West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(55 posts)

Anyone for 1098?

Started 1 year ago by DP
Latest reply from villagegreen

12 Next »

DP
Member Profile

I'm speaking of I-1098, of course. That's the Washington State ballot initiative that, if passed by the voters in November, will impose a state income tax of up to 5% on incomes above $200,000 for individuals or $400,000 for couples. (I believe it goes up to 10% when you hit $1 million.)

The tax is estimated to generate $1 billion a year, which will be deposited in a trust fund and used to pay for education and health care, which have both been hit hard in recent years.

In addition, I-1098 will eliminate B&O ("business and occupation") taxes for about 375,000 small business and reduce the state portion of all our property taxes by %20.

Naturally, I'm for this thing, since it accords with my earlier thoughts about taxing the very rich. Still, I'd like to hear what other people have to say about it.

I promise not to bite anyone's head off for disagreeing with me . . .

Official site of I-1098 : http://www.yeson1098.com/learn.html

—David Preston

Posted 1 year ago #
Julie
Member Profile

Yes, I'm most definitely with you, David--and for the reasons you list. Time to start making the most regressive tax state in the nation less regressive.

Posted 1 year ago #
autumn
Member Profile

Yes, I've signed I-1098.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mark32
Member Profile

We need to look at spending first, and I don't believe this tax will only be on the wealthy, the state can change the initiative in two years, and I find it hard to support any tax that doesn't treat everyone equally.

The only fair tax is a flat tax on EVERYONE with NO exemptions for anyone for anything.

I'm not rich by any means, but I hope to be one day!

Sorry, just can't support it. And I promise not to bite your head off, just a simple disagreement.

Posted 1 year ago #
Oliver
Member Profile

The state income tax would apply to me and I am all for it. I don't see it as unfair because there is a lot that is unfair to people who are not high income earners - such as a regressive sales tax and reliance on property taxes. 10% on a pair of jeans for my kid is nothing to me, but it's quite a lot to the people of the farming community in Eastern Washington that I am from. The bottom line is people in my situation can afford it and a system that allocates taxes based on what people can afford seems a whole lot more fair than the current system. I know people sometimes vote based on the American dream that they'll someday be one of the high income earners that benefit from a system that discriminates against low income earners - but when you have worked hard to become a high income earner you know it's not a burden to pay a little extra in taxes for the greater good. No need to pity me or object to the initiative in my name. I stand with Mr. Gates in favoring the initiative. Besides, I would love a state income tax deduction on my federal income taxes and a huge decrease in my property taxes.

Posted 1 year ago #
clark5080
Member Profile

two years after it passes (if it does) the legislature can change it and I would bet they will lower the boom on a lot more people.

Posted 1 year ago #
Julie
Member Profile

Actually, clark5080, the "boom" has already been lowered on people who earn less in this state--we're running our state disproportionately on their backs. The point of this initiative is to RAISE that "boom" a little, and point the state in a less-regressive direction. Not to mention giving an important break to small businesses, which we need to support, not burden--our economy needs them!

While I'd be thrilled if the legislature shifted more of our taxes in a less-regressive direction, I point to their notable failure to make any substantive changes to the tax system. It appears to be too politically difficult. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

Mark32:

I get your thinking on a flat tax. On the surface, it seems more equitable. However, as I understand the flat tax, it would apply only to earned income; it would not apply to capital gains (stock proceeds, investment income, and so forth). —Is that your understanding of it as well? In any case, if that's true, then the wealthy would have a definite advantage under a flat tax, since they tend to get a greater share of their income from their existing wealth.

Maybe you could describe the flat tax more, or give some Web addresses where we can read about it.

I agree with your point that we should be looking at spending as well, and I think we've already started that process, in the form of budget cuts. In fact, I suspect that we'll be cutting budgets well into the next decade. That could be a good thing, because it will force us all to take a closer look at what government is doing with our money.

—David

Posted 1 year ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

DP - no biting necessary; I agree with you, and will be voting for the initiative.

On the surface, a flat tax seems fair. However, at lower income levels the amount can be devastating. Example: at 10% someone earning $200,000 would pay $20,000 in income tax and still have plenty left to live on. Reduce that income to $20,000 or less, and you're greatly reducing the ability of that individual to pay for basic living expenses. Health care? Forget about it.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Yes...

we all pay tax here... sales tax.. and it hits the poor disproportionately higher for the kinds of goods none of us can do without... transportation.. shelter.. clothing.. household goods.. etc...

I am all for it..

Posted 1 year ago #
Diane
Member Profile

Yes, I'm 100% for 1098
~
I collected signatures for 1098; very excited there are 100k more than needed to get on ballot; very positive on many counts

Posted 1 year ago #
Oliver
Member Profile

I don't get the argument opposin the initiative because the legislature can later change it to lower the income threshold. The Legislature always has the power to pass/change laws. So, if the political will was there, they could do that at any time with or without an initiative. But, I don't think the Legislature will do that or will change the initiative, the political guts to impose an income tax is not there unless the people agree to it. The same would be true of any chnage to something approved by the voters.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

Oliver,

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I suspect the opposition's argument about lowering the threshhold goes something like this . . .

The Legislature doesn't have the guts to propose an income tax on their own, because they know there would be a backlash. ["Those darn bureaucrats! —They squander our money then raise taxes to pay for their binge."]

It's worth noting that, historically, the issue of a state income tax has been a third rail for Democrats. (Remember Gregoire's first run for governor? Initially she floated the idea of a tax, but she was soon forced to distance herself from that just to survive the election.)

So anyway, once the the tax goes through by initiative, the Legislature can then dink with it all they want. The voters, meanwhile, won't have as much right to complain, since they're the ones who voted for it in the first place. See?

Again, I'm for the tax, no doubt. But I understand the opposition's concerns on this one. This isn't just more tax, it's a new KIND of tax.

—D

Posted 1 year ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

I don't like opening the door for state income taxes at all. After that door opens, it's just a matter of time before the state income taxes creep down to other brackets. And that would ruin one of the things I really like about this state.

And although this tax wouldn't affect me, I find it fundamentally unfair that people in an arbitrarily chosen income bracket will be singled out to pay more taxes just because some other people seem to think they can afford it.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

maplesyrup...

do you prefer a sin tax
or a luxury tax?
how about a raise in property taxes?

we either need to raise more tax revenue or go without public resources like fire safety, police protection, public parks, schools, etc....

any tax can seem unfair. at least this one targets people who can afford it.

A tax raise that hits everyone would truly be unfair to those who are barely able to maintain food and shelter now.

Posted 1 year ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

On the contrary, a tax raise that hits everyone would be more fair. Everyone's got to pull their weight. To say that some people should be taxed more because they can "afford it" takes a lot of gall, imo, especially coming from people outside of that demographic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anti-tax nutter. Nobody really likes taxes (or they shouldn't anyway) but I recognize the need for them and the purpose they serve.

But to answer your questions, yes I think property taxes are more fair because they more closely represent the amount of resources consumed.

I think the bottled water tax is *great*. In fact we should be taxing any plastic crap that ends up in landfills. Gas taxes should be higher. So should taxes on high-value vehicles and watercraft.

Sin taxes? Well they're a bit nanny-statish but the people who pay them do so by choice and the public sometimes has to pay for the effects of the sins. So yes, sin taxes are ok with me. We should legalize more "sins" and tax them. The government should start taxing or demand revenue sharing from tribal casinos. Pot, prostitution, and other gambling should be legal and taxed too.

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

One of the things you really like about this state is that the poor pay a disproportionately larger portion of their income in taxes than do the wealthy MS?
The more money a person or business is worth, the more they use the 'commons'. For example, the greatest users of the court system in our country are corporations. Shouldn't they have to pay more into the pool to operate these civic necessities?
--
The hyper-wealthy and huge trans-national corporations that have no fealty to our Nation have been profiting off the public teet for far too long. The middle-class is disappearing as a result, and any real hope of moving UP in class is far outweighed by the likelihood of moving down.

Posted 1 year ago #
Oliver
Member Profile

Actually, I do like taxes. I like living in a society that provides public schools, roads, fire departments, police departments, park, jails, courts, health services (what little are left), a safety net (what little is left), child and vulnerable adult protective services, libraries, and so on. I'd like it even more if we realize that we all have to pay for these things but the way we pay for them should not be disproportionately allocated to low income earners and small businesses, as is currently the case.

Posted 1 year ago #
Sue
Member Profile

On its face, it sounds like a good idea. However, my issue is that if it passes, in a few years I bet we'll all be taxed, but we probably won't see a decrease in sales tax, or anything that we pay for services now. We also probably won't see any increase in those services for the extra money they're getting from us. I'd bet we wouldn't get much of an increase in salary either to cover all of this. So then we'll end up like I was in New York City paying federal, state AND city taxes, while getting exactly what we get now and having less money in our pockets, which then affects people with lesser income more.

Posted 1 year ago #
me
Member Profile

Dang!!! I thought it was a Ducati thread!
http://www.rwmotors.co.uk/assets/images/ducati-1098-s-tricolore.jpg

Posted 1 year ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

We Need A Flat Tax. On ALL income. No exceptions. It's the only fair way. Yes, it sucks to be poor...Nobody said otherwise. It's still fair...and not regressive.

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

But does that include investment income WC? What about the poor little trust-funder, sitting around the pool all day while their accountants do all the work. Should they be paying the same tax on their investment income that I am paying on my hourly wage? Who is creating more wealth in our economy? Who is a greater burden on our society? Many indicators prove that would be the super-wealthy and the mega-corporations. As it is, their burden of taxes is, in many cases, ZERO! Flat taxes work great for multi-millionaires, which is why the TV talking heads and the Steve Forbes' of the world like it so much, and use their bully pulpits to promote it to those without much knowledge of economics. And they fall for it because it SEEMS simple and fair. It isn't.
Millionaires and billionaires don't need our help to hold onto their wealth.
America was a more fair and equitable Nation, our economy was much more stable, and REAL class mobility was still somewhat of a possibility, when the super wealthy and corporations were taxed at a much higher rate.
According to Grover Norquist and Jude Wanniski, giving obscene tax breaks to the wealthy was supposed to create investment and wealth for everyone (remember trickle-down?), we've been waiting over 30 years now, and all we have gotten is the middle class has to work harder to stay where the are, the poor are finding fewer opportunities to extract themselves from their circumstances, and the wealthy continue to control a greater and greater percentage of American wealth.
Supply-side economics was the greatest scam ever perpetrated on the American public. A flat tax on income would quickly rival it.

Posted 1 year ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

Uh, yeah...ALL INCOME. Investment income is income, right? Subject it to the same tax as all other income. If you make more, you pay more. Maybe not percentage-wise, but in actual dollars & cents. If you make less you pay less. It hurts more than if you're super wealthy, but it IS fair. There is no argument to the contrary. None. I'm not saying the wealthy are holding on to their money any more than the poor are. Percentage-wise, they are holding on to the same amount. They just have more money. Good for them. I should be so lucky. America could have been more wealthy when the rich were taxed at a higher rate, but that doesn't actually make it fair. I'm also not saying to give obscene tax breaks to the wealthy. I'm saying don't give them to anybody. That's fair.
(And yes, supply side economics was pretty bad, but you have no proof to your claim that a flat tax would quickly rival it).

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

maplesyrup..

you are aware that if you rent.. those property taxes are included in your rent while the property owner gets to discount them from their tax bill :(

we don't reach the income limits set in 1098 yet... but I have plenty of friends who do and got to listen to them bitch about how much they paid in taxes last year.

i can tell you that we paid more in actual tax dollars last year even though we made considerably less than the friends who will be affected by this...

ours is not an equitable system... the poor aren't the only ones paying a disproportionately larger percentage of their income in taxes...

the middle class are really being taken to the cleaners at tax time.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

an instructive link..
thanks to the friend who shared it with me...

http://ouramericangeneration.org/blog/?p=577

where the funds would go..

"Rather than go into the state’s general fund, the money would go into an “Education, Health Services, and Middle Class Tax Relief Trust.” $350 million would be designated to reduce the state property tax by 20%, a tax break for the two-thirds of Washingtonians whom own homes, and likely reducing rents for the remaining one-third. $250 million would be designated to exempt the smallest 80% of Washington firms from the B&O tax, small businesses with annual gross receipts under $1 million. Another 10% of Washington firms, small businesses with gross receipts under $2 million, would see the B&O tax reduced. This would foster increased entrepreneurship and job creation in Washington State."

Posted 1 year ago #
Mark32
Member Profile

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Large Corporations,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Corporation.

THEN THEY CAME for the Business Owners,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Business owner.

THEN THEY CAME for the people making over $200,00 per year,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't make $200,00 a year.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Nope,if the tax is good for one group of people it's good for all the people. A flat tax is the only fair tax.

Or maybe we should only allow those making over $200,000 a year to vote on 1098.

I don't trust anything in 1098, there is no such thing as a "trust fund" it's all general funds. You just don't fund programs that should be covered out of the general budget and let the "Trust Fund" pay for it.

Posted 1 year ago #
jellyfish
Member Profile

I don't agree with the flat tax argument, and neither do most rich people. There are tax loopholes that most of the middle class cannot access. Our state needs to generate revenue somehow, and this is one great solution.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Mark32..

that's a strong sentiment...
that doesn't reflect reality.

If you wouldn't be affected by 1098..
then they have already come for you
you are paying more than your fair share now.

Posted 1 year ago #
Carson
Member Profile

I support 1098.

I support a state income tax

I support a lowering of the sales tax

I support a more fair, reasonably revenue neutral tax system.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

America is still a very rich country... as a country.. it can afford services for it's people.

But the wealth is distributed unequally and the gap between the haves and have nots got wider in the last economic crisis... the rich got much richer while the have nots increased exponentially.

those who are holding the cash in America had choices..

had they invested in American infrastructure and American jobs the middle class tax payer could still be carrying the brunt of the tax burden because they would be employed... and tax relief would be possible.

They didn't. So there is a dwindling pool of wage earners left to shoulder the full tax burden.

1098 addresses that inequality here in Washington.

We still need to do something about it elsewhere.

http://www.truth-out.org/alexander-cockburn-the-worst-times-best-times61254?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

hubby digs these things up and puts them on my plate every day. Be thankful i don't share them all :(

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Really Mark32!? you are equating our Nation's taxing of our people with the Nazi Holocaust? Amazingly disgusting and ignorant.

Posted 1 year ago #
cookie addict
Member Profile

I am all for a 10% flat tax as well. It has to be levied on all income (profit, investment, wage, pension, rental property - all of it) with no deductions. You have no income or on SSI - then you don't pay taxes. make 10K a year - pay $1000 in taxes. Make 200K a year pay 20K in taxes. Everyone pay their share, I don't have to pay an accountant $600 to figure out that I owe a ton of cash every year, huge corporations and the extremely wealthy will have no tax shelters, etc...

The more money we make the more money there is for defense, public works, health-care, transit, and the like. Our government makes money when we make money and loses money when the economy is in the tank. That would seem a massive insensitive to keep the economy rolling along.

My $.02 worth

Posted 1 year ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

Yeah, a flat tax really seems like the only fair way. The only problem is it will never happen. Or at least probably never happen. The disparity between the rich and poor is, in fact, reality. It seems as if tax loopholes should be closed first...adding new taxes doesn't seem like a good first step. Fixing the tax structure of this country seems better and easier to digest than adding new taxes.
Taxes are necessary. Why not make them actually work for us instead of being a lightning rod, wedge issue?

Posted 1 year ago #
Julie
Member Profile

It would probably be possible to make a flat tax progressive, if it exempted a very large chunk of earnings, so that people would only be paying on their earnings above whatever level was excluded. It would then have to be quite high, I think.

There are lots of alternative taxing schemes that are better than what we have, and even better than 1098. But they're not on the table. 1098 is, at least, an improvement. If we hold out for a perfect tax system, we'll stay stuck with the one we have; plenty of good people have worked hard for a long time to improve it, with little success.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

Julie:

I like your idea. It's the best way I can think of to make the flat tax more progressive. You could just exempt the first $10,000 of income for example—or exempt whatever amount is considered to be poverty level—then tax everything above that equally for everyone.

I suspect that most flat-tax proponents wouldn't support this, because it adds a level of complexity to the tax, and the flat tax is supposed to be all about simplification.

One concern I have with the flat tax is that, by removing all exemptions and deductions, it takes away the government's ability to reward citizens for doing certain things. The government wants us to save energy, for example, so they give us tax credits for weatherizing, buying energy efficient appliances, and so forth. I haven't seen the numbers on how the tax credit program is working, but I suspect it is, because the logic is quite simple.

With a flat tax, the tax credit system would presumably go away and the government could no longer use the credit to encourage us to do good stuff.

Flat taxers: Your thoughts?

–David

Posted 1 year ago #
Julie
Member Profile

David, I agree about removing exemptions and deductions--I'm not really advocating a flat tax, just pointing out that it is theoretically possible to make it progressive.

There are also other ways to accomplish the same thing the credits and exemptions do, though: you can apply taxes to accomplish the same kinds of things (the stick instead of the carrot, I guess?) For example, a carbon tax would encourage people to be more energy-efficient. That method does have the virtue of making the cost of whatever you're trying to discourage more evident. The "carrot" of credits is a bit more roundabout, although I do think it is working, at least somewhat. It seems quite possible the "stick" would be even more effective, as well as simpler to administer, but I'm not sure.

Posted 1 year ago #
Smitty
Member Profile

I think it would have to exempt the first 20K at least, maybe 30K. It would still be "regressive" though - but fair imho.

Posted 1 year ago #
WSB
Member Profile

1098 was the major presentation tonight at the 34th District Democrats' meeting (which is still under way). We'll have a summary later in the home-page report. The presenter was pro-1098 - the 34th DDs have endorsed it - but she also outlined some of the opponents' main arguments (and how she'd suggest supporters address them).

Posted 1 year ago #
Garden_nymph
Member Profile

I look forward to reading the summary and suggestions.

Posted 1 year ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

Instead of tax credits for things like weatherizing, why not just rebates?

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

i like rebates..
i like instant rebates even more.

Posted 1 year ago #
charlabob
Member Profile

How can regressive be fair?

Posted 1 year ago #
c@lbob
Member Profile

State Democrats are total wusses when it comes to tax increases -- that's why the measure’s backers were forced to rely on the initiative process in the first place. The "slippery-slope to a 99% tax rate" argument holds no water. All substantive tax increases come before voters. If our Legislature ever did discover the stones to attempt an expanded income tax as part of a broad based tax restructuring (which would be a good thing), rest assured that voters would have the final say via either initiative or referendum.

Posted 1 year ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

Exempting the 1st "X" amount of earnings sounds reasonable on the surface, but leads to problems. If you exempt the first 10K then at 10,001 you suddenly get hit? That sounds unfair to me. Just because you made 1 more dollar, you're hit wit a $1,000 or $1,400 (Depending on the rate) "penalty"? Where do you justify this cutoff?

I think the only way to actually be fair is to make it across the board, true flat tax. If you make a buck, then you get hit up for roughly a dime. 1K = ~$100 and so on.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

Good point, WC. If the tax-free ceiling is set at $10,000 per annum, we will surely be amazed to discover how many people are making exactly $9,999.99 per year.

;-)

Still, don't you feel that taxing someone who earns only a buck is like taking money out of a Salvation Army bucket?

Posted 1 year ago #
HSG
Member Profile

Re: Flat Tax

I always think of the exemption as being no tax owed on the 1st "X" amount. So if the exemption was $40K, then if you made $100K the equation would be ($100K - $40K)*10% = $6K in taxes. Or, if you made $40001 you would owe $0.10.

I like the idea of a flat tax applied to all earnings, with a high exemption for each person in the household, but without any additional deductions. The calculations would be simple, the savings from reducing the size of the IRS would be significant, and the more money you make the higher percentage you would pay in taxes. Using the numbers above someone making $1M a year with no kids would pay 9.6% of their income in taxes. That same person would pay only 2% of their income in taxes if they made $50k a year.

Posted 1 year ago #
Julie
Member Profile

World Citizen, even with the system we have now, there's a point at which you "suddenly get hit" with taxes. I don't think that's really a problem...

I doubt many would disagree that people with no income whatsoever shouldn't pay an income tax. Then, you "suddenly get hit" with a tax when you make your first cent. (I do realize this is an absurdity--just trying to make a point that even if you have a graduated income tax, there's a line at some level between those who pay and those who don't.)

Posted 1 year ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

DP:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking (the $9,999.99 thing). But I guess if the system is as HSG states then...

HSG:

Good point. That sounds infinitely more fair than getting nailed with such a big tax bill for essentially a $0.01 increase in earnings. Your system seems to work and still be fair.

Julie:
Yeah, I know. That was my initial rationale for making a flat tax the same across the board with no exemption at all. That way everyone is in the same boat. But if you exempt everyone, regardless of income, to the same amount, then it seems to remain fair and help the people who are just scraping by.

There does remain an argument from the rich that this tax affects a higher percentage of their income than the poor. I can't say I don't see their point. It is somewhat ridiculous to make that accusation, but the fact remains if you make one million dollars you're being taxed a higher percentage than if you make 50K. Anyway, I don't think it would cause too much fervor in the masses (although I am constantly surprised what does make a big stink these days).

P.S. As far as the Salvation Army comparison...well, maybe. But it's still fair. Unfortunate, but fair.

Posted 1 year ago #
BikerDude
Member Profile

time for the state to live within its means

Posted 1 year ago #
JanS
Member Profile

gee, bikerdude..tell us exactly how that's done...tell us where you'd make the cuts. Try to not make it on the backs of the poor this time.

Posted 1 year ago #