# Corporate Taxpayers Deserve a Voice: A Case for Proportional Representation
Brian, your focus on overspending over tax cuts is spot-on, but I believe we're missing a crucial angle: corporations are major taxpayers who deserve meaningful input on how their contributions are spent, just as individual citizens exercise through voting rights.
## The Scale of Corporate Tax Contributions
Let's examine the numbers. Idaho's corporations contribute far more to the state's tax base than most people realize:
- Corporate income taxes: $761.5 million (13.7% of General Fund)
- Share of sales taxes: ~$835 million (42% of total sales tax revenue)
- Property taxes: $429-487 million (22-25% from commercial/industrial properties)
- **Total direct contribution: Over $2 billion annually**
**Indirect Contributions Through Job Creation:**
Idaho's private sector employs approximately 730,000 workers (85% of total nonfarm employment). These jobs generate wages that account for an estimated 80% of individual income tax revenue. With FY2025 individual income tax at $2.5 billion, that's roughly $2 billion from wages—meaning businesses indirectly contribute another 35% to the General Fund through their employees' income taxes.
**Combined Impact:**
When combining direct and indirect contributions, businesses support over 60% of Idaho's tax base. The top 67 firms (those with 500+ employees) alone employ 44% of the private workforce and typically pay higher wages, amplifying their impact on state revenues.
## The Representation Question
This raises a fundamental question about taxation and representation. If corporations contribute such a substantial portion of state revenue—potentially 67% when including job-related taxes—shouldn't they have proportional influence over how those funds are spent?
Historically, voting rights in America were often limited to landowners, who were seen as most invested in the state's long-term success. Today's corporations make massive capital investments in Idaho's land, infrastructure, and workforce, fostering decades of jobs, growth, and stability. Yet their voice in spending decisions remains minimal compared to their contributions.
## Addressing Counter-Arguments
### The Idaho Freedom Foundation Perspective
Fred Birnbaum and the Idaho Freedom Foundation would likely oppose structured corporate benefits, viewing them as another form of crony capitalism. In his June 2025 article, Birnbaum emphasized that "the budget focus really needs to be on spending, and it's better for Idaho that we make the government leaner, rather than further burdening families and businesses."
The IFF's 2024 Pork Report criticized programs like agricultural subsidies ($6.2 million for "Resilient Food Systems Grants") as market-distorting cronyism. Birnbaum would probably argue for universal spending cuts rather than targeted corporate benefits.
**Counter-response:** While broad spending cuts are ideal, ignoring corporations' disproportionate contributions risks alienating Idaho's economic engines. Targeted, non-crony benefits—like broadly available R&D tax credits or infrastructure investments benefiting all businesses—aren't picking winners but providing pragmatic returns on massive tax contributions. Without structured corporate influence, the system defaults to amplifying short-term demands from net-drain groups, perpetuating the overspending cycle.
### Brian Almon's Likely Position
Based on your broader commentary, you'd probably emphasize that tax revenue is "the people's money" and worry that granting corporations special rights would mirror the cronyism you've criticized in programs like the Launch Grant. Your preference would likely be universal spending restraint through measures like the DOGE Task Force.
**Counter-response:** Treating corporate contributions as equivalent to individual contributions ignores their outsized role in generating the tax base. Proportional influence isn't a privilege but an equity correction. Unlike crony handouts that pick winners, structured, contribution-based benefits could combat overspending by aligning incentives with long-term growth creators.
## A Path Forward
Rather than traditional handouts, consider these approaches:
- **Veto power over wasteful programs** proportional to tax contributions
- **Non-favoritist tax credits** available to all qualifying businesses
- **Infrastructure investments** that benefit the entire business community
- **Structured input** on budget priorities matching contribution levels
## The Bottom Line
If overspending is truly the issue, we must ensure corporate voices aren't sidelined in the solution. Their massive contributions to Idaho's tax base—over 60% when including job creation—warrant meaningful representation in spending decisions. Otherwise, we're practicing another form of crony exclusion.
The question isn't whether corporations deserve special treatment, but whether they deserve fair treatment proportional to their investment in Idaho's success.
---
*Note: I notice from searching your archives at gemstate.substack.com that you haven't directly addressed corporate taxpayer "rights" regarding spending influence. This seems like fertile ground for future exploration, especially regarding structured benefits that avoid the favoritism you've rightly criticized in programs like the Launch Grant.*
Rainy day fund? They are an example of a slush fund with a new name. They should be abolished, it rains too often in Boise, not quite as often in north Idaho.
# Corporate Taxpayers Deserve a Voice: A Case for Proportional Representation
Brian, your focus on overspending over tax cuts is spot-on, but I believe we're missing a crucial angle: corporations are major taxpayers who deserve meaningful input on how their contributions are spent, just as individual citizens exercise through voting rights.
## The Scale of Corporate Tax Contributions
Let's examine the numbers. Idaho's corporations contribute far more to the state's tax base than most people realize:
**Direct Corporate Contributions (FY2026 projections):**
- Corporate income taxes: $761.5 million (13.7% of General Fund)
- Share of sales taxes: ~$835 million (42% of total sales tax revenue)
- Property taxes: $429-487 million (22-25% from commercial/industrial properties)
- **Total direct contribution: Over $2 billion annually**
**Indirect Contributions Through Job Creation:**
Idaho's private sector employs approximately 730,000 workers (85% of total nonfarm employment). These jobs generate wages that account for an estimated 80% of individual income tax revenue. With FY2025 individual income tax at $2.5 billion, that's roughly $2 billion from wages—meaning businesses indirectly contribute another 35% to the General Fund through their employees' income taxes.
**Combined Impact:**
When combining direct and indirect contributions, businesses support over 60% of Idaho's tax base. The top 67 firms (those with 500+ employees) alone employ 44% of the private workforce and typically pay higher wages, amplifying their impact on state revenues.
## The Representation Question
This raises a fundamental question about taxation and representation. If corporations contribute such a substantial portion of state revenue—potentially 67% when including job-related taxes—shouldn't they have proportional influence over how those funds are spent?
Historically, voting rights in America were often limited to landowners, who were seen as most invested in the state's long-term success. Today's corporations make massive capital investments in Idaho's land, infrastructure, and workforce, fostering decades of jobs, growth, and stability. Yet their voice in spending decisions remains minimal compared to their contributions.
## Addressing Counter-Arguments
### The Idaho Freedom Foundation Perspective
Fred Birnbaum and the Idaho Freedom Foundation would likely oppose structured corporate benefits, viewing them as another form of crony capitalism. In his June 2025 article, Birnbaum emphasized that "the budget focus really needs to be on spending, and it's better for Idaho that we make the government leaner, rather than further burdening families and businesses."
The IFF's 2024 Pork Report criticized programs like agricultural subsidies ($6.2 million for "Resilient Food Systems Grants") as market-distorting cronyism. Birnbaum would probably argue for universal spending cuts rather than targeted corporate benefits.
**Counter-response:** While broad spending cuts are ideal, ignoring corporations' disproportionate contributions risks alienating Idaho's economic engines. Targeted, non-crony benefits—like broadly available R&D tax credits or infrastructure investments benefiting all businesses—aren't picking winners but providing pragmatic returns on massive tax contributions. Without structured corporate influence, the system defaults to amplifying short-term demands from net-drain groups, perpetuating the overspending cycle.
### Brian Almon's Likely Position
Based on your broader commentary, you'd probably emphasize that tax revenue is "the people's money" and worry that granting corporations special rights would mirror the cronyism you've criticized in programs like the Launch Grant. Your preference would likely be universal spending restraint through measures like the DOGE Task Force.
**Counter-response:** Treating corporate contributions as equivalent to individual contributions ignores their outsized role in generating the tax base. Proportional influence isn't a privilege but an equity correction. Unlike crony handouts that pick winners, structured, contribution-based benefits could combat overspending by aligning incentives with long-term growth creators.
## A Path Forward
Rather than traditional handouts, consider these approaches:
- **Veto power over wasteful programs** proportional to tax contributions
- **Non-favoritist tax credits** available to all qualifying businesses
- **Infrastructure investments** that benefit the entire business community
- **Structured input** on budget priorities matching contribution levels
## The Bottom Line
If overspending is truly the issue, we must ensure corporate voices aren't sidelined in the solution. Their massive contributions to Idaho's tax base—over 60% when including job creation—warrant meaningful representation in spending decisions. Otherwise, we're practicing another form of crony exclusion.
The question isn't whether corporations deserve special treatment, but whether they deserve fair treatment proportional to their investment in Idaho's success.
---
*Note: I notice from searching your archives at gemstate.substack.com that you haven't directly addressed corporate taxpayer "rights" regarding spending influence. This seems like fertile ground for future exploration, especially regarding structured benefits that avoid the favoritism you've rightly criticized in programs like the Launch Grant.*
* I don't personally support all of the AI comments but it brings up some good points for additional consideration.
Rainy day fund? They are an example of a slush fund with a new name. They should be abolished, it rains too often in Boise, not quite as often in north Idaho.
Indeed, the "rainy day fund" has grown pretty large over the last couple of years.