Document text
The supporters of Ballot Measure 97 say it's high time Oregon started funding its public schools, health care and social services adequately. They also say big corporations doing business in the state don't pay enough in taxes. They're right. But Measure 97 is the wrong way to fix those things. Measure 97 would levy a 2.5 percent gross receipts tax on "C" corporations on all Oregon sales in excess of $25 million. C corporations are those that pay their own taxes, rather than the owners being taxed. That's only about 1,000 companies out of 400,000 doing business here. And many of them are very large. Saying that Comcast, Monsanto and Bank of America can afford to pay more than they do in taxes makes a good sound bite. The tax would raise an estimated $3 billion year. That's $6 billion a biennium, which would be a huge infusion of cash for the state budget. The effects of a tax that large are the subject of heated debate. Opponents say companies will  pass on the additional tax to their customers by raising prices. Backers of the measure say national corporations don't adjust prices on state-by-state basis, and consumers wouldn't see much of an effect. The reality is not that simple. Those companies that can pass on the cost probably will, but not all companies can do that. Measure 97 would tax the gross receipts of corporations without regard to profit. Companies that operate on a small profit margin could wind up paying more in tax than they earned. Lithia Motors, for instance, reported profits of less than 2.5 percent in two of the past three years, meaning it would pay more in Oregon taxes than it made here. Chairman Sid DeBoer noted Lithia dealerships couldn't raise prices to cover that, because their competitors are not subject to the tax. Other states with gross receipts taxes on business spread the tax over a much larger number of companies at a much lower rate. Measure 97 taxes that did get passed on would hit low-income consumers the hardest. Because Measure 97 is a sales tax on corporations, any costs passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices would be essentially a hidden sales tax. But an ordinary retail sales tax collected at the register — which Oregon voters have rejected multiple times — normally exempts necessities such as food, medicine and utilities to reduce the regressive impact on low-income consumers. Measure 97 has no such provisions. The state Legislative Revenue Office estimated the tax would result in a loss of 38,000 private-sector jobs over five years, while public-sector jobs would increase by 17,700, as a result of hiring financed with the proceeds of Measure 97. That's good for the public-sector unions that are the major backers of Measure 97. It's not so good for private-sector workers. Measure 97 supporters point to language in the initiative saying the proceeds must be spent on education, health care and social services. But that's disingenuous. Short of a constitutional amendment — which Measure 97 is not — an initiative may not dictate spending decisions to the Legislature. The money would go into the state general fund, and lawmakers could spend it any way they wished. We are not suggesting that Oregon does not need more revenue, or that its tax system does not need reform. But Measure 97 would generate more revenue by making the tax system less fair, not more. The state is long overdue for a real overhaul of its lopsided tax structure. Measure 97 is not it, and if it passes, that needed overhaul will be even less likely to happen. We recommend a no vote on Ballot Measure 97.