How will they even asses this tax? Who will be subject to it? If I make cereal in Battle Creek MI and I am over the ceo/employee ratio does that mean my cereal on a Portland shelf will have an added tax? What if I get fired? When will the tax be re assesed? Or is it just for Portland ceo's? In which case can't I just move my business or myself outside the city limits? Can't a CEO just make min wage and be compensated in other ways? Can't a CEO just be a guy Portland likes and the real decision makers be called something else not subject to the wage law?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Portland imposes surtax on CEO pay in salvo at income inequality
- Thread starter dealmaker
- Start date
They're just trying to make a point, it won't actually impact anyone. The only big company HQ in Portland isn't actually in Portland, it's Nike in Beaverton. Any other company that would qualify under that tax will obviously join them next door within a short time. As you correctly pointed out it would be impossible to really implement this. That said, I'm sure the supporters of the law would rather see those company's go away and take their jobs with them. Portland is that kind of town, it's the kind of place you go if maximizing your personal wealth is relatively low on your priority list.How will they even asses this tax? Who will be subject to it? If I make cereal in Battle Creek MI and I am over the ceo/employee ratio does that mean my cereal on a Portland shelf will have an added tax? What if I get fired? When will the tax be re assesed? Or is it just for Portland ceo's? In which case can't I just move my business or myself outside the city limits? Can't a CEO just make min wage and be compensated in other ways? Can't a CEO just be a guy Portland likes and the real decision makers be called something else not subject to the wage law?
Well at least they are making progress. This is the first time I ever heard them connect tax, and rate, in this case an actual percentage, to a behavior. That is progress. At least now we are speaking the same language.They're just trying to make a point, it won't actually impact anyone. The only big company HQ in Portland isn't actually in Portland, it's Nike in Beaverton. Any other company that would qualify under that tax will obviously join them next door within a short time. As you correctly pointed out it would be impossible to really implement this. That said, I'm sure the supporters of the law would rather see those company's go away and take their jobs with them. Portland is that kind of town, it's the kind of place you go if maximizing your personal wealth is relatively low on your priority list.
There is no progress, its just backward stupid. It is not clear that it would effect no one; don't overlook unintended consequences.
Clearly, this has nothing to do with 'Tony the Tiger' in Battle Creek; Portland can only impose a tax within its jurisdiction; that means on CEO's who run a business domiciled in Portland, or otherwise under Portland's jurisdiction to levy personal income tax.
So, we are not talking big business, we are talking regular urban business, things like, care dealers, clubs, bars, fast food, retail, professions, advertising, banking, landlords, etc. We are also looking at a formula that does not scale well.
Consider a club or fast food owner for instance. If the "average worker," however that is defined, earns $15 (no benefits considered) and works 28 hours per week to come below the Obama care tax, that comes to about $22,000 per year with no benefits.
Then, if the CEO, who could be the owner, earns an annual amount of $2,200,000 (salary + profit, assuming LLC enterprise form) then he will be subject to a 10% surcharge on his Portland city income tax (Of course this is simplified in gross terms, you have to consider the actual adjusted gross income under the Portland City tax code with all of its deductions and add ins).
So, someone who owns one club or one fast food restaurant is not likely to qualify...but what about two or three? Clearly this is an incentive to not get big in Portland, invest outside the city if you want to scale.
Clearly, this has nothing to do with 'Tony the Tiger' in Battle Creek; Portland can only impose a tax within its jurisdiction; that means on CEO's who run a business domiciled in Portland, or otherwise under Portland's jurisdiction to levy personal income tax.
So, we are not talking big business, we are talking regular urban business, things like, care dealers, clubs, bars, fast food, retail, professions, advertising, banking, landlords, etc. We are also looking at a formula that does not scale well.
Consider a club or fast food owner for instance. If the "average worker," however that is defined, earns $15 (no benefits considered) and works 28 hours per week to come below the Obama care tax, that comes to about $22,000 per year with no benefits.
Then, if the CEO, who could be the owner, earns an annual amount of $2,200,000 (salary + profit, assuming LLC enterprise form) then he will be subject to a 10% surcharge on his Portland city income tax (Of course this is simplified in gross terms, you have to consider the actual adjusted gross income under the Portland City tax code with all of its deductions and add ins).
So, someone who owns one club or one fast food restaurant is not likely to qualify...but what about two or three? Clearly this is an incentive to not get big in Portland, invest outside the city if you want to scale.
It would have to be written as a full-time equivalent, otherwise if you have someone come in for 5 hours a week to do book-keeping you limit your CEO to $50,000/year. In any event it's unenforceable because the loopholes are infinite. You make your employees contractors, have all your employees work for entity A and then contract with entity A to provide labor for company B, break your company into 5 companies (which most multi-location businesses you referred to already do), so the CEO of each one stays under the limit...essentially all they've done is make business for the tax attorneys. As I said, they're just trying to make a point. The people who are for this kind of thing are OK with the consequences of what they think of as "bad" companies going elsewhere, the consequences aren't unintended at all. It may be one of those things where you've had to have lived in a place like this to get.There is no progress, its just backward stupid. It is not clear that it would effect no one; don't overlook unintended consequences.
Clearly, this has nothing to do with 'Tony the Tiger' in Battle Creek; Portland can only impose a tax within its jurisdiction; that means on CEO's who run a business domiciled in Portland, or otherwise under Portland's jurisdiction to levy personal income tax.
So, we are not talking big business, we are talking regular urban business, things like, care dealers, clubs, bars, fast food, retail, professions, advertising, banking, landlords, etc. We are also looking at a formula that does not scale well.
Consider a club or fast food owner for instance. If the "average worker," however that is defined, earns $15 (no benefits considered) and works 28 hours per week to come below the Obama care tax, that comes to about $22,000 per year with no benefits.
Then, if the CEO, who could be the owner, earns an annual amount of $2,200,000 (salary + profit, assuming LLC enterprise form) then he will be subject to a 10% surcharge on his Portland city income tax (Of course this is simplified in gross terms, you have to consider the actual adjusted gross income under the Portland City tax code with all of its deductions and add ins).
So, someone who owns one club or one fast food restaurant is not likely to qualify...but what about two or three? Clearly this is an incentive to not get big in Portland, invest outside the city if you want to scale.
I just dealt with what was written in the teaser, "average worker," obviously that needs to be fleshed out; you make supposition about that. I don't disagree but if you want to write it so that it sticks, you can with related and beneficial ownership clauses, employee control language to overcome leasing, whatever, it becomes a tax attorney war as you suggest.
I don't think you can underestimate the damage that negatively selected well meaning but deluded morons, stumbling to power through general apathy, in a municipal jurisdiction, on a self righteous mission can exact in any season (watch Deblasio)...the pain of damage eventually prompts correction after suitable blame is deflected.
Notice the current national electoral season.
I don't think you can underestimate the damage that negatively selected well meaning but deluded morons, stumbling to power through general apathy, in a municipal jurisdiction, on a self righteous mission can exact in any season (watch Deblasio)...the pain of damage eventually prompts correction after suitable blame is deflected.
Notice the current national electoral season.
So one way a CEO to max his income is to split his company into 2 or more. Then if the workers salaries range from 25K to 75K, and the median is 50K; He makes 5 million on each of the companies, so he would still make 10 millions or more. Smart entrepreneurs would also find ways to fight those policies.
Another reason for rational people to leave the worlds biggest high school.Portland imposes surtax on CEO pay in salvo at income inequality
Oregon's largest city will charge companies with chief executives whomake more than 100 timesthe median pay of the company's average workers. The 10 percent surtax, which would be added to the city's business tax for companies that qualify, is the first of its kind in the United States, Portland officials said.(New York Times)
Well at least they are making progress. This is the first time I ever heard them connect tax, and rate, in this case an actual percentage, to a behavior. That is progress. At least now we are speaking the same language.[/QUOTE
Multnomah county is making progress chasing businesses away. I would leave too, if I found out my hard earned tax dollars are spent on giving out clean needles to the dregs of society. Socialism works miracles.
Since you kind of have to go out of your way to even go to Portland, why not just let them try their silly experiments where they won't really bother anyone. Sometimes it's better to have a small out of the way area to try out the extremes. Kansas is a good example for me. The Kansas experiment with full on Conservative was clearly doomed to fail but since I never find a reason to be anywhere near nowhere and they all seemed to want it then good on em, knock yourselves out and let us know how it turns out. At least unlike KS the rest of us won't have to bail out Portland.Another reason for rational people to leave the worlds biggest high school.