Pretty good points on Measures 66 and 67

Measures 66 and 67: Family farms aren't in the crosshairs
By Guest Columnist Jim Just, local farmer Lebanon, Oregon
From the Oregonian

Like most Oregon farmers, I don't make anywhere near $250,000 a year, so Measure 66 wouldn't affect my family. And like most farmers, I'm not a corporation, so I wouldn't pay corporate taxes under Measure 67. But like most Oregonians, I care about public schools, health care for the vulnerable and public safety. And like other farmers, I recognize the value of state-funded agricultural programs like the extension services, the Agricultural Experiment Station, and marketing and pest control programs. These services help Oregon farms be more efficient and successful. That's why I support Measures 66 and 67.

And that's also why I was appalled by Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue's commentary in The Oregonian ("Don't add to the risk Oregon farmers face," Dec. 11), in which he made the astonishing claim that Measures 66 and 67 are a danger to family farms. The corporate-funded lobbyists running the opposition to these measures are using the image of family farms to make wildly false claims, and it's frankly despicable.

The fact is that 85 percent of Oregon farms are sole proprietorships, which means they pay nothing under the corporate tax measure, Measure 67. At least another 10 percent are organized as either S-corporations or partnerships or C-corporations with revenues of less than $500,000, which means they would pay only $150. Only three-tenths of 1 percent of farms -- a grand total of 110 out of the roughly 38,000 farms statewide -- have more than $5 million in revenues. Only those 110 large operations could possibly pay more than $2,000 under the revised corporate minimum tax.

As to Measure 66, which raises taxes on households making more than $250,000, a true farm family could be affected only if it made more than $250,000 in farm profits. Since more than 95 percent of farms have less than $500,000 in total revenues, and there aren't many farms making a 50 percent profit, the number of real farmers affected by Measure 66 is vanishingly small.

There are some rich people who make their money in other ways but have "hobby farms." But on average, the "farm income" those people report is negative. In other words, these are rich people who have a hobby farm that operates at a loss, and they claim that loss so they can get a tax deduction.

As a farmer, I find it distressing that the corporate lobbyists opposing Measures 66 and 67 are using family farms as pawns. Farmers and other rural families have every reason to be on the "Yes" side of these ballot measures. Rural Oregon has its share of people who will benefit if Measures 66 and 67 pass, and will suffer if they fail.

In Linn County, where I live, we have 21,325 children in public schools, 14,744 people on the Oregon Health Plan, 1,084 seniors and people with disabilities on long-term care, and at least 8,277 unemployed people who will get a tax break under Measure 66. But we don't have our share of rich people. Only 428 Linn County tax filers -- less than 1 percent of the total -- are rich enough to be affected by Measure 66.

I wish the Oregon Farm Bureau were paying attention to those facts, instead of swallowing the swill offered them by corporate lobbyists.

Jim Just operates a farm near Lebanon.


Daniel M. McGrath, Ph.D.
Professor and Staff Chair
Linn County OSU Extension
PO Box 765 (mailing)
104 Fourth St. SW Room 102 (street)
Albany, OR 97321-0261
daniel.mcgrath@oregonstate.edu
Mobile (503) 931-8307
Office (541) 967-3871
Fax (541) 967-9169