Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The North Coast times-eagle. (Wheeler, Oregon) 1971-2007 | View Entire Issue (March 1, 2005)
N O RTH C O A ST VO L26N O 450C EN TS TIM E S EA G LE MARPRIL 2005 ‘In a dark time the eye begins to see ’ -TH EO DO RE ROTHKE JOHN OVERMYER THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING TAXABLE BY NANCY HOFFMAN Recently I was doing business at a small but prosperous shop in our area when I noticed the owners had purchased a huge brand new cherry red diesel pickup truck. One of the owners could barely get into the cab without assistance, but as I watched, she scrambled up into the seat to make a quick trip to the store because she needed ice. Since the truck was clearly oversized for such an errand, I wondered why they purchased it. She said it was for convenience, but I soon discovered another truth Imagine! It was a tax write-off. Current tax laws permit people to write off $100,000 in one year for a vehicle weighing over 6000 pounds as long as they can associate the vehicle with a business. It doesn’t matter that a Mini-Cooper or Prius or a Ford Mustang would be easier to drive, use less fuel, do less damage to our highways, and be just as efficient in retrieving a few bags of ice. What matters is they you can’t write off those smaller vehicles. So smart business owners buy big SUVs or Hummers or a heavy duty pickup like the Dodge Ram But my problem isn't really with the tax law. My problem is about patriotism Because this business was proudly displaying a flag to show how much the owners love this country. These people consider themselves patriots, and they are benefiting from everything America has to offer. Yet they look for every opportunity to avoid paying taxes because, I assume, they believe paying taxes in America is for chumps. Lobbyists earn big bucks pushing through tax loopholes so business owners can escape chumpism. Paying taxes has gotten a bad rap. I think it is time to rethink what it means to be an American who supports this country. True patriotism isn’t waving a big flag in your front lawn or putting a flag decal on your Dodge Ram Patriotism is paying your fair share of taxes to help your community, your state, and your country. Even with a nice flag decal in the back window, a business writing off $100,000 in taxes is being unpatriotic. People who make enough money to write-off $100,000 in taxes owe our town a whole lot more than that. They use our roads, our police, our fire department. They hire people educated in our schools. They expect the Oregon Health Plan to provide health care to their minimum wage workers They scream when the garbage pickup is late And they do everything they can to avoid paying for any of this k We can’t really give tax evaders a scarlet letter because who knows why people don’t pay many taxes. They might have huge debts that they are paying off. They might have large startup costs. What we can do is honor those businesses and individuals who do pay taxes. The IRS, and the state of Oregon, could issue flags or decals to represent how much was paid. A business that paid $500,000 in taxes might get a blue flag with five white stars. We could choose between that patriotic business and the competitor who took a $100,000 write off, paid no taxes, and got no flag. CEOs who generously and patriotically pay their taxes could have special license plates. CEOs who seek out tax shelters and bank in the Caymans would be fair game for road rage. Let’s make giving back to this country a patriotic act. Let’s make people proud to be taxpayers and those evaders can be the chumps. Nancy Hoffman lives in Astoria and is a retired teacher who taught at Clatsop Community College. TO BE OR NOT TO BE EQUITABLE: THAT’S THE QUESTION! BY BRUCE BUCKMASTER but words, they cannot hurt me. I beg to differ. In March 2005 an association o f metro-based sport fishing companies had a bill introduced in the Oregon Legislature. In essence the bill (HB 2011) changed only two words in the current law which directs the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Had this word change become law, it would be possible for the small commercial fishermen of the lower Columbia River to be denied any opportunity to harvest an equitable share of returning salmon and sturgeon (Note: the salmon are not endangered or threatened but primarily hatchery fish specifically raised for harvest.) Our beleaguered fishermen, the businesses and communities that salmon support were being threatened by the unmitigated greed of avaricious interests. Maybe the people responsible for the legalese gambit assumed that no one would notice replacing “equitable" with “sustainable". We did notice and we traveled from Astoria to the Statehouse to object. Admittedly, I was nervous and intimidated by the prospect of testifying before a legislative committee. Now, I'm not a strong believer in signs and portents, but when they hit you in the face it’s hard not to notice. As I walked into the Capitol Building, there it was, carved deeply into the gleaming marble wall. Six words, ten inches high, that framed our Constitution instantly stilled my fear I was able to clearly deliver the following thesis after long dead Oregonians communicated the wisdom of “THE SHARING OF BENEFIT JUSTLY APPORTIONED " Allow me to make an argument in defense of “equitable" Equitable is a word that holds a power that is wonderfully Oregonian. Roget's Thesaurus cites two synonyms for equitable They are “just" and “honorable." Yet the proponents of this bill say that equitable is outdated and should be replaced by “sustainable." Now, sustainable is a perfectly fine adjective When combined with a noun that is just, honorable, and equitable, we should agree to defend the concept But we all know examples of unjust, dishonorable and inequitable situations that do not deserve to be sustained Instead they must be put right before sustainability is sought Oregon legislators frequently find themselves in the position where they argue for the principle of equita- bility. The moral underpinning for fair distribution of benefit cannot exist without the litmus test of equitable treat ment.The only downside to equitable is that it may prevent us from getting all that we want Fortunately equitable may never be used as an argument to prevent us from achieving all that is fair There is something vaguely sinister about any call to remove equitable from our legal code What motive lurks behind the proposal? Does someone wish to place our natural resources on the auction block? Can just and honorable stand in the way of some long-term desired outcome? I don't presume to know the motive for this bill, but I do know that equitable is not outdated. It is a principle that has supported a uniquely Oregon way of life In recoiling from the idea to decodify equitable, I have stumbled across a concept Let us sustain the valued principle of equitability by committing to add the word in every possible bill that is presented within this just and honorable body. >
