Discount Debate – Eugene Weekly

If passed, Measure 118, the Oregon rebate, would give all Oregonians $1,600 annually through a three percent increase in the minimum sales tax for businesses with more than $25 million in sales in Oregon. But critics warn that the discount could come at the expense of vital public services if voters pass it.

In terms of money spent, this measure is generating more controversy than any other in this year’s vote. Opponents raised about $9.5 million in money, while supporters of the measure raised only about $750,000 — mostly from out-of-state donors. Representatives and businesses on both sides of the political spectrum have spoken out against the measure.

“Our broad coalition against Measure 118 includes hundreds of businesses, labor unions, social justice advocates, good government organizations, and elected officials from both major parties in Oregon,” wrote Angela Wilhelms, Chair of the No on Measure 118 Campaign and President and CEO of Oregon Business & Industry, in an email to Eugene Weekly.

Antonio Gisbert, lead proposer for Measure 118, is a former neuroscientist and union organizer. Despite the strong opposition, Gisbert hopes Oregonians will make the right decision with their tax dollars. “All people deserve the same level of dignity and economic prosperity,” says Gisbert. “Our goal is to get companies to pay their fair share of taxes.”

According to the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office, the measure would affect 2,213 businesses with revenue over $25 million, or 1.84 percent of all businesses with revenue in Oregon. Gisbert says the measure is modeled after programs like the Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund, which gives Alaska residents an annual rebate of between $1,000 and $2,000, depending on available surpluses.

Critics say that while the measure sounds good on paper, it is not what it seems.

Juan Carlos Ordóñez, communications director for the Oregon Center for Public Policy, a nonprofit economic justice organization, says, “While we believe Measure 118 has positive aspects, we believe the measure is poorly worded and will ultimately result in one number of unintended consequences that would be harmful to Oregonians.”

Ordóñez says Measure 118 will deprive important budgets for services like schools or health care. “By the 2029 to 2031 budget period, up to $2.5 billion would be taken from the state budget to pay for the rebates — and that’s a whole lot of change,” he says.

Gisbert disagrees. He says the rebate is revenue-neutral and is only granted after payment for public services. “The first thing that happens is that all the problem costs and social expenses are paid, and then whatever is left is reimbursed to the people of Oregon,” Gisbert says. Gisbert believes having cash in the hands of Oregonians will help those in need and stimulate the economy. “We’re talking about $250 million going into Eugene’s economy and over $600 million going into Lane County,” he says.

The measure provides a rebate to all Oregon residents, regardless of income. Opponents argue that this could take money away from those who need it most. “Because the measure would give everyone the same rebate, that means Phil Knight and Oregon’s richest residents would also get a tax break,” Ordóñez said.

Gisbert explains that excluding the richest 1 percent would only increase the rebate amount for everyone else by about $16. “It is not worth the complexity of the means test, which would be costly and potentially exclude people who need the rebate most,” says Gisbert. He says excluding certain classes would force lower-income individuals and families to prove their economic status – which is costly and burdensome.

For Measure 118 proponents, the universal nature of the rebate is not just about simplicity; It’s about ensuring fairness in all areas. “We are all equally entitled to the good things in society,” says Gisbert.

Measure 118 contains provisions requiring the state to seek federal waivers in cases where reimbursement would cause residents to be above the income cap for social services such as the Oregon Health Plan or food assistance programs.

But opponents fear that this may not be enough. “We know from previous experience that with other legislative proposals, the federal government is unlikely to grant such exemptions,” says Ordóñez.

Ordóñez points out that while companies should pay their fair share, the overall economic impact could be damaging. At the same time, “you have to recognize the positive aspects of the measure,” says Ordóñez. “There is plenty of research and pilot programs showing that providing cash to families in need is an effective way to improve economic security – but the measure is poorly worded.”

Critics argue the measure will not solve Oregon’s larger economic problems, such as housing and child care. “The state is facing a whole series of crises and problems for which we need additional revenue,” says Ordóñez.

Opponents fear that 118 could defund these critical issues and place undue burdens on struggling families. “Higher costs would be felt most acutely by lower-income Oregonians, and all consumers – from households to businesses to local governments – would have to contend with these higher costs,” Wilhelms writes.

However, Gisbert remains optimistic that Oregonians will hold big corporations accountable for their fair share of taxes. He argues that an Oregon rebate is a first step in combating corporate greed. “I want people to really think about what is right for them, their family, their household and their friends,” says Gisbert.

Related