying for schools, police, and health plans, then it needs a hard look. If the argument really just boils down to “rich need money to invest” then that’s pretty self serving.

The funny thing is that both of the FAQ pages seem to agree on one point – that the “gross sales” portion of the increase probably only amounts to about 3% of the total proposed increase. And the argument against the bills seems to be that that 3% plus the personal income tax increase is where all the damage will be done. And if that 3% is such a small amount, the unstated truth would seem to be that it’s the personal income tax that is so objectionable on Stop Job Killing Taxes’ explanation. Conversely if the lost jobs come from higher taxes on profitable companies, then these two arguments (Startup Damage vs. Corporate Taxation) don’t exactly align.

“It’s unfair to tax businesses up to $100,000 even if they don’t make a profit.” (Note, only a 100M Revenue business falls into this category).

&
“A. Those Oregonians who would pay higher personal income taxes make up just 2.27% of all Oregon taxpayers. In 2007, that group paid 32.4%[1] of all the state personal income taxes collected. That seems like they are paying their fair share already. Under the legislature’s plan, fewer than 12,500 Oregon taxpayers out of more than 1.8 million would be asked to increase the taxes they pay by more than $236 million a year. That doesn’t sound fair to me.”

Progressive taxes are fair-er. That’s the entire point. The thing this quote sounds the most like to me is George Bush and his permanent tax cuts based on fairness. Fairness doesn’t come from treating everyone equally when their impact is disproportionate. The number missing from the above statements is what percent $236M is of their total take home. Because without that statistic, the entire argument is hyperbole.

If someone has actual links to the reports Stop Job Killing Taxes cites/reports, that would be nice. And if someone can explain how $150 a year, to $2000 a year in gross sales taxes on 5M revenue and lower businesses account for so much job carnage, that would also be helpful. I won’t easily accept any notion that those job losses will manifest from lost income to the richest Oregonians.