Slog Comments

 

Comments (11) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
Isn't this mostly for transportation, and thus mostly for already subsidized counties that have further distances to bring kids to schools?

In other words, more subsidies for rural areas.

Why not just expire all the tax giveaways to rich corporations?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on December 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM · Report this
2
To me, a fee is just a tax with a different name. Jay Inslee can say that he won't raise taxes - technically. However, if he raises fees here and there, as he'll probably have to, then he'll be breaking his campaign promise. So why not just go ahead and do it? I don't have a problem with an income tax, provided the funds are invested in the state and the people, not funneled to wealthy interests. (Which is what would eventually happen anyway. In any case.)
Posted by floater on December 18, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
3
As always, I'm in favor of a state income tax IF AND ONLY IF we get rid of the sales tax 100%
Or tax system is all messed up.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 4
I only regret that I have but one liver to give for our children!

Shouldn't there also be a dollar a liter tax on wine? Why let snooty, Frenchified oenophiles escape the tax?
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on December 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 5
Using revenues from drug money to fund education seems like a bad idea.

That means the schools have a vested interest in getting people to buy as much booze as possible, right?

Anyone else see a problem with that?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on December 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 6
@4 because snooty elitists like me who drink wine mostly donate to the political elites.

Oh, you were asking ironically ... sorry.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on December 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM · Report this
7
Increasing regressive taxes (fuel, alcohol,..) won't help the families of the students who need most help (middle class on down). It should be a non-starter.
Posted by anon1256 on December 18, 2012 at 1:36 PM · Report this
Hernandez 8
@5 Hell yeah. We've been attempting to fix our budget problems by jacking up all manner of sin taxes (soon to include pot!) and I think it's sick.

We've created a perverse incentive to keep people smoking cigarettes and drinking excessively because it increases the size of the band aid that sin taxes places on top of our glaring, chronic budget problems.

As someone who recently quit smoking after a little over a decade, I think it's fucking immoral. The state should not be relying on people killing themselves through substance abuse in order to stay above water.
Posted by Hernandez http://hernandezlist.blogspot.com on December 18, 2012 at 1:56 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 9
@8 who do you think crafted the tobacco settlement in the first place? Chris did.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on December 18, 2012 at 2:16 PM · Report this
10
@8 - Taxing practices that threaten the economic viability of healthcare has some merit, but progressive taxation sets the stage for improving the opportunities of those who don't get many. More is needed than just financing education any which way especially when it involves taxing those who can least afford it.
Posted by anon1256 on December 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 11

Hello..hello...fishbase?

Come in fishbase! Fishbase, come in.

Dammit, why don't they answer!!!

http://www.fishbase.org
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on December 18, 2012 at 5:56 PM · Report this

Add a comment