Oregon voters to decide on ballot measure to give every resident $1,600 that has sparked massive opposition fundraising - oregonlive.com - eviltoast

If approved, Measure 118 would institute a 3% tax on most corporations’ total sales in Oregon above $25 million and distribute the money equally among residents of all ages and incomes. The system would go into effect next year.

  • yogi_pogi@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    I can’t imagine who would be opposed to this that isn’t brainwashed by corporations.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • LwL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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.

          • dil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      The corporations will simply raise prices to make up their deficit. What’s stopping them?