Measures 66 & 67 See Significant Victories

(SALEM, Ore.) - Oregon voters have spoken up in defense of state programs and schools, and they will soon see a larger portion of the state's revenue coming from both individuals who earn higher than average incomes, and Oregon corporations.

Measures 66 & 67 will increase taxes on residents in higher income brackets, and also do away with the $10 corporate minimum tax. Many arguments have been waged on both sides of the issues, but tentative vote tallies show the victory coming in 55% to an approximate 45% no vote overall.

Measure 66 raises taxes on household incomes at and above $250,000, and $125,000 for individual filers. It reduces income taxes on unemployment benefits in 2009, and provides funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, and other services.

In the official language, Measure 66 "raises tax on incomes above $250,000 for households, $125,000 for individual filers. Tax rate increases 1.8 percentage points on amount of taxable income between $250,000 and $500,000, 2 percentage points on amount above $500,000 for households. For individual filers, the rate increases begin at $125,000 and $250,000 respectively. Eliminates income taxes on the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits received in 2009. Raises estimated $472 million to provide funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services."

Measure 67 will raise the $10 corporate minimum tax, business minimum tax, corporate profits tax, while providing the funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services.

According to the Oregon Secretary of State, Mesure 67 "raises $10 corporate minimum tax, establishes $150 minimum tax for most businesses or minimum tax of approximately 0.1% of total Oregon revenues for some corporations with over $500,000 in Oregon revenues. Raises tax rate some corporations pay on profits by 1.3 percentage points. Increases certain business filing fees. Raises estimated $255 million to provide funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services."

As it turns out, there was a 52.14% turnout of Oregon's 2,064,618 registered voters, with 1,076,409 casting ballots.

The yes vote tally on Measure 66 was 580,506, which represented 54.17%. There were 491,033 no votes which accounted for 45.83%.

The yes vote talley on Measure 67 was 574,346, which represented 53.71%. There were 494,960 no votes which accounted for 46.29%.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Rod from Eastern Oregon February 1, 2010 5:01 pm (Pacific time)

I am among those who will be paying higher taxes due to the passage of Meas 66 and 67. I am happy to do my share to help fund the important programs that will be supported by the new revenue. If the day comes that the new revenues are not needed . . . I'll call my Rep and push for a repeal. Until then, let's get back to work.

Dallas February 1, 2010 8:34 am (Pacific time)

JB you had it right, and that is how all the "experienced" experts pointed it out. ECON 101, coupled with common sense and actual business experience. For others, they distract with disinformation, or they really just don't understand how businesses work, probably both. By this summer, Oregon's economy will become so dependent on federal dollars, our state's sovereignty will be for all practical purposes fini. The feds already call the shots for much of our state business through the power of the dollars they provide. Ironically, our tax money. Next November's election will see a considerable political shift, but to detach the state from the feds monetary control will be very difficult. Right now as per the media, Mayor Daley of Chicago exclaimed extreme pleasure at the vote and has sent representatives to recruit Oregon corporations to set up shop in his city. He has boasted how he got Boeing from Washington State to move there after that state increased business taxes. By the way, those who tax other peoples money, will continue to find new ways to take our money, and their MO is to always use some type of "fear" to rationalize increasing taxes. For more on Mayor Daley and the Chicago way: http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2010/01/25/daily43.html

Hank Ruark January 31, 2010 11:44 am (Pacific time)

JB: You overlook flat-fact of all business life, sir ! The foundation surround that makes business possible and even profitable goes on with costs accumulating whether or not profit results to any ONE business. Thus State puts out dollars to create possibilities for each and every business --if all paid ONLY when profits are admitted -- without the fully proven extremely strong action to avoid ever showing a profit if it can be avoided ! -- business will have achieved that dream of "socializing the risks and privatizing the profits". Using volume as measure for tax is ONLY FAIR WAY when the profits, if any-admitted, are thus in such doubt; as well as being only objective way to measure reality-achieved, esp.for corporate format where scale and volume are such real cherished measures. YOU, sir, seek "sure thing" situation, well recognized by Legislature, who then acted courageously on that fact.

JB January 28, 2010 10:45 pm (Pacific time)

This tax is on gross receiepts not net. $10 was the minimum tax not the max. Corps that didn't make money paid $10. Now a small buisness that has gross revenue of say one million dollars but only neted 100,000 will be taxed on the million. Plus it's retroactive 13 months. If you work for a small business good luck on keeping your job. Oregon has a lot of morons in the metro area.

QUI VIVI January 28, 2010 7:40 pm (Pacific time)

It is not one tax but the sum of all taxes people pay in Oregon that counts, there is no sales tax, so what's the gripe. I'll bet in five years Oregon will gain in population, and that will be good for business too. Wanna bet?

Daniel January 28, 2010 5:44 pm (Pacific time)

syn503 what kind of business do you have that cannot pay a small fee ? What state are you moving to thats pro business with lower taxes ? How many people on the books , if any ? Please answer so we can tell the effect , if any , to the state economy ! Your not just a BS er are you ?

Cassie January 27, 2010 1:45 pm (Pacific time)

I just saw a state map that showed which counties voted yes and no. Eleven counties, all in the western part of the state voted yes, 25 counties voted no. Several had close margins on both measures. Several Willamette Valley counties voted no, and all counties east of the Cascades voted no. The other day it was reported that for the first time in the nation's history there were more union members working in different government positions than private businesses. If that trend continues then where will the tax revenue eventually come from to pay for these government workers and services? Not to mention our food, for the trend is also for private farms going away. Can you imagine having only giant corporate farms/ranches supplying our food with no competition? At least the small farmer is able to keep prices down, but the taxes,fees, and cascading new regulations are pricing the small farmer out. These are people who supply our food, not all collect subsidies for not growing things, but that is a different topic. Then a worried government takes over these corporate farms like the auto industry and banks, then what? Elections have consequences, and as a govermnet grows individual freedoms shrink.

SYN503 January 27, 2010 12:09 pm (Pacific time)

Hey Oregon Voters, first I would like to thank you for deciding for me whether I should keep my business in Oregon or not! In a few months I will close the doors to my business and reopen it in a pro-business state. I tried to do something progressive here in Salem no less. I don't see this as much as government stealing from me, as I do the typical Oregonian looking for an easy handout. When this state gets a clue and catches on that county by county sales tax is the best way to raise taxes, it will be too late. In fact it is too late. I am 33 years old. If this state cannot keep young businesses in the state, how do you think you are going to attract big companies that will hire thousands of people? You won't and can't. Oregon voters do not realize they just signed a death sentence to the job market here. Oh well, your loss Oregon

jimmy January 27, 2010 10:03 am (Pacific time)

How many of those $10 corporate minimum tax payers were in the same boat as me, I kept registered there as a convenience with almost no business. One less wasteful government agency to prop up. Way to go Oregon voters!!!

Percy January 27, 2010 7:08 am (Pacific time)

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." —George Bernard Shaw This vote is good for both sides actually. The current winners will enjoy a temporary increase in tax revenue, and then the loser's will have the victories in future elections. Time will tell, but that is the future scenario. We will start seeing more federal funds coming into Oregon Coffers, and that will happen because there will be a decline in private business tax revenue. Expect unemployment to creep up slowly, then next summer when the schools put out thousands of graduates, there will be no jobs for them. So enjoy this temporary good feelings about making that election over class warfare, which was a deception, and that is the only way these measures could have won. Voters don't like to be lied to, as federal politicans have been finding out of late.

Mike H. January 27, 2010 12:42 am (Pacific time)

I like how they argue that 67 would would ruin Oregon jobs. So you're telling me that by paying an extra $140 a year, its going to be such a huge burden...the $11 a month increase...that corporations won't be able to handle it?

Frances January 27, 2010 12:04 am (Pacific time)

Hey Dude - forgot to add, you are right about all the wars too. Someone is making a lot of money in those wars and have every reason to keep them going - forever it looks like. Yemen next? Terrorists there? I do know there are at least three major American oil companies there. They wouldn't be wanting our armies to come protect them from terrorist who hate us just because of "our freedoms" as so many politicians have told us. Politicians, that come to think of it, were also connected to oil companies. I'm not accusing here, just saying.

Frances January 26, 2010 11:54 pm (Pacific time)

Our state is hurting. And yes, I do believe it is partially the fault of those in office, here locally and in Washington. And I think it is an insane concept that has them voting their own pay hikes. This year politicians in Washington voted down a cost of living raise in social security and then immediately proceeded to vote themselves a raise. That's just wrong. But the fact is, Oregon was on the list of 10 states most near financial collapse. My income is under $22,000. The amount I pay in taxes hurts. I have basic cable, only a phone line, no cell phone, and try to save as much as I can. But those with larger incomes can pay a little more to help without giving up so much. I would have to give up food, they might have to forego a new outfit for instance or a dinner out once a month. Is that really so much to ask in these hard times? As for your other comment, I have a feeling legality might be coming. Once Time, or was it Newsweek, named a Mexican drug multi-billionaire as one of the world's richest men, I'm sure a lot of salivating started. I'm sure there are American companies thinking about that money right now. And maybe that will take care of another insane idea in our country - that alcohol should be legal but not "herb". I'm an old lady and have been around both. I'll take a pot smoker over a drunk anyday. As for the other drugs people use and commit crimes to feed their habits, throw them in jail. They seem to think they have a right to burglarize someones home to get money to pay for their habit. They are insane too, and a danger to society.

The working man January 26, 2010 11:34 pm (Pacific time)

There needs to be a re-count!!!

Dude January 26, 2010 11:03 pm (Pacific time)

They're going with the Tax the rich feed the poor till there are no rich no more strategy I see. Keep it up geniuses we're all gonna be ballin in no time with you guys at the helm running things I'm sure. One thing is for sure- they aren't going to have to lay off a single nonproductive parasite elitist government worker anytime soon. They can bail out their precious pensions that they gambled away too now as well. Am I the only one noticing that our servants are starting to think they're the masters a little too much lately? Just my observations from seeing them in action in various capacities. I'm not against education or the elderly, and I'm sure I'm in the majority here so when can we stop all these wars? That's where most of our money goes. I don't see why the liberals would consider cutting one dollar of the welfare budgets or raising our extortion payments before they ceased all pointless, unethical and wasteful imperialistic, and also illegal wars and military actions worldwide. No that's what people that actually cared would do. I can't wait till the whole thing topples under it's own weight and we can just start over again from scratch and make a country actually worth living in and passing on to future generations. By the way I'm angry at this worthless government by the way, and I think I have every right to be. Maybe if they actually allowed me to smoke certain green sedative plants without the overarching fear of the ruination of my life and theft of my liberty I could relax and calm down. Nope.

[Return to Top]