2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Tekno26, Changing to be a sole proprietorship is a tough choice to make.  This would cause a very risky exposure to frivolous lawsuits, and such lawsuits which would mean complete financial ruin.  It's just a risk that struggling businesses may be willing to take.

Also, you are making the assumption that people who own multiple rental properties are mostly or all wealthy.   The LLC is a very common way to hold a rental property, and many rental properties are far from profitable. 

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I oppose both measures, but my comments are about Measure 67.

Measure 67 will hurt me immensely as a small business owner, though, and the choices I make and other small business owners make from it hurting us could hurt all Oregonians.  

I am a middle class oregonian, and I own 6 rental houses.  For liability reasons, I hold each in an LLC.  After all the expenses, most of these barely break even or lose money, especially with falling rents in this recession, so my net income on all these together is low or possibly negative.  The minimum tax will mean I would have to pay $150 times 6 (one for each LLC) every year, plus an extra $50 times 6 for the increased filing fees.  This means I now have to PAY $1200 per year for LOSING MONEY. 

I and other business owners in this situation may choose to change things in my business to stop paying that tax, and you may not like the results in the economy.

One change I could make is I could get rid of the LLCs and run it all as one big sole proprietorship that wouldn't have to pay those taxes, and many business owners may choose to do just that.  The goal of these measures is to raise a certain amount of money based on a certain number of businesses, yet I think many business owners will choose to eliminate their business entities to stop the outrageous tax, and the revenue taken in could be far smaller than expected. 

My other choice to avoid paying all this tax is to sell my properties and then close the businesses.  Many business owners like me could do just that also.  In real estate, if lots of landlords do the same, that will flood the already depressed real estate market with houses for sale, further driving down property values.  Many landlords can't afford an extra $1200 per year in tax on money they didn't make and would lose their properties to foreclosure, which would further drive down property values.

Other businesses would be hurt by landlords who stop running rental properties as they stop spending money on repairs (contractors and building supply stores), property managers, realtors, banks, etc.

Measure 67 would tax me heavily on money I didn't make, and would hurt everyone.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context