- This topic has 36 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by redblack.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 14, 2010 at 7:59 pm #595957
JiggersMemberAll I know is that Washington State needs one. It would help pay for things that we need instead of passing crazy taxes that we don’t need.
August 14, 2010 at 10:48 pm #701381
SmittyParticipantAs long as some other tax goes bye bye – forever.
What will happen is they will lower/reduce the sales tax and ten years from now it will be back where it is now – PLUS an income tax.
Starve the beast!
August 15, 2010 at 12:22 am #701382
DPMemberStay tuned, Smitty. I’m doing another 1098-related Q & A. This time we’ll be hearing from the “anti” folks.
(Sorry Jiggers.)
August 15, 2010 at 1:01 am #701383
CarsonParticipantA state income tax? That’s pretty funny. I have never seen a state legislature with less guts to do whats tough than we have here. Why would we want a state income tax? When you have an income tax its usually taken right out of your pay, or at the least, your income is reported and its much more difficult to evade. What are all those shoppers that go to Oregon going to do? Start paying taxes? I don’t think so. We need to keep this easily avoided sales tax intact, its much easier for most to avoid paying…
August 15, 2010 at 1:45 am #701384
HMC RichParticipantChuckle. Wink
August 15, 2010 at 5:45 am #701385
grrParticipantsheeesh…State Income Tax?? WTF? How about the state having some freakin fiscal responsibility instead?? (AND YES, I’m very much a liberal democrat).
$4 million dollars for a fence on the Aurora Bridge??? nearly $100 MIL spend on that lame ass monorail that never got off paper? And the ASSININE amount of taxes that our car tabs used to be for years and years? Where’s THAT money?
I’m beyond fed up with the ‘tax the people who make more $$ more” mentality. How about ‘spend what you have more wisely??”
grrrrr.
August 15, 2010 at 6:58 am #701386
jamminjMember“$4 million dollars for a fence on the Aurora Bridge??? “
a job that was bid on by private contractors. If you own or know a business that can do the job (and all its requirements) for less… should have made a bid. If you feel that these businesses are fraudulently overcharging the state, then it would behoove you to report this to the state and media as appropriate.
“$100 MIL spend on that lame ass monorail “
that ‘lame ass monorail’ was voted on and approved by the voters, not government. And as I recall city officials tried to stop the project… but alas, the people wanted this fiasco. Can’t blame that one on the govmnt, just the voters.
August 15, 2010 at 7:04 am #701387
grrParticipantFence: The job should simply not exist. It’s a bad idea, and It’s money that doesn’t need to be spent on a fence. If the govt has $4 mil to spend, buy more police and fire fighters. And pay paramedics more.
The monorail was a debacle from day one. Grossly misinformed voters. And, yes..City did try and stop it. I can certainly blame the govt for the $$ it pissed away NOT building it tho.
and a State Income tax will do nothing to curb asinine spending.
August 15, 2010 at 2:49 pm #701388
JoBParticipantgrr…
you are focused on a fence on a bridge and a monorail project that has been history for some time while people are losing their health insurance and public schools are being starved of money.
have you thought about what tossing those people back into the emergency rooms for the most expensive care possible is going to do to your health care premiums?
Do you now how much cheaper it is to educated a kid than to pay the cost of not doing so in health care, social services and incarceration… not to mention the personal cost of larceny and associated violence?
you don’t even need to look at the greater good on this one…
self preservation should have kicked in long ago.
August 15, 2010 at 4:17 pm #701389
SmittyParticipantAugust 15, 2010 at 4:24 pm #701390
austinMemberThey should tax addictions harder before new taxes on anything else. People will pay anything for cigarettes and gasoline for example.
August 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm #701391
JoBParticipantSmitty,
i don’t know whether you were being ironic or not…
but i will tell you that good look at each of those graphs tells a story…
it would help if we spent education dollars on education.. not on debt servicing and inflated administrative costs.. only some of which are due to no child left behind…
August 15, 2010 at 5:12 pm #701392
JoBParticipantok..
the other story there is the cost of special education… the rise in autism and ADD and other disorders which make it difficult at best to pay attention in the classroom have driven the cost of special education through the roof.
perhaps it’s time for some real investigation into the escalation of these disorders…
and some honest talk about how to contain the cost of special education while still providing a quality education for all kids…
after all.. some of those kids with attention disorders are the most creative minds our society produces.
September 11, 2010 at 4:00 am #701393
BikerDudeMemberprivate sector employees (those that still have jobs) have taken pay cuts. the city, county and state employees should be glad they have a good job and offer to take an across the board 5% pay cut and contribute at least 25% to their health insurance premiums.
regarding the income tax, once pandoras box is opened it will never get shut.
i too think it is a waste of $ to build a fence along aurora bridge and the government squanders millions on other non essentials.
September 11, 2010 at 4:37 am #701394
JoBParticipantBiker Dude…
i can think of many things i wish our state hadn’t spent money on..
until i need them.
focus on the essentials..
because if we don’t get some cash into the treasury there won’t be enough money to fund them.
September 11, 2010 at 5:40 am #701395
BikerDudeMemberprivate business employees at many firms have taken across the board pay cuts! why can’t the state, county and city do the same. i had to cut back on my one employees time in part due to the states reckless increase in the b & o tax.
September 11, 2010 at 6:01 pm #701396
JoBParticipantBikerDude…
I think the country already cut back 10% across the board.
And i am pretty sure both the city and the state have had similar expense reductions.
Some departments were wise enough to cut expenses instead of payroll… when your income depends upon sales taxes.. cutting wages first is self defeating.
If you run a bike shop..
you don’t fire the guy who spends big bucks on his bike unless you have no other choice:(
I don’t know why you have such a thing about state employees…
but maybe you should think this one through
September 13, 2010 at 8:46 am #701397
HMC RichParticipantBiker Dude. You are on the right path.
September 13, 2010 at 7:18 pm #701398
KBearParticipantTax the Rich! And his little dog, too!
September 15, 2010 at 9:37 am #701399
HMC RichParticipantGood One! Isn’t she cute?
September 15, 2010 at 3:52 pm #701400
JoBParticipantSeptember 15, 2010 at 5:58 pm #701401
villagegreenMemberThe fence on the Aurora bridge and the monorail debacle are irrelevant to the OP’s comment. The basic question is, would you rather have a byzantine number of regressive taxes that continually get voted on or a sane progressive income tax that is fair to both the poor and rich and makes it easier to ensure necessary programs get the money they need?
I’m no expert, but Washington state seems to have painted itself into a corner. There are so many insane taxes and iniatives here that people are too frightened to even think clearly when the idea of an income tax is raised. Do you understand that your property taxes are so high because we don’t have an income tax. Ditto with the sales tax and B&O tax. All would go down were an income tax implemented. Our faux-progressive state is below Texas and Georgia when it comes to regressive taxes. The rich pay about 2.6% of their income in taxes, while the poor pay 17% of their income. It is simply an embarrassment. No other way to frame it.
You can talk all you want about irresponsible spending by the state, but the fact remains, a progressive income tax is the FAIR thing to do. The middle class here is already getting screwed. The fallacy of the “they’re out to get the rich” argument is laughable. Making them pay their fair share is not misplaced anger, it’s called justice.
September 15, 2010 at 6:47 pm #701402
maplesyrupParticipantI don’t think it’s a safe bet that all of those other taxes would go down if we had a state income tax. In fact I suspect we’d get an income tax on top of everything else.
Funny you mention Texas as an example though- they don’t have a state income tax either.
September 15, 2010 at 9:18 pm #701403
HSGParticipantI’ve tried to stay out of the state income tax debate, but I’ve seen several threads that point to the discrepancy between what rich and poor people pay in taxes as a reason to support a state income tax. I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim rich people don’t pay their fair share simply because their WA state taxes amount to only 2.6% of their income. Correct me if I am wrong, but all residents of WA are also residents of the US. As this article in the Wall Street Journal points out, an estimate 45% of US households do not pay federal income taxes. My guess is that if you look at total tax burden, the rich do indead pay more in taxes as a percentage of income than the poor. What is fair and whether the % the rich pay is enough is a valid debate, but at least let’s be honest about how much everyone is paying. The total is what affects a persons bottom line, not just what they pay to their state.
September 15, 2010 at 10:22 pm #701404
DPMember—And it’s not just sales taxes that are regressive, either. Here’s a list of other stuff that poor people pay a greater percentage of their income for:
- Lattés (4.9% for poor people vs. 0.01% for rich people)
- Cell Phones (10.2% vs. 0.07%)
- Rent-to-Own Furniture (13.1% vs. 0.0%)
- Lottery Tickets (7.3% vs. 0.0%)
- Payday Loans (11.4% vs. 0.0%)
- Self-help Books (6.0% vs. 0.0%)
Where did I get these figures? I made them up of course. Still, for all of these items I’m quite sure the poor do spend a greater percentage of their income than do the rich. But so what? Does the fact that poor people pay a greater share of their income for lattés mean that they’re paying more than their fair share for lattés?
—No. It does not.
Looking at tax as a percentage of income alone is not necessarily the best way to assess the fairness of the tax structure. If you’re going to judge fairness according to, “Who pays the greatest share?” then shouldn’t you also ask, “Who gets the greatest return on their tax dollar?” If you look at it that way, you would have to say that, in fact, middle class people get the best deal, simply because, as the largest group, they are bound to receive the largest share of public services paid for by tax dollars, even though they do not pay the lion’s share of the tax.
At some point in the debate about what’s fair you also have to ask what’s a fair wage for people to get paid for different kinds of work. Is Bill Gates paid fairly for what he does? What about the people who clean his house? Or houses, as the case may be.
Something tells me we’re not ready to have that debate just yet. Still, I’m glad people are starting to think more about the question of fairness, because it’s important.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.