Apology + Belated Response to dyn99

[DBP]

A few days ago, WSB member dyn99 posed me a few good-faith questions.

dyn99, I’m sorry if it seemed that I was ignoring you. Trust me: I wasn’t. In any case, I’m ready to start answering your questions now.

Hey DBP,

I have a few questions – let’s start with “raise taxes on the 1%”:

-First – how do you define the 1%? If you use wages as the metric, it’s about $340k/year. If you use total income, it’s closer to $1.6m per year. I seem to read different figures every time I read about the 1%. Where do you draw the line on who needs to pay more in taxes?

Good question, sir. I won’t speak for the country as a whole, but here in Washington, in 2010, we built somewhat of a consensus (on the left) around the income figure of $250,000 per year for individuals and $500,000 per year for couples.

Those are the income levels at which we proposed to start taxing people more. Not a lot more, mind. But definitely more.

Does $250k per year = the 1%? I dunno. Prolly not. Especially not here, where we have some of the richest folks on the planet. Doesn’t matter that much, though, does it? —since “1%” is just a slogan anyway.

Does $250K per year = “rich”? Well, to me it does. I make about 8K a year. (How do I live on that? —Carefully.)

So I guess what I really meant to say was “Tax the Rich.” And by “rich” I mean >250k/yr.

*************************************************************************************

As you may recall, Washington state’s Tax the Rich bill was known as Initiative 1098. And as I’m sure you WILL recall, that initiative failed.

However, I don’t think it’s a done deal. After a few more rounds of budget cuts, a lot of middle-class voters may change their minds about a state income tax.

We’ll see.

All for now.

TBC

[wrists tired]

 

Share This

[dyn99]

Hey DBP,

No apology necessary but glad to hear that you want to engage on this topic.

Okay, so $250k/year is “rich” in your book. Given where you’re coming from, I’ll agree that’s a totally reasonable perspective. Although I would note that if you’re going to say $250k is rich for an individual, the line should probably be more like $350k for a couple/family, as frankly, it doesn’t cost twice as much when two people live together, so a couple making $500k/year has a significantly higher standard of living than an individual making $250k.

So let’s use $250k/$350k as a reference point so we can be fair. Let’s put what that practically means in perspective:

Scenario 1: An individual making $250k/year probably pays about $50k in federal income tax, and about $10k/year in SS/Medicare taxes. That leaves the person with about $190k/year in after-tax income, or about $16k/month. That makes for a nice living – for sure. That person can comfortably afford a $5k/month mortgage (or rental), or a roughly $800,000 – $1,000,000 house/condo. They can afford a nice, new car (don’t think Bentley here, think really nice Ford or run-of the-mill BMW). They go on nice vacations and they should be able to save 10-20% of their take-home pay easily, still leaving $10.5k/month for living expenses after all of these things are paid for (but before savings). If they’re frugal, they may be able to save closer to 50% of their after-tax, after-housing income, but let’s be honest, they probably won’t, it is America after all.

Scenario 2: A couple (with kids) making $350k/year will pay more like $70k in federal income taxes and $20k/year in SS/Medicare, leaving them with $260k/year take home, or about $21,500/month. They’ll need to pay about $6000/month for a house that meets the same standards ($1.2 – $1.4m), and will have two cars, leaving about $14,500/month after taxes, housing and transportation costs. But they’ve got kids, and kids eat more, need clothes and school supplies, and generally make life more expensive. They may have childcare costs if the kids are young, and chances are that their kids will attend private schools (typical for this income level), which are $10-$20k/year/kid. So we’ll say that the kids offset the extra income (at least mostly) leaving these two examples with the same basic purchasing power.

Neither scenario will really have to worry about money, medical costs or retirement. They’ll be able to send their kids to college (although Harvard might be a little bit of a push) and they should never really be in a position where they’re unable to buy what they want/need.

These people could afford to pay more in taxes, but it would just come out of their spending (as they know that they need to save for retirement). So let’s say they take less fancy vacations and drive more moderate cars, or own more moderate houses. Any of these choices they make will have a negative impact on economic growth, especially as these folks spend a lot of money (probably $100 – $150k/year in discretionary spending). But I agree – they can afford to pay more. It just may not be in the government’s best interest to make them do so.

Now let’s talk about the truly “rich”. We’ll use an example from a recent trip I made to LA to visit a buddy.

I had the “pleasure” of vising a home (not my buddy’s) in Bel-Air. This home was +/- 30,000 SF. As a reference point – the houses/condos that the people could afford to buy in Scenarios 1-2 would be 2500-5000 sf in a nice neighborhood – houses in the $800,000 – $1,400,000 – think pretty old fixed-up house in North Admiral or great condo on Alki with a nice view (just examples, don’t get caught up in my choice of housing or neighborhoods).

The owners of this house had one teenage child. The house was 5 stories (6000 sf/floor) and had every type of room you could imagine, including a game room, wine cellar, private theater (not movie, but an actual wood-paneled theater with a stage), and to top it off – a “train” room, where the husband could take all of his uber-rich friends, go play with toy trains (complete with their own custom conductor caps) and smoke cigars (of course there was a humidor and ventilation system in the room).

There was a staff of +/- 15 people to serve these 3 residents. Private security to guard the 20 collectible cars in the garage, a full housekeeping staff, private chef, live-in Nanny (for a 14 year old), full-time gardner/groundskeeper, etc. (Reference point – the folks that make $250-$350k/year have a cleaning service come in once per week or two, so quite a difference)

The house reminded me of a tacky European Hotel – gold and marble everywhere (even in stupid places that shouldn’t have gold or marble in them). I looked up the property tax records – it was assessed at something like $28 million. It was the definition of over the top.

And to top it all off (and rub salt in my already open wound), there were those pictures that political candidates give you (not me, but clearly this guy) for writing big checks everywhere. Probably 50 of them in the theater room alone, along with pictures of the family members with…guess who? That’s right! G.W. Bush & Dick Cheney! Hell, I’d give him money too if he gave me the kind of tax breaks that he gave this guy! Sh*t, I’d build him a shrine if he saved me $20m/year in taxes! (My tongue is firmly planted in my cheek for anyone who is taking me seriously)

I was about ready to run out of there kicking and screaming and join OWS (or OLA) right then and there. I happened to Google the guy who owned the house from my smart phone and sure enough, this guy was under indictment in NY for securities fraud and bilking a bunch of state pension funds for something like $50 million.

Anyway, I took a long time to say this: This guy pays less as a percentage of his income in taxes than the folks in Scenario 1 or 2 above. He probably pays around the same as Romney does (13%), compared to the roughly 20-25% above.

That is plain wrong if you ask me. But it’s not illegal (unlike some of the things the guy was doing to make the money in the first place). But it needs to change, and fast.

In any case, raising this guy’s taxes to 30% (as the Obama/Buffet proposal calls for) would make a small dent in the national deficit (roughly 10%). You’d have to raise it to 40% + raise the folks in scenario 1 & 2 to 33% + raise folks that make $150k/year to 28% + raise folks that make $100k/year to 25% to fill the deficit. Or start raising it on people that make less than $100k/year, which would cause you to get voted off the island in no time.

Side note: We’re all aware that Washington State doesn’t have an income tax (one of only eight states not to). I voted for the income tax initiative a couple of years ago, not because I believe that we need higher taxes, but because I believe our tax structure in this state sucks. Small Businesses pay B&O taxes that really are job killers (it’s based on revenues, not profits, which is a horrible way of any business), and our property taxes are too high. And the state is too dependent on volatile forms of taxation to keep a reasonably stable budget.

However, none of the people mentioned in the Scenarios above (1&2) would have paid any significant amount if this initiative had passed. The individual making $250k/year would have paid $2500 in income tax, but his property taxes would have been largely offset by this, and it would have been federally tax deductible, so his net increase would have been $0. The couple’s income was too low to qualify under the $400k/couple threshold so they would have actually received a tax cut due to the property tax drop. If they owned small businesses or were self-employed, they would have seen even bigger cuts (reference point – my small company with 7 employees pays about $10k/year from this stupid B&O tax).

This initiative WOULD have helped on a state level to fund education and social services, but unfortunately would have done nothing to fund healthcare, education, or anything else on a federal level. But it would have been a start.

So…the question is this – since we’ve now agreed that raising taxes on the 1% (which is really the 4th or 5th% based on total income) doesn’t fill the deficit and we have to raise taxes on the top 30% to actually get where you want to go, and we can’t spend money we don’t have, so….do we raise tax rates up to the levels I mention above, so that the government can spend more money? Or do we cut entitlements (SS/Medicare) to get the budget back in balance, control spending, and hope that tax revenues go up over time as the economy heals?

So this kind of goes to your item #4 on the occupy demands – “fund social services and education” – how do we practically do that without creating hardship for middle-class families making $100k/year?

Therein lies the problem – it’s not as easy to raise the revenue for the government to spend as you might think.

Thoughts, DBP?

Share This

[DBP]

Thanks for the long and thoughtful post, dyn.

So the gist of your argument seems to be that the “Tax the Rich” demand is misleading, because:

 

1. It doesn’t come close to filling the budget hole,  

2. It does nothing to curb the underlying problem (govt. spending), and  

3. It might actually be exacerbating the problem, by acting as a disincentive for investment in the economy.

 

To which I would respond:

 

1. OK. Let’s be honest. Forget the 1% fixation. Taxing the current 1% out of existence won’t fill the hole by any means; it’ll just reset the line of scrimmage. So let’s just get back to talking about a progressive tax across the board, shall we? Make the poor pay some income tax, make the middle class pay more, make the rich pay most. Sliding scale.

Then close the loopholes. (I’m with kootchman on this point at least.)  

2. Fixing govt. spending . . . Again, I see the point. The so-called Debt Reduction Panel bombed. Why? Maybe because the Democrats and Republicans can’t get on the same wavelength long enough to get anything done. Or maybe it’s just that nobody on the Panel had the political courage to sanction the slaughter of their own sacred cows.

So get a new panel and start over. And next time get some people with guts on there.  

3. On the theory that letting rich people keep more money stimulates the economy . . . I’m still waiting for some evidence of that. Just like I’m still waiting for evidence that building another sports stadium in Seattle would generate more jobs and tax money than, say, buying everyone in the city a pint of Full Tilt ice cream every week . . .

 

Even Smitty acknowledges that rich folks won’t invest their money — or at least not here, in this country — until economic conditions are more to their liking.

And when will that be? Why, just as soon as Obama’s out of office and taxes are rolled back, of course.

Huh! What a happy coincidence that would be for your Bel-Air acquaintance. Maybe a Republican Justice Department would even be willing to take a fresh look at his securities fraud case.

Oh well. It was probably all just a misunderstanding anyway . . .

 

Share This

[redblack]

<rant>

wow.

i’m glad you guys are getting along. i feel so warm and fuzzy.

meanwhile, the people you’re talking about – those who make $250k/annum as individuals – make 5 times what the average household makes.

but, god forbid we should disrupt the ability of the top 1% to save for retirement.

is any of this getting through? or is this just class warfare? is this too disruptive? is this not productive? is it not polite?

do you people have any damned idea how hard it is to live on $43,500 per year as a household? let alone “save for retirement?” (whatever that means.)

oh. and, by the way, $43,500 is the median. i’m sure all of you thinkin’ fellers know what “median” means.

</rant>

Share This

[JanS]

oh, honey….they make 10 times what this household makes. So..the supposes in this boggle me. Why not raise their taxes some to even make that 10% dent. I have been criticized for taking a discounted price from my regular cash price often through insurance payments. I say I’d rather make a little bit less in that hour than nothing for that hour. Every little bit helps..so tax them…and cut the loopholes (yes, I too, agree with the Kman on that). If you just say don’t do it because it won’t make that much of a difference, well, that’s like giving up…and giving in..

but what do I know , anyway?

Share This

[JV]

Everybody agrees, close the loopholes. Than means no more govt picking winners and losers.

Here is something else I think we can all agree on; in both scenarios, if their taxes were raised another 10%, that’s real money leaving our community. There’s a huge difference between sending the Gubmint a check, or remodelling this family’s bathroom, maybe replacing windows, landscaping, or replacing a roof. Know any of those trades in west Seattle looking for work? Why not let this family spend the money on a new roof, and employ a few roofers…instead of sending the roofers an unemployment check? And sending the family a larger tax bill.

Or maybe the Gubmint is good with money and will spend it wisely. I think we all know better than that.

Share This

[JV]

Redblack, let’s try this polite thing for a day or so and see how it works out.

I know, I know, it feels weird to me too, but I’ll try it if you will!

Maybe we’ll find a few rare areas of agreement and work from there.

Share This

[redblack]

i’ll go ya’ one better, JV.

know anyone who needs food? shelter? clothing? medicine?

LOL. bathroom remodels? tell me you’re not serious. you can’t be.

in america – land of the free, home of the brave – there are far more poor people looking for food than there are middle class people looking for roofs.

Share This

[JanS]

that gives the roofer a bigger tax bill…can’t get around it..sooner or later there have to be some taxes paid. The people making $250K and up per year will still, I guarantee you, get that roof, or redo that kitchen. They won’t be put into poverty because of a slight increase in taxes like some folks who make quite a bit less.

I don’t think anyone is asking them to carry the weight…just a fair amount.

Share This

[redblack]

JV: “polite?”

let’s try the honest thing for a month and see how that works out.

no more unprovoked, unsubstantiated, sidelong snide comments?

agreed?

Share This

[JV]

Redblack, I will politely say that you missed my point. Probably intentionally, but maybe I wasn’t clear,so I’ll try again.

I’m saying that the opportunity cost for that check going to a local company is that it goes to the black hole that is the Gubmint.

So if the objective is to help poor and middle class Americans, which is a more efficient model? Employ them, or give them food stamps?

Share This

[redblack]

JV: see, the problem with your argument is the assumption that everyone making $250,000 per year is an employer or a small business owner. or that they spend their money paying contractors, who, in turn, pay employees who pay taxes.

that is light years from the truth.

most people who make that much money invest it, and they try to parlay it into more money, or retirement funds, or whatever. and that serves no one (outside of the initial investor) but rich bankers.

furthermore, even people who make less than $43,500 per year pay taxes. they just (usually – unless they’re messing with withholding) get refunds.

by the way, the “probably intentionally” comment is snide. not a good, honest start to honest debate.

Share This

[JV]

Okay, I’m trying here…old habits ya know? Sorry about that one!

Share This

[JV]

RB: I wasn’t assuming they were business owners or employers. That’s a whole other conversation. How they make their money isn’t relevant to this conversation

My point is that they have made $250,000 which will go toward things like taxes, mortgage, cars, boats, healthcare, vacations, or whatever. And as long as it is legal I don’t care how they spend it.

Yes, if they are wise some will probably be invested. When money is inviested, it doesn’t disappear, it is usually re-invested by being lent to another small business that is trying to bring their unique product or service to the market.

If that money isn’t invested, the loan isn’t there for the business who wants to open an organic fruit stand, landscaper, or another coffee shop in west Seattle.

If it’s invested that’s good. If it’s spent on a new roof or windows, that’s good. If it goes to the Gubmint, that’s bad (in my opinion) because so much of it gets wasted on pork projects, fraud and abuse. (on both sides of the aisle)

Share This

[kootchman]

There is that “fair” assumption thing again. Why is it others try to determine what is fair to impose on someone else? We could be in relatively good shape … if it was “fair”.. everyone paid the same proportional share. Ya can’t run the boat with half paying in and half not. I don’t feel obliged because ya make 44K, nor do I feel entitled if ya make 440K.

Share This

[JoB]

JV..

the word you are looking for here is government

Share This

[redblack]

JV: “pork projects?” like dams? rural electrification? railroads? the interstate highway system? all built with tax dollars. now they need fixing with tax dollars.

we could use universal broadband, and cable companies aren’t interested in the outlays. (they already have big, juicy cash-cow contracts – like comcast has with seattle.)

we could use a more efficient, 21st century electric grid, but big power isn’t interested in the outlays.

we could use fast rail instead of ever-crowding and increasingly inefficient airports. only taxpayers could fund such a project.

our sewer systems are degraded. i could go on for days here.

or do you mean welfare? or helping the states fill holes in their unemployment programs? or afghanistan?

now, i agree that there’s a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse, but in my view that’s usually because some contractor is inflating the price he charges to the government. i know for a fact that that happens in construction.

so, in my view, the cat making $300,000 per year and paying a tax lawyer to dodge his obligation to the government isn’t helping the economy at large as much as he should by simply paying his higher tax rate.

i mean, that was the whole rallying cry, right? “obama goes, investment flows?” i heard a number of conservative posters say that in these forums.

kootch: that’s the eternal question, isn’t it?

“who gets to decide what’s fair?”

well, if it isn’t me, then it’s you. and one of us is going to be unhappy.

here’s a compromise for you:

you let us jack up the marginal tax rates, and we’ll cut spending, and we’ll put a dent in the budget deficits and debt.

instead of neither one of us getting our way, both of us get what we want.

Share This

[JV]

Redblack, I think we agree on a lot of your post. There are legitimate places for the guv to spend our tax money. (they always call it “investing” never spending) And there are also a ton of wasteful projects. Some things I would call wasteful, you might call wise, and some I might call wise, you might call wasteful. That’s for another debate. Some is necessary, but our disagreement would probably boil down to what is the role of government. Is it the government’s job to provide cable, or internet access for all? I don’t think so. Most of these things are specifically NOT the Federal Gov’s job, which means they should be discussed on the state level by people like you and me.

Also in your post, I’m sure the guy is trying to avoid paying as little as possible, but another reason a guy is paying a tax lawyer is because the tax system is too complicated, and needs to be simplified. Close loopholes and simplify the tax code.

As for your tax/spend compromise, it sounds nice on paper, but we have been tricked in the past with that one, and it won’t happen again. We agree to raise taxes, and they NEVER, EVER cut spending. Then we have a new tax increase to deal with, and nothing to show for it. (See George H.W. Bush)

Share This

[dyn99]

Seriously, I watch a movie, then go to bed, and I get back up and there are 15 more posts?

Okay, a few thoughts on the comments to start:

1) Redblack – people that make $300k/year don’t hire tax lawyers to dodge taxes. The math doesn’t work out – it costs more to pay the tax lawyer than to pay the taxes. Maybe people that make over $1m/year might. Certainly people that make millions per year do. But the scenarios I mentioned above don’t, so let’s just make that super clear.

2) For individuals/families that spend the majority of their incomes (this definitely includes those mentioned in the scenarios above), an increase in taxes means that they have less money to spend on items or services of their choice. This has a negative impact on the greater economy as it takes away dollars people can spend – but the measurable impact drops as income increases. If you raise taxes significantly on people making over $100k/year (as an example), it makes a much larger impact on the greater economy than if you just raise it on those that make over $500k/year. So the measure of economic impact depends on how you define “rich”. If “rich” means $2 million/year income, then it probably has no significant impact. If “rich” means $200k/year, then it probably has a fairly significant impact. If “rich” means $80k/year, it’s going to have a huge impact. If you really want to argue this, then you don’t understand economics.

3) People in Seattle make more than you guys think they do – 14% of individuals and 43% of families make over $100k/year, according to 2010 US Census Data for Seattle. Redblack – your income stats are only partially true. Median wages in Seattle for an individual (non-family) are $43k/year. For a family, it is $89k/year. For a married family, it goes to $104k/year – this is according to 2010 US Census Data for the City of Seattle.

Now onto policy – let’s start with Federal Taxes, since that seems to be what interests people most and people pay the most of.

DBP – I don’t disagree that your proposal for how our tax system should work is correct. We probably see the brackets differently (I would like them to be flatter than you probably would), but fundamentally, I think we can say we generally agree on this.

However, I don’t think you actually want that kind of change to the tax code – right now, based on what you & Jan have said in your posts, neither of you pay anything in Federal income taxes. Under your proposal you would. Honestly, I’m sure you’d say that you can’t afford to pay any taxes. I agree with you – you can’t afford to pay more.

In fact, you probably pay negative taxes, as with refundable credits, the government probably gives you a little money (outside of welfare-type benefits like food stamps, disability, etc. that I’m not counting).

Lastly, the people on Simpson/Bowles did have guts – they actually fixed the problem with the compromise, in my opinion. The issue is this – they were too partisan to vote for their own recommendations. And congress was too – they wouldn’t even take up the bill.

We may have an opportunity for this kind of compromise after the election. Between the automatic cuts that both parties hate, and the reinstatement of ALL the Bush-era tax cuts that both parties hate, they’re either going to both get things they hate (which will help fix the deficit), or they will find something they can agree on that they hate less.

One last question – this goes to everyone, and I want a straight answer on this. We can all agree that we have to fix the deficit problem before spending more money. We can do this one of three ways:

1) Raise taxes on a LOT of people (since taxing the 1% won’t get close to fixing the problem)

2) Cut spending and entitlements (SS/Medicare) a little for everyone

3) Some combination of both

Which would you choose?

If your answer is #1 – let’s assume you can raise taxes on the top 10% a lot (like 30-50% effective increases to solve the deficit problem), or on the top 25% a significant amount (say 20-25% increases) or the top 50% by a small amount (say 10% increases).

Let’s also assume that we all agree on the Buffett rule, even though some of my more conservative counterparts won’t. And some of you who are more liberal will say that it should be 50% instead of 30%.

What is the best way to solve the problem? Everyone stop with the snarky responses for a minute and actually answer this question, please.

Thanks.

Share This

[JanS]

you are very wrong…I am self employed. Of course I pay federal income taxes. Even someone on the low end of the income spectrum pays that. What? You believe the stuff that says we don’t? A self employed person making, let’s say, 15K a year pays taxes for sure.At least this one does.

Oh, and the government giving me money? Not food stamps (that’s an interesting merry-go-round to get in), not disability, not Medicaid. I get Medicare because of kidney disease – special government program before retirement. And I just started collecting SS early. It makes a dent, but it won’t make me rich, believe me. And the idea that someone wants to cut that makes me verklempt.(Cut spending on Afghanistan, on military waste, on lobbyists,etc., don’t just dump it it all on SS/Medicare) You generalize because of what you hear, not what is. Just thought I’d clarify.

Share This

[kootchman]

They become pork. Let’s look at roads and bridges. Have you noticed redblack… the same contractors always are at the hog trough? There are no new, lower cost, better efficiency contractors giving us the best bang for the buck? It’s the epitome of insider dealing. In part, supported by a regulatory burden that insures a lack of new participants. That’s government. We all understand it supports itself by patronage to constituents. It’s gone too far. Our electrical grid is private for the most part. Investor owned. I want them to upgrade. Are you willing to pay the rate increases? They live in a world of rate restricted oversight.

I would rather pay my accountant then piss it away by handing it the government. At least he will put it ti good use. Amazing.. we are borrowing 40 cent for every dollar.. just about what it costs to have the feds collect it, then disburse it, to the states who also take a chunk out to … collect it and disburse it.

You pay your 20% and I’ll pay mine. That’s the number. You can take advantage of all the opportunity there is, schools, new skill sets … if you are discontented with an 80 grand income.. DO something about it. Don’t whine and ask others to subsidize your choices, either bad ones or ones you wouldn’t take. The idea is to emulate those who are in the investor class. Banding together as an mob of entitlement seekers will not raise your standard of living. If you arrive at age 67 with dependency on SS and Medicare… well,,, you had 40 plus years to prepare for that day. 49.7 per cent have an effective tax rate of zero Jan… Zero.

Share This

[kootchman]

I love this redblack

“most people who make that much money invest it, and they try to parlay it into more money, or retirement funds, or whatever. and that serves no one (outside of the initial investor) but rich bankers”

Where does that investment go? It goes to banks .. who lend it to businesses. Some is directly invested in the market… where corporations raise capital . Investments are out there working away. Getting the best possible return. It does a hell of lot more good then being sent to Porkulus DC. You would think after a couple hundred years… the idea is to be an investor. That means you are getting returns on your investment.. those returns are evidence of capital at work. All those dams, bridges, etc.. redblack? Financed by bondholders… those nasty investors.

dyn… you better have a tax attorney if you are banging down 300K… it is as needed as an annual physical. The tax code is that convoluted. 30-50 top tax rates? Easy to say if it’s not your money. Work to see half my income go to the federal government? Not a chance. I am not working for the federal government, or anyone else.

Share This

[DBP]

kootch: I have no animosity toward you. As a matter of fact, I like you. But I swear to God, there are times when I just cannot fathom how your mind works.

Of all things, you complain about our roads and bridges? You complain about our public utilities?

Dude, where on God’s green earth do you think you’re living? We have some of the safest, most modern infrastructure in the country. And what isn’t safe and modern, we are working on.

Our electricity is so cheap it’s almost embarrassing. Our water is some of the best on THE PLANET. And it’s all because over a century ago, Seattle’s visionary city planners got together and decided that resources like hydro power and drinking water — like the universal air — belonged to ALL the people, and should be managed accordingly.

Take a trip to the Seattle watershed this summer:

http://tinyurl.com/seattle-watershed-tour

Check out one of of SCL’s hydro dam tours:

http://www.seattle.gov/light/tours/skagit/

Or just flip on a light switch and get yourself a glass of delicious water straight from the kitchen tap right now.

And then explain it to me one more time . . .

    . . . you want to trade all this in for what?

 

 

Share This

[dbsea]

Maybe what I’m about to ask is in the above comments, but I don’t have time to read all that!

That’s alot of content.

Since the entire point of cash is to make purchases why not just use a national consumption tax? Maybe you set a annual level for tax free purchases allowed. Everything above that is taxed.

Seems to me that if I have alot of money I’m going to spend more than someone with less. I’m not “punished” for making more, I’ll just pay taxes based on what I buy. And because I’m rich I’m going to buy alot. After all, what’s the point of having all that money? At least that seems sensible to me.

Share This

[miws]

I suppose this is as good of a place as any, to thank dyn99 and JV for toning down, or more accurately, pretty much eliminating the condescension and dis-respect.

It makes your posts much more readable, and easier to consider your views on the topic at hand.

Mike

Share This

[Author]

Posts