SQ 766 - Ban Taxation on Intangible Assets - Poll

[HMFIC]

How are we going to grow the government with your way of thinking? Businesses are a gift from the government and should gladly give back whatever the government needs to fund its inefficiency. You heartless bastards. It is for the children.

LOL. Ya I forgot about all that... silly me.

 

[soonersfan]

I am curious to know from those members who voted "no" on this poll why you voted that way. I know that ostensibly its about schools and helping them but why would you vote to have intangible assets taxed as a means of accomplishing that goal? Having a tax on intangible assets seems to be a rather difficult idea to enact and enforce on an equitable basis and seems like it would lend itself quite readily to political favoritism. But maybe I'm missing something here.

Just curious what your thoughts were

It sounds like some voted no because they don't own a business and have the 'better them than me mentality.'

 

[BadgeBunny]

My reaction to any tax is to kill it with fire. This one is no different.

I'm with you!

 

[Glocktogo]

Intangible Personal Property which is still currently taxed but would not be taxed if the measure is adopted, includes items such as:

* patents, inventions, formulas, designs, and trade secrets;
* licenses, franchise, and contracts;
* land leases, mineral interests, and insurance policies;
* custom computer software; and
* trademarks, trade names and brand names.

I have seen the advertisements on the television about this state question. The context of the ad states something along the line of "Now they want to tax my business name and trademark" as if this in the only thing that is affected. Listening to the manner is which it is presented, a person would be led to believe that the Intangible Property Tax is something new, a new evil tax that would put a further burden on his family business that has provided jobs in the community etc, etc, ad nauseum, and a Yes vote for SQ766 is gonna save all the small businesses from catastrophe.

A little research shows that the tax on intangible assets has been in place for a while. Research also shows that the large businesses that are already making huge profits here in Oklahoma stand to gain the most from a yes vote on SQ766. A yes vote is estimated to result in a 50 million dollar tax shortfall, a large chunk of which goes to education. State governments do not just eat a 50 million dollar tax shortfall, it just gets shifted to something else, like property taxes.

I'm just sayin............ It might be a good idea to think about this one.

I wonder who it is that is paying for this ad which runs about 30 times a day.

<sigh> Yes it would reduce taxes on large businesses like PSO. Yes it would also protect small businesses from uneven county by county application of a tax that was previously only assessed on companies like PSO. Yes it may result in a large tax shortfall. So what? We've all been hit by the recession. All of us have had to do more with less. Why should tax coffers not be held to the same standard? Who ever said that taxes should only go up and never go down? Why should we respond to some boogeyman argument that property taxes will go up if we don't vote no? Bottom line, if the state wants more money, they need to work for it. No need to give it to them on a silver platter.

 

[Shadowrider]

I thought the lottery was gonna fix all our money woes in education. I'm pretty sure that's what Gov. Geegollywhiz Brad said ...

Yes, yes it was. When I hear of education budget shortfalls I just shake my head. Our schools are like prestigious country clubs these days. Can't afford books? Quit building extravagant, ridiculously overbuilt school buildings. They spend millions more than is necessary and wonder why they can't buy books and pencils. I took classes in portable metal buildings. The infrastructure has nothing to do with a quality education, it's all about the effort put into obtaining it. I have no sympathy for those that say they need more money, I've been hearing it for 40 years and seeing it happen the whole time, but the results haven't mirrored the expenditures.

/rant

 

[Lurker66]

I voted "no" in the poll hopeing to hear from both sides of the argument. Really this question only pertains to businesses. It might have an effect on schools and it might affect individuals someday.

A yes vote will reduce taxes on bigger companies, small owners wont be affected. Thus the State and potentially our schools lose out on the previous revenue.

A vote "NO", means things basically stay the same except, some small business owners might have to pay a little more. Although theres no real way to enforce complience.

I think this issue is best left up to lawmakers and business owners, unfortunatly its thrown in the peoples lap. I'll prolly go with the flow, but only because it "might" help a local business or OSA businessman. But im not convinced either way.

 

[inactive]

A yes vote will reduce taxes on bigger companies, small owners wont be affected. Thus the State and potentially our schools lose out on the previous revenue.

In theory the prices of things (in the industries/companies burdened by the tax) should go down, since taxes are passed on to the consumer anyway. Removal of these taxes should result in a lowering of prices. Anyone think that will actually happen?

 

[Glocktogo]

I voted "no" in the poll hopeing to hear from both sides of the argument. Really this question only pertains to businesses. It might have an effect on schools and it might affect individuals someday.

A yes vote will reduce taxes on bigger companies, small owners wont be affected. Thus the State and potentially our schools lose out on the previous revenue.

A vote "NO", means things basically stay the same except, some small business owners might have to pay a little more. Although theres no real way to enforce complience.

I think this issue is best left up to lawmakers and business owners, unfortunatly its thrown in the peoples lap. I'll prolly go with the flow, but only because it "might" help a local business or OSA businessman. But im not convinced either way.

Those two statements are incongruous. Will they or will they not be affected? It depends now that the state supreme court has weighed in. What does it depend on? County by county whim. That's not the proper way to tax intangible assets, particularly on businesses that aren't restricted to business within their respective county. It sets up a system where some counties will penalize all tyoes of businesses, where the next county over may not tax them at all in this manner. Yet it's not codified, but purely on the interpretations of a select few. Not good, go back to the drawing board and start over.

 

[Glocktogo]

In theory the prices of things (in the industries/companies burdened by the tax) should go down, since taxes are passed on to the consumer anyway. Removal of these taxes should result in a lowering of prices. Anyone think that will actually happen?

Absolutely not.

 

[inactive]

Absolutely not.

See, that's the rub IMHO. If we're paying the embedded taxes now and it's going to the schools, then it will just end up going to the business owners if this changes.

I'm not a big proponent of just throwing more money at schools (I voted against the big 2010 funding level SQ, for example), but this is exactly why I can't real excited about this issue. I'm gonna pay the money regardless, so do I want pad schools or business owners? I'm not very thrilled about either.