Or to put the crisis in more immediate terms, without new taxes, the legislature simply cannot meet the court-ordered K-12 funding requirements demanded under McCleary. To be clear, Washington State is facing a constitutional crisis. The court has ordered billions of dollars a year more for public education, an order with which the legislature will not comply. Yet the court lacks the authority to levy taxes. So how does the court enforce its will?

What authority, exactly and specifically, does the State Supreme Court have? Every time I ask how this could break down legally and procedurally based upon the state constitution if Republicans don't end their intransigence, no one ever says.

@1 I believe the court could issue a writ instructing the governor to, say, enact across the board budget cuts in order to free up money for McCleary. If the governor refuses, he could be held in contempt, and fined or imprisoned. But slashing the rest of government to fund K-12 would be economically disastrous, morally reprehensible, and the Republicans' wet dream come true. So that scenario is unlikely.

The problem with our constitutional government is that it relies on government officials obeying the constitution. It's not like the court has its own police force to impose its will; it just counts on everybody obeying, because the rule of law.

@2 does the court have the power to order state police to lock up legislators for non-compliance or contempt? I'm really not kidding.

I agree, get rid of property tax limits and fairly assess washingtonians based on them paying fair shares.

@4 you know, for how much you call that, have you ever even lived in a state WITH such property taxes? I have. It's good, but it's only a part of the solution. You're conservative, so I have no clue why you're advocating this. It would raise your cost of living and rents down in Kent.

In my native Connecticut, it worked like this:

1. Towns set their own binannual budgets. If a town's people want to spend a LOT of money to have an awesome town and schools, they would. Their selectmen or councils or whatever would enact the budget.

2. EVERY SINGLE THING damn near in the towns gets assessed. Every 2-5 years. For cars, it's often Blue Book or something similar.

3. To fund the budget, towns set mill or millage rates. For every $1000 in property value, you pay x. The breakdown broadly is Residential, Commercial, and Industrial. Then you get sub-breakdowns of that -- cars, boats, trucks, fleets, undeveloped land, multi-family, retail, office space, etc. For discussion, let's say it's 30 for Residential, 20 Commercial, and 40 Industrial.

4. Towns set priorities on this--want more commercial? Set that lower. Compete with your neighbor. Steal a business. Want more home development? Set Residential lower. You can also decide priorities on who funds you more. All towns did this on their own.

5. My Residential mill rate is 30 for 2014-2015. I own a $100,000 house and a $5,000 car. My assessed value is $150,000. For the next two years, I will pay 150k times $30 = $4500 a year. Usually quarterly. THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND ANY OTHER TAXES. So, in two years, I will pay my town $9000. Of this, 100% of that value by law goes to MY TOWN EXCLUSIVELY. They then spread it out amongst schools, payroll, whatever else per our priorities. I was fortunate in that my home town spent a TON of it's tax funding on schools and parks as a priority. Some towns take in nearly no taxes and have shitty services.

6. If we had the system as described above, and Kent charged home owners and multi-family landlords a mill rate of say 20, you know what happens? Your apartment building is assessed at $1,000,000. That's 1000k. 1000k times 20 = +$20,000 a year in expenses for the landlord. Let's say that apartment building has eight units. If you don't think that isn't going to be a 20000/12/8 = +$208.34/per month rent rate for every renter in every unit, you're insane.

Just so we're clear, all your screaming about property taxes is actually not what people in your political spectrum normally want. There's a reason that (as far as I'm aware) this system is a staple in New England, from where most progressive legislation incubates for the nation.

Why exactly are YOU always pushing this?

@3 Legislators are immune from arrest and prosecution during session; even speeding tickets. So I doubt the court could enforce contempt citations.

#5

I'm confused. Where in CT can you get a house that is $100,000 (and assessed at $150,000) ?

@7 that was a simple math example that I fucked up with a typo. But if you wanted to move to a scenic state with a proud working class liberal tradition, here is a Zillow link of every single family home for sale for $100,000 or less right now -- 1,067 results. Avoid Bridgeport (one of my home towns) and Waterbury. Litchfield County, especially the furthest north and west you get, is prettiest in my opinion.

#8, but really #5

So you would pay $4,500 a year on a $150,000 home in CT.

Yet, as I pick a house at random in Ballard, the tax rate is much less (per assessed value):

Year Property taxes Change Tax assessment Change
More
2012 $3,834 -- $357,000 --

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1611-N…

The courts could suspend tax exemptions until the legislature fully funds education,

That would work.

@9 no, that's not how it works in CT. You would pay what your town says subject to assessment and changing every 2 years. Sometimes down; usually a little up. You're a conservative advocating years for higher tax rates, which I can't wrap my head around -- why?

If we had this, other taxes wouldn't get cut. That's the point of what Goldy is saying. MORE revenue, not less.

#11

Just for the record, it's hard to argue with a person who both accuses you of being something, and then wonders why you don't act the way you should.

Hey Goldstein, we're not going to have an income tax, you bloated piece of shit. If that's what you want, move back to your home planet.