Skip to main content
If there was one group in Oregon that backers of Measure 118, the so-called Oregon Rebate, might have expected to support the November ballot measure, it would have been the Oregon Center for Public Policy.
A left-leaning think tank, OCPP regularly produces research and position papers advocating for a reducing income inequality and increasing economic fairness.
For instance, the center has endorsed a guaranteed basic income for low-income Oregonians. The organization has also said that if Oregon is going to send tax dollars back to Oregonians through the kicker, it should distribute an equal amount to all taxpayers, rather than making refunds proportional to the amount of taxes paid. That policy would have the effect of redistributing wealth.
Both policy proposals bear some resemblance to Measure 118, which proposes to levy a new 3% gross receipts tax (a tax on sales rather than income) on corporations with Oregon sales exceeding $25 million. The state would collect the tax—estimated to be about $7 billion a year when the program is up and running in 2025-27—and then send each Oregonian, regardless of age or income, a $1,600 check.
That’s a bad idea, OCCP board chair Angie Garcia and executive director Alejandro Queral say in statement released Aug. 21.
“While we agree that big corporations should pay more in taxes, and that giving cash rebates to vulnerable families is an effective way to improve economic security, Measure 118 would do more harm than good,” OCPP said in a statement.
The organization highlighted three concerns:
— Measure 118 would reduce available funding for schools and other essential services.
— Measure 118 would send rebates to people who don’t need them while making it harder to address existing crises.
— Measure 118 would likely result in vulnerable Oregonians losing public benefits while reducing the flow of federal dollars to Oregon.
The last point—that an increase of $1,600 in income would likely reduce federal benefits for low-income Oregonians—has been somewhat overlooked in the discussion of Measure 118 so far. But OCPP says the threat is real.
“While the measure tries to anticipate this problem by providing ‘hold harmless’ payments to make up the difference, the reality is that these payments would arrive well after families have lost their benefits and the ensuing financial harm,” Garcia and Queral wrote. “The ‘hold harmless’ payments themselves could count as income for benefit determinations, potentially leading to a benefit-loss spiral.”
In a recent interview, Antonio Gisbert, the chief petitioner for Measure 118 and leader of the Yes on Measure 118 campaign, dismissed critics’ concerns, saying the $1,600 Oregon Rebate would reduce poverty and provide an economic stimulus, which would in turn increase state tax revenues. “It’s really going to grow our economy,” Gisbert says.