Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (May 14, 2014)
Page 8 Fortiani» (P b sm ier CAREERS Special May 14, 2014 New Prices Effective May 1,2010 Martin Cleaning Service Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning Residential & Commercial Services Minimum Service CHG $45.00 A sm all distance/travel charge m ay be applied CARPET CLEANING 2 Cleaning Areas or more $30.00 Each Area Pre-Spray Traffic Areas (Includes: 1 small Hallway) 1 Cleaning Area (only) $40.00 Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area (Hallway Extra) Stairs (12-16 stairs - With O ther Services): $25.00 Area/Orientai Rugs: $25.00Minimum Area/Orientai Rugs (Wool): $40.00Minimum Heavily Soiled Area: Additional $10.00 each area (Requinng Extensive Pre-Spraying) UPHOLSTERY CLEANING Sofa: $69.00 Loveseat: $49.00 Sectional: $109-$139 Chair or Recliner: $25 - $49 Throw Pillows (With Other Services): $5.00 ADDITIONAL SERVICES • Area & Oriental Rug Cleaning • Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning • Deodorizing & Pet Odor Treatment «T v • Spot & Stain Removal Service • Scotchguard Protection • Minor Water Damage Services SEE CURRENT FLYER FOR ADDITIONAL PRICES & SERVICES Call for Appointment (503) 281-3949 When Corporations Get Too Big to Tax Lowering their tax bills won’t stop at zero B ob L ord W o u ld n ’t it be n ice if the g o v ern m en t p aid you on T ax D ay? I ’m not referring to getting a tax refund because you overpaid the federal g o v ern m ent o r a safety-net benefit labeled as a tax refund under the “E arned Incom e T ax C red it” rules. I m ean an actual paym ent from the U .S. T reasury. D one laughing? G reat. T his re ally co u ld happen, but w ith co rp o by rate-tax bills, not your personal 1040. Y es, w e m ay very w ell see the day w hen Uncle Sam spends m ore m oney pandering to big com panies than it receives from taxing them . In the past half-century, co rp o rate tax dollars have plunged as a p ercentage o f the econom y and as a share o f total federal revenue. The effectiv e co rp o rate tax rate is less than h a lf o f w hat it w as ju s t a few decades ago and now hovers at 12.6 percent, roughly one-third o f the official 35 percent rate. C alls to slash the corporate tax rate, o r even scrap this tax alto gether, span the political spectrum . Proponents ju stify this on the basis o f “tax c o m p e titio n ,” the b attle am ong nations to attract giant co r porations o r d iscourage th eir d e parture. T he term “tax co m p etitio n ” is a euphem ism fo r a race to the bottom am ong nations in both the d ev el oped and developing w orld. Each co u n try slashes its co rporate in com e tax rate in an attem pt to lure m ultinational corporations to base their operations there, o r at least d is s u a d e c o r p o r a tio n s a lre a d y based there from relocating. outright pays corporations to set up shop? W hy are zero-corporate- tax proponents certain that the m axi m um bribe a country w ould o ffer to a m ultinational corporation is a zero tax rate? Say, fo r exam ple, after o u r g o v ernm ent reduced its co rp o rate tax rate to zero, C an ad a sought to lure a M innesota-based o u tfit across the border. C ould the C anadian g o v ern m en t up the ante by offerin g that corporation a share o f the incom e taxes paid by C anadians em ployed By engaging in “tax competition, ” state governments have decimated their tax bases. I The idea behind reducing or elim i nating the U .S. corporate incom e tax, then, is sim ply a tactic to w in the race to the bottom . R educe the co r porate incom e tax rate in the U nited States, o r drop this tax altogether, and the exodus o f m ultinational corporations from A m erica w ill stop and even flip. If w e shrink the co rp o rate incom e tax rate to zero, the logic goes, no country can outbid us. O r can they? If A m erica is w illing to reduce its corporate incom e tax rate to zero, w hy c a n ’t an o th er country m ove to a negative corporate tax rate that ders. T hey and th eir political subdi visions have agreed to property-tax exem ptions, jo b -train in g subsidies, low -rate m unicipal bond financing, and ded icated infrastructure spend ing. T h ey ev en have agreed to pay to corporations a portion o f the in com e tax revenue they receive from em ployees o f those corporations. A ccording to the organization G ood Jobs First, o u r states collectively fork o v er about $700 m illion each y ear in state incom e tax revenue to corporate A m erica. T he prem ise b ehind proposals to pare o r kill the co rp o rate incom e tax is preposterous. O th er countries can m ove to a negative tax rate ju s t as quickly as w e can m ove to zero. A nd w hen o th er countries m ove to a negative tax rate for co rp o ra tions, w ho w ill stop U ncle Sam from follow ing them ? T here is an alternative: tax d ip lo m acy. A new treaty co u ld stop m u l tinationals from pitting governm ents against one an o th er in a never-end ing h ollow ing-out o f the global tax base. O therw ise, w e m ay ju s t find o u r selves taking the tax dollars w e pay as individuals, w hich should be used to build schools, roads, and bridges, and handing them o v er to co rp o ra tions on T ax D ay instead. by it after its relo catio n ? O r could the C anadian governm ent sim ply o ffer the co rp o ratio n a direct sub sidy for relocating? T he race to the bottom that states have run for years m akes the answ er to th o se q u estio n s a reso u n d in g yes. By engaging in “tax co m p eti tio n ,” state governm ents have d eci m ated their tax bases. N ot only have A rizona, Indiana, N orth C arolina, and oth er states slashed tax rates fo r corporations, th e y ’ve engaged in m assive g iv e Bob Lord is a veteran tax lawyer aw ays in a futile attem pt to lure from Phoenix, A riz. and an Institute b usinesses to cross dom estic bor- for Policy Studies associate fellow.
