25thAnniversary_ENews_Banner_Block_1

Measure 97: A $30 Billion Gamble Oregon Voters Shouldn’t Make

The massive gross receipts tax Measure 97 on Oregon’s November ballot (previously known as Initiative Petition 28) is guaranteed to suck more than three billion dollars a year out of the productive private sector and deposit them in state coffers. What isn’t guaranteed is how all this new government spending might impact the state economy.

While union proponents of this “sales tax on steroids” argue that putting more money into education and other public services will be good for the state, two reputable economic studies don’t show it.

A nonpartisan Legislative Revenue Office report looks ahead five years and sees no positive economic effects showing up by then. While LRO economists may believe there will be positive effects later, that assumes the money will be spent effectively by a state that has a poor track record of doing so.

A Portland State University report, actually paid for by the measure’s public employee union proponents, looked ahead ten years and still found no positive economic effects showing up. Again, the PSU economists assume there will be positive effects eventually, but their model doesn’t show them.

So, we’re left with this inconvenient truth: If Measure 97 passes, taxpayers will send more than $30 billion to the state over the next ten years without any noticeable positive economic effects to show for it. That’s a $30 billion gamble that Oregon voters should turn down.

Money

Oregonians Should Oppose Measure 97’s Regressive Taxation

The biggest proposed tax increase in Oregon history now has a measure number. Measure 97 on this November’s ballot would create a 2.5 percent gross receipts tax on C corporations with Oregon sales above $25 million.

Contrary to union claims, Measure 97 will not simply tax big out-of-state corporations. As the non-partisan Legislative Revenue Office Report has found, it will act primarily as a consumption tax on Oregonians. The estimated cost of this tax is $600 per year per person, with lower-income households being hurt the most. It is an eight-times-larger tax increase than Measures 66 and 67, which voters approved six years ago.

“Corporate taxes” are really paid by individuals, including consumers in the form of higher prices, employees in the form of lower compensation, and owners in the form of lower profits. The union backers of Measure 97 know this but claim that it will simply make corporations “pay their fair share.” This tactic is not only misleading, but if successful will harm every Oregon taxpayer.

Consumers will see price increases that in many cases will be much more than the stated 2.5 percent rate, without having any idea that the cause is Measure 97. As such, Measure 97 is the epitome of a regressive tax, and Oregonians should oppose it.

Money

Cascade Policy Institute Opposes Measure 97, the “Sales Tax on Steroids”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Media Contact:

Steve Buckstein
steven@cascadepolicy.org

503-242-0900

PORTLAND, Ore. – Cascade Policy Institute’s Board of Directors has voted to oppose Measure 97, the 2.5 percent gross receipts tax on C corporations with Oregon sales above $25 million. It would be the biggest tax increase in Oregon history.

Contrary to union claims, Measure 97 will not simply tax big out-of-state corporations. As the non-partisan Legislative Revenue Office Report has found, it will act primarily as a consumption tax on Oregonians. The estimated cost of this tax is $600 per year for every man, woman, and child, with lower-income households being hurt the most.

As the national Tax Foundation has noted, by seeking to raise more than $6 billion per biennium, Measure 97 will increase total state taxes by approximately 25 percent. It is an eight-times-larger tax increase than Measures 66 and 67, the tax increase measures that were on the 2010 ballot.

Following the Cascade Board vote, Cascade’s President and CEO John A. Charles, Jr. released this statement:

“All corporate taxes are paid by individuals, including consumers in the form of higher prices, employees in the form of lower compensation, and/or owners in the form of lower profits. The union backers of Measure 97 know this, but cynically claim that it will simply make corporations ‘pay their fair share.’ This tactic is not only misleading, but if successful will harm every Oregon taxpayer.”

“As the two most reputable studies (LRO and PSU) on the effects of Measure 97 to date conclude, it will act largely as a consumption tax on Oregonians. As the former State Economist and chief author of the PSU study noted in March, it will be ‘like a sales tax on steroids.’ That is because Measure 97 will tax multiple transactions from production, through processing, through distribution, through the ultimate retail sale.”

“Measure 97 is especially punitive because unlike retail sales taxes that often exempt necessities such as food, medicine, and housing, Measure 97 will tax everything. Consumers will see price increases that in many cases will be much more than the stated 2.5 percent rate, without having any idea that the cause is Measure 97.”

Two recent Cascade publications on the ballot initiative that is now Measure 97:
Like a Sales Tax on Steroids
A Sales Tax by Any Other Name

About Cascade Policy Institute:

Founded in 1991, Cascade Policy Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research and educational organization that focuses on state and local issues in Oregon. Cascade’s mission is to develop and promote public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity. For more information, visit cascadepolicy.org. 

# # #

Oregon Teens Discover Their “Lightbulb Moment” at Young Entrepreneurs Business Week

Your average high school students may not be able to explain a fictional company’s dividends to a lecture hall full of adults from the business world. But after five days at Young Entrepreneurs Business Week, they could.

YEBW is a nonprofit annual summer camp founded in 2005 by young Oregon entrepreneurs Nick and Maurissa Fisher, hosted on the campuses of the University of Portland, Oregon State University, and University of Oregon. From 75 students on one campus during its first year, YEBW has grown to more than 400 participants on three campuses in 2016.

YEBW’s founders shared a concern that young people of all educational and economic backgrounds often leave high school with no practical business knowledge, hindering their ability to innovate, create, and produce the kinds of goods and services key to Oregon communities’ growth and success. They sought to fill the gap by drawing together curriculum developers, business professionals, educators, and successful youth-focused program leaders to launch an innovative educational program for high school students.

Participants spend one week on the UP, OSU, or UO campus and are exposed to a challenging curriculum designed to teach students that business can be fun and exciting, not to mention understandable and interesting. Students leave the camp possessing relevant, basic financial and business skills to apply to whatever goals they set for themselves. YEBW board chair Jeff Gaus says, “For some, YEBW is that lightbulb moment when they realize who they are and what they want to do in life.”

During the program, students are divided into student-led companies, guided by volunteers from the business community who share their knowledge and expertise throughout the week. The curriculum provides students with the financial literacy, business fundamentals, and confidence they need to be self-sufficient and successful.

During the first-year program, Business Week, students form mock companies where they create management teams, develop mission statements, invent a product, and conduct actual operation of their own business by competing in business simulations. Designed to broaden the practical skill sets of each student, the program incorporates professional speakers and other interactive learning exercises like mock interviews and networking events.

For returning students, Investing Week gives students the opportunity to learn about basic investment vehicles, the principles of evaluating a potential investment, and understanding the personal and business effects of the financial market system. Entrepreneur Week provides the chance to learn what it is like to start and run a business. Students prepare a full business plan, run an on-campus business as a team, and present their individual work to a panel of judges acting as potential company “investors.”

It’s not all “head knowledge,” either. YEBW fosters professional interpersonal skills. Students learn the art of the handshake, eye contact, introductions, proper business and evening attire, and table manners, so they can navigate job interviews and networking events with confidence.

Young Entrepreneurs Business Week teaches teens that “there is a business side to every occupation.” Likewise, every Oregon occupation would benefit from having more business-savvy graduates of YEBW. The young people who attend the first-year program mostly come with no prior business knowledge or experience, but they leave with well-earned confidence in their abilities and potential as tomorrow’s successful professional adults. A nonprofit program like YEBW, spearheaded by enthusiastic young business leaders, is truly a bright light for the future of the entrepreneurial spirit in Oregon.

Like a Sales Tax on Steroids

Now that the massive Gross Receipts Tax measure IP 28 will be on Oregon’s November ballot, we likely will see many estimates of its impact on the state economy.

An economic research center at Portland State University just came out with its report on the measure, funded by the measure’s sponsor, union-backed Our Oregon.

Too bad that the sponsors picked a center headed by a respected former Oregon State economist who said publicly in March that their proposal would be “like a sales tax on steroids.”

Dr. Tom Potiowsky now chairs the PSU Economics Department and directs the Northwest Economic Research Center at the university. While the new PSU report doesn’t include the “sales tax on steroids” language that he personally used in March, it does confirm that such taxes “share many characteristics with sales taxes, and thus a greater burden on lower income households.”

The report also finds that because the tax will increase the cost of doing business in Oregon, it will destroy some 13,500 private sector jobs by 2027, while the added tax revenue will enable government employment to grow by 33,600 positions over the same period.

So, the tax will most hurt those least able to afford it, and will shift employment from the private to the public sector. Not bad for a sales tax on steroids.

A Sales Tax by Any Other Name…

Public employee union backers of Initiative Petition 28 have turned in more than enough signatures to place their massive 2.5 percent gross receipts tax measure on Oregon’s November ballot.

While supposedly dedicating most of the $6 billion per biennium additional tax revenue to public education, health care, and senior services, in reality legislators would be under pressure from powerful lobbyists in the Capitol to substitute at least some of this new revenue for money they would otherwise dedicate to those services. In short, the loudest voices in Salem, not voters, will ultimately control where this extra tax money goes.

While the unions portray their measure as making large, out-of-state corporations pay their fair share of Oregon taxes, the nonpartisan Legislative Revenue Office has released a detailed report giving a much more balanced perspective, which includes:

■ IP 28 will increase state and local taxes by $600 per year on average for every man, woman, and child in Oregon, totaling over $6 billion each full biennium.

■ IP 28 will dampen income, employment, and population growth over the next 5 years. In fact, it is expected to reduce employment growth by more than 20,000 jobs over the next five years, with private sector job growth slowing while public sector job growth accelerates in order to spend all that new tax money.

■ IP 28 will hit lower- and middle-income Oregonians harder than it will affect high-income earners. In other words, it is a regressive tax.

Perhaps most telling, the Legislative Revenue Office concludes that IP 28 will act largely like a consumption tax. It estimates that roughly two-thirds of that $6 billion per biennium tax increase will be passed on to Oregon consumers in the form of higher prices. Another name for a consumption tax is a sales tax.

The reality that IP 28 would effectively be a sales tax should be a lesson for all Oregonians that businesses generally don’t pay taxes, people do. Even the largest corporations are made up of people, namely employees, and sell their goods and services to other people, namely customers. It is largely these two groups of people who pay so-called business taxes like the one that IP 28 would impose.

The backers of IP 28 certainly understand that it is really a tax on people, not corporations. But, it is harder to get voters to approve a tax measure when they think it will hit them with rising prices at the store and fewer job opportunities. Better to promote the fiction that big faceless corporations have some magic pots of money that they will simply hand over to state government and public employees without any consequences for the rest of us.

Public employee unions back IP 28 because most of the tax revenue it would generate will go into the pockets of their members. Once the rest of us realize that this money will come primarily out of our pockets, we might not be too excited about voting for this massive new money grab.


A version of this article originally appeared in The Coos Bay World on June 1, 2016.

Help the Working Poor Adam Smith’s Way

This year’s May Day activities in Portland centered on promoting “workers’ rights” and “resistance to capitalism.” Unfortunately, too few critics of capitalism seem to realize that many of the workers they seek to help are being kept from using their knowledge and talents by a system of occupational licensure that dates back centuries.

May Day activists may not know that eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher and political economist Adam Smith, Capitalism’s Founding Father, was not simply interested in how markets profit those they now call “the one percent.” In fact, Smith strongly condemned restrictions on the working poor that kept them from benefiting from free exchange and the division of labor enabled by markets.

What in Smith’s day was called “incorporated trade” is today known as occupational licensure. Smith noted that apprenticeship requirements for weavers, hatters, tailors, etc., kept many out of these trades, while raising the wages of those already secure in them.

Today, most states impose fees and training requirements that keep many workers from entering dozens of occupations such as cosmetology, athletic training, and dry wall installation. Oregon, in fact, imposes some of the heaviest occupational licensing burdens on the working poor.

So, rather than simply berating capitalism, it would be nice if May Day activists could study a little economic history and then help reduce some of the licensing restrictions that limit workers’ rights today.

Do You Support the Free Market, But…?

I first wrote in 2003 about what I call “The Statement”:

“I support the free market just as much as you do, but….”

I had been hearing versions of The Statement in and around political and business circles for years. It impinged on one of the first issues Cascade Policy Institute tackled in the year of our founding, 1991. The city of Portland was planning to franchise residential garbage service (which it eventually did at the expense of consumers). At the time Portland was the largest city in the country without government garbage service or a private monopoly protected by law.

After I had written and testified before city council about the harmful effects of government intrusion into the garbage business, a local garbage hauler called me. He wanted to explain how protected franchises—that is, government-protected private monopolies—were actually a good thing.

After a few minutes he realized that I wasn’t buying his arguments, so he made what I later labeled The Statement: “I support the free market just as much as you do, but….” The “but” in this case was the exception he felt should be made to protect his business from competition and consumer choice.

Over the years I’ve heard The Statement from business people who argue that the State of Oregon and local jurisdictions should continue protecting them from new competition in all sorts of industries. The Portland taxi cartel successfully protected its position for decades before Cascade and others helped a group of Ethiopian immigrants to enter the market with Green Cab in 1998. Then, in 2015 the expanded taxi cartel tried to rely on The Statement to fight off ridesharing companies like Uber until the new smartphone technology that enabled them gave consumers power to demand that local governments allow the transportation freedom they promised…and delivered.

At the Capitol in Salem, I heard The Statement from business lobbyists who argued that the free market was great…except that their clients should be protected from new competitors in the home moving and natural hair braiding fields. Of course, these lobbyists weren’t simply protecting the interests of their paying clients…no, they always argued that keeping competitors out was for the benefit of the public health and safety. Luckily for the public, these arguments failed; and it is now much easier for aspiring entrepreneurs to enter these fields in Oregon, providing more choices for consumers and more economic opportunities for themselves.

On the national scene we’re now hearing a version of The Statement when presidential candidates say something like, “I’m for free trade too, but….” Flawed economic arguments about foreigners “taking our jobs” and other nations harming America by somehow imposing trade deficits on us are trotted out to justify protecting some businesses against others, and against consumers.

Business people argue for government protection at their peril. If government is justified in controlling who can provide our garbage service, or taxi service, or natural hair braiding, then why shouldn’t it control who can sell us our food, clothing, and shelter—all things we cannot do without?

If government can deny us the right to buy products produced in other countries, or can slap high tariffs on those products so that we have to pay much higher prices, how is this protecting “we the public”? Isn’t it really protecting “they, the special business interests”?

Lest anyone mistakenly believe that Cascade Policy Institute is “pro-business,” we are not. Rather, we are pro-liberty, pro-free-markets, and pro-consumer-choice. We understand that the slippery slope to a government-controlled economy begins when capitalists fail to consistently defend capitalism. The resulting economy harms most consumers and businesses alike at the expense of those who work for and are protected by big government.

There may be a case for government limiting competition in some fields and subsidizing some businesses at the expense of others; it’s just not a free-market case.

Who Profits from Gambling?

Governor Kate Brown opposes a plan by the Coquille Indian Tribe to build a casino in Medford.

In her public statement, the Governor said, “even a single additional casino is likely to lead to significant efforts to expand gaming across Oregon to the detriment of the public welfare.”

What she actually means is she’s opposed to more gambling if it’s not run by state government.

During the current two-year budget cycle, Oregon expects to earn $1.2 billion from the state Lottery. In January, Powerball mania resulted in record sales of $36 million in one week. A Lottery spokesman said, “Any time sales go up, that’s a good thing for our beneficiaries.”

The hypocrisy of Oregon politicians about gambling and other so-called “sinful” activities is tiresome. We are constantly lectured to avoid smoking, drinking, and gambling because those activities are bad for us; but as soon as legislators get a cut of the action, it’s full steam ahead.

Now that recreational marijuana is legal and taxed, politicians are suddenly enjoying a new profit stream. Can marijuana advertising be far behind?

As soon as our governor starts reining in the state Lottery, I might take her concerns about tribal casinos seriously. Until then, she should stop pretending to be a voice of morality.

Governor Jerry Brown: “Economically, Minimum Wages May Not Make Sense”

As California Governor Jerry Brown signed his state’s $15 minimum wage bill into law on April 4, he acknowledged, “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense.” He went on to say that work is “not just an economic equation,” calling labor “part of living in a moral community.” “Morally and socially and politically, [minimum wages] make every sense because it binds the community together and makes sure that parents can take care of their kids in a much more satisfactory way,” Brown said.

So now it’s official—at least in our neighbor to the south—that laws don’t have to make economic sense for politicians to enact them. Laws just have to somehow “bind the community together.” When a strong majority of voters want a law to pass, as they apparently do for higher minimum wages, politicians take that as a signal that they can give voters what they want even if the law will hurt many of the very people they claim it will help. Governor Brown was just honest enough in this case to effectively admit that people may be hurt, but so what? Binding the community together apparently makes everything OK.

Of course, communities bound together by such faulty ideas will eventually come unbound, at least in the sense that many of their members will be priced out of the jobs and economic opportunity the politicians promised they would enjoy.

Minimum wage laws primarily hurt younger, less skilled, and less educated workers who will lose their jobs or not get jobs in the first place because employers can’t justify paying them what the law says they must. Employers who can’t generate enough, or any, profits at mandatory higher wage rates will also be hurt, as will consumers who end up paying higher prices they can ill afford in return for “binding their communities together.”

The governor of New York signed his state’s new $15 minimum wage law on April 4 also, and Oregon’s Governor Kate Brown signed our new slightly lower minimum wage law on March 2. Neither of these two leaders acknowledged what California’s governor did: that minimum wage laws may not make economic sense. They probably know it, but why raise doubts? They would much rather take plenty of credit, and later blame employers for not delivering the economic goodies government is so good at promising and so bad at producing.

1 2 3 4