heads up to business owners SQ766

[poopgiggle]

I do agree that the legislature basically shoved this decision on to the people because they didn't want to have to make it themselves, which is crappy.

However, if their backs are against the wall and they need to figure out where to cut and who to tax, I'm thinking that they will make policies that benefit the guys who have lobbying power. Being voted out isn't really a huge concern, since both houses have just redrawn district lines to get more solid constituencies.

 

[WTJ]

The tax discussion would be vastly different if most .gov services were held to a functional standard. Public Safety generally functions well. This cannot be said for other functions of the government, like public schools. I don't use public schools, and there is little interest in education in the system. Perpetuation and indoctrination is the aim of government schools.

Constitutional requirements and limitations should drive taxes. Any other services should be user-pays. If you drive a vehicle you pay tax/ tags now. If you have a child it should be your responsibility to pay for the education.

Lastly, people should not be taxed for their production. Consumption should be taxed. Currently we have both and that is why we have bloated gov and entitlements.

 

[HMFIC]

It has to do with companies that are "centrally assessed" by the State Board of Equalization. It has to do with the type of company such as a public service company and not just their size...

The bottom line is that the majority of locally assessed small businesses in Oklahoma are going to get a tax increase if this bill is not approved. The legislature HAS to go back and deal with this instead of throwing it out the window and refusing to deal with such an important issue.

Heres a much better detail of it than I can provide:

http://okpolicy.org/blog/taxes/property-tax-cuts-create-winners-and-losers/

Under SQ 766, the big winner is large railroad and utility companies like Southwestern Bell and AEP-PSO. Oklahoma has historically taxed the intangible property of these entities that “centrally assessed” by the State Board of Equalization, but not taxed intangible property of other businesses that are locally assessed by counties. A 2009 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling opened the door to locally assessed entities being subject to this tax. However, rather than develop a Constitutional Amendment that would have restored the status quo, the Legislature put forward in SQ 766 a proposal to end all taxation of intangibles. The result would be a revenue loss to schools and local governments of about $65 million that would have to be made up for by a combination of budget cuts and hikes in the tax rate on the property that remains taxable.

As we explained in an earlier blog post, there are much better way to achieve property tax relief than creating more arbitrary caps and exemptions. During the income tax debate, we heard a lot about lawmakers’ desire to “expand the base and lower the rate.” State Questions 758 and 766 would do the opposite.

 

[HMFIC]

I do agree that the legislature basically shoved this decision on to the people because they didn't want to have to make it themselves, which is crappy.

And this is my whole point...

For them to toss ALL business owners under the bus deserves my YES vote to shoot down their crappy legislation.

 

[SoonerATC]

You think Liberals raise taxes?

Of course I do.

This is Oklahoma. Our government is dominated by Conservative Republicans. You need to open your eyes to politics. Liberals have nothing to do with this tax question.

I was referring to the liberals on this forum and the millions of liberals across the country who have no problem hiking taxes on anyone, as long as it doesn't affect them.

Historically, this kind of infrastructure has never been the result of private enterprise alone. States have always needed to create and maintain it.

I never disputed that. I said in post #63 that I understand the need for limited taxes.

 

[poopgiggle]

http://okpolicy.org/blog/taxes/property-tax-cuts-create-winners-and-losers/

Under SQ 766, the big winner is large railroad and utility companies like Southwestern Bell and AEP-PSO. Oklahoma has historically taxed the intangible property of these entities that “centrally assessed” by the State Board of Equalization, but not taxed intangible property of other businesses that are locally assessed by counties. A 2009 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling opened the door to locally assessed entities being subject to this tax. However, rather than develop a Constitutional Amendment that would have restored the status quo, the Legislature put forward in SQ 766 a proposal to end all taxation of intangibles. The result would be a revenue loss to schools and local governments of about $65 million that would have to be made up for by a combination of budget cuts and hikes in the tax rate on the property that remains taxable.

As we explained in an earlier blog post, there are much better way to achieve property tax relief than creating more arbitrary caps and exemptions. During the income tax debate, we heard a lot about lawmakers’ desire to “expand the base and lower the rate.” State Questions 758 and 766 would do the opposite.

I've been posting OKPolicy links the WHOLE TIME. I'm at the very least familiar with their analysis.

Also what part of

During the income tax debate, we heard a lot about lawmakers’ desire to “expand the base and lower the rate.” State Questions 758 and 766 would do the opposite.

reads like "vote YES on SQ766" to you?

 

[poopgiggle]

I never disputed that. I said in post #63 that I understand the need for limited taxes.

Yeah but you also named some essential services and then said that your tax dollars shouldn't pay for them because GOT MINE so I was pointing out that businesses benefit from those essential services and so it's fair to tax them to pay for it.

 

[poopgiggle]

For them to toss ALL business owners under the bus deserves my YES vote to shoot down their crappy legislation.

1. It's not their legislation. It's a decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that they now have to deal with.
2. How is it throwing business owners under the bus if it's a tax that a) county assessors have shown no desire to levy on small businesses, and b) wouldn't be very much at all even if they did?

If SQ766 passes, to restore the status quo (as OKPolicy puts it) they'd have to amend the constitution again, except this time everyone would be blubbering about OMG GOVERNMENT RAISING TAXES.

 

[SoonerATC]

Yeah but you also named some essential services and then said that your tax dollars shouldn't pay for them because GOT MINE so I was pointing out that businesses benefit from those essential services and so it's fair to tax them to pay for it.

I don't remember doing that. In any case, businesses do benefit from police and fire departments, but I believe those are paid for by individuals through sales taxes and property taxes (which the business pays as well). So not only does the owner and the employees of the business fund these services as individuals, the business itself also gets burdened. Why should businesses be taxed for a service that's already being paid for through other sources?

My original argument was against taxing "intangibles". That's ridiculous and was the point of my contention with this proposed state question.

 

[poopgiggle]

The whole thing that I've been driving at is that small businesses don't really have any intangible assets to tax.

As for the ridiculousness of taxing intangible assets, I'll leave you with another OKPolicy quote:

As our economy has become more service- and technology-oriented, the value of a company is increasingly based upon intangible assets. In 1975, intangible assets comprised around 2 percent of the net asset book value of S&P 500 companies; by 2005, it was over 40 percent, and the trend is likely to continue. If SQ 766 passes, Oklahoma will find itself increasingly limited in its ability to tax properties.