Slog Comments


Comments (7) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
TheMisanthrope 1
Why don't you do some investigative reporting on how the plaintiffs of the lawsuit plan to address the needed restructuring of our tax system into a more progressive structure if they succeed in repealing the initiatives?

Or, how about asking them what their plan for new tax hikes will be.

Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on September 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM · Report this
pdonahue 2
Point taken, although I may bitch a lot about Eyeman and his army, the real issue of tax revolts have yet to be addressed. While I may not agree that WA should become a Bantustand of gated communities, the rest of the voting public is sick of the lottery and tobacco paying for basic services.
The levy for operating expenses for the library was last straw, have they no shame? I agree, dig into how our tax system can be made more progressive instead of defensively beating back another Eyeman initiative.
Posted by pdonahue on September 26, 2012 at 3:21 PM · Report this
I don't get it. For the feds, the legal question has to be ripe. Just passing a law does not make it ripe - there has to be an injury or threatened injury to plaintiff. One could argue (if not successfully) that until the legislature passes (or doesn't) a measure based on the dictates of the initiative then there has been no injury.
Posted by BLUE on September 26, 2012 at 3:59 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 5
You mean like them taxing people who don't use the Billionaires Tunnel?

Oh, wait, you're ignoring the real news of the day.

Never mind.
Posted by Will in Seattle on September 26, 2012 at 4:37 PM · Report this
Teslick 6
From the Department of Revenue:
In the first of many subsequent instances of citizens attempting to directly influence the tax system, the voters approved two initiatives in 1932. One imposed a limitation on property tax rates equal to 40 mills (one mill = 0.001). The other established a state personal and corporate income tax. This was intended to provide more balance to the tax system and reduce property taxes. However, in a landmark decision handed down in early 1933, the State Supreme Court disallowed the income tax by interpreting income as constituting property and therefore implying that a tax on income would be in violation of the Constitution unless it were applied uniformly. (Because of personal exemptions and graduated rates, income taxes are rarely uniform.)
The income tax passed with over 70%, so I guess if the Legislature wanted to bring it back, that would be ok, as it was the "will of the people".
Posted by Teslick on September 26, 2012 at 6:14 PM · Report this
Steve Zemke 7
If you believe the State Supreme Court on uniformity then it should be possible to challenge all of the tax exemptions for B & O taxes by various businesses as unconstitutional since they also affect the income of businesses including individual businesses owned by one person but result in B&O taxes being set at different rates for different businesses.
Posted by Steve Zemke on October 2, 2012 at 9:00 AM · Report this
BombasticMO 8
Did Brad Owen have an answer?
Posted by BombasticMO on October 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.