---
kind: section
source_pdf: oregon-prosperity-council-report-june-2026.pdf
fingerprint: 8ac9aef8ca1b
page_range: [397, 399]
breadcrumb: ["Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback", "47. Tax Fairness Oregon"]
source_links:
  pdf: "https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=397"
  raw_pages:
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0397.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0398.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0399.txt"
---

# 47. Tax Fairness Oregon

<!-- enrich:begin -->

## TL;DR  *(generated · confidence: high)*

Tax Fairness Oregon supports improving Oregon's economy and endorses elevating economic development as an executive priority and implementing a sales tax paired with income-tax reductions while maintaining progressiveness. However, they oppose across-the-board tax cuts that reduce public services, criticize wasteful data-center and foreign-income tax incentives costing hundreds of millions annually, and urge elimination of inefficient incentives before tax cuts, combined with public investment in higher education and infrastructure.

**Key points** *(each cites a PDF page)*:

- Supports elevating economic development priorities within the executive branch and implementing a sales tax to reduce income taxes, provided overall progressiveness is retained (citing California's model). ([p. 397](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=397))
- Opposes across-the-board tax cuts without regard to public services; argues cutting services reduces economic activity and offsets tax-cut stimulus, and that healthy economies require robust education, safety, health, infrastructure, and clean environment. ([p. 398](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=398))
- Criticizes Oregon's data-center tax incentives as wasteful overpayment; states the state 'massively overpaid' and continues giving 'hundreds of millions each year' in incentives despite questionable cost-benefit analysis. ([p. 398](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=398))
- Cites Oregon's exemption of foreign 'tax haven' income as reducing revenue by 'hundreds of millions each year', creating unfair competition for domestic businesses and providing no incentive to locate Oregon facilities or jobs. ([p. 398](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=398))
- Identifies missing recommendations: public investment in higher education (universities 'starved for decades') and infrastructure spending to address deteriorating roads and bridges. ([p. 398](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=398))
- Proposes replacing the administrative system focused on activity with one maximizing benefits for state citizens, empowered to act when conditions are right, and accountable for results. ([p. 399](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=399))
- Recommends any tax-rate reduction be conditioned on elimination of wasteful incentives and acknowledgment of federal policies making it harder for working people. ([p. 399](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=399))

Amounts: hundreds of millions each year · Dates/FTE: June 8, 2026 · 2020 · Programs: sales tax · income taxes · bonus depreciation · estate tax · foreign tax haven income exemption · data center tax incentives · Parties: Tax Fairness Oregon · Governor Tina Kotek · Renée James · Curtis Robinhold

<!-- enrich:end -->

> **Source:** PDF [pp. 397-399](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=397) · raw: [397](../../.extracted/pages/page-0397.txt) · [398](../../.extracted/pages/page-0398.txt) · [399](../../.extracted/pages/page-0399.txt)

Breadcrumb: Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback > 47. Tax Fairness Oregon

---
June 8, 2026
Governor Tina Kotek
900 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301
Prosperity Council Co-Chairs Renée James and Curtis Robinhold
Members of the Oregon Prosperity Council
RE: The Prosperity Council’s Final Recommendations
Dear Governor Kotek, Co-Chairs James and Robinhold, and members of the Oregon Prosperity Council:
We understand the Prosperity Council is considering draft recommendations to improve the Oregon economy.
We are aware that these recommendations may change and are not final. As a result, Tax Fairness Oregon
would like to offer our opinion in the hope that it might modify the final result.
We agree with the goal of improving the growth in the Oregon economy. It has been underperforming in
comparison with other states since the start of the pandemic and the damaging protests in Portland in 2020.
Commercial property values in Portland have suffered, reducing revenues needed to support the city and the
county. The state is suffering from federal funding cutbacks and cannot support the needs of the citizens
without increasing revenue.
At the same time, we need to remember that over the longer term, Oregon has outpaced national growth and
some of the problems we face today are transitory and not based upon current state public policies. Portland
suffered from significant vandalism in 2020. The badly implemented attempt to legalize drugs caused
additional damage. Intel and Nike, our two largest companies, suffered major layoffs due to their internal
problems causing additional economic pain for the state from their local suppliers. Oregon’s trade dependent
and small business sectors are a bigger share of the national economy than in most states and were hurt by
national tariff and trade policies. Fortunately, the impact of these events is reversing and what has been a drag
on our economy is shifting to a more positive environment. The drug policy was reversed, vandalism and
crime overall are down sharply, Intel and Nike have stopped their bleeding and should begin adding
employment and the Supreme Court ended some of the tariffs.
Given this background, we agree with some of the recommendations, have concerns about some, and offer a
few we think are missing.
What we like
• Elevating economic development priorities within the executive branch makes sense. We recognize
that Oregon is in a serious competition for beneficial growth. Competing means having a clear idea of
what benefits Oregonians, a deep knowledge of business conditions, and the flexibility to act when
conditions are right.
• Implementing a sales tax would allow us to reduce income taxes to make our tax structure more like
other states. However, the total package must remain at least as progressive as it is today to retain our
support. California, which has a significant sales tax, also has a more progressive tax system overall
than Oregon, showing that adding a sales tax does not necessarily create a regressive system.
• Establishing a process to systematically reduce regulations that are counterproductive. Announcing a
goal is easy. Establishing a process to continuously review and eliminate low value regulations is the
hard part.
We read the bills and follow the money

What we don’t like
• Simply cutting taxes across the board is counterproductive. Taxes pay for public services. Cutting
services reduces economic activity, offsetting the stimulus effect of tax cuts. Further, states with
successful economies demand more and better public services. – better schools, safer streets, healthier
and adequately-housed people, good roads, and clean air and water. In a healthy economy, a working
person should be able to buy healthy food, adequate housing, and consistent health care. Navigating
this dynamic requires more than simple solutions.
• At the highest level, this means our state and local governments need to do their job better. In
competing for beneficial growth, we can do a lot better. For example, there is ample evidence that we
massively overpaid and do not have to continue to give data centers hundreds of millions each year in
tax incentives to attract them to Oregon. Yet we continue to do so. This does not deny that data
centers have brought some benefits. Thousands of Oregon businesses provide public benefits every
day without special incentives. We’ve constructed a system in which the incentives are an
entitlement. You get them if you meet the (very) minimum standards regardless of how large the
incentive is. We’ve built an administrative system that incentivizes capturing the surplus at the
expense of other governments and the public at large and allows mega corporations to pit local
governments against each other. And we’ve justified it all with woefully inadequate analysis of public
benefits and costs.
• Oregon’s treatment of foreign “tax haven” income is equally wasteful. Exemption of this income not
only reduces our revenue by hundreds of millions each year, it creates unfair competition for
businesses lacking foreign operations and, because corporate income is allocated to the state by sales,
provides no incentive to locate facilities or jobs in Oregon.
• Similarly, attaching to other federal level incentives to encourage investment, such as bonus
depreciation, does nothing to encourage investments in Oregon. The bulk of the funds just reward
investments in other states.
• Finally, TFO supports adjustments to the estate tax exemption to make it more equitable. However,
doing it in the pursuit of economic development is misguided. Studies clearly show that taxes are a
very minor reason that people choose to move, a conclusion supported by the rapid growth in revenue
from the tax itself.
What we think is missing
• Public investments in higher education. Oregon has starved our public universities for decades. We
know that an educated workforce will produce positive economic benefits over time, but we keep
failing to make those investments.
• Addressing our infrastructure needs. The public has voted down the transportation package, but
without addressing our deteriorating roads and bridges we will do long term damage to the state
economy.
Going forward
• Reducing tax rates in the pursuit of economic growth without dealing with existing wasteful practices
is fiscal folly. The state should eliminate wasteful tax incentives based on a careful analysis of
benefits and costs and awareness of economic opportunities. New or modified incentives should be
structured to reward investments that maximize public benefits rather than just meet minimum
standards. The incentives should recognize the benefits provided by Oregon-based businesses. At
minimum, the incentives should be judged by their ability to efficiently incentivize family-wage jobs,
such as the recently passed jobs credit for qualified businesses.
We read the bills and follow the money

• The state should replace the current administrative system that focuses solely on increased activity
regardless of the external costs and who must bear them. Instead, the structure should be focused on
maximizing the benefits for the citizens of the state, be empowered to act when conditions are right,
and be accountable for results. Such a system would seek investments that use Oregon’s resources
efficiently, minimize negative impacts on the things that make Oregon a good place to live, and
would not otherwise occur.
• Any reduction of overall tax rates should be conditioned on the elimination of wasteful incentives and
tempered by the realization that the federal government is actively making it harder for working
people to live off their income and shifting the cost of dealing with the consequences to the state.
Sincerely,
Jody Wiser, John Calhoun, Jim Scherzinger
Tax Fairness Oregon
We read the bills and follow the money

---

Parent: [Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback](./INDEX.md) · PDF: [pp. 397-399](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=397)