“High earners” income-tax bill? Hear from West Seattle co-sponsor

West Seattle’s State Sen. Joe McDermott is one of the sponsors of a bill that’s getting a lot of buzz in the State Legislature’s waning days: SB 6250, with the official title “providing fiscal reform,” but the bottom line, it would ask voters whether to implement income tax for those making more than $200,000 a year. Sen. McDermott explains the bill in the video clip above, shot and shared by Senate Democrats staff; it got a public hearing Thursday night in the Senate Ways and Means Committee (of which he’s a member). This report from our citywide-news partners at the Seattle Times suggest it might not have much hope of passage this time around.

69 Replies to ""High earners" income-tax bill? Hear from West Seattle co-sponsor"

  • philaphan March 5, 2010 (6:00 am)

    Look out Washington, we are slowly turning into California. Here is my responce to Joe McDermott.

    “Joe, There is no way I can support you anymore. We cannot have an income tax on ANYONE in this state. It starts first with the high income earners, and then when you push them out of state, it trickles down to my level. Stop spending us into bankruptcy and get your fiscal agenda in check. Do you realize that the federal income tax started out with high income levels initially. You are turning into a big dissapointment and I will do everything possible to defeat you in your next election.”

  • Smitty March 5, 2010 (6:55 am)

    Thank goodness it is unconstitutional and therefore DOA.

    However, these proposals kill me. Implement an income tax *only* on the “rich” (200K in Seattle is NOT rich, btw) and *lower* the sales tax on everyone else! No brainer, right?

    WRONG! In 5 years the “rich” threshold will be lowered and the sales tax will be back where it was! Government will be 50% bigger and four times as wasteful.


  • Bonnie March 5, 2010 (7:00 am)

    I don’t believe the sales tax would be lowered for everyone else. Maybe they’d lower it by 1% for a year or so but before we know it they’ll raise it back up.

  • mark March 5, 2010 (7:04 am)

    Wrong. Wrong, Wrong. Wash State needs to move into the 20th century. Our sales tax is easy to circumvent and is anti business. We need a reasonable sales tax (like 5%) and a state wide personal income tax. This needs to be close to revenue neutral. Of course, the same legislature that has a hard time doing whats right for a fallen officer could never muster the courage to get this done. We will never get out of the up and down budget shortfall/surplus.

    I am a registered voter and I vote. I will support any legislator that supprts a state wide income tax and vote out anyone who is against one.

  • biggmouth March 5, 2010 (7:09 am)

    If anyone thinks that an income tax will hold steady at citizens who earn over $200K annually, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Joe McDermott is trying to change Washington into California where you have both an income tax and a sales tax. Politicians are always looking for income sources and once the dual sales and income tax are accepted as funding sources they will both never go away!! And both rates will increase over the years just as they have with the state sales tax!! I agree that a sales tax is regressive but if you want to level the playing field then do what Oregon has done and eliminate the sales tax in favor of an income tax. Having both is the legislature’s attempt to screw the citizens, just as they have done by negating the the 66% vote needed to increase taxes.

  • r brown March 5, 2010 (7:36 am)

    Are we now becomming a socialist state? You appear to be just like the other Marxist politicians who think you know what is best for us lowly peons and know how to control our lives etter than we do.

  • Kayleigh March 5, 2010 (7:40 am)

    $200K in Seattle is rich in my book. It’s hilarious (and by hilarious I mean stupid) how the non-rich so vociferously defend the rich on the off-chance that they might be rich some day (or because they are paranoid that they might actually have to pay *gasp* more taxes).
    Wake up, people. The state is in fiscal trouble and it’s cutting back on essential services. If you think that that doesn’t effect you, personally, just wait.

  • Gene March 5, 2010 (7:44 am)

    I’d rather see something like the FairTax:


    that taxes consumption rather than income (and yes, it has provisions so low income folks actually end up paying less tax than they do now via a “prebate”).

    I don’t understand why so many people want to tax making money, rather than tax consuming products and services that place the actual burdens on society…

  • mark March 5, 2010 (7:49 am)

    Gene, Its a great idea, but keep in mind, it takes about 5 mouse clicks to buy almost anything thats taxable and have it delivered to my house tax free, in a few days. Its much tougher to avoid those taxes when its taken out of your pay. An income tax does not mean you pay more, but it does mean you are more likely to pay closer to your fair share.

  • WS CP March 5, 2010 (8:03 am)

    I used to support Joe – can’t anymore. Kayleigh – how much is “enough”? Just because someone arbitrarily sets a standard for “rich” – should those people pay a higher rate than the “non-rich?” Those people should give a higher percentage of their income for the services that everyone receives? I agree we need to look out for our most vulnerable, but forcing the so-called rich to contribute, as a percentage, more of their income is not equitable. Good luck on your commune or whatever other socialist society you choose to join.

  • bebecat March 5, 2010 (8:09 am)

    There are alot of cuts that could happen that are not essentials. These walking kiosks for example, total waste of money. Then, why should the city provide refreshments for neighborhood clean ups? We should all be picking up after ourselves. I don’t need a donut to do so. I heard that the parks department provided refreshments in the parks for those viewing the Christmas ships.(I heard 2 stories 1.Parks provided the refreshments. 2. Local businesses provided refreshments.) If it was Parks? this is not how I want my tax money spent. Bring your own cookies and juice. It’s this nickel and dime stuff. Many of us have cut way back to make ends meet and government needs to do the same. Over-tax business and the rich and they WILL leave the state. The whole Neighborhood Matching Funds program could be shut down till this recession is over. That would save hundreds of thousand of non-essential dollars each year. There is so much waste.

  • Kayleigh March 5, 2010 (8:29 am)

    WS CP, asking the rich to pay a greater percentage of their income is the only thing that *is* equitable. The rich have benefited the most from society–why should they not give the most? $200K is a perfectly reasonable starting point to call someone rich. You have to start at some number.
    And do you know how silly you sound when you throw around the words “socialism” and “commune”? We all pay taxes to benefit the whole and we all use public libraries, roads, schools, etc. That’s how it works in civilized society, though we appear to be getting more and more UN civilized. Every social program is not “socialism”. Job retraining programs are not Soviet gulags.
    Bebecat, not serving donuts is not going to solve the fiscal crisis that governments all across the country are facing. That doesn’t even make sense.

  • Todd March 5, 2010 (8:39 am)

    Dear Joe,
    I do not make enough to be in this new income tax bracket, however I will not be voting for you next time…in fact I will vote against you.
    An income tax for the “rich” now will only lead to an income tax for all in the future.
    Bet on it.

  • bebecat March 5, 2010 (9:05 am)

    Fiscal responsibility has to start somewhere.

  • 4thGenWestSide March 5, 2010 (9:07 am)

    I have always voted for, and supported Joe.

    No more.

  • Julie March 5, 2010 (9:10 am)

    Yes! Joe is correct; our current tax structure makes Washington state that with THE MOST regressive taxation in the entire country. We MUST migrate to an income tax.

  • KBear March 5, 2010 (9:12 am)

    Joe is doing the right thing here. We need a state income tax. Badly.

  • 140.6 March 5, 2010 (9:16 am)

    What’s the point of being fiscally responsible when you can just keep going to the well when you need money? Enough already!

    I could support this if I truly believed that all the excess had been cut, if discretionary spending on non-essentials had been significantly reduced. I could support it if I was seeing the impact on true essentials.

  • jd March 5, 2010 (9:33 am)

    The way our taxes are structured now, the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income. We have the most regressive tax system in the nation, and not by just a little bit. We’re number one! A family in the 20% lowest income bracket pays approximately 17% of their income in state and local taxes, while the top 1% pays around 3.6% So instead of socking it to the rich, as is being suggested here, we’re socking it to the poor. So WS CP, what this tax would do is level it out a bit, but the poor would still be paying a higher percentage of their income.

  • RobertSeattle March 5, 2010 (9:39 am)

    As a FYI,
    41 states have an income tax.


  • Smitty March 5, 2010 (9:40 am)


    It’s not just that people defend the “rich” because they might be “rich” some day – although I think that is a good argument.

    It’s that we all KNOW that the definition of “rich” will continue to be lowered until they have enought money to double the size of government. $200,000 this year, $175,000 the next, and so on. PLUS – They will find ways to increase the sales tax to where it was originally (it’s for the children, or the parks, or the police, or (fill-in-the-blank) whatever.

    In 2006, the top 1% of wage earners paid paid 40% of income taxes, the top 10% paid over 70%! That is very “progressive”!

    What is fair to you?

  • KBear March 5, 2010 (9:44 am)

    Of course the state needs to cut wasteful spending, but that is not a reason to keep our regressive tax structure. Our outrageous state sales tax only encourages wasteful spending, because we never know whether the program we fund today can be funded next year. An income tax would provide a steadier stream of revenue, which would allow the state to make better use of our tax dollars.

  • Smitty March 5, 2010 (9:44 am)


    There have been times when almost all the States allowed slavery. Times when people thought the earth was flat. Hell, today people think that man is causing the earth to warm. That doesn’t make it right.

  • jd March 5, 2010 (9:53 am)

    I really have to laugh when I see people saying Joe McDermott is trying to turn Washington into California. We are one of only a few states that does not have a balanced tax structure of both a sales and an income tax.

  • KBear March 5, 2010 (10:01 am)

    Smitty, income tax has nothing to do with slavery. Trying to draw a parallel with slavery makes anything else you say dubious. And it’s interesting that you accept the scientific proof that the earth is round, but you reject science when it comes to climate change. How irrational is that?

  • Kayleigh March 5, 2010 (10:11 am)

    Smitty, you are probably not going to become rich. Most people don’t become rich, though most Americans buy into the corporate/conservative con job that if they just work “hard” enough and watch Oprah and think positive and wear blue suits, that they will magically beome rich. Odds are against it. You are more likely to become poor or disabled, actually. Especially in this economy.
    What’s not fair is that the Bush administration presided over a staggering transfer of wealth upward, concentrating it among the hands of a very few. It’s morally appalling, yet when someone dares suggest that those with more $ actually pay more, then the outrage comes from the conservatives.
    I don’t know if a state income tax will eventually work its way downward, but if it does, I’ll be an adult and I’ll deal with it. Good grief.

  • junctionite March 5, 2010 (10:58 am)

    Washingtonians don’t have any concept of reality when it comes to their taxes. When we lived in Michigan our property taxes were much higher (on a home with a much lower assessment), there was also a state income tax, however, the sales taxes were slightly lower than here. If any of these changes are implemented it will just bring Washington’s taxes in line with the majority of the country.

  • clark5080 March 5, 2010 (11:03 am)

    What we need is a state legislature that will stop over spending and live within it’s means. If anyone thinks that when the economy picks back up that any of these taxes they are looking at raising to close the deficit with will be reduced or eliminated you are wrong. it will just be more money for them to spend.

    By the way if memory is correct Joe was a co sponsor of another State income tax bill at the beginning of the session.


  • Aim March 5, 2010 (11:10 am)

    Kayleigh, you can’t have a battle of wits with unarmed people. I’d recommend not even trying. :)

  • KBear March 5, 2010 (11:25 am)

    Oh, yes, the legislature needs to stop overspending! That’s why our roads are falling apart and our schools are failing! It’s that wasteful state government at work again!

  • Wet March 5, 2010 (11:26 am)

    Thank you Joe for supporting a state income tax. I like our libraries, roads, health clinics, schools. Want to help our neighbors that may not be as lucky as I am or as healthy. Thank you Lisa Brown D-Spokane for proposing this bill again. Thank you kayleigh for articulating way better than I could in this argument.

  • marty March 5, 2010 (11:34 am)

    At my house we CUT BACK ON EXPENSES when money gets tight, you might try it because it works.

    Don’t expect my vote next time, Joe.

  • Smitty March 5, 2010 (11:49 am)


    I was simply pointing out to Robert that simply because a majority (in this case, 41 States having an income tax) have/believe in something doesn’t make it right.

    At one point in time a majority thought the earth was flat, a majority thought slavery was OK and (currently) a majority think that Global Warming is man-made and that warming on Mars and Venus is simply coincidental.

    Kayleigh, don’t short-change yourself (or me!). I plan on being rich and I hope you do as well. I also think the “rich” pay their fare share already.

  • Wet March 5, 2010 (12:18 pm)

    Oh yeah, and I also enjoy clean Air and clean Water. Public schools, did I mention that already, needs to be mentioned again.

  • clark5080 March 5, 2010 (12:25 pm)

    KBear it is called setting priorities

  • marty March 5, 2010 (12:51 pm)

    clark5080: Right on! The Broadway “beautification” is a prime example. The money wasted there should be used to repair existing roads.

  • bunnypug March 5, 2010 (12:56 pm)

    Go Joe!!!

    Great comments Kayleigh!

    This is exactly the right direction. We need a more progressive tax system and creating an income tax is the way to do it.

    Poor, moderate and middle income folks have been paying a much larger percent of our incomes toward taxes.

    Its time everyone in the state pays their fair share.

  • Kayleigh March 5, 2010 (1:18 pm)

    Smitty, I hope you become wealthy, too, and that you give to your favorite charities generously when you do.
    Unfortunately, I’m not good at the things that generate wealth in this country. It seems to me American corporate culture rewards things like aggression and conformity and risk-taking—none of which are my strong suits. But hey….I love the non-profit world and what I do every day matters. Most days, anyway. :)

  • gatewood guy March 5, 2010 (1:30 pm)

    You have to balance the Federal and State tax burdens before you wave the regressive flag. While lower income people do pay a higher percentage of their income in State taxes, most pay little or nothing in Federal income tax. The wealthy pay the vast majority of all Federal income tax. Do you really expect them to pick of the freight for everything?

  • KBear March 5, 2010 (1:44 pm)

    “Smitty, I hope you become wealthy, too, and that you give to your favorite charities generously when you do.”

    Don’t count on it. The wealthy not only pay the smallest percentage of their income in taxes, but they also donate a smaller portion of their income to charities than the poor and middle class.

  • grr March 5, 2010 (1:49 pm)

    FairTax.org is the best thing I’ve read in my lifetime. It’ll just never happen, because as soon as you elimante ‘tax breaks’ from any politicians hands, they have no power to do anything.

    as a lifelong democrat, I am FED UP with the mentality of ‘just tax rich people more’ that so many dems have. How about STOP SPENDING $ you don’t have on stupid shit?

  • Smitty March 5, 2010 (3:08 pm)

    The top 5% of earners pay 60% of the taxes at an average rate of 20.5%. This group earns 37% of total earnings.

    The bottom 50% of earners pay 3% of the taxes at an average rate of 3.0%. This group earns 12% of total earnings.

    WTH in not progressive about that?

    Give me a break.

    (income taxes)

  • M March 5, 2010 (3:28 pm)

    I won’t be voting for Joe either after this. If this gets passed it will be easy to apply the income tax those “rich” people who make $50K in a couple years. This is the “Camel’s nose under the tent”

    Oh yeah BTW this is now the OBAMA economy now….

  • Julie March 5, 2010 (3:38 pm)

    How about stopping wasteful spending instead of taxing?

  • KBear March 5, 2010 (3:45 pm)

    Smitty, I don’t know where you got your figures from, since Washington does not yet HAVE a state income tax.

  • JoB March 5, 2010 (3:46 pm)

    Yeah Joe!

    Smitty.. your stats would be accurate if you added one little phrase to that sentence…
    The top 5% of earners pay an average rate of 20.5% of ADJUSTED GROSS income… that is after they have claimed real and imagined, legal and illegal tax exemptions.
    If you look at the 10% of earners directly under that top 5% you will find that although their percentages of tax may not increase, their actual tax bills do.
    Whats not progressive about our current tax laws is how heavily they burden those in the 90% who fall between the top 5% and the bottom 5%.
    Some of whom do not even earn enough income to be considered above the poverty rate.

    cry me a river for those poor rich folks we are about to drive out of the state because of taxes…

    and just what is it you think they do for us anyway?

  • jd March 5, 2010 (3:52 pm)

    Smitty, Are you pulling those numbers out of your butt? This is the State of Washington, the state with the most regressive tax system in the country. The bottom 20% pay 17% of their income in taxes while the top 1% pays less than 4%. You call that progressive?

  • clark5080 March 5, 2010 (3:53 pm)

    If they wanted to be real radical they could convert to either a flat tax or a Consumption based tax.

  • gatewood guy March 5, 2010 (3:59 pm)

    What do these people do for you, JoB? Many of them employ you. They own and run the businesses that provide pay checks, health insurance, B&O taxes, sales tax on the goods and services they use for their business, and yes, most of the Federal income tax. Don’t think you’ll miss them? Just wait.

    As for the Adjusted Gross Income comment, lower income people have a substantially lower ratio of AGI to Gross Income than high earners. Phase outs in deductions and the Alternative Minimum Tax catch you pretty quick.

  • KBear March 5, 2010 (4:09 pm)

    Jim, we HAVE a consumption based tax. It’s called the sales tax, and it screws anyone who isn’t rich.

  • jeff March 5, 2010 (4:27 pm)

    As some other commenters have said….

    The original Federal income tax in 1913 applied to only about 2% of the population (roughly $60K income in inflation-adjusted dollars).

    The rates went from 1% to 7%, and you had to have major major income to get a 7% rate.

    This was pitched as, yes, just getting a bit from the rich, those who can really afford it.

    Within five years (during WWI) the top rate went all the way to 77%.

    So, you’re welcome to make a pitch that WA should have an income tax. Pros and cons. But pitch it honestly, not with this utterly phony idea that only the “rich” will have to pay it.

  • Smitty March 5, 2010 (4:28 pm)


    My bad for not setting up the numbers.

    Those are National income tax figures which I think blows away the perception that the “rich” don’t pay their fare share. Tacking on another x% in state income tax to the soak the “rich is a joke imo.

    They already pay enough and the government will just spend more and become even less efficient than they already are – leading to a change in the definition of “rich” and a gradual increase of the sales tax back to where it was!

  • M March 5, 2010 (4:41 pm)

    California has an income tax, sales tax, and every other tax you can imagine. Look at the mess they are in.

    Like individuals, governments have to curtail spending.

  • jeff March 5, 2010 (4:57 pm)

    Also note, two of the five states Forbes ranked as most “fiscally fit” right now – Texas and New Hampshire – manage to do it without a state income tax.

    Texas’s sales tax is in the 8 point something range.

    New Hampshire doesn’t even have a sales tax. Amazing how the politicians have to behave better if there’s no sales tax and no income tax.

  • jd March 5, 2010 (5:15 pm)

    Why are you bringing up federal taxes when we are talking about state taxes? What anyone pays in federal taxes is not going to help the state’s budget problems. In this state the poor pay way more than their share and it’s about time that the rich pony up too.

    M, California is certainly not the only state that has an income tax as well as other taxes. Most states do. California’s problems have more to do with Proposition 13 that lowered property taxes by an average of 57%, and that had the same requirement of 2/3 vote for any tax increase like our own I-960. You can talk all you want about curtailing spending, but just about everything that can be cut has been cut, and some programs that really hurt ordinary people. There’s nothing left to cut.

  • M March 5, 2010 (5:21 pm)

    JD, the effects of Prop 13 have long since been disolved, it applied to the owners of the house at the time it was passed, that was a long time ago and most of those people are dead or have moved to another residence.

    “There’s nothing left to cut” mentality is what got them ( and to some extent WA) into this mess……

  • gatewood guy March 5, 2010 (5:36 pm)

    You can’t separate the Federal tax burden from the State. That is like one teacher not caring how much homework other teachers are assigning and the student ending up with 2 hours worth from each teacher.

    The “rich” can’t shoulder the entire tax burden of the country no matter how good it may make you feel to stick it to them.

  • The Hepcat March 5, 2010 (5:48 pm)

    Wow, what a bunch of whiny have-nots. Let’s face facts. Rich people usually own businesses. That puts people to work. We pay a huge amount in corporate taxes, business taxes, health insurance for employees, etc. The “tax the rich because they deserve to pay more” mentality is a joke at best. In this city of would be (or real) socialists, the argument that the poor deserve more of my money for doing little to earn it themselves is ludicrous.

    Local government under Democratic rule has always been against business interests, except to tax them out of business. Our company employs over 300 people. That will be 300 jobs lost when we relocate out of Seattle to a better tax climate. Just like California, the wealthy are jumping the ship, and taking their businesses elsewhere.

  • jd March 5, 2010 (5:49 pm)

    We are not sticking it to the rich! The State of Washington is sticking it to the poor! Don’t you get it? The poor in this state pay more than four times of their money in taxes than the rich. This just isn’t right and if you don’t get it, well, I give up.

    Your analogy doesn’t make sense.

  • JoB March 5, 2010 (6:18 pm)

    gatewood guy

    the alternative income tax catchS middle class taxpayers… and the phase outs were for tax breaks the rest of us don’t enjoy.

    as for the uber rich employing “us”.. yes.. they have businesses and they make money from employing people. But they are unlikely to fold those businesses because of personal income tax… not that many states left without one and most of those aren’t desirable places to live or do business. It’s not really in their best interests to fold and run.

    especially not those companies whose largest asset is their employees..

    there are some things you just can’t outsource and stay competitive… as many of the companies who depend upon human expertise are finding out.

    some days it just isn’t all about money

  • gatewood guy March 5, 2010 (6:27 pm)


    With all due respect, all of my itemized deductions, including mortgage interest, are phased out. You don’t enjoy these?

  • EyeLiveInWestSeattle March 6, 2010 (12:04 am)

    This is another way for politicians to continue spending money without cutting back first. It doesn’t work. By the way, take a look at Massachusetts and California’s history of getting their respective tax rates to where they are today. We will be next if people like Joe McDermott get their way.

    Oh, and Joe (if you read this site), I also won’t ever vote for you again. How many is that so far?

  • anonyme March 6, 2010 (8:59 am)

    I agree with Mark on having a reasonable balance of a much lower sales tax combined with a staggered income tax. As I see it, the grossly inefficient management of programs and government agencies is the source of most waste, rather than the programs themselves. DOT is among the worst; from what I understand, they have added a huge number of upper management positions. For what? All meetings, no manpower.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident March 6, 2010 (9:02 am)

    You know….
    If you feel you are not taxed enough no one is stopping you from writting a check to the state treasury to make you feel better.
    Forgive me…I forgot that the “progressives” philosophy…”Sit down. Shut up. Do what you are told. We KNOW better than you, so do as WE say and you will be taken care of.” is the true philosophy of the Seattle “Liberal”
    The “liberals” here in Seattle aren’t even trying to hide their TRUE ideals anymore.
    READ your history, this is THE same thoughts and practices that the “Progressive” movement of that covered ~1900 to 1923. They were driven out of office, then co-opted the title of “Liberal” which they are NOT.
    I am curious about one thing…
    How many agree with the following statement?
    “Everyone should own one house before ANYONE is allowed to own two”

  • Smitty March 6, 2010 (12:13 pm)

    Ex-Wes, you nailed it.

    Given the following choices, Liberals will almost always pick (b) while Conservatives almost always pick (a):

    a) You get a $20,000 raise and your neighbor gets a $75,000 raise.

    b) You get a $10,000 raise and your neighbor gets a $10,000 raise.

    It never ceases to amaze me the class envy that skews their thinking and “decision” making.

  • Herman March 6, 2010 (7:14 pm)

    I can’t believe I voted for this guy. Once there is an income tax infrastructure in this state, it’s going to grow like mad. A new department will be created in Olympia; new forms, new processes and rules. And new lobbyists. And once all that is in place, Katy bar the door.
    Why don’t we tax things that we DON’T want to encourage. Like pollution, or something.

  • twocents March 7, 2010 (1:17 am)

    JoB – I control two corporations in Washington State one construction firm and one sales company. With approx. 30 employee’s, small potato’s by most standards. You are correct, us business owner’s will not run, we will cap your pay, reduce our operational overhead which may eliminate creature comforts that you are accustom to, tweak our P&L to reduce our tax liability, terminate your employment – BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK, YOU ARE REPLACEABLE, then I’ll fight your unemployment claim tooth and nail. To add insult to injury (as the owner) I still get my 4k per week salary, 2k per month vehicle allowance, 2k per month discretionary account . . . What I am getting at is simple and bluntly honest. People that make more money can afford to hire adviser’s to facilitate the protection of wealth. I stay wealthy because I have the means to shift my assets around taxes that are implemented to nibble away at what I have built from the ground up. Yeah, Yeah . . . I am evil, blah, blah . . . My checks never bounce, I have never taken out a loan and not repaid it, I buy your toxic/distressed assets, I put 7 figures in payroll alone back into the community, what I pay in LNI, B&O, State/Federal, Sales, Excise Taxes is crazy . . . I think I owe the state more! RIGHT!

  • twocents March 7, 2010 (1:42 am)

    BTW – I would like to expand my operations, I don’t have the capital, so can I just borrow your salaries for a bit . . . and if things don’t work out I’ll just have to find another way of taking your money to pay for my MIS-MANAGEMENT! God forbid I change anything, I will just continue my expansion until its so entrenched that you believe without my services you are hopeless . . . umm . . . sounds like policy in this state!

  • Income Tax Services March 16, 2010 (12:14 am)

    It is my understanding that Washington’s state constitution actually makes this a no go. Is there talk about making the amendment?

Sorry, comment time is over.