Be the Spark!

contribute now

Measure 67

AIR DATE: Thursday, January 7th 2010
POSTED BY: JULIE SABATIER
Download the mp3 for this show.
Photo credit: Fatty Tuna / Creative Commons

The New Year brought a fresh, new Voter's Guide to mailboxes across Oregon, with information (and plenty of opinions) about two tax measures on the January 26 ballot. On Monday we talked about Measure 66. On Thursday we turn to Measure 67.

Measure 67 would increase the corporate minimum tax in Oregon. For most businesses some C-corporations* this means a change from $10 to $150. Some corporations with over $500,000 in revenue here would pay a minimum tax of approximately 0.1 percent on their Oregon sales. The measure would also raise tax rates by 1.3 percentage points on profits over $250,000. By 2013, that increase would drop to 1 percent, and would only apply to profits over $10 million. (There are more details, of course! The Oregonian has handy calculators here.)

Some business owners take issue with the fact that the measure would be retroactive, meaning they would be taxed on last year's sales, because they say they didn't figure this into their already strained 2009 budgets. And businesses with high sales figures but potentially low profit margins (such as car dealerships and grocery stores) argue that it's unfair to base a tax on their revenue because that number does not accurately represent their profitability.

Other business owners, who support the measure, say the new tax would not ultimately impact their bottom line. Some go further, saying a tax increase seems fair because a chunk of the money will go towards funding education, which they say is in their interest as employers looking to hire well-educated applicants.

How would new taxes on corporations affect you, or your business? How do you plan to vote, and why?

GUESTS:

Tagged as: business · measure 67 · tax

Photo credit: Fatty Tuna / Creative Commons

I've owned and managed businesses in Portland. Measure 67 would have had a harsh impact on our little retail market. I took only personal satisfaction from the 60 - 80 hour work weeks during our 3 years of operation. As partners - my wife's professional business supported our home - we paid our taxes and employees, but we never had enough to pay me. Finally, that took its toll and we closed.

We had substantial gross sales numbers that would have resulted in yet another tax burden under Measure 67 despite our complete lack of profit. Who knows, maybe that would have forced me to see reality a year sooner. Just as easily, as the economy now shows signs of recovery, it might cause a business owner desparate to keep the doors open to lay off an employee or shut out the lights.

petepetersen —

Pete, I'd submit that there's another important consideration in all of this: the revenue hit that small businesses will take because their customers will trim back their expenditures. Follow the sub-stories in the highlighted links:

Revisiting Small Business Realities with an Oregon Senator

Lastly, MP97303 wrote me sometime ago about his pending decision on whether or not to locate his manufacturing plant in Oregon. He's since decided not to. Last night, Th!nk Electric Cars opted not to located their manufacturing plant to Oregon, partly because of tax policies. That cost Oregon 415 new jobs, more than $40 in new capital investments and countless secondary jobs:

Oregon Loses Out to Indiana For Electric Car Plant

ThinkOregon —

I agree with you 100%.  But think about it.  There are more people out there seeking money through increased taxation, which is why the measure will probably pass and why more business will move or decide not to locate in Oregon.  You cannot legislate equality, even though some say that you can even the playing field.  Does that also apply to those getting medical treatment while wearing "Air Jordans" and Rollex watches?

Kirby Fox

KirbyFox —
http://richfoods.comuv.com/
http://additivesfoods.blogge.no/
helpgodme —

Although we do own a "S" Corporation, the effect of this measure will be greatest on our three elementary school aged children. 

Job losses have decreased the amount of state taxes collected.  Where would the opponents of this tax suggest the money come from?  There is absolutely nothing left to cut in schools except the school year. In fact, schools have been relying on the financial support of parents and community partners to pay for the "extras" such as art teachers, music teachers, and librarians for years.  Since the downturn started, this source has been spent down to the point that there is no cushion moving forward.

klb —

Even if we do move to another state, we would have to stop outsourcing our manufacturing to Oregon companies because of the increase cost they will have to pass on to us.

Essays and Dissertations

beanbowen —

Here are the loudest arguments I hear in support of 67:

1) We need the money for important stuff.

True. But if the legislature wanted to send citizens a spending bill, they could have. They sent a tax bill, so we should be evaluating this as tax policy.

2) Oregon's $10 minimum corporate tax is unusually low and really really old.

Neither of these things makes it inherently dumb. To my mind, anyone who makes this argument is just not being sincere.

3) It will only affect a few big corporations.

Okay, this is a valid argument. But here's my #1 question about 67: isn't almost any corporate tax on gross revenue (as opposed to net profit) basically regressive? It raises the cost for high-volume companies to do business. This will translate into higher prices for the consumer, lower volume for the producer and deadweight loss for the economy ... and the people who end up paying the tax will be the poor as much as the rich.

Here's an Occam's razor proposal of my own: doesn't a corporate tax hike seem like an obvious ploy to raise taxes on consumers without them knowing it?

Taxes are necessary, and Oregon needs more revenue. It seems to me that Democrats should make that case rather than pretending that "corporations" in general are rich villains and using this as an excuse to raise taxes that will, in the end, fall on the public at large.

johnatthebar —

I'll will likely vote for 66 & 67, while feeling extremely "dirty", as our elected officials again duck the important issues. Most discussions on these measures focus on the taxing mechanics and fairness, yet bypass long term solutions. Here are just a few issues to consider:

  • Ballot Initiatives - there is no connection between ballot measures that affect revenue and those that affect services. In the same election, we can approve revenue reduction and service increases - think Measure 5 and Measure 11. This clearly is not the path to a balanced budget!
  • Kicker - instead of a refund, why not create a "rainy day" fund to balance the inevitable revenue fluctations?
  • PERS - guaranteed, above market returns are not sustainable and have been abandonded by most private employers, and even Union shops. The State of Oregon needs a realistic, sustainable retirement plan

I am a small business manager and school supporter who gives generously to the local school foundation.

lesjoel —

As a current business owner I can tell you that this would kill my business instantly.  My business already pays more in taxes than we would pay in many socialized countries where they have full health care.  It is staggering to me that our politicians can't see -or don't care- about the impact this would have!  They are obviously out of touch.  They voted to give themselves a raise last year during a huge recession and now they want to put small businesses out of business?


We have already begun preparing paperwork and scouting locations for moving our company to another state if this passes.  Our employees will loose their jobs and be left to search for new employment in a state that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.  Unless we are prepared to move immediately upon this bill passing our company will go under and our employees will loose their jobs anyway.


Even if we do move to another state, we would have to stop outsourcing our manufacturing to Oregon companies because of the increase cost they will have to pass on to us.  I know for a fact that some of the companies I use will loose business from around the country in addition to loosing my business as well.

DKNjones —

Can you tell us more about your company's finances? If you've begun scouting locations, I assume that you're figuring that Measure 67 would mean significantly higher new taxes, which either means sizable profits or sizable Oregon sales. Can you give us a sense for what kind of a hit you're expecting?


Also, do you have any idea where you’d want to move?

David Miller —

I apologise if this seems a little intrusive, but without some sort of facts this could easily be hyperbole, and you are holding your business up as an example of one Oregon will lose if measure 67 passes. Could you please tell us what range of net/gross we are talking about and what country with socialized medicine you are talking about? I don't need an actual number, simply a broad range of income net/gross for which this is true.

If you are holding your company up as an example of what Oregon can lose, I need to know more before I can base my opinion and my vote on that situation.

DaveInOregon —

A very important thing for people to realize about business revenue is that "revenue" is completely different than "profit".  I learned this from a struggling farmer when I was younger who told me his farm did over $4 million in annual revenue.  I instantly jumped to the conclusion that he was a millionaire.  He then explained to me what turn-over meant and showed me how much it costs to run a farm.  Having that little nugget of understanding I have gone from seeing a $500,000 a year company as being filthy rich to looking at their operation and wondering how some of them even survive!  Many of them won’t if this bill is passed.

DKNjones —

In 1931 when the tax was first levied, a cup of coffee was 3 cents. Ten bucks in 1931 would buy some $325 in consumer goods today, or pay for over $420 worth of unskilled labor. Moreover, $10 represented $770 in terms of nominal GDP per capita, or $1,888 as a relative share of GDP. From that perspective, $10 probably seemed like a steep, but not unreasonable tax to pay. Today, barriers to entry in business are vastly lower than they were in 1931, and the protections afforded are much greater. $150 seems like a terrific bargain for corporations. 

(Dollar values derived from www.measuringworth.com)

dpatrick —

I'm curious to know why the tax hasn't changed in such a long time.  Was it in order to be more competitive with other states?  Was it the result of lobbying from a powerful special interest?

My two concerns are thus:

I'm no accountant, but couldn't a company, especially a small business, just hide their profits by paying them out in salaries to the executives who are also the owners?

Also, if these businesses' margins are so small that they can't pay even $150 in twelve months, are they really serving the public good, should they become not-for-profit, or should they simply fail and allow more innovative competitors to take their place?

OregonSean —

You are wrong when you write "For most businesses this means a change from $10 to $150."

Most (about 2/3) businesses in Oregon are proprietorships which will pay nothing more under Measure 67.

Businesses that pass profits through to owners -- partnerships, limited liability companies (LLCs), limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and "s-corporations" (corporations with a limited number of shareholders that elect to pass through profits to shareholders instead of being subject to the federal corporate income tax) -- pay just $150, and only S-corps had been paying $10 - the other pass through entities had no entity tax when filing their partnership return.

And among c-corporations, those corporations that are subject to the federal corporate income tax, about 70 percent will pay either $150 (about 49 percent of C-corps) or will pay no additional profits tax under Measure 67 (about 21 percent of C-corps).

Put another way, only about 30 percent of C-corps will pay more than $150 minimum tax or some additional tax under the new tax rate for companies with profits greater than $250,000.

It is also wrong to say that "The measure would also raise tax rates by 1.3 percent on profits over $250,000." It adds 1.3 percentage points to the rate, it doesn't increase the rate by 1.3 percent.

csheketoff —

Chuck,

Thanks for the eagle eyes. I've changed the post.

David Miller —

I have noting against the tax increase because it is one way of pooling money to increase government’s revenue on the other hand it will be the business that will be affected, of course instead of having a big profit, some of the portion wil be considered as a tax expense. Did you know that there are some ways to manage Social Security benefits correctly.  The Social Security Administration determined that people have a Normal Retirement Age, or NRA, and that's the age at which they can take Social Security benefits.  For those born before 1937, it's 65.  Anyone born after 1970, it's 67.  Anyone born in between has an NRA of 66.  If you withdraw before your NRA, you get diminished benefits, but delaying until after will net increased benefits – both options affect survivor's benefits.  Also, many people stay employed after retirement, and the amount of extra cash you get from benefits is also affected.

Jhonny —

New permanent corporate income tax rates

An additional permanent tax increase applies to auto insurance quotes corporate profits. The current 6.6 percent income tax rate will apply to profits up to $250,000 then increase to 7.9 percent for net income in excess of $250,000 for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2009, and before Jan. 1, 2011. The top rate falls slightly to 7.6 percent for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2011, and before Jan. 1, 2013. For tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2013, the 7.6 percent rate applies to corporate income in excess of $10 million.

mike3050 —

It's important to note for large corporations making a profit....like your guest. cheapest auto insurance They pay the greater of the tax they are already paying or the minimum tax associated with their Oregon sales. auto insurance quotes So on 10 million in sales, if he was paying more than $15,000 in tax this would not cost him a dime.

mikeqw —

Given that the vast majority of businesses will pay nothing or just $150, the "retroactive" argument is specious. The only reason the measure is now so retroactive is because the opponents petitioned for referral. That's like a coach complaining that the other team is slowing down the game while also calling for every available time out.

And don't swallow the low profit margin argument hook, line and sinker. Put the figures in perspective and you will see that they are bunk.

If a grocery store really is subject to the minimum tax (in mid-2009 it was reported that Kroger, the owner of Fred Meyer stores, was having a good year because people were not eating out as much during the recession), that would mean that on a $50 grocery purchase the tax would be at most $0.05 (5 cents is one-tenth of one percent of $50).  That's about the price of a paper or plastic bag (at least that's the discount they give you when you use your own) and will not result in raising the cost of food.

And remember, the Oregon Business Association is the group that pushed a minimum tax based on sales. ...OBA's plan started off higher than $150 and ended lower than what the legislature chose. Associated Oregon Industries had a flat tax, but it was also greater than $150. And both the OBA and AOI had across the board increases in the profits tax (not just on companies with $250,000 in profits) and both would have taxed all taxpayers (AOI's would have exempted only the few taxpayers who aren't in the 9% bracket).  But the legislature chose to protect small businesses and picked a minimum tax rate (about one-tenth of one percent) that was well below the rate in Washington and that was only a 5 cents on a $50 purchase. When you compare that to a tip on a $50 meal at a restaurant ($15-$20) or the cost of the grocery bags on a $50 purchase at the grocery store you realize the legislature made the right decision.

csheketoff —

Since non profits contribute nothing to the state economy, but use state resources there should be at tax on non profit revenues. 

cfbednarek —

Non-profits contribute nothing to the state economy? I run a non-profit with sixteen employees, each of whom I pay payroll taxes for. That's sixteen people earning living wages and spending their dollars in Oregon to support their families, not to mention the money funneled into the local economy via the money we spend on rent, utilities, and various supplies.

Non-profits don't enjoy some blanket vacation from all taxes and to suggest otherwise is ignorant.

agnostrum —

Thank you for the thoughtful discussion on this subject.  I am a former reporter who has had an opportunity over the past 16 years to teach in the Oregon public school system.  I can tell you first hand how important these measures are to my school, my classroom and my students.

Measure 66 asks those who are doing the best in our state — individuals making over $125,000 a year and couples making over $250,000 — to pay a bit more to help Oregonians who are being hurt most by economic crisis. Measure 67 says that large corporations that make millions of dollars in Oregon should pay more than $10 to fund schools, basic services, and public safety that we all depend on.

What IS the alternative if these measures fail?  I know what will happen to many classrooms.  We will see fewer teachers.  We will see less supplies to support learning.  We will see classrooms even more crowded so there will be less time working with students one-on-one.

The impact on our future generation depends on how voters in Oregon respond to  these measures.  Those that are being asked to give more obviously were able to prosper due to a good education.  I think that's all we are asking as supporters of these two measures.  Please join me in voting yes.

OregonTeacher —

Absolutely, the measures need to be passed. People who blithely and continually insist that taxes need to be cut, and 'there's too much fat,' need to stop drinking the kool aid. YES; unequivocally, everyone is responsible for contributing to the best of his or her abilities, and no one should receive a 'free ride.'

HOWEVER; a government's responsibility is to provide for security, AND a reasonable level of services and resources - sufficient to sustain essential comfort and care - to EVERYONE, including those who are NOT so fortunate as to be able to successfully fend for themselves. This requires a TAX BASE such that those who are able to pay more, do so, in order that the less fortunate be able to benefit from necessary public services (education, law enforcement, firefighting, roads, and, I would argue, basic healthcare). 

A cohesive society is a conglomeration of individuals of varying capabilities and needs. Ultimately, the entire society either floats or sinks as an entirety. By taking an attitude of 'Well, if they can't afford it, they don't get it,' these tax-whiners would ensure our eventual demise.  

WpeOpb —

I am undecided on both measures. I do have a question about a commercial I've seen that references Wall Street bailouts, executive bonuses and credit card fees. If the intention of the producers/sponsors of this commercial is to suggest that our taxes in Oregon somehow will address the madness in the nation's financial industry, I think that's misleading.

Patrick —

I have worked professionally with companies throughout the US West.  There are going to be  higher state taxes everywhere as states try to bail out floundering budgets.  States all tried to expand services in too many directions and the frantic cutting in WA and OR - for instance - these days cannot catch the free falling "revenues".

Use a good accountant and pay whatever they say you owe.  As tax levels rise, some companies will fade, some company owners will go do something else, but most  will soldier on. Ultimately the higher taxes are paid by us, the indivuduals who buy products and use services.  Businesses imbed their costs of doing business into prices.  The smart businesses do this early and often.

Whatever measures the state legislatures take to raise revenue, the process  is slow, clunky, and badly managed.  Business owners can react much more quickly than state agencies.  While we have to take into account whatever they pass for tax measures, going businesses adapt quickly and deal with whatever foolishness comes down.

The best tax plan would be an interstate compact with a uniform state tax treatment throughout a region and sensible tax sharing among various interstate jursdictions.  But since that is not likely, just deal with whatever comes down.

roboturkey —

This tax increase is a terrible idea. 

Businesses losing money would pay taxes based on their gross sales, anywhere up to $100,000--and that's businesses not making a profit!  It's a lie that most businesses only pay $10 in taxes.  The only businesses paying the $10 tax are those businesses which are losing money--but they also pay all sorts of other taxes, like income, property, excise, gas, unemployment, etc.  And schools won't suffer if the legislature doesn't want them to.  If the measure fails, the legislature could propose TEMPORARY taxes, which many business leaders have long been suggesting.  If this tax increase passes, you can be sure that the middle class will suffer.  Businesses will have to pass on their tax increase to their customers and employees to stay afloat, by raising prices, laying off workers, moving out of the state, or closing their doors. 

This is a bad idea, plain and simple.  Especially during this tough economic time.

EstherY —

Maybe I do not understand, but how can any company justify only paying $10?  It just does not make any sense.

connie2 —

This issue touches my heart because I can relate to the issues being faced by all parties.  I have in the past served as a state employee, teacher, and CEO of a small business.  I also have graduate degrees in economics and educational policy.  In addition, my family has owned four very successful small businesses in three states.  Their lasted enterprise is located in Oregon.  In the past year, they have increased their gross revenues by over 10% and have added several employees.  However, their net on their business will be zero dollars this year.  Why, because instead of taking their atypical 1% net on their $500,000 investment they hired two people and increased their donations to local non-profits from $5,000 to $25,000.  They asked me the other day for my "professional" opinion about what they should continue to do with their funds.  I told them that if this measure passes, they should close their business and take their investment elsewhere.

Why?  Because a business with a high cost of goods typically only nets 1-2% in a good year.  Assuming above average growth of 2.5-3% a quarter, normal employment rates won't return to normal for nine years.  That means that the next decade won't be good.  When savings accounts yield very little (as in the past few years) it makes sense to be self-employed because you won't get a decent yield on your money.  However, with public debt climbing and treasury bond yields getting higher every day, it makes more sense to take the money they have invested in inventory and put it somewhere else (e.g. not in Oregon).  How could I advise them any differently?  Why would anyone with money invest keep it or bring to Oregon when they can have a higher return on their investment somewhere else with less effort.     

I am voting NO.  The schools will continue to educate our children.  I have lived in several states where the teachers get paid much less than in Oregon (Oregon teachers are the 14th highest paid in the nation with the average teacher getting paid more than $50K, their salaries have increased over 26% in the past 10 years but have the test scores in Oregon increased that much as well) and my kids have turned out just fine. 

onassignment —

I am planning to vote no on this, and any tax measures, until the legislature figures out how to fix our tax structure. 

It is ridiculous that every time the economy gets rough, the legislature tries to place a greater burden on the people of this state.  If the state came up with a more balanced tax structure, including a sales tax, maybe we would not be in this position. 

The legislature needs to fix this problem permanently and the band-aid fixes and fear mongering tactics. 

Derf —

It's important to note for large corporations making a profit....like your guest. They pay the greater of the tax they are already paying or the minimum tax associated with their Oregon sales.

So on 10 million in sales, if he was paying more than $15,000 in tax this would not cost him a dime.

TEDNOTTODD —

It sounds like this measure stands to most greatly effect those businesses that employ people living the closest to poverty.  It worries me that this measure may close down small, locally owned businesses, while the larger corporate businesses dealing in millions of dollars will have more of a cushion.  Are we unwittingly compromising our business diversity?

ktkatekate —

Yes, as the economist currently on the radio just mentioned, there will be a change in the landscape of type of businesses in Oregon. The people who vote for this thinking that they will be punishing the large businesses will be doing them a favor because this WILL put kill many small businesses giving larger businesses an advantage over you, the consumer.  Hmmm, Starbucks or the local coffee shop. 

 The $10 corporate fee IS a public relations DIVERSION to convince to public to vote yes.  The issues are not about the fee but about the other two tax increases they have are written into this same measure!  The measure was written to purposely confuse people.  The issues is about the state trying to pass a permanent sales tax on you the consumer without you realizing what is going on.   

onassignment —

This is not true.  Small businesses are usually s-corporations or partnerships.  They will only pay $150 dollars.  Many teachers and healthcare workers will certainly lose their jobs if these measures don't pass. This measure protects the lower class by making sure thay have healthcare and a good education. Also the highest wage earners will be the ones that take on the higher taxes.

jgingerich —

Yes Connie I agree - how can large companies justify a $10 payment??  I myself have written that $10 check for our corporation for about 10 years now and felt ridiculous each time.  I am happy to pay $150 instead.  While we do get hit with plenty of taxes as a business in Portland and multnomah County, I feel we get amenities for that tax.  The state needs to also get its piece.  If Nike, Columbia Sportsware, Kaiser, McDonalds, Les Schwab, Macy's etc, are all paying the state only $10 that is criminal.

petebarb —

Would some one please address the sustainability of these tax measures.  The state budget increases every two years.  What is the next source of 'untapped' tax revenue?  Especially in a down economy.

cfbednarek —

Your speakers keeps referring to corporations or businesses paying the minumum tax on gross sales. ONLY C-corporation will pay that.  Most small businesses are not c-corporation. S-corporations, partenerships, and LLCs will only pay $150 total.  PLEASE make this clear to your listensers.

jgingerich —

I am a senior at Summit High School in Bend, Oregon. This is the first time I will be able to vote on legislature that personally and directly affects me. Firstly, teachers and administration are terrified of the implications of 66 and 67 not passing-- and let's be clear, the negative impacts would take place mid-school-year. As a student myself, I recognize the students’ fear and decided to advocate through the students’ medium: facebook.

In just a few weeks, the group, Oregon Students—Yes on 66 & 67, has about 720 student members from schools statewide. Though discussions in the page’s forum, many valuable points of interest were raised.

My immediate personal concerns as a student regard teacher job loss, the subsequent decrease in student-teacher ratio, and loss of school days. In my district, if these measures don’t pass, we will lose most second- and third-year teachers and this school year will potentially be 30 days shorter. That’s ridiculous!

Specific to Measure 67, I feel that Oregon businesses should have personal investment in Oregon students’ education, as these students are the direct feeders for the Oregon work force. Unless Oregon businesses prefer uneducated and discouraged workers, they should vote in favor of these measures. On that note, during a recession, the demand for social services increases drastically. These services attempt to keep people employed, in their houses, out of poverty, and from resorting to crime. The business community also benefits from these aspects of 66 and 67.

It seems irresponsible for Oregon to fail this measure, especially in this economic climate. Please, the students implore you, vote yes on measure 66 and 67. 

NaomiWright —

I'm really disturbed by the fact that the curriculum in your school seems to be guided by the political stance of the teacher's union rather than actually academic inquiry. 

All choices have costs and benefits and your teachers do have a choice about your education. 

I propose you that in your classroom you conduct a basic comparative study (something you will have to do in real life and an exercise that will also prepare you for college).

Compare average teacher salaries across the nation, average number of school days, average length of school, against whatever indicator your class thinks is important to your education (e.g. average SAT scores, average graduation rates, average employment rates, etc.)  Your math, economics, or political science teacher should be able to help you set up the problem and gather the data with very little effort on their part. 

I think you'll be surprised at the results. 

Things to ponder while you discuss the results...

If Oregon has such a progressive education system that prepares students for careers the why has unemployment in Oregon been one of the highest in the US during the past year.

Are the test scores of the students in this state as high as the average salaries of their teachers? (e.g. if teachers have the 14th highest salaries in Oregon shouldn't your SAT/ACT scores be approximately 14th highest in the nation as well)

Do teachers in Oregon get paid more per hour than teachers in other states (e.g. average teacher salary divided by average school days divided by average hours in school per day)

I implore you as a student, as you seem to be one of those gems in the rough, to hold your teachers to a higher moral and academic standard.  Should your teachers really be spending their time trying to brain wash you into accepting their political agenda or should they be spending their time teaching you critical thinking skills like how to gather and analyze data?

onassignment —

@ onassignment 

In no way were my inquisitions into 66 and 67 instigated by my teachers or school administration. As a concerned, voting citizen, I became interested in these issues. Please don't be disturbed. Schools and teachers are still free thought... though they are pretty adamant and biased in one respect: that schools should remain open and able to educate students.

Thank you, kindly for the suggestion of a comparative study. My government teacher has superceded you, however, with an indepth and unbiased examination of the ramifications of both pass and faillure of 66 and 67. These studies were conducted by students through thorough examination of the text of the legislature. 

In a second comment, I have included the results of that study you suggested I conduct. 

I think, perhaps, Onassignment has something against the teachers’ union, but it would seem that this is an unwarranted bias-- as the study results show. Oregon is not only ranking higher than average in both graduation rates and SAT scores, but students are being taught by teachers receiving salaries that are only seventy one dollars higher than the national average.

In this respect, I do not find it ludicrous that teachers might want to defend their pay.

That being said, I speak as a student, not as an advocate for teacher rights. Let me be clear—my advocacy of 66 and 67’s passing is completely selfish. I do not want to face the loss of many of my teachers mid-year. I do not want to be in math or language classes with upwards of fifty students. I do not want to lose a month of school. These are the very real consequences if these measures do not pass. 

NaomiWright —

@ on assignment continued

Here, are the results of the study you suggested I conduct:

Average teacher salaries across the nation, according to the American Federation of Teachers’ Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends 2007, for 2006-2007 school year:

         National average: $51,009

         Oregon average: $51,080

Average number of school days, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics:

  • National average: 180 days of instruction per year
  • Oregon: this year we have 181

Average length of school, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics and a count of my school day’s hours:

  • National: 6.7 hours
  • My district: 7 hours 

compared against

Average SAT scores, according to the National College Board:

     National:

          Critical reading: 501

          Mathematics: 515

          Writing: 493

     Oregon:

          Critical Reading: 523

          Math: 525

          Writing: 499

     My school:

          Critical reading: 532

          Math: 553

          Writing: 530

Average graduation rates, according to Editorial Projects on Education

         National: 69.2%

         Oregon: 74.9%

         My school: 85.2%

Average employment rates: frankly I’m not sure what you meant by this, as many students go on to college, and their eventual employment, or likelihood of employment is difficult to guesstimate. 

NaomiWright —

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  Your comparisons are being diluted by your choice of data. Comparative studies should employ the same level of data (state vs state).   

In the report that you referenced, Oregon teachers are the 15th highest paid in the nation (pg. 16).  Therefore, one should reasonably assume that when comparing economic returns to investment with regard to education that teachers in Oregon should have students that test at approximately that same level. For instance, teachers that are paid the 15th highest in the country should, in theory, have students that score approximately 15th highest in the nation.

According to NAEP (I would encourage you to explore more than the limited data that I'm going to discuss here and talk about the pros and cons of data type with your teacher)

OR teacher pay 15 of 52 vs. 2007 4th Gr Math score 39 of 52

OR teacher pay 15 of 52 vs. 2007 8th Gr Math score 23 of 52

OR teacher pay 15 of 52 vs 2007 4th Grade Reading 41 of 52

OR teacher pay 15 of 52 vs 2007 4th Grade Reading 19 of 52

Comparing SAT scores is a bit less useful as not all states require all students to take the SAT.  All states do require that students be able to read and perform math. 

I don't hate the teacher's union or teachers.  I used to teach in both FL and VA.  I do want teachers to be held to high standards and want them to put their students before themselves.  I would never leave my students mid-year due to a budget shortfall.  And they shouldn't either.

I need to go cook dinner and help my kids with their homework...

Regards.

onassignment —

I am a very small business owner and because I make less than $250k I carry my fair tax share (%)  while the big corps shrug it off. What is correct about the poor and middle class carrying such an unfair portion of the tax burden?

Just an opinion: the doc film "The Corporation" should be required viewing by voters...

NoPoScum —

Those businesses (c-corporations) that have large gross sales should do their part to pay for state services.  They are using the state services - roads, police, fire.  Their kids go to school and their parents need healthcare.  These large corporations need to pay their fair share too.  S-corporation and partnerships pay because all profits flow through to their personal taxes.

jgingerich —

I am a small corporation that manufactues furniture.  All of my suppliers are here in Oregon and all of my sales are in Oregon.  How much will this cost me?  I'm barely holding on as it is.

loveit —

You can determine exactly how much this will cost you using the online calculator at http://gov.oregonlive.com/taxes.  If you are an s- corp or LLC then you will only pay $150.

jgingerich —

I'm without reservations here - going to vote in favor of Measure 67!  I don't think that passing these measures prevent a longer-range look at fiscal responsibility.  I would also be in favor of a limited and small sales tax on certain kinds of items, that would sunset in - say 5 years.  Maybe 2% for non-necessity items.  Necessity items would be food and clothing. This sales tax would be used to help fill out city and county budgets.

Nancy - Portland

nwestrell —

Using this thinking we'd eventually be like California... with ~8% sales tax and 50B in the hole... no thanks.

rethomas —

Measures 66 and 67 help to make our tax system more fair and protect critical services.  For years, as a teacher, and now retired teacher, I have seen schools and educational staff bear the burden of shortages in our state.  Many cuts in days and programs in our schools have hurt our students. These measures will make Oregon's tax system fair and protect vital services. It will help preserve essential services in K-12 education, home care for seniors and the Oregon Health Plan. Oregon's corporate minimum tax hasn't changed since 1931 and for years two/ thirds of the corporations doing business in Oregon have paid only $10. in corporate minimum tax.In passing  these measures we will protect vital services without putting more of the burden on the middle class.  I do not want to see my grandchildren lose their teachers and have large class sizes in their classrooms. I want them to have the quality education they deserve.

terridomenigoni —

Let's see - do I have thie right?  The Federal Government said that there was no cost of living increases, therefore, no adjustments in Social Security, yet the state of Oregon saw it fit to increase wages 3% because of COLA.  Then they provide employees an 8% guarantee return on their retirement funds which, if not met, will be adjusted through taxes, and if more is earned, provide state employees a stipen adjustment.  And then, even though they might not directly benefit from the tax increase proposals, TriMet recently provided employees the most generous health care increase imaginable (I know of no private program even equal to it).  Need I talk about police and firemen pensions.  And yet, the state wants even more money.  Yah - I'll vote for it when the government decides to be a bit more frugal, but short of that, voting for tax increases only encourages more of the same type of legislation.  There is a concept called "might makes right" which means that government, being as large as they are, can get away with this nonsense because they are bigger than those opposing them.  Some day we'll realize that there is a limit to  excessive spending, and that will come when our financial system "implodes".   Also -  figure it out.  The proponents say that the tax will be small - $10 to what?  $130 or $150?  Then they tell you how much money this will raise.  Do the math!  The taxes collected will simply be much larger.  Yah - lets  discourage entrepreneurialship and business in Oregon.  Why else do you think this state has problems.  My friends and clients are moving to Vancouver.

Scanners at airports an invasion of privacy?  I agree, but I do not believe that an individual's right to privacy transcends the collective rights of ALL OTHER PASSENGERS to a safe flight.  Come on- if you need to, put a mask over your face if you believe your exposed body will be recognized by others. 

Kirby FoxPortland

KirbyFox —

The campaign against Measure 67 self-righteously calls itself "Oregonians Against Job Killing Taxes," threatening economic harm if the measure passes.  Absolutely not true!  What about all the teachers, service providers, community college instructors and more who will be laid off if it fails?  Your first guest, Dave Lundhal, says the small increase in taxes will not adversely impact his business, nor his hiring practices... even in a recession.  How can anyone possibly argue that if Measure 67 passes, corporate giants will lay people off in droves simply because they will now pay more than $10 a year in taxes -- when we KNOW for certain that HUNDREDS in the public sector WILL be lost?  As taxpayers, we end up paying even MORE if that happens, because of increased unemployment costs, food stamps, and assistance to laid off public employees who will be left in absolute poverty? 

I do NOT work for the government, and I never have.  But we need to think through this to the end.  Do we really want the long term pain NOT passing these measures will cause to our state?  Higher class sizes, more unfilled potholes and deteriorating streets, more unemployed public section workers, higher fees to offset the loss in state revenues, massive tuition hikes at public universities and community colleges - in the midst of slashing course offerings? 

As a low income individual, I made $16,000 last year and paid $817 in state income tax.  And I don't mind doing that.  My taxes help to fund the QUALITY of live I believe in, so that all Oregonians can have access to education, parks, roads, and desperately needed care for low income seniors.  But what I DO have a problem with is that I paid 800 PERCENT MORE than the average big corporation, which only paid $10.  THAT IS SIMPLY WRONG, and completely out of balance.  We all need to contribute our fair share - and that especially includes Corporate Giants who can AFFORD to contribute more.... but may not want to.

GentlePerson2 —

By the way.... if a giant corporation truly can not afford to contribute $150 instead of $10..... believe me, they're ALREADY in trouble..... "losing jobs" isn't the issue.  Any business that is so in the red that $150 will put it under was destined to be "put under" very soon anyway....

GentlePerson2 —

Our small family S Corp was not put out of business by the $10.00 minimum tax assessed even in years that we lost money, but we might not have kept trying to make it profitable  for as many years as we did had we faced $150.00 a year minimum tax in those years.  When stated as a "tax" it doesn't make any sense at all to me to assess any "income tax" on businesses with negative net income.  Just call it a fee for granting a business license, or some other term.

I think there should be no "income tax" assessed if there is no reportable income.

BlueJ —

To the caller who is concerned about state employee raises. I'd like to remind him who works for the state. Social workers, fighting for children's right, protecting those who have the least. Ask my case working friends who now have forced furlough days, and raise freezes how they are getting by. The case load is the same, and they are expected to work less days. Do you find our human service workers undeserving of the raises they've been denied this past year?

Milwaukie920 —

Good point.  A lot of front line employees doing very hard public welfare work are scraping by.  The sad fact is that there will be fewer of them and they will not receive pay increases in proportion to their dedication.  Social work, teaching, law enforcement, public-funded mental counselling are all burn-out jobs and likely to stay that way.

roboturkey —

This high volume business uses state services. With millions in Oregon Sales, he should pay his fair share! Please mention this on the radio!

jgingerich —

So far the program has not really addressed what would happen without M66/67. No bills are perfect, but I’m a little tired of corporations paying $10 a year when the rest of us shoulder the burden of health care, education, and other key social services in the state. It’s about time for a little more equity in the system for the taxpayer. If businesses need to raise some prices, so be it, we will still have the choice of whether or not to buy those services.

jez —

Remember the bogus jobs-versus-environment blackmailing?  Corporations in fighting regulation used threats of moving or closing their operations.  Now many of those corporations have had to implement greenwashing public relations campaigns to regain public support.

Now it is jobs-versus-taxes blackmailing.  The smart corporations are not opposing paying reasonable state taxes.  I believe most Oregon citizens know who is crying wolf in this debate and that some, like I, resent it.

robertbeal —

Too much of today's discussion is driven by anecdotes. The issue is too big and too complex to simply allow a long personal story to skew a debate in one direction. Please shoot for systematic analysis with the rest of the time.

Mark in Albany —

I would like to have an explanation of "fiscal responsibility" as it applies to the state budget. Over 90% of the state of Oregon's budget goes to health and human services, public safety and education. It seems that these would be the things we need to protect.

No one has come forth with a solid plan that both sides of the aisle in the legislature can agree with. 

To the business owners that say their business would be "killed" by this tax, would you be willing to quote actual numbers for your business so we can decide whether or not to believe you?

DoctorD47 —

Yes.  If this passes my parents have an exit plan in place to close their business.  The $500,000 they have "invested" in a local community will be transferred to a safer investment (e.g. US treasury bonds). Instead of netting 1-2% during a good year, they will double their "return on investment" and they won't have to each work 60 hour weeks.  Three full-time employees will be let go (so the state will have to pick up their benefits tab). Two part time college age students will be let go.  One part time high school student will be let go.  One high school job study will be eliminated.  In addition, the $25,000 that they donated to local non-profits (Boys and Girls Club, PTA, Boy Scouts, and Habit for Humanity to name a few) will disappear.  In addition, anyone needing an item that they sell will have to drive a minimum of 15 miles away to get it (lost gas and time for their current customers making it more difficult for the businesses that they serve to stay competitive).  It's not just about this measure.  It is about how the citizens in this state deal with their budget issues. This is just the issue that will break the back of the camel. 

And, if you think my parents are rich, you are wrong.  That $500,000 is their ENTIRE savings as my mom moved here from a foreign country and has an elementary school education, dad dropped out of college to fight a war and feed his kids.  My mom is going to "retire" this year (e.g. she won't get paid to work anymore at their business because they can't afford to pay her). If filed her social security claim the other day.  She is going to collect a whopping $300 a month.  Not an anecdote.  Real life. 

onassignment —

I will probably be voting for the business tax, but I think a lot of people who know better are being disingenuous about it. If they were honest they'd call it the Walmart tax and admit it is to stop Walmart from gaming the energy tax credit loophole so well. The better solution, of course, is to close the loophole, but special interests, legislators, and the public like to feel good about being green... we just don't like the idea that Walmart is the prime beneficiary.

AllanFolz —

Hey Hosts, you need to ask these business owners who supposedly make "no profit" how much they are paying themselves as salaries.  It is easy for a closely held business to eliminate all profits by paying the owner a higher salary.

bfoster64 —

Well those business owners pay income taxes so what's the difference? 

AllanFolz —

Last year my parents loaned their business money (because banks were not loaning money) to continue to pay expenses.  One of the guests on the show, the owner of the gas station, also mentioned that he borrowed money last year to stay in business.

onassignment —

Within the dcescription of measure 66 in the voter pamphlet it mentions the elimination of income taxes  on the first $2,400 of unemployment beienfits received in 2009.   I have not heard this mentioned and do not understand why it is included in this measure. 

raymondovich —

The reason that the elimination of income taxes on the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits is included in the bill is because it is an attempt to buy votes from those currently hit the hardest. Pretty smooth. 

If the writers of the bill really wanted to provide relief to the unemployed they could have written that issue as a seperate, temporary measure.  But the writers of the measure knew they would have a hard time getting enough votes for the bill so the included this sad attempt at buying the votes of the unemployed. 

But the fact remains that if Oregon continues to make itself economically unattractive as a place for businesses to invest, that unemployment will remain higher in Oregon than in other states because businesses won't move here and create jobs.  People can be very short sighted and opinion can be easily swayed for buy small incentives. 

If you are currently unemployed, think twice before falling for this scam because:

1) If you are unemployed your tax burden is probably little to none.  Even if you are unemployed and still in the highest Oregon income tax bracket if this passes, this will only save you a maximum of $216. 

2) Is $216 worth scaring away a company that might move to Oregon and create a job for you! (And yes this is already happening, if you don't belive me read the article link below...a company that makes electric cars -GREEN JOBS- just opted to take their $43 million dollars and 415+ full time jobs with benefits to Indiana instead of Oregon). 

http://news.opb.org/article/6497-thnk-picks-indiana-electric-car-plant/

onassignment —

As a tax professional who prepares business returns in about half the states of the union, it has long been dismaying to me that the Oregon minimum tax is laughably low in comparison to other states, and that many Oregon pass through entities pay nothing with their filed returns.    I had hoped that the legislature's bill would temporarily increase the C corp tax rate for high net income, and permanently institute a minimum fee of around $250 for all business filers.  As it is, Measure 67 is way too complicated.  It seems like it will catch a few big fish like Nike and Intel, while negatively impacting other large revenue businesses struggling in the midst of recession.  I disagree with the Oregonian's assertion that defeating both tax measures will enable the legislature to pass a better bill in February.  I think they'll give up, and their failed effort will only delay the result we really need -- a complete overhaul of our entire tax system.

ksjcpacfp —

What do you think was the Legislature's thinking about proposing a receipts tax, not just a tax on gross profits?

katemcgee —

This tax was actually designed by the Oregon Business Association.  No kidding!  Many large businesses are able to show very little profit, yet they have a huge impact on our state.  The gross Oregon sales helps to make the tax more fiar in my opinion.

jgingerich —

Brent DeHart.  Can you tell us how much your salary is for your business?  My guess is you pay yourself very well.  I think you can afford $4,000 dollars.  Take it out of your salary.  Inform us, instead of avoiding the point with your possibilities.  We want the facts from you.

jgingerich —

As a Washington resident and business owner, I have no real problem with Washington's business taxation scheme.  The Business and Occupation tax rates are fair here and the fact that there is no income tax tends to provide a very competetive business climate.

When I worked in the past for Portland-based corporations the "automatic" 9% income tax hit was hideous, especially because I had to drive home to Washington after work.

roboturkey —

I am a business owner, talk about costing money....How much would it cost me to administer collecting and paying a sales tax?

The  bookkeeping alone would cost me several thousand dollars a year.

TEDNOTTODD —

Great point.  We don't want to create another entire state level office to eat up more revenue.  See my comments below about removing the cap on unemployment taxes.  What do you think?  The system in already in place and it won't require creating a new agency to fund.

onassignment —

Computers and Smart Machines make it easier to track sales taxes now.  And other states have been dealing with it for ages...so if you're prepared to be taxed out of business in the future just to save a few extra expense dollars on accounting, keep the Oregon Sales Tax a myth instead of the inevitable future!

dk welch —

We wouldn't be in this (constant) predicament if we had a legislature that legislated and didn't refer every tax measure to the voters!!! The word "tax" is anathema to most Americans so why would they ever vote to raise theirs? Taxation through representation was what our forefathers fought for, not taxation by popular vote. I've never lived in a state that left all the work up to the voting public - it's inane!

nassles —

I agree, please get rid of the kicker.  Tax reform is absolutely necessary.  Just don't punish the schools, because the state is not able to do that tough work.  Let's do tax reform AND support our schools.

jgingerich —

Agreed.  Schools and public services should be funded.  But reform (in the areas of revenue collection and expenditures) is necessary!

onassignment —

How high is the business tax when you include the soft fees that business are assaulted with. Reportedly soft fees (a tax in sheeps clothing) generates twice the cost to business as the income tax.

flancaster —

Please be specific.  What soft fees are you referring to? Let's deal with facts not insinuations.

jgingerich —

Well put!  My soft fees are increasing three fold from what they already are for a LLC and Partnership Filing.  So I am voting no on Measure 67 as it is very misleading!  I'm considering a yes vote on Measure 66.  I'd surely vote yes tomorrow for a sales tax in Oregon!!!

dk welch —

The Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP) posted excellent "Visual Guides to Measures 66 and 67" in "The Stump" in early November.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/11/simple_easy_visual_guides_to_m.html

Under Measure 67:

-- the impact of the measure depends upon the type of business entity
-- owners of proprietorships have NO tax increase
-- owners of other small businesses -- "partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies and S-corporations" -- pay $150
-- the taxes on C-corporations, "those ... that pay federal taxes under Subchapter C of the Internal Revenue Code," are more complex, and depend upon the level of their profits, and the tax credits they can subtract.  Part 2 of the Measure 67 flowchart presents a clear presentation of the tiered tax structure.  Note that tax rates on C-corporations decrease in 2011-12, and again in 2013.
http://www.ocpp.org/2009/20091102Measure67DecisionTree_fnl.pdf

Measure 67 in perspective:

Bill Graves in The Oregonian on Dec. 12 noted that "Oregon's 2008 state and local business taxes [are] ... the third-lowest tax burden in the nation ... If Measure 67 passes ... [Oregon will have] the nation's fifth-lowest business tax burden."
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/12/business_tax_hits_few_but_they.html

Carla Hanson in "The Stump" on Jan. 5 notes that "Corporations operating in Oregon pay 71 percent less in state corporate income taxes than they did in the 1970s. In the 1973-75 budget cycle, corporations accounted for 18.5 percent of Oregon income taxes. In the 2009-11 cycle, their share is projected to be just 6 percent under current standards."
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/01/measures_66_and_67_context_and.html

Hanson also notes that according to a 5/25/03 Oregonian article "corporate taxes to the state shrank to 4 percent in 2001-2003, from 7 percent in 1999-2001. 'At no time since record-keeping began in the late 1970s has the corporate contribution to the state budget been so low,' according to the article."

For more on Measures 66 and 67 see:
http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=Measure6667


jnmpdx —

As a middle aged adult student, unemployed for 1 1/2 years now, I find it hard to believe that there's much argument going on about this.  It would seem that the language/drafting of this measure is faulty if it penalizes small business rather than the intended target, which is suppposedly multi million dollar industries.  If my Oregon tax bill were $10, I wouldn't be calling the oregon dept of revenue to haggle a payment arrangement.  This is yet another good idea gone bad, yet I will be voting yes, as I dont' see how I should pay more in taxes than Schnitzer Steel.  

craigT —

I'm a card-carrying, liberal (probably bleeding heart) Democrat, and I'm worried about a "yes" to this measure for several reasons:

1. We do not have a lot of multi-bllion dollar corporations here in Oregon. We have precious few. In my opinion, we need more. I'd be happier if Kulongoski and Adams were working harder to attract companies, especially green companies, to Oregon.

2. Small business. Many people forced to leave companies, especially over 60, are choosing to start a small business. Why hamper their ability to do so? Why hamper innovation and creativity now?

3. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs! Oregon has some of the highest unemployment in the US. Who can change that? Companies. They can hire workers, and are starting to because they feel the economy getting better. Why encourage companies to move out of state? Why penalize companies so they tighten the belt further and can't hire workers, further affecting our ability to hire workers?

I agree with the comments above, let's encourage the state to keep the kicker (rather than send it back out to us). And for God's sake, let's encourage companies to come to Oregon. We love the state and I think other people would love it too, especially if they get some incentives to come here and sell products and services to us.  Oregon is creative and innovative, so ... let's show this!

tamra —

As a business owner and real estate investor, I support Measure 66, however I cannot support Measure 67 with the same fervor.  Voters are being misled in thinking that LLCs and Partnerships only pay $50 in taxes and that $150 is only another $100 in increases.  The fact is that the $50 filing fee in Oregon is just for the privelige of doing buisness in our state.  Increasing this administrative fee three-fold is unjust and the voters need to know that LLCs and Partnerships pay taxes on profits via "Flow-Through" taxation through the individual owner's personal income tax filings.

If we really want to be fair about sharing the burden of providing revenues for Schools, Roads and Emergency Services, lets get serious about developing a Sales Tax for Oregon.  This is long overdue.  A tax based on consumption affects everyone.  And we lose much needed income with out-of-state visitors coming to our state and purchasing goods and services because they save from not paying a sales tax.  In fact, the person that shops at Costco in Oregon but lives in Vancouver, WA is only taking money from their own community's schools, police force and fire departments.  So let's solve this problem once in for all instead of asking those who work hard to bring business and commerce to Oregon to pay more than their fair share.

DW

Please see Part 2

dk welch —

No on 67 (PART 2) By Don Welch Continued from Earlier Post

On a final, closing, note.  We've reached a point in our culture where we consume more than we produce.  A society like this creates a lack of jobs and severly uneven distribution of wealth.  This is America, everyone has the possibility of living a fruitful and prosperous life.  But we are soon reaching a place where those without will want those that "Have" to pay for the rest of us to have a decent life.  That right is already before us and all we have to do is to go out and make it so.  Don't expect your government to pay for your life, don't expect your neighbor to pay for your life, you need to secure your finanical future.  In caution, the more we tax businesses and the wealthy, the sooner we reach a point of stagnation and decline in business development because why should someone work hard to make a business if they simply have to give all their earnings over to everyone else?  When that happens, there will be no more jobs and no more state revenues.  So in order to avoid a slide through communisum on our way to anarchy, lets get real about finding fairer ways to earn money for our much needed schools and infrastructure.

Please contact me with your rebuttle, input, and join me in reforming our economy in Oregon, and hopfully in are Nation as well!

Don Welch

donald_welch@comcast.net

Recommended Reading:

Rich Dad, Poor Dad - By Robert Kiyosaki

The Death of Common Sense - By Phillip K. Howard

Les Schwab: Pride in Performance, Keep it Going - By Les Schwab

The US Constitution - by Thomas Jefferson and Friends

dk welch —

Advantageously, the article is really the best on this notable topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your approaching updates

Asian stocks

penny008 —

Im going to have to agreee with Penny, this is a great resource for a topic that doesnt get much publication. Thinking out loud brings some light to a topic that doesn't otherwise get any.

ADT Home Security

tcook23 —

Ya I agree with you on this, The points mentioned here should be noticed. I will also look forward for updates.

Tinnitus treatment

daisy414 —

That is too cool.

Auto transport

romolampkin —

I agree with you 100%.  But think about it.  There are more people out there seeking money through increased taxation, which is why the measure will probably pass and why more business will move or decide not to locate in Oregon.  You cannot legislate equality, even though some say that you can even the playing field.  Does that also apply to those getting medical treatment while wearing "Air Jordans" and Rollex watches? Express Übersetzung Übersetzung Deutsch Finnisch

prosch —
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
turlington —
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
turlington —

yeah. for me, I certainly agree to those who say that taxes are just fine for it will go to funding educations. I admire those businessmen who not just only look for the comapny's status but also for the community.digital printing services | fort worth printing services

robertbrekker —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics