Oregon Measure 118, The Oregon Rebate, Explained | Elections 2024 | OPB

[@TheTombot]

Hmm... I am certainly skeptical. It would probably be better to simply adjust the existing tax brackets instead of doing rebate checks. It just sounds like a lot more work for the government and many opportunities for fraud, or people flooding into Oregon to get their checks. Just adjust the existing tax brackets. Make it more fair.

[@xisigma]

Yup, sticky fingers for everyone. If Oregon needs money, cut spending and abolish single sales factor taxes for nike and intel.

[@devaunramsey923]

Those businesses will either leave, or make sure they raise their prices to get that money back. Think of a minimart charging an additional 3% on the sale because it cost them money from the credit card company to swipe your credit card. This truly a bad idea

[@kennyc944]

Very well explained, now I understand what that commercial I saw every hour and everywhere is talking about. Thank you 😅

[@CarpeUniversum]

As an Oregonian who isn't against this, but has never even heard of it before.... I have to say.... Those rich Californians paid way too much for those petition circulators...

[@cristiansaucedo7893]

ive gotten much more ads for no on 118. up until this video i truly thought it was a "sales tax" on all our purchases that WE pay, but in reality its a tax on revenue that corporations get from sales

[@nanajosh]

@@cristiansaucedo7893 It's still a mild concern as corporations can still hike their sales up compensating for their "losses." I have mixed feeling for it but now known that California helped fund this measure, I'm curious what they have to gain. Seriously, why fund a measure in a state they don't live in?

[@nextworldaction8828]

I don't understand why it was put together this way... Why isn't it truly a cost neutral measure?!? Why does it cost the state? Seems like that could easily be fixed while still taxing the top corporations more.

[@mushyroom9569]

It’s because the state is just another corporation, albeit one with a monopoly on force.

[@TheTombot]

Per the voters pamphlet, "22 permanent positions in the 2023-25 biennium and ... 199 additional permanent positions in the 2025-27 biennium at the Oregon Department of Revenue. The measure will generate significant workload increase processing applications for the rebate." Basically, fraud protection and handling customer inquiries, and processing of distribution. We probably need better ways to do the processing of something like this. Government paperwork is costly and time consuming. It's unfortunate, but I do believe the overhead would be significant.

[@IMHip2]

I voted for 110 because I assumed there was infrastructure in place to treat the addicts. This is giving me the same vibes as when I realized there was no solid plan on how to really help people. Just an “idea” . Well this rebate “idea” is shady and will just cause a HUGE mess that needs to then be fixed by the legislature.

[@RedHeadedAuthor]

And like with 110, disabled people are completely left out. What's really messed up with 110 though is that in places where there was infrastructure in place, funding wasn't made available or cops threw up hurdles left and right (including intimidation), making said infrastructure repeatedly fail...which was then used to justify that it "didn't work"

[@orangecoolius]

Yeah, I want to like the idea of each Oregonian getting ~$1600 back per year (it's basically UBI), but am concerned our legislators will mess it up somehow or it will have some unintended consequences (like 110) and complications. Undecided at this point.

[@orangecoolius]

Also a "trio of Californians" with deep pockets getting it on the ballot concerns me.

[@elmoreno156]

​@@orangecoolius$1600 isn't much tbh don't sell your vote for some change. It might not even end up being that much since they have to balance it out so that $1600 could end up being alot less.

[@shoegurl8849]

​@@elmoreno156 It will be a lot less because the $1,600 will be treated as income and taxed by both the Federal and State government.

[@valerielhw]

Has anyone looked into how neasure 118, if passed, could affect people on SSI, food stamps, affordable housing programs and OHP? The extra income that measure 118 would give them might well cost them big time if they lose vital benefits as a result!

[@Firefenex1996]

Great question! They intend to have a hold harmless fund so anyone who would be affected will have extra funds to replace the amount lost. If you look up measure 118 debate on KZbin, you will see a very well versed person addressing all the concerns and fear mongering from the business funded person opposed to the bill.

[@danielkingery2894]

@@Firefenex1996 a "well- versed" Marxist spreading unfounded Propaganda. The problem is, this horrible Commie idea creates a HUGE hole in the state budget and the Progressives running the state will be making all the decisions on how to implement this...this abortion of a Socialist plan is NOT a Constitutional implement by the voters...the legislature will be twisting, turning, and changing it to suit them. There is NO guarantee that any money will even be given out, nor is there any guarantee that other taxes and fees won't be implemented in order to cover the budgetary implications. IF you think this is a good idea, you're either an uninformed nincompoop or a brainwashed Socialist. The "free money" this supposedly creates will cause exponential increases in consumer costs as the tax is paid on multiple levels by different companies.

[@determinedtofail]

@@valerielhw simple. Sin tax. You tax Marijuana dispenseries an extra 1% more to make up the 1.5 billion dollar social services shortfall.

[@JC-Utopic-Gauntlet]

@@determinedtofail or the government simply wastes less money.

[@TrampMachine]

@@determinedtofail Honestly I'm all for taxing pot more, shit is already so damn cheap I don't see a reason it shouldn't cost more and the tax could really benefit a lot of programs.

[@tony5044]

who's paying for campaign against 118, how much money have they dontated? a quick perplexity search will show this. How much are these same companies donating to the politician speaking out against, how much are they donating to OPB?

[@KenNickelson]

You can't tax people and companies into prosperity...no shit people..

[@LL.Johnson]

The primary argument used against this bill is that businesses will pass the costs to the customers or flee the state. So instead of supporting legislation that would directly confront corporate greed, they say we shouldn't support it because if we do the companies will be greedy. So sick and tired of corporate greed. If you find yourself standing up for the corporations, that makes you a pawn.

[@gad3iii532]

LOL! "corporate greed" you say that like it means something more then you whining that if anyone has more then you they are greedy, well aren't you a saint. Let me clue you in, anytime anyone uses the term "not paying their fair share" that is marketing designed to appeal to losers who want money for nothing.

[@danielkingery2894]

Not a pawn you Commie...a REALIST can see that businesses dont somehow magically pay taxes without passing it on...only in this case dont forget that THE STATE WILL WASTE MILLIONS implementing this on top of consumers paying more and small businesses losing ground.

[@MrTypicalPlayer]

@@LL.Johnson You talk about pawns as if you aren’t one yourself. Typically chess is played by two people with two sets of pawns.

[@ricardodsavant2965]

😭

[@kamadeva5121]

this was sold to me as a sales tax now I'm more informed I will be voting yes on this Measure,

[@tarriegibson1193]

I hate the way they complicate everything. Why not just charge the corporation more and take less from the people? No that would be to simple. They gotta make it confusing so hopefully they can sway votes one way or another and some middle person probably gets rich or some misleading loophole that serves anyone but the people really.

[@Argonhubert]

It’s so that way we pay more government employees administering this that add no economic value. Cutting personal taxes is just too simple, have to make sure the state benefits from this. It’s never been about helping individual families.

[@mushyroom9569]

The whole point of a complicated tax system is so that rich people and corporations can pay less taxes because they have a full-time tax person working for them. Don’t take that away from them.

[@tarriegibson1193]

@mushyroom9569 the poor might as well vote for this because Oregon is a bunch of cheap skates that don't even want to give there people foodstamps. 1 person said vote no because it would hurt services to poor people, but as a poor person I know there ALREADY ISN'T ANY SERVICES. They let the rich companies continue to benefit off our people and area and a huge portion of the people can't even afford to buy Anything from those corporations anyways. And when you pay taxes your whole life and Oregon wants to do anything they can to Not give you some foodstamps then it's time for it to be more mutual to Oregon people. It's confusing and probably misleading because Oregon always is trying to manipulate and twist everything but that's what there greed here has caused. And Oregon plays the pick n choose game with services here so your on your own if you are from here. I'd have to go on to long to explain but when you already can't afford anything and your left behind in existence, it's time to get even a small bite of the pie. Some of us just want some freedom to live in our own home state . I need Real transportation and this could be the little extra to buy a used car and not live a life of permanent house arrest in government housing after already over coming years of left homeless in a failing state. Oregon already doesn't care about certain people and I didn't sit here waiting to be allowed to live just to see year after year go by and wait to die. I want to be allowed to live a save and more self reliant life to help my family, myself and others. Instead of feeling like it's a death sentence for no good reason.

[@alexdaugherty7472]

I am sick and tired of businesses and wealthy paying taxes lower than I do as a middle class senior. Why should they get out of taxes. Businesses always want to get out of taxes.

[@carsontindall6386]

@@alexdaugherty7472 the only problem with taxing big business is it effects everyone, my family owns a business and they get taxed on everything down to the use of computers. A good way to think of it is businesses don’t pay taxes, they collect them. Almost always a tax increase is followed by a price increase in goods/services. The best option is to let businesses thrive by reducing government intervention and taxes, and for the most part everyone benefits.

[@KompressorV12]

@@alexdaugherty7472 if you believe in corporate greed (businesses charging whatever they want because we will pay it) then you better believe taxing them 3% is going to get passed directly onto you. Now I’m not an economist because I think the reason you’re upset is because you think the profits go into the owners pocket. Maybe they do. But what if you worked for a company that if they received a $2m tax break they were able to turn around and hire 20 people to grow their business. Would you rather have that business receive $2m or the government (also a monopoly) receive the $2m. Who would be better at spending that $2m. That’s the philosophical question.

[@aliciainfante9286]

I’m all for taxing businesses making more than 25 mill so long as along side the bill, you also make sure you put restrictions on those businesses to not be able to increase the cost of their goods and services. Otherwise, it does no good.

[@jimk8520]

I disagree. Let them raise the cost of their goods and services. It will make room for smaller, less corporate businesses to grow. Kicking the corporations to the curb will hurt for a minute or two but not 5 or more.

[@KompressorV12]

@@jimk8520 let me guess, you think the businesses that are going to leave are easily replaceable businesses like grocery stores? lol. They’re semiconductor companies, footwear companies, finance companies, aerospace, ones that would require tens of billions of dollars of capital to even consider a startup. The lost tax revenue from just a few of these companies decreasing their Oregon footprint would decrease the Oregon tax inflows by 5-10x. Hell taxing the 10 highest net worth individuals resulting in them leaving the county or state would result in a negative overall tax inflow. You’re not smarter than a corporation. You’re not smarter than millionaires that are backed by high powered tax attorneys. We can end corporate greed other ways. Taxing and handing out free money is quite possibly the worst possible solution you could think of. It’s why everyone including kotek and other democrats are saying absolutely vote no

[@gs4815]

@@jimk8520 I disagree. Your argument focuses on the end product and overlooks manufacturing and transportation costs. Manufacturers and shipping companies who these small businesses rely upon for raw materials and transportation will pass the increase tax to their customers, the local main street businesses. These small local businesses already operate at razor thin margins and these increased costs may shut them down. 3% from the farmer, 3% from the trucking companies that move the potatoes to the cold storage facility, and 3% from DHL to get it to the store. You’re delusional if you think there companies aren’t going to pass on the costs to us, the consumers. Small businesses will close, and everyone will be crying about their hamburger costing 18.99. Im not willing to destroy our local economies because a bunch of delusional hippies from Eugene want to feel good about themselves. Vote no on 118!

[@jimk8520]

@@gs4815 We used to have higher business taxes and they did just fine. If a given business is only in business because the margin comes from not paying their fair share to support the very fabric of society from which they gain their profit, they shouldn’t be in business in the first place.

[@jimk8520]

@@gs4815 “pass on the costs to us…” Awesome! Let them do that! Higher prices for unnecessary things will force the average consumer to limit whimsical purchases. Our throw away society buys too much crap as it is.

[@freelookmode9837]

I would prefer a traditional model in which a progressive tax system was right-sized to generously fund public services and social welfare systems.

[@jsteezy80]

Welcome to Oregon. Our state has one of the most generous public service and social welfare programs. From food benefits to rental assistance, you won't find that in the Midwest or East Coast. That being said I'm still in no for many reasons. One that somebody that's writing the edge of welfare would actually lose money as well as corporations don't have to be here. If we aren't the most tax beneficial state in the region they are just going to move. If a company like Intel or Nike moved that would be devastating for the economy

[@orangecoolius]

I think I'm good on another experiment. Measure 110 PTSD. $1600 doesn't get me out of bed for the risk.

[@TrampMachine]

Lol right? If it was a 3% tax put into housing progams or some shit to bring down rents I'd say sure but 1600 a year isn't that much to people who actually work and without restrictions on it homeless people from other states might just decide this is where they want to live out of their van rather than California or Washington.

[@davebrown9725]

@@TrampMachine according to the text of the bill, they are relying on OR tax code to define who would get a payment, 118 section 2 refers to ORS 316.022, General Definitions, which leads to ORS 316.027 that states you must have a place of residence (an actual address) to be a resident.

[@davidpoole409]

"Three wealthy people from California"..... uhhh wtf? Not sketchy to anyone else? HUGE red flag

[@The_Black_Knight]

@@davidpoole409 This is like waving a Communist flag in Oregon. Fools.

[@Ricklasers]

@@davidpoole409 certainly a reason so question this for sure.

[@gs4815]

CA wants all their homeless to migrate up here for “free” money.

[@linlinthedinosaur]

I agree to a point that it's odd and a bit sketchy, but I am genuinely curious what they would get from it if the measure is passed. Some wealthy people are benevolent and want to make positive change so they could be doing it for non nefarious reasons, but honestly, I'm not sure what they get from it to be on the ballot and they wouldn't benefit for it to pass unless it's their competition that operates here and they are wanting to cost them, but even then seems like an weird risk to take.

[@htas6888]

@@linlinthedinosaur As I commented above one supporter from Calif is running for mayor in SF, and he is a supporter of UBI, in Calif and elsewhere. I did not check into others yet. Because Oregon does not have sales tax, many visitors make large purchases here, like expensive cameras or other electronics, wine, etc... taking 3 percent of it for State's struggling families, not bad...

[@malachijhc7654]

I guess I don’t fully understand how large corporations raising their prices is a con.. if anything this would encourage people to shop locally and at smaller businesses. This would ultimately fuel the economy of the town/city which I think is a pro.

[@malachijhc7654]

Plus, they are just going to raise prices anyway.

[@Thousandeyes85]

My man!

[@dex353]

Actually a good point I hadn’t thought of that

[@yeyoslabs4364]

Personally I voted no seems fishy to me. In my opinion Oregon should just CUT taxes 😁

[@LeroyBickerstaff-IV]

I’m against any and all new taxes. We’ve given the government so much money over the years and I’m still trying to not step on needles in the park.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

yep. same thing in Seattle. democrats have fucked it up for years

[@Thousandeyes85]

We can't keep funneling all the money to the richest corporations while the menial wealth for average people dries up. A 3% tax increase from a state that is in the bottom half in terms of population, would be absolutely nothing to these corporations. But think of how much a $6,400 check would help a struggling single mother of 3. Vote yes on measure 118

[@shannoncrowner3837]

Very helpful. Thank you.

[@thesolarsailor]

What happens to the money if it is unclaimed? There is a large population of people in the state who would never receive their compensation due to homelessness, incarceration, personal choice, etc.

[@RikerLovesWorf]

Large corporations are insanely profitable. There’s literally no reason that a private family-owned company worth $1 billion (like the one I work at) cannot share their profits with us - after all, we made them that money.

[@briandavis6137]

So quit your job and find a company that has profit sharing.

[@elmoreno156]

@@RikerLovesWorf so you would sell yourself out for a couple of dollars?

[@orangecoolius]

I agree but the big capitalist dilemma is being so anti-business that they'll bounce elsewhere. Unfortunately this is the world we live in, and $1600 isn't enough for me to risk it. Plus the risk of our leaders fumbling the execution like they always do.

[@jsteezy80]

Although I tend to somewhat agree with what you're saying, if that corporation wasn't in our state you wouldn't be making them money. People underestimate economic stimulus

[@someonenotnoone]

@@briandavis6137 If it were that easy it would be done already. Why waste your time with such a flippant non-response?

[@PanteraChick]

Welp. It lost. Glad my fellow Oregon residents saw through this BS!

[@joemacy2776]

I'm actually kinda sad this didn't pass. I was in favor of it because I could definitely use an extra $1,600 every year. I also think that larger businesses should pay their fair share of taxes.

[@sesupanchick]

Vote NO!!! Every bill they pass will cost you something. That’s why they are required to ask you to say yes.

[@jackshaftoe1715]

SENATOR WYDEN: Big Business has been playing state against state for ever. If this measure pass's those company's that can will just run to another state, and likely get a tax break for doing so. This is going to have to be addressed at the federal level, as inter state flight to avoid fair taxation is not something we can cure alone.

[@peterbelanger4094]

How about no. If a state does something dumb, we need to be able to punish it by moving away from it. the is 50 STATES, not ONE federal system. And Sen Wyden should just quit his job and give that seat to a Republican.

[@jsteezy80]

​@@peterbelanger4094I think you guys are agreeing right now

[@Ouch_TheseAreTheDaysOfElijah]

Someone got to pay. "Could get" is the watch word. new tax for people to pay for someone else to get. sound like another time when people had to pay for someone else.

[@nateb4543]

Using gross sales is bad. A farmer who makes 3% profit is going to effect a lot worse than a cosmetics company making 55% profit

[@JohnTell-nl5vv]

Farmers are making $25M/yr 😂

[@lichenmossflower3882]

Ummm.. Mr farmer is going to make $25 MILLION tax-free under 118… i think he’ll be fine 😂

[@JohnTell-nl5vv]

@@lichenmossflower3882 exactly 👍 vote YES

[@esspeetwentytwo]

Hey, this sounds a little familiar…

[@kjpcgaming9296]

WE don't often approve new taxes - no matter who is being taxed. Down here in Southern Oregon the police have been begging us for new taxes for years and years and years, and most of the time we say NO you dont' need a new car, we need a new car. LOL

[@htas6888]

Look at the profits of large corporations during the period of the last few years, during inflation when America's poor suffered trying to make ends meet. Look at the profits of major food corporations, they made a lot of money during that time. They could have reduced their prices and taken less profits. Unless you take it from them, they will not give it willingly.

[@ronrothrock7116]

That sounds great, but this measure does not tax profits. It taxes revenue. Should a company that makes $25 Million in sales, but only made $10,000 in profit be forced to pay an additional $750,000 in taxes? It doesn't sound like a good plan to me. If the measure taxed profit, then I might be willing to get behind it, but so long as it taxes sales this measure will hurt Oregonians more than it will help by pushing medium sized businesses out of business...or push them into neighboring states. Remember those 3 wealthy business people in CA that supported this? Yeah, they are probably looking to benefit from either from making competitors go out of business or they plan on helping those businesses move into CA and somehow profit off that. This measure, as written, should NOT pass.

[@nicholaslayton6199]

What makes you think their profit margins will change? They will simply pass the cost of the tax on to you

[@JC-Utopic-Gauntlet]

so take less profits to make up for the government's inflation? In the world where a dollar is now worth 75 cents they are taking less profits.

[@steveanimatrix3887]

Tell us you went to public schools without telling us.

[@htas6888]

@@steveanimatrix3887 I am not sure what you mean by that, is it a good statement or a bad statement; why do you feel the need to comment w an obtuse statement like that?

[@erwinl.8152]

As much as I would like to drag some profit-sharing out of the corporations that make money here and then immediately take their profits offshore, we need a better system than this. I don’t like the Californian interest here because we are just a testing ground to see if they can do this in more populous states.

[@kwschriber]

This is flawed in so many ways... it's based on GROSS SALES! If this passes, many small/mid sized companies with slim margins will close their doors, large corporations may leave the state, and consumer prices will increase. I's not worth the "expected" $1,600 refund check per person... you'll pay more than that in the long run and many goods will have that 3% "compounded" multiple times before it reaches the end user and the result will be increased cost of goods not to mention the potential job losses. Anybody with a lick of economics sense would clearly see this is a bad measure and VOTE NO ON 118!

[@NoThisIsPatrick616]

This sounds terrible. There is no such thing as "free money" for you (the voter). Buisnesses would just offset the cost of the tax by: A) Cutting more jobs (like we've seen at Intel, Nike, etc...) B) Increase the price of goods C) Ultimately move the business out of state (like what's been happening in Californa; bye-bye jobs) All under the guise of the government "giving" you money by taking it from someone/ somewhere else. If they wanted to help, they'd just cut taxes and leave you with more money to spend on whatever you want. Incentivizing hard work and value over "free" handouts.

[@KenNickelson]

Taxing more never leads to prosperity for anyone..

[@Zazuk68]

3 people from California you could have added their names easily and should have...

[@LadyLithias]

I actually appreciated, as an educator, that the video was mostly non-partisan, didn't say WHAT group had pushed to get it ON the ballot (from within my state) and didn't hype the politics of the outsiders interfering in our internal affairs. It is always good to know WHO benefits from misinformation. (the current topic I'm teaching my statistics students) but if the facts alone are insufficient to sway you in one direction or the other, and you need to know the politics of those involved to make your mind up, then perhaps the facts don't matter so much as knowing whose "team" wants what thing more. There have been many studies done about how introducing the politics of a supporter of a bill WILL influence those who are trying to make up their mind about the issue at hand. For example, I remember back in the late 2010s there was a study that demonstrated that if a person was asked "Should we do this popular thing" the results were about 74% in favor. But if you asked the same question in an area that heavily voted for GW Bush and included the fact that he supported it in the question, it became more popular, and if you included instead that Obama supported it, it dropped in popularity down to below 50%. The actual thing they were being surveyed on didn't change. The question was designed to determine biases. If you know the politician you hate (or love) supports or opposes something, you're less likely to vote on the merits of the proposal.... and turning measures into popularity contests ultimately end up benefiting the person with the loudest megaphone. (the you was a collective societal you, not YOU specifically) It's always good to take the time to get facts, then try to make sure that they're not being presented in a biased way by those with a vested interest in the outcome. I thought this video was good, but it clearly was designed to push people into voting against this measure. They did a good job of trying to SEEM unbiased, but if your CON list says "it'll be BAD..." and your PRO list begins with "It won't be THAT BAD" ..... then it's clearly tilting in the direction of the CON. This is a great example video. If I was teaching advanced Statistics this year, I'd probably try to use it for a term paper, have my students discuss and debate all the ways it's good at being unbiased, and all the ways it's bad at being unbiased and discuss the merits of the way the information is shared. so.... it's a great video

[@Enchanted3DPrints]

@@LadyLithias Agreed. So many want to focus on drama and emotion based on party affiliation. Its refreshing when they just focus on the topic alone

[@jsteezy80]

​@@LadyLithiaswell said. I try to find the facts in things and not allow my emotions to dictate my decisions. I catch myself sometimes falling into partisan politics then I snap out of it. Registered independent for a reason

[@Joe.8671]

It's not gonna be much help to do it yearly it would be a way better idea to do it monthly

[@danielkingery2894]

ITS SOCIALISM. we should NOT be doing it at all.

[@nicholaslayton6199]

This will decimate jobs in the area. And all the costs would just be passed on costing much more than we will ever receive back from the government.

[@aliciainfante9286]

@@nicholaslayton6199 how will it decimate jobs? This is a 3% tax imposed on businesses bringing in 25 million dollars or more? What does that have to do with jobs?

[@jsteezy80]

@@aliciainfante9286 Companies like Nike and Intel don't have to be here. They are because it's tax beneficial for them vs other states in the region. Arguably the stimulus from that brings more jobs and more stability. If either of those companies left that would be pretty devastating. It's far more nuanced than almost everybody has made it

[@Argonhubert]

@@aliciainfante9286Also why does this measure have to have the government as the middleman, why not just increase corporate taxes and simultaneously decrease personal taxes for the desired effect? I guess it would be a great way to bloat bureaucracy and pay more government employees that add no economic value…

[@Argonhubert]

Wow my first comment was deleted, I see censorship is hard at work.

[@StinkySundae]

@@Argonhubert what was your first comment

[@RH-ko3oc]

I am sure these businesses will eat up the extra tax on them and not pass it to you 😂Also, we want to use this money to make government bigger and people more reliant on government support, that makes sense.

[@goldengoat1737]

I love how someone that works there but off and makes barely enough to support there family gets no food stamps no health insurance no government help. While someone that doesn’t work gets a free health care food stamps and a free place to live. How is that fair?

[@sillylily5828]

what's worse is you are incentivized to stay without a job because you will lose your food stamps and health insurance and place to live if you make even minimum wage (full time) as the cut off is 1350 a month. Also, you won't qualify for most additional help like electric/gas credits and some food banks because your income. Things need to be changed to allow people with minimum wages to get help they need in order to really fix things. The same happens if you are living with someone else that has benefits as you don't even need to have benefits yourself. Your income you make can affect their benefits they get because the system expects you are supporting them so their benefits will be reduced or at a level they won't qualify for them anymore. it may not be fair but it's a trap I have been stuck in for 13 years due to my mom being on disability. Just living in this household, I am unable to get a normal job as it will affect both her benefits and mine and I won't make enough to support both of us with minimum wage (especially part time as that will lose benefits and be well under even just rent alone).

[@ronrothrock7116]

@@sillylily5828 I completely agree with you. The system is broken. It needs to be a sliding scale that encourages you to work so that the more you work, your total take-home from benefits and aid will only increase and not ever decrease. Here is the real rub... Politicians know this, and they have known about this fix for decades. Why do you suppose they don't fix it with that sliding scale? Or even better, why would they set up this measure not to be the funding for such a sliding scale, but rather give money to everyone and not focus it on those that need it most? But with regards to this measure, it is not set up right for another reason. This taxes sales, not profit. If a company sells %25 million in goods, they are going to pay $750,000 in additional taxes even if their profit was way less than that. Any company whose profit margin is less than 3% (every single grocery store and restaurant operates on less than 3%) will go into the red and possibly go under. Why was this measure worded to tax sales and not profit? So long as the wording is that it taxes the sales, this will hurt Oregon, not help us. This is a bad deal for us.

[@htas6888]

Don't they have to qualify to get aid, meaning they have to have some handicap? Then, they get the minimum to get by.

[@S0N0FJACK]

@htas6888 that's a very naive take. I've known many people who game the system. Food stamps, welfare, 6 kids and drive a brand new Mercedes. An old coworker of mine works part time as an independent contractor, his wife under the table doing resell stuff on FB Marketplace so they can keep benefits and they just had their 5th kid! I asked him how he can possibly get by as I struggle with two children and he replied "Food Stamps". Oh and they want one more child. I'm telling you this is not uncommon at all once you get outside your bubble.

[@goldengoat1737]

@@ronrothrock7116 Also just the attitude of it seems spiteful… You make a lot of money so give it to me just is wrong. That being said I do think the loopholes should be closed. But that won’t happen because all these politicians get funding from these companies and people. Like why do small business get screwed more than anyone ?

[@EestiUkrainiSprinter]

Taxes on businesses don't always directly benefit the poor! In some cases, if the government uses the revenue, this could fund programs that target poverty alleviation. However, whether or not taxes end up helping the poor depends on how the government allocates the funds. Portland is a great example of tax funds "alleviating" poverty 😅 We all know this doesnt help smaller cities or famers at all. Only the big cities where free handouts like this doesnt make the poorer work harder. 😂 How about instead of taxing businesses on the hard work they put in and being jealous and envious of their income...teach the poor how to be smarter about personal financial insights, investments, buying and shopping within their means of living, and watching how they spend their actual earned wages.

[@lst9701]

This is corporate bait to make any real movements with associated goals look bad

[@betzy7560]

So we already short on state services WTF

[@Shaggy2286]

Businesses WILL raises prices to negate the tax and maybe more-so using it as an excuse to gain a few extra bucks. Especially when it's on the gross instead of the profit, that actually hurts small businesses and businesses with tight margins but a high gross like construction companies. Employees will suffer from cost cuts as payroll is often a large percent of costs, again to negate or profit off the tax by using it as an excuse. It has happened tax after tax in Oregon and our cost of living is crazy high because of it. If we tax anyone, it should be the shareholders. Either that or we need laws that force businesses to do what's right by their company, their employees, their customers and their community before owners/shareholders. Too often shareholders are just a bunch of parasites riding a cash cow until it dies of blood loss, harming everyone around them. Then they detach and start feeding on the next cow. They don't actively run the company, they don't see the employees or live nearby, they just see it as how much they've profited even as the company is run into the ground. It could end up costing people more than $1600 a year in extra expenses and lost income. $1600 a year is such a tiny amount too, it's not worth a raise in the cost of living. We need to end these ideas that sound good, but only result in further gentrifying the entire state.

[@Learningisfree808]

Vote YES. End corporate greed.

[@KompressorV12]

@@Learningisfree808 lol, you think taxing corporations more is going to end corporate greed? It’s going to lead to less competition with certain companies pulling out and those that stick around will charge YOU more money. Look everyone wants lower prices, but you’re an absolute clown if you think taxing companies is going to save us money 🤣 did you not learn anything during covid when they were handing out stimulus checks? The price of EVERYTHING skyrocketed. We’ve literally tried this already

[@Learningisfree808]

@@KompressorV12 keep on boot licking buddy 👢

[@jamessauls9652]

The arguments against 118 that helped sway me but not mentioned here are 1) If this passes, there won't be any appetite in Salem for a future tax for education, public health, transportation, etc for a long time, and 2) We should just reform the kicker instead by making that refund progressive (which is tax neutral and therefore potentially more politically viable).

[@kmarks97236]

@@jamessauls9652 low income people don’t benefit from the kicker. We need to fix one of the most regressive income taxes in the country.

[@jamessauls9652]

@@kmarks97236 I don’t think we disagree…? I’m suggesting that a reason to NOT support 118 is because there is more obvious, low hanging fruit: change the kicker so that the returns are progressive. Since the kicker already exists, we wouldn’t have to change the way taxes are collected (so it would be more politically viable). We’d only have to change the way that the money is distributed.

[@bouncyboi3197]

@@kmarks97236 With property taxes, Oregon has one of the least regressive tax systems in the country ranked at number 42 (source: Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy).

[@kmarks97236]

@@bouncyboi3197 thank the universe we don’t have a sales tax or it would be ugly.

[@MikeVorpal]

So a couple of things nobody has mentioned that I’d like to see discussed regarding Measure 118: 1. Every single bit of “Vote No on Measure 118” material you’ve seen is overblown nonsense being forced onto us by those who actually stand to lose from it - Corporations and the Politicians on both side of the aisle who benefit from the current status quo. 2. Only businesses who make over $25million in profits are susceptible-you’re no longer a “small business” at that point. 3. The entities against this tax had NO PROBLEM POOLING TOGETHER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR AN OPPOSITION CAMPAIGN. 4. The State of Oregon will lose nothing as far as funding is concerned-the lottery and cannabis taxes more than cover any perceived “loss.” 5. The politicians don’t like this because the money goes directly to the citizens, thus making it more difficult to steal and embezzle from the state coffers. 6. Oregon is California’s neighbor-many Oregonians have family in California, so unless it is specifically a Citizens United thing(which none of you seem to care about anyway, see Project 2025), I don’t see the relevance. 7. Both Milton Friedman and Richard Nixon agreed that there would come a time when Americans would require a Universal Basic Income for the economy to function properly. The interests of the hogs living in the fat house are the only things truly at jeopardy here. If you choose to vote no on Measure 118, you’re either willingly or unknowingly a corporate stooge.

[@danielkingery2894]

Well, i may seem like corporate stooge by your definition....but that's only because you're slinging that hate around as Marxist. Its quite plain that you're not well informed and that you prefer misinformation as opposed to logic and common sense. Measure 118 doesn't 'take away corporate profits, its makes goods cost more for consumers. Eff that. Eff you.

[@gs4815]

Profits not prophets. Also, the language reads 25 million in “sales” not 25 million in “profits”. The kettle calling the pot black!

[@danielkingery2894]

@@gs4815 look...dont play Commie leftist games. There is no reason to point out what was most likely an autotext mispelling.

[@MikeVorpal]

@@gs4815 calling out autocorrect doesn’t discredit the above statement, it actually shows that you’re grasping at straws because you don’t address any of the actual talking points that I’ve plainly laid out. And since you seem to enjoy minutiae… cool, lets go with “sales” instead of revenue-that would actually be a LOWER figure than revenue-SOOOO, businesses, WHO GENERATE $25MILLION OR MORE in “sales” actually have even less of a valid complaint. They can still cook their books and report a lower figure. Every single opponent to Measure 118 I’ve seen has inadvertently pwned themselves when trying to prove their case. I can pretty much guarantee this is an excellent idea by simply observing the people who are against it-crooked politicians, greedy corporations, and trolls who have been enlisted by said entities either by accident or by intentional design. If scumbags are screaming “NO!!DON’T DO THIS!” We should definitely go for it.

[@gs4815]

@@MikeVorpal Yelling and name calling never wins arguments. What does “pwned” mean? I’m guessing it is something to do with Minecraft, but I could be mistaken.

[@anthonycollin6535]

The video says it. It’s fairly simple. Rewards, punishments. Rewards people by giving money to people, by simply living in Oregon. Therefore, it’s reasonable to argue that more people would move to or stay in, Oregon. Punishes large corporations for simply “living” / doing business in Oregon. It is reasonable to argue that some ( smaller “big” corps) would leave or go out of business. Discourages larger businesses from staying in Oregon. That should be pretty clear. Taxes, the levers of the economy. Also, a major question, if someone works for a “big corporation” do they also get the money too? The more details and paperwork (IT infrastructure) the more the program itself will actually cost. Can anyone see this program costing at least one third of the income it distributes?

[@Thousandeyes85]

@@anthonycollin6535 discourages big corporations from staying in Oregon? If you were a CEO, would you give up (at the least) $25,000,000 in profits because of a 3% rate increase?

[@KompressorV12]

@@Thousandeyes85 good question, sometimes yes, sometimes no. One thing is for certain, the companies that decide to stay will face less competition resulting in guess what, higher prices. If you believe corporate greed is real (which it is) that means you believe corporations are able to get away with whatever prices they want to charge, so you can’t simultaneously believe in corporate greed while also believing corporations won’t pass this sales tax onto customers. Doesn’t work that way

[@Thousandeyes85]

@@KompressorV12 you admit there is corporate greed and yet you take the side of these billion dollar corporations? If they were concerned about their bottom dollar they would simply pass along the 3% tax to their customers for their goods. Do you know how much money you would have to spend at these giant companies to offset $1,600? About $55,000 per year! A single mother with 3 small children would have to spend $220,000 to offset the tax break. If you are spending more than $55,000 per year at Nike, or Apple, or Amazon, then I don't feel that bad for you

[@AustinKrz]

@@KompressorV12 Wrong - if the large corporations jack up prices that smaller businesses that aren't affected by this tax will have more competative prices and will increase compeition in markets

[@KompressorV12]

@ enjoy getting your healthcare, utilities, and insurance from small business 🤣. This is great for coffee shops, not so much for vital industries where there is no such thing as small business. Again, if you believe corporate greed is a thing meaning corporations are charging whatever they want and gouging, (which it is) but don’t believe that they won’t pass this 3% tax onto you then I can’t help you

[@kenschmidt6522]

The grocery industry has an average net profit around 1% to 2% after all their bills are paid. Also, the companies that supply thier merchandise would need to charge more for goods to pay thier tax. High inflation would be the result. Vote no.

[@kathypeterson4777]

And businesses already pay the cat tax

[@eslamelshoura3128]

@@kathypeterson4777 seriously!! You r funny 😅

[@GregFisher-yt9ei]

Don't trust OREGON TO MAKE SENSE REMEMBER 110 THATS HOW THEY DO THING'S!

[@adrianasoldevila630]

NO thank you. NOTHING is free!

[@DjNotNicesNucka]

Yea, duh. It's from the corporations. It's a tax on corporations. The corporations pay it. literally zero people said the money would fall from the sky.

[@someonenotnoone]

The entire planet and all of the suns energy is free. Please stop the lying.

[@esspeetwentytwo]

The fact that people even support this shows that 44th in education is generous

[@aliciainfante9286]

An educated person would look at the pros and cons and then make the choice from there. But categorically there are valid reasons that one would support a bill like this. So demeaning someone for understanding this seems like an ignorant position.

[@esspeetwentytwo]

@@aliciainfante9286 I looked at the pros and cons. The pros are I get a few hundred dollars every month. The cons are that keystone companies like Nike and Intel would leave Oregon; the silicon forest would essentially dry up. Our economy would be in shambles. And for the companies who do stay, they would have to dramatically jack up prices to stay afloat, practically negating any universal basic income the populous receives.

[@jsteezy80]

​@@esspeetwentytwo I've been making a similar argument, but it doesn't mean they are going to leave. However the likelihood definitely goes up. With that said, the devastation that would cause to the local economy, even regional economy, is immeasurable. I'm definitely on the no side at this point

[@TeddyHughes-p5e]

makes sense if you gave 8 grand a year to people making 15 grand and under - why everyone?

[@kathypeterson4777]

This takes money out of the general fund budget which pays for schools and public safety among other things...any business that survives will pass on the tax to us....this is a joke measure

[@jasonalvarez5558]

So if three Rich Californians help get this on the on the ballot,I say no.

[@what_Love_Drew_forth]

Any measure that both parties are against are generally in the interest of the people and not the government. They want to keep lining the pockets of the state while the burn and waste billions every year in corrupt contracting schemes. This money would go directly to the people and stands to enrich our communities and allow the people to direct benefits from the insane amount of money made by corporations like Nike and Intel. The fact is that the government wants this money. Having lived in Alaska I know that these types of dividends paid yearly back to citizens is fantastic for the economy and many small to medium businesses in the community benefit from it and it improves the economy and regulates costs. Don’t listen to all this hooplah they are trying to feed you about it increasing costs. The corporate giants will barely feel the tax and the community (especially small business) stand to benefit. They want to take money from the citizens, not give it back.

[@averymcclure7595]

Unless we can find a way to ensure that the costs aren't just passed onto consumers, this measure seems bound to be fail.

[@jsteezy80]

If you tax a corporation, especially one that is public, it's 1,000% going to happen. They're loyalty is to their shareholders. The issue is will it cause more of a benefit or a degradation of Oregon's economy. The fact that a few Californians paid to get Oregon to petition their voters says it all. Right now we are a tax advantage state for corporations and that's not a bad thing because it gives us jobs and stimulates the economy. California would benefit if we passed this. Because semi-large sized corporations (25m aint nothing in a ton of businesses) would move and that would be far more devastating IMO. At least in the Portland metro area

[@BraveOne7]

Thankyou for your video! It’s a no for me. Instead of taxing, hard-working, business owners. They could use their money wisely to help the people anyway. It shouldn’t be take more money away from the people. ❤

[@BadPabda]

They DONT use their money wisely to help people though. And hard working business owners ie: small business owners, arent the ones getting taxed more. Also its important to consider tools that would help fix the wealth discrepancy between "hard working" business owners and the equally if not MORE hard working employees of those businesses. If we are both putting in 40 hours a day or more how come one person can afford a big expensive house and several cars, while people who work just as much can barely afford rent and food. They are not more hard working than the people that work for them. So why do they earn several times as much money?

[@BraveOne7]

@@BadPabda no one said business owners are more hard working than employees. I believe they earn more money simply because their money comes their business profits. Employees money comes from the salary of their jobs which is less than a businesses profit. Why not fix the problem head on and at the source? Money for the people is not being spent on the people. Fixing the problem shouldn’t be at the expense of more hard working people. They’re just gonna tax business owners and not fix the issue because the issue still isn’t being fixed. Respectfully

[@BadPabda]

​@@BraveOne7 If the implication is not that they are more hard working, why do they get paid more? At companies making over $25million frequently profits go to the company and people who run the company have a salary cut out of that budget as the rest of the profits are to go back into the business to grow it further. A tax on these large companies is not taxing hard working people to pay other hard working people. Its a SMALL tax on large companies to try to offset some of the exploitation being done to everyday people in order for them to make that money. Yes some of the money the government receives in taxes could be better allocated to help people than it is currently being used but ALSO if corporations weren't constantly finding ways to dodge their fair share of taxes with loopholes and workarounds the systems we DO have that are meant to figure out how to better use that money would be better funded in order to do exactly that. This measure is a first attempt at fixing the REAL problem at its source. The problem where companies and the people at the top hoard as much money as they can and do not spend or use it to help other people but instead use it to make themselves more money by finding creative new ways to keep taking from everybody else. ALSO while I disagree with the point where the money is going to everyone and not people who need it more, and have concerns about how it might impact eligibility to certain social programs that need to be worked out, the way this is structured it is specifically trying to avoid the problem you feel is at issue where tax money is not going to help people correctly by going to the people instead of the government. I feel like the biggest sign of how this is a move towards the kinds of change we need to see is if you look at all the articles and commercials and signs and flyers talking about how its main backer was some rich people from out of state, you should look at who is paying for all of that and how much MORE they have spent on fighting it. This is a tax on BIG business not small business owners, and its a tax that goes to the people of oregon. Rather than going to social programs that might better help people but more people would argue against, its taking a neutral route by instead going to everyone. I think this solution is not perfect but is a real step in a right direction and one that large exploitative companies and systems are afraid of. Id rather have a flawed solution that could open the door to being refined and improved than continue to insist what isn't and hasn't been working will somehow magically get better. Respectfully.

[@Hoofer001]

This is why businesses are leaving California

[@Netizen_101]

Do we want ALL of the business to leave or what?

[@jimk8520]

You mean all the 25 mil+ corps that are 25mil+ corps because they refuse to properly pay their workers? Yes!

[@Netizen_101]

Which

[@jimk8520]

@@Netizen_101 Thanks!

[@83neffline]

Exactly!! Businesses are already leaving Oregon. Now we want to make our largest businesses look elsewhere? Dumb

[@Netizen_101]

Just heard Wells Fargo is pulling out too….eliminating all of the jobs.

[@cody181818]

Voted no. No more taxes on anything

[@compactinfinity]

May the power of the people return to the people.

[@paulsardeson935]

Hmmmmm "We are from the government and are here to help " .... hahaha.. A business is not going to lose money.. They will ALWAYS pass those increased costs on to the consumer... This is just a way of taxing lower and middle class people . All the government seems to do anymore is find new and creative ways and terms to Increase government revenue...

[@WASF2024]

if this passes, it's likely big companies will just leave the state for places like texas the way elon musk took tesla and x out of california.

[@orangecoolius]

yeah or Intel

[@Netizen_101]

If we lose Nike and Intel we’re doomed.

[@jsteezy80]

Almost like this was sponsored by a few individuals from California lol

[@Jm-Gonz]

Hmmm. Because the businesses will simply leave and state revenue overall will go down Basically economics.

[@Thousandeyes85]

No. No CEO would stop doing business in a State where they're profiting over $25,000,000 because of a 3% tax increase. They'd have to be out of mind

[@jeanninedefeyter7633]

This will have to be reported to the IRS as income, right.

[@ricardodsavant2965]

give me some money man...right now...🤪

[@oherroprease207]

It’s very simple everyone. Whenever you see ANYTHING involving new taxes or “fees” we say NO. Doesn’t matter how they try to word it.

[@AuggieG]

It’s time large corporations pay their share of taxes. I will be voting YES to Measure 118.

[@richardhake4098]

No on 118. Just cut state services.

[@GERMANAITOR]

VOTE YES ON 118

[@esspeetwentytwo]

Why

[@saneasthenextguy196]

Are we trying to get more of the homeless in other states to move here? Maybe that is California's plan.

[@MaggotPrince]

Anti-homeless rhetoric is nuts because anyone could be homeless under the right circumstances. Just say you hate poor people, say you hate people with disabilities, say you hate children who were kicked out of their homes. Be specific with your hatred.

[@saneasthenextguy196]

@@MaggotPrince I don't hate anyone (although I don't care much for maggots). I am not against assisting those in need but am perplexed why California would push this plan in a state adjacent to theirs, I doubt it is out of the goodness of their hearts. And other states do send their homeless to California and Oregon, these people are being used as pawns, but that may be difficult for you to comprehend. My actual objection to this measure is for other reasons but I am suspicious of the motivation behind it and will vote against it.

[@MaggotPrince]

@@saneasthenextguy196 it actually isn't California law makers pushing this, it's a few wealthy venture capitalists, which may not be loads better, but it's good to know who is responsible. Either way, you're using homeless people as cannon fodder for your argument, but that may be difficult for you to comprehend.

[@kmarks97236]

Good old homeless bashing. Bet you never went hungry or had no place to live in your life. Try it sometime and maybe you will learn some compassion

[@saneasthenextguy196]

@@kmarks97236 I am not bashing anyone, I am questioning the wisdom of and the motivation behind people from California promoting laws in Oregon. It is very common for republicans to fund campaigns to change laws in states other than their own. The Koch family is notorious for this.

[@Dr.-Dank]

Why didn't y'all go into the opposition to measure 118 from labor groups? The businesses I understand, and the opposition from legislators makes sense, but why how do the labor bosses say this hurts working people?

[@bouncyboi3197]

They did mention that a criticism is companies leaving the state. That's fewer jobs and labor groups want job growth.

[@michaelaskay]

Money is not free😂😂😂

[@electromaniacal]

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

[@JonsMG]

Don't forget the argument that the money given to residents could knock some folks out of Medicaid eligibility, thus negatively impacting their poverty level

[@kmarks97236]

Then make it where that doesn’t happen

[@gregparker97013]

remind of the formula for losing eligibility.

[@DjNotNicesNucka]

"why are people against it" Moneyed interest.

[@TrampMachine]

I would have voted yes if it was restricted to people who live in the state for 5 years or more, the last thing we need to do is make ourselves more attractive as a place for homeless people to come from out of state.

[@worleystudios]

Any idea coming from California should be seriously suspect.

[@LadyLithias]

Anybody who focuses more on the source of the idea than the idea itself should perhaps re-evaluate their critical thinking skills and maybe buff them up a bit. I might think that people from some states are suspect because the state is Blue or Red, and it's okay to generalize about generalities. But it's never wise to believe that just because one person comes from a specific locale doesn't make them or their ideas suspect. Evaluate the idea, not the person!

[@janefinley-english1051]

@@LadyLithiaswhat is the reason California was involved in this initially?

[@mattalley4330]

@@worleystudios If the idea is either good or bad then it’s point of origen is irrelevant

[@AtticusThings]

They're the fourth largest economy in the world.

[@gs4815]

Origin not Origen. It’s a dumb idea and you always question the source of proposals/measures to better understand the intent and purpose of the proposals. It’s obvious that the proponents want their homeless population to migrate up here for “free” money.

[@Big-three492]

Vote yes on 118

[@esspeetwentytwo]

Why?

[@sandradvergsdal3383]

"Could receive $1600." "The measure is paid for by Californians." Tells me everything I need to know about 118. A slick way to pass a sales tax in Oregon that is not called a sales tax!! Vote NO

[@Thousandeyes85]

No. It's only for a small percentage of the biggest corporations making $25,000,000 in profits

[@hosermandeusl2468]

The city of Grass Pants increased my water bill yo gouge the SSI hike to pay for the non-existent police force with a 30.00$ increase in my water bill. I'm certain they'll get this one too.

[@Eve7th]

Vote yes on 118. Stop greedy people. They didn't need all that money to sit on. They need to pay for everything not us poor and middle class.

[@KompressorV12]

You’re kidding right. I want companies to pay there fair share, but if you think you’re outsmarting corporations your not. For the ones that decide to stay in Oregon they’ll deal with even less competition. You think price gouging is bad now? Can you imagine taking their profit and handing it directly to residents. We tried that with stimulus checks and we’re still painfully paying for it.

[@danielkingery2894]

You sound like you need to study just how bad SOCIALISM is throughout history.

[@orangecoolius]

I need more than "stop greed." Give me some details and analysis, not just blanket statements.

[@orangecoolius]

Also $1600 a year is not a lot of money so is it even worth it to try to figure it out and gamble?

[@Netizen_101]

You sounds extremely uneducated and just desperate for any handout without thinking about the implications beyond yourself.

[@sharpshooter2398]

It’s stupid af