This op-ed was written by Linn-Benton Community College’s Civil Discourse Program. To learn more about the program, you can visit its website here and its guidebook here.
Oregon Measure 118 is to raise taxes on corporate revenue over $25 million by 3% and distribute that money to Oregonians. You can read more about the measure on Ballotpedia.
Why you should vote “Yes” on Measure 118.
By Alleyah Forrister, April Jang, and the Civil Discourse Program.
What is Measure 118? Measure 118 is a bill that essentially proposes a universal basic income (UBI) for Oregon residents, funded by a 3% sales tax on large corporations. This measure aims to address income inequality, provide financial support to those in need, and close the gap between the taxes corporations and individual residents pay. While some are concerned about potential downsides, Measure 118 offers a crucial step toward tackling Oregon’s economic challenges.
Measure 118 would make Oregon’s tax system more equitable by targeting large corporations. Under this measure, corporate sales exceeding $25 million would see a 3% increase in sales tax, helping to close the gap and ensuring they contribute more fairly.
Some people worry that businesses might raise prices or discontinue their business in Oregon to avoid the tax, but only a small percentage of corporations would be affected. Out of the approximately 120,500 corporations in Oregon, only 2,233 corporations (1.9%) would bear the new tax. Given this small group, the impact on prices or business operations across the state is likely to be minimal.
From 2020-22, Oregon experienced a 22% increase in homelessness – the second highest in the country – and over half of renters report being unable to afford basic needs after paying rent. Measure 118 would provide every Oregon resident with an estimated $1,600 annually, though the amount could vary from year to year. This amount would increase depending on the number of minors in a household, meaning that larger families will receive payments reflecting their greater financial needs, helping more Oregonians access essential resources. This payment would help alleviate poverty and assist residents struggling with housing costs.
As the funds from Measure 118’s sales tax would be put into the same pool as those used for government supplement programs, some have expressed concerns that their government assistance funds would be reduced or discontinued as a result of the measure. However, Measure 118 has explicitly stated that the Department of Human Services would offer waivers from the federal government that would exclude the $1,600 when considering eligibility for other government assistance programs like TNAP, SNAP, and rental assistance.
Alleyah, like many Oregonians, has personally faced the challenges of finding affordable housing, especially when transportation options are limited. Measure 118 could provide essential support for people in similar situations while empowering people to secure housing, education, and job opportunities.Measure 118 is a step in the right direction. If we turn down this bill, one that would help those in need, it will likely be multiple years until we consider another one with similar properties. Oregon faces a growing divide between thriving corporations and struggling families; Measure 118 was created to bridge that gap, ensuring that corporations contribute their fair share while providing much-needed financial relief to residents. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step toward a fairer future where economic stability is within reach for everyone, not just the wealthy few. Let’s use this chance to help the people of Oregon.
Why you should vote “No” on Measure 118.
By Joshua Hewitt, Zion Okano, and the Civil Discourse Program.
Measure 118 may seem like an enticing offer for Oregonians – after all, who wouldn’t want a yearly check in the mail for as much as $1,600? But a closer look reveals that this measure may be filled with dangerous consequences for the state’s economy and its residents. If businesses leave or downsize, it’s not just profits and tax income that will disappear – families depending on those jobs will be the ones who truly pay the price, facing unemployment, eviction, and deepening financial instability.
Taxing large businesses to fund these rebates sounds like a simple, effective way to put money in the pockets of Oregonians. However, in reality, it imposes an added 3% tax on revenue over $25 million, which could be a disaster for an Oregon economy that already has trouble attracting big businesses. While the measure’s backers claim only 3% of businesses would be affected, these businesses are often the job creators and the ones that keep local economies afloat.
Passing this measure could result in companies passing the added cost to consumers through price hikes and job cuts; they could even relocate to more business-friendly states. In a state where inflation has already left many struggling, adding additional economic strain could worsen the situation for Oregon’s residents. If businesses leave or downsize, it’s not just profits that will disappear – again, families depending on those jobs will be the ones who truly pay the price.
Along with the possible effects on Oregon’s business climate, the rosy language used by Measure 118 backers may be somewhat misleading. Despite claims of $1,600 for every Oregon resident, there is significant uncertainty in how much residents would actually receive. This figure is based on very optimistic projections; an analysis from the Legislative Revenue Office suggests the payout could be much lower, potentially ranging from $1,035 to $1,286 in 2026.
That’s just not a lot of money. Measure 118 is vaguely written and potentially dangerous for Oregon’s economy – all for just $1,600 a year at most, a balance that can barely cover an average month of rent. Is that level of risk worth it for an amount of money that won’t meaningfully address poverty?
In short, Measure 118 is built on an unstable foundation. Taxing corporations to give direct payments may sound like a simple solution, but the unintended economic and social consequences could be severe. Higher consumer prices, job losses, and companies deciding not to set up operations in Oregon are just some of the risks Oregon faces if this measure passes. Instead of this short-sighted approach, policymakers should work toward more comprehensive economic reforms that protect the state’s businesses and its most vulnerable populations alike. A vote for Measure 118 is a gamble with Oregon’s future—one that could leave everyday people paying the steepest price. Economic reform takes time, and Oregon deserves better than a “quick fix” that could deepen economic hardship. Vote no on Measure 118.
