State Income Tax

[JanS]

I noticed, DP, that your list of things that the poor may pay more for are things that those with tons of money probably never ever use…way to pigeonhole the poor. (except the lattes and cell phones – I can bet you that the people in the big SUV’s that live on easy street don’t sweat the price of lattes and cell phones).

I dislike generalizations like that, even if just using as an example.

Share This

[Carson]

I think the numbers might be a little off, but the point is made. You did forget a few, like Mistresses, Alimony (one probably follows the other) which the rich pay more than the poor. Dining out, which the rich might do less often, but it takes a lot of trips to McDonalds for the family to equal one power lunch at The Met…etc etc

Share This

[JoB]

HSG…

can you tell me again how the federal taxes that the rich in Washington pay will solve the deficit in Washington?

because revenue here is the issue…

the poor pay disproportionately more of their income in this state to support state revenue than the rich…

Share This

[HSG]

I’m not claiming federal taxes have any impact on the deficit in WA, and I am not taking a pro or con stance on a state income tax. There is a spectrum of contributions, through taxes, that supports city, county, state, and federal services. Some groups pay more, proportionally, to one level of government than another, but everyone is paying something at some level. It seems to me that debates about taxes always come down to what is fair. If that is going to be the crux of the debate I just don’t think one can’t look at WA taxes in a vacuum.

Share This

[JoB]

HSG..

of course you can look at washington taxes in a vacuum…

because taxes levied elsewhere don’t affect washington revenue…

Share This

[HSG]

My objection to the 2.6% vs 17% fairness argument, and confining the argument to WA only, is that I don’t think it will ever convince non-believers that tax reform is needed. If someone already thinks they pay too much in taxes, do they really care if their contribution to WA is disproportionate to their income, and not fair?

I routinely hear cut taxes and shrink government uttered in the same breath by people who feel overtaxed. Hearts and minds campaigns are destined to fail if one isn’t willing to speak that same language as the audience.

Share This

[JoB]

HSG…

i don’t know how to break this to you…

the proposed income tax affects only a very small percentage of the voters in washington

but the tax breaks that homeowners will get affect everyone.

the majority of voters unfairly pay more than their fair share of their incomes to support the state…

put that way… i am guessing this resonates with the majority of voters far more than those who want to defeat this tax would like to admit.

no wonder those who would defeat this measure want us to focus on cutting taxes and shrinking government

Share This

[HMC Rich]

I haven’t done my research but I have a question. When a state has passed an income tax, has it stayed at the original rate?

Here’s some “useless” trivia. Once enacted the Federal tax rate in 1913 for the wealthy started at 7%. In five years it shot up to 77%. During WWII it ended up at around 94% for earners making $1,000,000.00.

A history of Federal taxes: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Here are the type of taxes imposed locally and by states. http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/state-local.shtml

I have a feeling that politicians cannot leave well enough alone. Rhode Island started an income tax in 1971 and now it is the fifth highest (from History in Wikipedia). More “useless” trivia JoB.

Also, I could be wrong but there might be a clause in the Washington State Constitution that states varying levels of taxation/property are not allowed. Here is an article that address Fact vs Fiction.

http://www.olympianews.org/2010/03/06/myths-and-facts-about-the-income-tax-in-washington-state/

Lets try to deal with reality on the subject, OK?

Share This

[JoB]

HMCRich…

Washington..

this is Washington… it is not Vermont.

It is as likely that Washington would follow the example of other states where income tax has not increased… as it would follow Vermont where it has.

and the specter of national taxation loses some of it’s luster when you realize that even before the Bush tax breaks to the wealthy.. the income tax rate was considerably less than you quoted.

As for the clause in the constitution you refer to ..

you probably should read the link you provided :)

good link.

Share This

[HSG]

JoB- I thought this thread was about a state income tax and state tax reform in general. I believe these are much more contentious issues and warrant deeper dscussion than 1098 alone.

HMC Rich- my experience is that once enacted taxes increase more often than decrease. Unless this can be addressed with a pretty iron clad plan to mitgate future increases, people will remain skeptical of any income tax. Some will even vote against one that may actually be in their immediate best interest, i.e. 1098 for non-wealthy property owners.

DP- to your point about not being ready for a larger discussion of what is fair in society, like fair wages for certain jobs, people have been discussing ideology for ages. I think it is a lot harder to change a person’s opinion of right and wrong, or fair and unfair, than it is to gain consensus on the best resolution to a single issue. Of course if both sides only approach the issue with idealogical arguments rather than say a cost/benefit analysis, consensus is pretty hard to reach.

Share This

[JoB]

HSG…

;->

did you really want me to ignore HMCRich’s points?

He’s a nice guy…. really…

ignoring him would be just plain rude.

I am pretty sure HMCRich counts on me for his late night entertainment.

Fair taxation isn’t a new concept.

I can’t think of a tax that doesn’t have exemptions designed to levy more tax on those who can afford to pay more… and either defer or eliminate tax on those who can’t.. including the sales tax which excludes food.

Nor is the idea of a limited tax…

nothing new here at all…

including the sales tactics used to try to defeat this measure.

Share This

[redblack]

HSG: the whole reason we’re discussing a state income tax is because of I-1098, which only affects the top 3%. seems to me that it serves the interests of the anti-1098 camp to discuss this as if it affects everyone, to decry taxation in general, and to express distrust of politicians and government.

my $.02: the city of seattle, knowing how it is loathed by the rest of the state, should implement its own 1-2% income tax, as well as a 5-10% MVET.

we have infrastructure/maintenance projects here – even shovel-ready ones – that should not be held hostage to county, region, or state-wide initiatives.

let’s fund our own public transportation for a change and let the state and county worry about the roads.

Share This

[Author]

Posts