September 9, 2010
Tax the Filthy Rich!
The Case for the Income-Tax Initiative, by the Numbers
Tools
Washington State has the most regressive taxes of any state in the country. In Washington, poor people pay 17.3 percent of their income in taxes, while the filthy rich pay only 2.6 percent of their income in taxes. This is the result of our state's heavy reliance on the sales tax, which accounts for over 50 percent of all state revenue. Imagine two families, one rich and one poor, going to the same store and buying the same basket of goods and subjected to the same sales tax. For the poor family, it's a much heavier burden than for the rich family. The sensible way to even out the tax burden is to tax income, like most other states. But Washington doesn't have an income tax. Never has. Hence our status as a national embarrassment—more regressive on taxes than even Texas or Georgia.
As the debate heats up over Initiative 1098, you're going to be hearing a lot about "the taxpayers of Washington State." But it's a very small minority of high-income earners—only about 38,400 of them—who would be paying the new income tax. That's because it's a tax only on individuals who earn over $200,000 in a year or on couples who file a joint tax return that shows them collectively earning more than $400,000 in a year. (Meaning that if you're half of a wealthy couple and together you earn $399,999 a year, you don't have to pay any income tax under I-1098. Hence that segment of the pyramid, right below the top, where you see 72,858 tax returns from people who earn more than $200,000 per year but wouldn't have to pay. Those are returns from couples who are well-off but don't hit the $400,000-per-couple threshold.) The new income tax on the 38,400 wealthiest Washingtonians would bring in about $2 billion annually for education and health-care programs—programs that help working families and the middle class the most.
Stranger Personals
In Washington, people who earn an average of $11,000 a year currently pay 17.3 percent of their income in taxes, but people who earn $1.8 million a year pay only 2.6 percent of their income in taxes. It's like a sliding scale that's sliding in the wrong direction. Or trickle-up economics. Or a subsidy for moguls and CEOs. Washington currently has a $3 billion projected budget shortfall for the next two-year budgeting cycle—which means, just like in the last budgeting cycle, programs dealing with everything from health care to public education are going to be hacked away at. Perversely, those cuts will land hardest on those who already pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes.
Bleak numbers, but this initiative could help. In addition to adding a high-earners income tax, if I-1098 passes, the rich and poor alike in this state will get a 20 percent cut in their state property taxes. And 93 percent of all businesses would get a tax cut or an exemption from B&O taxes. Economic stimulus! (This despite claims by opponents that I-1098 is going to hurt businesses in Washington.)
The main argument from income-tax opponents is that I-1098 is just the beginning. Wait a few years, they say, and it won't be just the filthy rich who are paying income tax—it'll be everyone. How will this happen? The Democrats in the state legislature! They'll expand the income tax! They can't resist! The truth is, in the entire history of Washington State, the state legislature—whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans—has never successfully implemented an income tax. Politicians in Olympia are simply too cowardly to touch this idea. In any case, even if they did decide to destroy their careers by taxing more than just the filthy rich, citizens always have the last word. They can reverse an action of the legislature by initiative or, as they seem likely to do this fall, vote for an initiative like I-1053 (also on the ballot in November) that makes it harder for Olympia lawmakers to institute any tax increases in the first place by requiring a two-thirds majority for any such move.
Who's behind the $1.5 million campaign against finally fixing the most regressive tax structure in the country? People like Matt McIlwain, the Seattle venture capitalist who was ranked 57th on the Forbes Midas List in 2009 and has personally donated $5,000 (while his venture capital firm has kicked in $50,000) to defeat I-1098. McIlwain sent his kid to private school and supports the anti-gay-marriage group Families Northwest. Wireless communications magnate John Stanton and his wife, Theresa Gillespie, one of the richest couples in America, estimated to be worth more than $1 billion, have put in $75,000 to defeat I-1098. And let's not forget Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen, who earned $1.13 million in salary and bonuses in 1999, according to the Wall Street Journal, and whose editorial page has led the rhetorical charge against I-1098. Let's say Blethen now earns only $1 million a year (times are tough for newspapers) and files a joint tax return. Under I-1098, Blethen would be paying only 3 percent of his earned income in taxes. Let's say times have gotten really tough and Blethen these days earns only $500,000 a year. In that case, he'd pay only 1 percent of his income in taxes under I-1098. Boo-hoo. The main mover behind I-1098, Bill Gates Sr., a famous lawyer and philanthropist and father, has put $500,000 of his own money into the campaign to pass the high-earners income tax. He is one of those people at the top of the pyramid, so he would pay the tax. Happily. 
1
Excellent article, Mr. Sanders, excellent article.
It is amazing how those corporate-owned cretins are forever chanting:
Lower corporate taxes....lower corporate taxes
Like some brain-dead zombie from a cheapie horror vid.
But according to GAO studies over the previous decade, over 70 percent of American-based corporations and multinationals pay absolutely no federal taxes.
In 2009, GE paid ZERO federal taxes. Ditto ExxonMobil.
And, when those private equity firms go public, they have continued (thanks to a completely corrupt congress) to pay 15 percent capital gains tax, when they should be paying the corporate tax rate of 35 percent.
And all those offshore financial centers, where they do all that profit laundering, transfer pricing, profit shifting, and hiding both capital and debt to avoid any and all taxation.
Unbelievable! That is, to honest and ethical people.
We don't need any less corporate taxation, we need and require massive and gargantuan tax recovery on those bandits for the past 20 years.
So what happens to the American tax payer? They are stiffed with ever increasing real, overt and covert taxation due to all those super-rich who avoid paying taxes.
And the Bush Administration's contribution? They dissolved the division within the IRS (the "high roller" division) which typically went after the high-net-worth-individuals and wealthiest corporations for tax recovery; said tax recovery yielded the highest revnues until Bush abolished them.
It is amazing how those corporate-owned cretins are forever chanting:
Lower corporate taxes....lower corporate taxes
Like some brain-dead zombie from a cheapie horror vid.
But according to GAO studies over the previous decade, over 70 percent of American-based corporations and multinationals pay absolutely no federal taxes.
In 2009, GE paid ZERO federal taxes. Ditto ExxonMobil.
And, when those private equity firms go public, they have continued (thanks to a completely corrupt congress) to pay 15 percent capital gains tax, when they should be paying the corporate tax rate of 35 percent.
And all those offshore financial centers, where they do all that profit laundering, transfer pricing, profit shifting, and hiding both capital and debt to avoid any and all taxation.
Unbelievable! That is, to honest and ethical people.
We don't need any less corporate taxation, we need and require massive and gargantuan tax recovery on those bandits for the past 20 years.
So what happens to the American tax payer? They are stiffed with ever increasing real, overt and covert taxation due to all those super-rich who avoid paying taxes.
And the Bush Administration's contribution? They dissolved the division within the IRS (the "high roller" division) which typically went after the high-net-worth-individuals and wealthiest corporations for tax recovery; said tax recovery yielded the highest revnues until Bush abolished them.
3
That pyramid confuses me. Is the top section (38,400 returns) the $200,000+ bracket or are the top two sections? Both say 200,000+, but the second from the top says it would have an estimated 72,858 returns. Are all individuals who make $200,000+ getting taxed, or would some have to pay and others wouldn't?
4
@#3 - The pyrimad is explaining that only those who file as making 200K and above if filing alone, or those making 400K or above who file jointly will be required to pay the income tax.
Basically, if you don't make 200K or more, you don't pay it. Period. It's only the REALLY rich who would be taxed.
Basically, if you don't make 200K or more, you don't pay it. Period. It's only the REALLY rich who would be taxed.
5
Nevermind. After rereading the article, it's explained below. I guess the lower 200,000+ bracket is couples making over $200,000, but only individuals that make $200,000+ or couples making $400,000+ get taxed.
I still think the graph's confusing. :P
I still think the graph's confusing. :P
6
@Hover_Dog: From the article:
"Hence that segment of the pyramid, right below the top, where you see 72,858 tax returns from people who earn more than $200,000 per year but wouldn't have to pay. Those are returns from couples who are well-off but don't hit the $400,000-per-couple threshold."
"Hence that segment of the pyramid, right below the top, where you see 72,858 tax returns from people who earn more than $200,000 per year but wouldn't have to pay. Those are returns from couples who are well-off but don't hit the $400,000-per-couple threshold."
7
Wow, that's what I get for not refreshing right before posting my comment...
I agree though, the graph is confusing.
I agree though, the graph is confusing.
9
Good points but you fail to address an underlying issue I have with the bill: why should someone have to pay more in absolute dollars simply because they earned more money?
10
The graphs and numbers in this article will only scare or anger you if you are politically aligned with the author. Most of the facts and figures here actually make me feel really fortunate to live in this state.
11
The thing is, there are so many wealthy people (thanks to the software industry, etc) in this state who make a modest SALARY but live off of stock options and such, and only pay 15% in federal capital gains.
They don't MAKE AN INCOME -- a paycheck -- so they won't be paying this new state INCOME tax.
So really, I think those who support this tax are not being straight about who will really PAY. Will the proverbial software millionaire pay it? Doesn't sound like they'll need to pay a cent of it; they only pay their 15% CG's to the feds.
Seems like this state income tax will place a very heavy burden on those who already drive the economy -- small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc. I know, you probably don't feel bad for "them", but believe me, they pay a bundle already in insurance, federal income tax, state B&O, benefits for employees, etc etc etc. Those taxes are already making it difficult to stay afloat as a business and individually.
I won't be voting for this thing.
They don't MAKE AN INCOME -- a paycheck -- so they won't be paying this new state INCOME tax.
So really, I think those who support this tax are not being straight about who will really PAY. Will the proverbial software millionaire pay it? Doesn't sound like they'll need to pay a cent of it; they only pay their 15% CG's to the feds.
Seems like this state income tax will place a very heavy burden on those who already drive the economy -- small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc. I know, you probably don't feel bad for "them", but believe me, they pay a bundle already in insurance, federal income tax, state B&O, benefits for employees, etc etc etc. Those taxes are already making it difficult to stay afloat as a business and individually.
I won't be voting for this thing.
12
@JF, it's not a bill, it's an initiative. It's an interesting philosophical question, I suppose. You could also ask why someone making less than $20,000 should pay any taxes at all. All that said, and to paraphrase an old dead dude, it's the price of civilized society. The rich get their money and all the protection that goes along with it and everyone else gets a break on property taxes. Also, many businesses benefit with the decrease in B&O taxes.
13
@11: Nice try, but adjusted gross income includes capital gains.
However, you're right about small business owners, doctors and lawyers being treated differently: if they own their own business, they will get a pretty substantial B&O tax break, not to mention the property tax breaks they will get on their home, lakefront property, and business property.
Your post deserves an 'A' for creativity, but an 'F' for intelligent thought.
However, you're right about small business owners, doctors and lawyers being treated differently: if they own their own business, they will get a pretty substantial B&O tax break, not to mention the property tax breaks they will get on their home, lakefront property, and business property.
Your post deserves an 'A' for creativity, but an 'F' for intelligent thought.
15
-Too much of a burden already
93% of businesses will no longer have to pay a B&O tax, in case you're wondering that's the percent of businesses that typically don't post a significant profit.
In addition, those small business owners, doctors, and lawyers will get a 20% state property tax REDUCTION on ALL their homes.
And if they send their children to public schools, their children will experience an increase in the quality of education.
If anyone is carrying too much of the burden surely you can agree it is the 63% of Washington families paying between 8 and 18% of their income into state taxes.
93% of businesses will no longer have to pay a B&O tax, in case you're wondering that's the percent of businesses that typically don't post a significant profit.
In addition, those small business owners, doctors, and lawyers will get a 20% state property tax REDUCTION on ALL their homes.
And if they send their children to public schools, their children will experience an increase in the quality of education.
If anyone is carrying too much of the burden surely you can agree it is the 63% of Washington families paying between 8 and 18% of their income into state taxes.
16
Not a single nickel more in taxes until the state can show that it is spending current tax revenues efficiently and effectively. Every agency should be subjected to an independent efficiency review to determine if we, the taxpayers, are getting value for our dollar.
In the private sector, we are required every so often to prove that we are using the resources we're given effectively. The public sector should have to do the same, but tell me - when was the last time this happened?
In the private sector, we are required every so often to prove that we are using the resources we're given effectively. The public sector should have to do the same, but tell me - when was the last time this happened?
17
@9-- Because they're also LEFT with a lot more in absolute dollars. It's not about what you pay, it's about how much you have left to live on.
Even in a flat tax structure (which is also a stupid idea, but let's use it for the sake of the example) the rich person pays more in real dollars.
Example: Person A makes $20k and is taxed 10%; Person B makes $200k and is taxed 10%. Person A is only left with $18k to try to live an entire year on while PERSON B STILL HAS $180k!
Yes, I know that this is obvious and that we all know this, but the simple fact is that Person B will be just fine and Person A will probably not even be able to live on their income.
Now, shifting the example to take the real numbers into account: Person A actually has $16,540 while Person B is cruising along in their shiny new boat counting their $194,800.
Now, with what's left (which, again, is the real point here), tell me who can afford to pay a little more in real dollars...
Even in a flat tax structure (which is also a stupid idea, but let's use it for the sake of the example) the rich person pays more in real dollars.
Example: Person A makes $20k and is taxed 10%; Person B makes $200k and is taxed 10%. Person A is only left with $18k to try to live an entire year on while PERSON B STILL HAS $180k!
Yes, I know that this is obvious and that we all know this, but the simple fact is that Person B will be just fine and Person A will probably not even be able to live on their income.
Now, shifting the example to take the real numbers into account: Person A actually has $16,540 while Person B is cruising along in their shiny new boat counting their $194,800.
Now, with what's left (which, again, is the real point here), tell me who can afford to pay a little more in real dollars...
18
@8 um, but the tax on 1 cent is ... um, what?
Time to get rid of more corporate tax exemptions and tax writeoffs.
Time to get rid of more corporate tax exemptions and tax writeoffs.
19
@12-- "...to paraphrase an old dead dude, it's the price of civilized society."
This is precisely right. I am a single home owner with no children who pays a BUNCH of money every year in property taxes. Much of that tax money goes to pay for public schools. Why should I pay that money if I have no children using those public schools? Why? Because that is the price I pay for living in a society where we need educated people to make everything work. I might not be using the dollars directly, but I am getting direct benefit.
And my house is worth more than my neighbor's, so I pay more (and they have a child...gasp!).
Pretty simple, really.
This is precisely right. I am a single home owner with no children who pays a BUNCH of money every year in property taxes. Much of that tax money goes to pay for public schools. Why should I pay that money if I have no children using those public schools? Why? Because that is the price I pay for living in a society where we need educated people to make everything work. I might not be using the dollars directly, but I am getting direct benefit.
And my house is worth more than my neighbor's, so I pay more (and they have a child...gasp!).
Pretty simple, really.
20
Good points 11. A friend of mine once told me that the tax system in this country is designed to punish income and reward wealth. Cutting property taxes and going after income couldn't be clearer proof. Your pyramid is about income, not wealth. Way to protect those who inherit or make so much that the concept of a "pay check" is nonsense to them. But go ahead and feel good about it as you pass it. Then when the dollar depreciates even more and some of you actually experience some success in life and the two converge to push you into the 200+ zone you will look back at your naivete right now and laugh and/or cry.
Start rants about how "if I ever made that much money I'd be HAPPY to pay......" now.
And for the record, this tax doesn't apply to me and is incredibly unlikely to at any point.
Start rants about how "if I ever made that much money I'd be HAPPY to pay......" now.
And for the record, this tax doesn't apply to me and is incredibly unlikely to at any point.
21
1098 is a tax cut on property tax.
It's regressive because it gives the biggest asset owners the biggest tax giveaway.
The property tax cut will take away 1/2 a trillion dollars in taxes from the state.
This bill is "faux populism". It increases taxes on people who work for their money, and reduces taxes on people who have idle assets.
Overtime, it is obvious they will ratchet down the floor for who pays income tax until everyone is paying it and the state becomes even more unbalanced.
Over the next few years, we will experience a great compression in which high end incomes will come tumbling down.
That will leave an entrenched high asset class - whose taxes you wish to cut. And an income tax. The politicians will then remove the floor and tax everyone. At that point, 16 moves ahead, all we all left with is a tax cut for those will supersized assets.
It's regressive because it gives the biggest asset owners the biggest tax giveaway.
The property tax cut will take away 1/2 a trillion dollars in taxes from the state.
This bill is "faux populism". It increases taxes on people who work for their money, and reduces taxes on people who have idle assets.
Overtime, it is obvious they will ratchet down the floor for who pays income tax until everyone is paying it and the state becomes even more unbalanced.
Over the next few years, we will experience a great compression in which high end incomes will come tumbling down.
That will leave an entrenched high asset class - whose taxes you wish to cut. And an income tax. The politicians will then remove the floor and tax everyone. At that point, 16 moves ahead, all we all left with is a tax cut for those will supersized assets.
22
I'm curious what counts as taxes paid in the chart shown above. Is that purely sales tax? Property tax? Car tabs? I personally am in the bracket above $200K (not by much, probably $230K this year) and am shocked that it says I only pay (on average) $13,000 in taxes. My property taxes alone are over $5000.
23
Now, if we contrast this article with Dominic's article last week, and his bullheaded assertions that sales tax on small items is the way to go, I think we start to see a better picture of who's paying what taxes.
25
In CA, we have the luxury of paying a state income tax AND the highest sales tax in the country. It's a bit too complex to make a point with that information relating to I-1098, but there it is.
26
What I love about 1098 is that the $2 billion it would raise would go towards public education and healthcare and not just go into the state's general account. I'm tired of seeing tax dollars wasted on things we don't need while the schools are suffering so much.
yeson1098.com
yeson1098.com
27
@9, I'm sure if this is the only question you have that keeps you from being persuaded, there is a book (or a uh discipline) on addressing this issue, ranging from the moderate to the extreme.
But basically what persuades me on this point is that the rich, the holders of capital, make it at the expense of the lower paid, who by underpaid labor and consumer spending, credit and banking schemes continually sap the money from these lower paid to the higher echelons. I understand economics is not a zero sum game, that capital is also created (largely by wage labor), but for the most part people are getting ripped off by the rich. As Jon Stewart stated simply, "I don't mind giving back to a society that has given me so much."
So is an income tax redistribution of wealth? Socialism? In some senses it is, but it is also not the straw man tea partiers make it out to be. This is not, god forbid, Canadian Socialism (though really people mean Communist Soviet Russia of course).
But basically what persuades me on this point is that the rich, the holders of capital, make it at the expense of the lower paid, who by underpaid labor and consumer spending, credit and banking schemes continually sap the money from these lower paid to the higher echelons. I understand economics is not a zero sum game, that capital is also created (largely by wage labor), but for the most part people are getting ripped off by the rich. As Jon Stewart stated simply, "I don't mind giving back to a society that has given me so much."
So is an income tax redistribution of wealth? Socialism? In some senses it is, but it is also not the straw man tea partiers make it out to be. This is not, god forbid, Canadian Socialism (though really people mean Communist Soviet Russia of course).
28
#9 (JF):
And why can't we eat corrupt fat people? It's still illegal......for now.
#25 (Dougsf):
And in CA you now have the luxury of voting for the first neocon transexual for the US Senate: Carly (born Carleton) Fiorina.
While I din't have anything against transexuals or Lesbians, I am definitely set against neocon transexuals and Dick Cheney's all-Lesbian family.
I realize it is probable those unfortunates in Caliland will vote for the deep-voiced Carly (born Carleton) Fiorina; after all, they gave us Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Schwarzenegger, but I urge you to please hold on to any shred of sanity you still may possess.
Thanks and have a good day :)
And why can't we eat corrupt fat people? It's still illegal......for now.
#25 (Dougsf):
And in CA you now have the luxury of voting for the first neocon transexual for the US Senate: Carly (born Carleton) Fiorina.
While I din't have anything against transexuals or Lesbians, I am definitely set against neocon transexuals and Dick Cheney's all-Lesbian family.
I realize it is probable those unfortunates in Caliland will vote for the deep-voiced Carly (born Carleton) Fiorina; after all, they gave us Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Schwarzenegger, but I urge you to please hold on to any shred of sanity you still may possess.
Thanks and have a good day :)
29
"Washington state" not "Washington State"
This article opens with the worst manual of style pet peeve. The proper noun "Washington State" refers to WSU. The state is only named Washington.
This article opens with the worst manual of style pet peeve. The proper noun "Washington State" refers to WSU. The state is only named Washington.
30
Eli, I love the food, er, income pyramid, and have a request: could you write up an explanation of today's Seattle Times editorial to explain why a rational business owner (presumably) would oppose this initiative of the basis of "it's too expensive" to change one kind of corporation to another (Chapter C vs. Chapter X, or whatever)?
Thanks.
Thanks.
31
People who vote for 1098 belong in Frank Cassano's Imbecile Parade. The tax will QUICKLY (read: within 5 years) be amended to fall upon most earners, and NOT just the wealthy. This follows a law of physics. The wealthy control the legislature, the wealthy don't want to pay the tax, therefore YOU ALL will pay it. The history of every income tax is that it was sold as "a tax on the wealthy," and each has become a tax on all earners. Further, it won't fix anything that's broken and won't stabilize the state's revenue stream. It is just hidden agenda that the deployment of the tax upon the middle class will be performed incrementally after 1098 passes. It's all part of the plan. Vote for 1098 and fuck yourself.
32
I have a problem with any income tax proposed by people with money already. If it's all such a good idea, why aren't they writing the state a check to cover the deficit voluntarily??
Oh wait, most of Bill Gates Sr's money is probably in property, assets, and other foundations and he doesn't give one damn about this initiative because he gets a nice tax cut on all his assets. Meanwhile, anyone who actually does well in life and starts getting up into the upper middle class gets fucked over thus keeping them from ever competing with someone of Bill Gates' wealth. Than in another two years when the economy is still tanking and the income tax measure brings in half the revenue that was projected (as happened in Oregon), they will lower the floor. It is inevitable due to state legislators always spending every dime that comes in. This WILL NOT solve any problems.
Oh wait, most of Bill Gates Sr's money is probably in property, assets, and other foundations and he doesn't give one damn about this initiative because he gets a nice tax cut on all his assets. Meanwhile, anyone who actually does well in life and starts getting up into the upper middle class gets fucked over thus keeping them from ever competing with someone of Bill Gates' wealth. Than in another two years when the economy is still tanking and the income tax measure brings in half the revenue that was projected (as happened in Oregon), they will lower the floor. It is inevitable due to state legislators always spending every dime that comes in. This WILL NOT solve any problems.
33
#13:
Wow, do you realllllly think lawyers and doctors all live in waterfront properties? You must not know any.
Those folks (small business owners, doctors, lawyers) are already carrying a huge burden PLUS I know many who are being called upon to help support their extended families-- many, because those family members are are unemployed/underemployed/or are elders needing serious assistance. And then, try to pay for your kids' college, and maybe try to save a little bit for their very-soon-to-be elder selves...and they are being crushed from all sides.
This tax is absolutely insane. These folks I'm speaking about are seriously holding this economy together, and if the state of WA starts dinging them any further, it will get so ugly around here....
Wow, do you realllllly think lawyers and doctors all live in waterfront properties? You must not know any.
Those folks (small business owners, doctors, lawyers) are already carrying a huge burden PLUS I know many who are being called upon to help support their extended families-- many, because those family members are are unemployed/underemployed/or are elders needing serious assistance. And then, try to pay for your kids' college, and maybe try to save a little bit for their very-soon-to-be elder selves...and they are being crushed from all sides.
This tax is absolutely insane. These folks I'm speaking about are seriously holding this economy together, and if the state of WA starts dinging them any further, it will get so ugly around here....
34
We need to institute a Jock Tax too. When A-Rod comes to Seattle and makes his 203703.70 per game, we need to tax it. California has collected over 1 billion by taxing visiting sports stars.
35
CAREFUL. Most of those filthy $s you want to tax are going to POOF. Most family businesses, professional partnerships, etc., are sub-s. That means they by-pass the corporate tax and are reported on individual tax returns. If Eli prevails, all those folks can quickly re-elect to go 'c' corp. Whoops, now all those $s you gave away on the property tax break can't be covered. Can we guess on next year's press release. . . . "due to a substantial drop in anticipated revenue from the tax the filthy rich tax, we must lower the taxable income to $60,000...."
By the way, Gates sr. is also a huge fan of estate taxes. But his family will probably pay $0 on that tax. Sounds good, especially after that second Syrah....
By the way, Gates sr. is also a huge fan of estate taxes. But his family will probably pay $0 on that tax. Sounds good, especially after that second Syrah....
37
You do realize that corporations never actually pay taxes? They just increase the price of their products so that, in effect, consumers pay a hidden tax when they buy those products.
38
@Scott S34715 Exactly. All we're doing is medicating symptoms instead of curing diseases. The disease is violence and the reason certain people are so rich is because they use the violence of the state to gain the benefits of corporate, union, or any other status. Honestly, if you ask me, threatening violence against anyone (rich or poor) who refuses to pay money is armed robbery where I come from (CEO or Union Worker). You want to really help people? Start a non-profit charity and show people why it matters to help and ask for their money voluntarily don't threaten to kidnap or kill them if they won't support your cause. When you resort to violence, you simply tell everyone around you that you have no argument. Or else you wouldn't need to use it. Period. Peace out.
39
In regards to the notion that this is just a stepping stone to eventually creating an overall income tax, here's the thing...
So what? Provided there's an eventual lowering of the state sales tax, I'm willing to fork over my percentage for the good of the community. But then, I grew up in a family where we actually NEEDED government assistance for a period of time, so presumably my continued existence on this planet automatically biases me.
So what? Provided there's an eventual lowering of the state sales tax, I'm willing to fork over my percentage for the good of the community. But then, I grew up in a family where we actually NEEDED government assistance for a period of time, so presumably my continued existence on this planet automatically biases me.
40
Thats the whole point here!!! "provided there is an eventual lowering of the sales tax.."
REALLY? Look, this tax is 90% backed by the state employee unions. It will let our state leadership off the hook from tough negotiations. If this was a swapping of taxes, I'm on board 100%. Its not. Its the creation of a whole new revenue stream for government.
REALLY? Look, this tax is 90% backed by the state employee unions. It will let our state leadership off the hook from tough negotiations. If this was a swapping of taxes, I'm on board 100%. Its not. Its the creation of a whole new revenue stream for government.
41
In the private sector, we are required every so often to prove that we are using the resources we're given effectively.
It's always good for an LOL when someone says "but the private sector is more efficient!!!". Having been employed in the technical private sector full-time for over 10 years now, I can say that if this is the model of efficiency, we're all doomed.
It's always good for an LOL when someone says "but the private sector is more efficient!!!". Having been employed in the technical private sector full-time for over 10 years now, I can say that if this is the model of efficiency, we're all doomed.
42
The state already conducts regular, mandatory performance audits.
Hasn't our state consistently ranked in the top 3 in terms of government operational efficiency and overall business climate?
State taxes are deductible against federal, much in the same way that we currently deduct sales taxes above a certain amount, so the point about adding to someone's total tax burden is... ?
Hasn't our state consistently ranked in the top 3 in terms of government operational efficiency and overall business climate?
State taxes are deductible against federal, much in the same way that we currently deduct sales taxes above a certain amount, so the point about adding to someone's total tax burden is... ?
44
I think your article lays out your points in a clear and concise fashion. However, there is a core assumption that sales tax will go down, and more importantly, stay down if we implement an income tax. History shows that our state is very poor at money management...and under the guise of being broke, go back to the tax well. What do you think is the idea target? Sales tax. Maybe its just on candy...or bottled water...or alcoholic beverages, but longer term, it's right at the same spot as today. Then we have the most regressive tax system inthe country...AND an income tax.
Bottom line, based on history, I don't trust the state government.
Bottom line, based on history, I don't trust the state government.
45
I don't have any desire for paying taxes.
And if we don't tax the poor with lottery, sin taxes, sales taxes they might want to live here. The poor are gross.
And if we don't tax the poor with lottery, sin taxes, sales taxes they might want to live here. The poor are gross.
47
If we're trying to reduce the regressiveness of Washington's taxes, why on earth are we offsetting the income tax by reducting PROPERTY TAXES?!
How many of those people paying 17.3% of their income do you think own real property? I'm betting not many. And to anyone who mentions landlords including property tax in rent costs, do you honestly think low rent landlords are going to drop their rates?
The only thing that makes sense is to counter an income tax with a commensurate reduction in sales tax. Sales tax is the most regressive tax we have. Why not target it first?
How many of those people paying 17.3% of their income do you think own real property? I'm betting not many. And to anyone who mentions landlords including property tax in rent costs, do you honestly think low rent landlords are going to drop their rates?
The only thing that makes sense is to counter an income tax with a commensurate reduction in sales tax. Sales tax is the most regressive tax we have. Why not target it first?
48
@9:
a) People pay more a bigger percentage of their money right now if they're making less than $20,000. You could also ask why people are expected to pay more even though they earned less.
b) This is a really easy way to help recover funds without having much of a lifestyle impact on ANYONE, &
c) "Earned" is a subjective term.
a) People pay more a bigger percentage of their money right now if they're making less than $20,000. You could also ask why people are expected to pay more even though they earned less.
b) This is a really easy way to help recover funds without having much of a lifestyle impact on ANYONE, &
c) "Earned" is a subjective term.
50
Few people realize that ALL taxes eventually come out of someone's income. It's just that Washington does it in the least fair and efficient way in the entire country.
The B&O tax is applied at every stage of product development and paid to the state, but it is ALSO added to the cost of the product, passed on to the next level, and eventually SOLD to the end user, who then pays sales tax on the inflated price. The end user is the only one who pays—from his income!
In fiscal 2008, the state collected just over $2.9 billion in B&O taxes from businesses, representing over 18 percent of all taxes collected for the state general fund, and $8.3 billion in retail sales taxes. Those two taxes added together make up about 76% of the 17.3% of income that the poor pay in taxes.
The remainder comes from property taxes. A homebuyer pays tax when buying a house and then has the privilege of paying property taxes EVERY year until he dies or sells the house. The property taxes, again, come out of the homeowner's income. No matter what the income level, those are the taxes every Washingtonian pays, and they all come out of gross personal income.
Since ALL taxes come from income, and the ENTIRE tax load amounts to 9% of aggregate personal income, then a flat income tax of 9% could completely REPLACE the entire unfair and complicated system we have now, with everyone sharing the burden equally. Sure, a lot of rich people would complain that they pay too much. If they would be satisfied to KEEP 91%, they wouldn't mind so much.
I-1098 would demonstrate how this would work, by practically eliminating the B&O tax and eliminating 20% of the state school tax. It would also establish the mechanism for collecting the new income tax. The OFM calculates that this would initially cost $16 million in 2012 and would gradually taper to about $5 million a year.
If the income tax is allowed to "trickle down" to the lowest levels and replace ALL of our present taxes, the county tax collectors would go away, the B&O and sales tax collectors would go away, and we would be left with a very efficient tax collection system collecting a very stable tax.
A bonus would be that every Washington taxpayer who itemizes federal deductions would automatically be able to check the Income Tax block on Line 5, Schedule A, and deduct state income tax. Now, the most anyone in Washington (MFJ) can deduct, without keeping reams of documentation, is $3,339 in sales tax for incomes over $200K in King County. With a 9% WA flat tax, a taxpayer with an AGI of $1 million would get to deduct $90,000 instead and lower his federal tax obligation by 35%. Taking the state and federal taxes together, the millionaire's net state tax paid would be 5.85%, the lowest in the entire country. Who could argue against that?
More...
The B&O tax is applied at every stage of product development and paid to the state, but it is ALSO added to the cost of the product, passed on to the next level, and eventually SOLD to the end user, who then pays sales tax on the inflated price. The end user is the only one who pays—from his income!
In fiscal 2008, the state collected just over $2.9 billion in B&O taxes from businesses, representing over 18 percent of all taxes collected for the state general fund, and $8.3 billion in retail sales taxes. Those two taxes added together make up about 76% of the 17.3% of income that the poor pay in taxes.
The remainder comes from property taxes. A homebuyer pays tax when buying a house and then has the privilege of paying property taxes EVERY year until he dies or sells the house. The property taxes, again, come out of the homeowner's income. No matter what the income level, those are the taxes every Washingtonian pays, and they all come out of gross personal income.
Since ALL taxes come from income, and the ENTIRE tax load amounts to 9% of aggregate personal income, then a flat income tax of 9% could completely REPLACE the entire unfair and complicated system we have now, with everyone sharing the burden equally. Sure, a lot of rich people would complain that they pay too much. If they would be satisfied to KEEP 91%, they wouldn't mind so much.
I-1098 would demonstrate how this would work, by practically eliminating the B&O tax and eliminating 20% of the state school tax. It would also establish the mechanism for collecting the new income tax. The OFM calculates that this would initially cost $16 million in 2012 and would gradually taper to about $5 million a year.
If the income tax is allowed to "trickle down" to the lowest levels and replace ALL of our present taxes, the county tax collectors would go away, the B&O and sales tax collectors would go away, and we would be left with a very efficient tax collection system collecting a very stable tax.
A bonus would be that every Washington taxpayer who itemizes federal deductions would automatically be able to check the Income Tax block on Line 5, Schedule A, and deduct state income tax. Now, the most anyone in Washington (MFJ) can deduct, without keeping reams of documentation, is $3,339 in sales tax for incomes over $200K in King County. With a 9% WA flat tax, a taxpayer with an AGI of $1 million would get to deduct $90,000 instead and lower his federal tax obligation by 35%. Taking the state and federal taxes together, the millionaire's net state tax paid would be 5.85%, the lowest in the entire country. Who could argue against that?
51
@50: "Who could argue against that?"
Those of us who don't think the state needs to be taking any money from people earning $20k a year, that's who.
Those of us who don't think the state needs to be taking any money from people earning $20k a year, that's who.
52
Well, if they already pay 17.3% from their income now, what is worse about 9% coming off the top, leaving 91% to do whatever they want with it, TAX FREE? Out of the 9% paid to the state, they could draw unemployment and get Medicaid if they lose their jobs. In other words, they could have the satisfaction of paying their own way, just like we want the rich guys to do, instead of having to suffer the indignity of being called a lazy moocher who's not contributing anything.
53
Please don't ever run Frank Blethen's (crazed dog killer) picture ever again.
It's really, really nauseating.
It's really, really nauseating.
54
Majormoron - The poor pay 17.3% presently and yet they still "suffer the indignity of being called a lazy moocher who's not contributing anything", most often by rightwing douchebags such as yourself. Eat a dick, fat boy.
55
I am SO GODDAMMNED SICK of hearing about how the filthy stinking rich get everything and are SO untouchable!!
TAX the FUCKING RICH ALREADY!!!!!!
TAX the FUCKING RICH ALREADY!!!!!!
56
Pol Pot: You are the first person ever to call me a rightwing anything. I suspect 99% of the people on this blog know that the moron in this exchange is not me.
I am FOR I-1098, and nobody I know has ever called it a rightwing initiative. My post 50 only shows anyone who has the brains to understand plain English that this initiative is the start of something hugely beneficial to Washington.
If you can understand basic arithmetic and political bullshit, my post 52 simply removes the right wing's most popular excuse for avoiding any tax reform that might cause them to pay more taxes. Someone who grosses $10,000 can do better on $9,100 after paying a 9% tax up front than blowing $1,730 on taxes with the system we have now.
Thank you for minding your manners in the future.
I am FOR I-1098, and nobody I know has ever called it a rightwing initiative. My post 50 only shows anyone who has the brains to understand plain English that this initiative is the start of something hugely beneficial to Washington.
If you can understand basic arithmetic and political bullshit, my post 52 simply removes the right wing's most popular excuse for avoiding any tax reform that might cause them to pay more taxes. Someone who grosses $10,000 can do better on $9,100 after paying a 9% tax up front than blowing $1,730 on taxes with the system we have now.
Thank you for minding your manners in the future.
57
God bless Bill Gates Sr and Bill (and Miranda) Gates, Jr.
The remaining greedy rich Republican PIGS can learn from them.
The remaining greedy rich Republican PIGS can learn from them.
58
sgt doom: I feel the same about Ryan Blethen's picture in The Times. He looks like Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine fame, and his editorials are about as nauseating.
59
Regressive tax structure? Say WA?
If all Washingtonians pay the exact same sales tax rate wherever they travel, regardless of race, creed, color, other socioeconomic BS, is that not the most egalitarian method of taxation? If everyone pays the same rate, then there is no discrimination inherent in the actual tax method, correct? So, the argument for a graduated income tax is discriminatory in nature. Discrimination is thus 'okay' in the context of taxation. Income discrimination is still discrimination, whatever social justice-ness you'd like to cloak it in. And if the sales tax is so regressive, why not take a swipe at it through this initiative? Pussies. Pause. Let's talk federal wealth redistribution -- most of the people who pay a 'disproportionate share' of the sales tax receive/qualify for a federal income tax return -- most of those who would pay the graduated income tax, receive no such return and in fact pay the taxes that support the bulk of our system. What? Almost half of America pays no federal income tax. But those that do should now have to pay a state income tax too? To prop up a bloated DSHS and pay for the ceaseless budgetary onslaught of public employee colas? State employees, collectively, and across certain sectors of employment made over $50 million in pay increases this year! That is fact – visit OFM.WA.GOV and look at the collective bargaining agreements. If you want to support that while these same people cry about the economy, than be my pathetic and deluded guest.
I contend that solid public school education is delivered best through active parenting and Nat'l board certified teachers -- the income tax will not make kids any more successful or smarter, it's simply a band-aid on the threatened balloon of huge public employment.
To borrow an earlier analogy -- let's say that an income taxable person walks into a mall to buy goods alongside of a non-income taxable person. Both by a pair of designer jeans and fresh-to-def Mikey Aire Farce Puns. Proportionately, the lower income individual pays more of a share of his/her annual income in sales taxes than the 'rich' person. How terribly sad. Lower income individuals should have greater purchasing power, and are perhaps entitled to a certain materialism, like that of the 'rich'.
Paying the sales tax is a choice consumers make -- maybe, just maybe for the lower income individuals, it just might be designed to discourage rampant consumerism and poor budgeting principles, and enourage smart shopping and savings. Same applies to automobiles and other discretionary spending, even diapers (use cloths -- no one is entitled to convenience in the marketplace).
FOOD IS NOT TAXED -- DRINKABLE WATER IS CHEAP AND EVRYWHERE
So, let's discriminate to promote a base level of materialism and consumer entitlement!
Or, buy less shit, and not shit that you don't need if you don't have the money.
And really. Is this idea so terrific that it makes objectivity impossible? You should blow this initiative.
And let's not forget that the wealthy tend to support charitable causes in capacities greater than the rest of us.
More...
If all Washingtonians pay the exact same sales tax rate wherever they travel, regardless of race, creed, color, other socioeconomic BS, is that not the most egalitarian method of taxation? If everyone pays the same rate, then there is no discrimination inherent in the actual tax method, correct? So, the argument for a graduated income tax is discriminatory in nature. Discrimination is thus 'okay' in the context of taxation. Income discrimination is still discrimination, whatever social justice-ness you'd like to cloak it in. And if the sales tax is so regressive, why not take a swipe at it through this initiative? Pussies. Pause. Let's talk federal wealth redistribution -- most of the people who pay a 'disproportionate share' of the sales tax receive/qualify for a federal income tax return -- most of those who would pay the graduated income tax, receive no such return and in fact pay the taxes that support the bulk of our system. What? Almost half of America pays no federal income tax. But those that do should now have to pay a state income tax too? To prop up a bloated DSHS and pay for the ceaseless budgetary onslaught of public employee colas? State employees, collectively, and across certain sectors of employment made over $50 million in pay increases this year! That is fact – visit OFM.WA.GOV and look at the collective bargaining agreements. If you want to support that while these same people cry about the economy, than be my pathetic and deluded guest.
I contend that solid public school education is delivered best through active parenting and Nat'l board certified teachers -- the income tax will not make kids any more successful or smarter, it's simply a band-aid on the threatened balloon of huge public employment.
To borrow an earlier analogy -- let's say that an income taxable person walks into a mall to buy goods alongside of a non-income taxable person. Both by a pair of designer jeans and fresh-to-def Mikey Aire Farce Puns. Proportionately, the lower income individual pays more of a share of his/her annual income in sales taxes than the 'rich' person. How terribly sad. Lower income individuals should have greater purchasing power, and are perhaps entitled to a certain materialism, like that of the 'rich'.
Paying the sales tax is a choice consumers make -- maybe, just maybe for the lower income individuals, it just might be designed to discourage rampant consumerism and poor budgeting principles, and enourage smart shopping and savings. Same applies to automobiles and other discretionary spending, even diapers (use cloths -- no one is entitled to convenience in the marketplace).
FOOD IS NOT TAXED -- DRINKABLE WATER IS CHEAP AND EVRYWHERE
So, let's discriminate to promote a base level of materialism and consumer entitlement!
Or, buy less shit, and not shit that you don't need if you don't have the money.
And really. Is this idea so terrific that it makes objectivity impossible? You should blow this initiative.
And let's not forget that the wealthy tend to support charitable causes in capacities greater than the rest of us.
60
A lot of money has been spent trying to convince us that taxing the rich is a bad idea.
How much has been spent by the poor trying to fight this? That's right, we're poor....we don't have any money???
How much has been spent by the poor trying to fight this? That's right, we're poor....we don't have any money???
61
unregistered loser: You can do only so much with a single initiative. You are way too bogged down in tangents and trivia. What I-1098 does is plenty for a start. Just vote for it and see what happens.
62
Doesn't california have an income tax? I wonder if Tupac payed California state income tax. I imagine that around 1994, such dues were exorbitant. So, how's California doing now? News -- It's a fucksandwich there. This will not fix our budget problems. Spending less is typically how any entity escapesf debt.
No, Major Payne. This is either a missed opportunity to change a tax structure much maligned for sales tax regressivity, or an outright revenue grab dressed thinly in progressive garb.
I'm saying -- Do not laud the measure on its anti-regressivity when it does nothing to change the structure of our tax system save by adding another major tax. This, on top of the $800 million tagerted from last year's desperate beer and candy revenue creep (which by the way, are essentially taxes on lower income individuals and hipsters who purchase Pabst), this is simply another revenue grab albeit a different target. Basic Health Plan slots were drastically increased on the precipice of the recession, the worst possible time, and should return to the early 2007 level anyway. By the way, the deficit we are currently facing near mirrors the amount of federal stop-gap funding the state took last biennium(?) at around $3 Billion. We can't pay for everything and this tax on top of what we already have perpetuates over-expansion. It is not sustainable.
What this initiative does is save those respective public labor forces from further cuts, which in no way match for misery or numbers the experince of certain private sector industies, and will not improve either service for taxpayers.
But, go ahead and endorse discrimatory policy.
"Sure, other motherfuckers, if I was rich I wouldn't mind giving a little more."
That's fresh and progressive. So, compost that dumb shit your speading
More...
No, Major Payne. This is either a missed opportunity to change a tax structure much maligned for sales tax regressivity, or an outright revenue grab dressed thinly in progressive garb.
I'm saying -- Do not laud the measure on its anti-regressivity when it does nothing to change the structure of our tax system save by adding another major tax. This, on top of the $800 million tagerted from last year's desperate beer and candy revenue creep (which by the way, are essentially taxes on lower income individuals and hipsters who purchase Pabst), this is simply another revenue grab albeit a different target. Basic Health Plan slots were drastically increased on the precipice of the recession, the worst possible time, and should return to the early 2007 level anyway. By the way, the deficit we are currently facing near mirrors the amount of federal stop-gap funding the state took last biennium(?) at around $3 Billion. We can't pay for everything and this tax on top of what we already have perpetuates over-expansion. It is not sustainable.
What this initiative does is save those respective public labor forces from further cuts, which in no way match for misery or numbers the experince of certain private sector industies, and will not improve either service for taxpayers.
But, go ahead and endorse discrimatory policy.
"Sure, other motherfuckers, if I was rich I wouldn't mind giving a little more."
That's fresh and progressive. So, compost that dumb shit your speading
63
Honestly I'd rather be locked up in a cold stainless steel chamber with a cattle prod shoved up my virgin ass while being forced to listen to "Uptown Girl" on repeat for 14 hours straight than to sit here and read all these pointless bullshit statistics about taxes. Why isn't anyone discussing real principles? This conversation is so detached from what is actually happening I could just shove my penis in a vice and derive more pleasure. Wake the fuck up people. Jeaz.
64
I'm in the camp that believes the legislature will dramatically expand this tax within just a few years of it being implemented.
Therefore, I cannot support it. I cannot afford to pay income tax, sales tax and property tax.
Throw out the sales tax or the property tax entirely, then we can have a conversation about an income tax.
But as it is, I will certainly be voting against this initiative.
Therefore, I cannot support it. I cannot afford to pay income tax, sales tax and property tax.
Throw out the sales tax or the property tax entirely, then we can have a conversation about an income tax.
But as it is, I will certainly be voting against this initiative.
65
The percentages in this chart are completely inaccurate. They don't include the biggest tax on the middle class and wealthy, the Federal Income Tax, most of which goes back to the state. We don't have a regressive tax system, just less progressive than the states where rich people don't want to have their businesses.
66
The article is fundmentally flawed and lies as a result. Starting with the first paragraph that say:
"In Washington, poor people pay 17.3 percent of their income in taxes, while the filthy rich pay only 2.6 percent of their income in taxes."
I personally am OK with a state income tax, recognizing the unmet needs in the state. What I am not OK with is that this might be achieved by a crass political ploy of letting the majority, including many middle income folks who pay Federal taxes, vote on taxing a small minority. What would be right would be a tax that begins at the same threshold as Federal taxes, and graduates in percentage like the Federal system. All of us have or should have skin in the game of paying for state needs, and those of us who have more can contribute more, but everyone should be part of the system.
Too bad the Stranger could not make their position honestly without a vast distortion of the reality of where tax burdens actually lie in both absolute dollars and as a percentage of income.
"In Washington, poor people pay 17.3 percent of their income in taxes, while the filthy rich pay only 2.6 percent of their income in taxes."
I personally am OK with a state income tax, recognizing the unmet needs in the state. What I am not OK with is that this might be achieved by a crass political ploy of letting the majority, including many middle income folks who pay Federal taxes, vote on taxing a small minority. What would be right would be a tax that begins at the same threshold as Federal taxes, and graduates in percentage like the Federal system. All of us have or should have skin in the game of paying for state needs, and those of us who have more can contribute more, but everyone should be part of the system.
Too bad the Stranger could not make their position honestly without a vast distortion of the reality of where tax burdens actually lie in both absolute dollars and as a percentage of income.
67
How about we eliminate the state sales tax and charge a flat-rate 5% income tax against everyone except those below the state-defined poverty line?
68
For those of you who actually need to be directly compensated for helping others here is a new calculator to help you see how much 1098 will personally benefit you.
http://www.eoionline.org/tax_reform/calc…
http://www.eoionline.org/tax_reform/calc…
69
Actually, MtnFreak has it right, but could you imagine trying to get an across-the board income tax passed? Never ever happen. Instead, Washingtonians don't seem to mind being nickel and dimed to death on a daily basis. It is absurd that we don't have income tax (and we call ourselves progressive....) while at the same time we have a sales tax that is obscene!! Pretty sad when you think about it...We rank 50th out of 50 states in tax fairness, behind such hot-beds of forward-thinking as Louisiana. Oh puleeeeze. Every time I go to the store I am disgusted with the retail taxes. Perhaps why I buy the majority of things when I travel back to New England, and order my cigs on-line. Washington is a gorgeous place to live, but progressive??? Light years behind most states. 1098 at least begins to address this descrepancy in fairness, and God knows we need to add some stability to our school systems. Oh, that's right, the rich go to private schools. Good luck and God-speed to Mr. Gates Sr. At least he and his son EARNED their money instead of embezzling it like Eyman.
70
HEY THERE!!! PLEASE GO BACK TO #69 AND CLICK IT ON....FOR SOME REASON IT GOT POSTED AS UNREGISTERED....STRANGER HOPEFULLY WILL FIX THAT
72
@majorpayne: Yes, a flat 9% income tax would be better for the poor than the current system, but it would still suck pretty hard. Flat taxes by their nature create a disproportionate burden on low income households.
73
Re: digitalwitch's comment. Think about it, now the poor pay 17.6% of their income in taxes. 9% would be a relief. Also, to clarify, I don't think any income tax should be applied to those under the state-defined poverty level, and only income OVER that level should be taxed for everyone else.
74
It's simple: one of these i's will be asked to spend a little more off their frosting toward the public benefit, the other 72 i's will have improved budget management and more available resources to purchase the products or services offered by the generous i and its peers.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
It's time to prune the tree and get it healthy for next season.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
It's time to prune the tree and get it healthy for next season.
75
@65: Actually, because Washington tax filers are not allowed to take the standard federal INCOME tax deduction (most of us non-itemizers take the standard sales tax deduction), a larger percentage of OUR tax dollars go to the federal government than are returned to the state. Just take a look at the standard deduction rates for those two taxes and you'll understand why this is the case.
Also, I would say 17.3% as compared to 2.6% is pretty darn regressive, and not just 'less progressive'.
Also, I would say 17.3% as compared to 2.6% is pretty darn regressive, and not just 'less progressive'.
76
The more money the RICH make, the more they WANT. The more money the GOVERNMENT ~takes~ the more the government WANTS.
You could tax EVERYBODY 100% and it wouldn't make ANY difference.
You could tax EVERYBODY 100% and it wouldn't make ANY difference.
78
I agree with 77.. Also, the article states that this tax would bring in 2 billion, from just 38,400 individuals, really? That's over 50k per year each, on average..!
81
melek: Excellent, thoughtful comments. I hope the people who wrote 62,63,64, and many others pay attention.
Regarding people under the poverty level paying tax, please keep in mind a few things. The proposed income tax would be based on AGI, not gross income. Seniors on Social Security and unemployed would have a zero AGI. The standard deduction would reduce federal tax to zero for anyone who still has a low AGI. For those few left below the poverty level, like students with earning potential, the sooner they get used to the "real world," the better, and a flat state tax with no loopholes would provide the most benign portal in the entire country.
Leaving out loopholes for anybody would be a great "principle" to shoot for (@63).
@67, a flat 5% tax is not high enough to REPLACE all of the taxes we have now. It might suffice to get rid of the sales tax, but the hidden B&O tax is worse, and property taxes are almost as bad. At least 9% is needed to replace everything else and the bureaucracy that goes with them.
Part of the beauty of a flat tax would be the low cost of collection. I-1098 would establish the mechanism for collecting an income tax (see the OFM report I mentioned earlier). I have no doubt that I-1098 is a "demo" to show the way to a flat tax for voters who can't see the forest for the trees.
Regarding people under the poverty level paying tax, please keep in mind a few things. The proposed income tax would be based on AGI, not gross income. Seniors on Social Security and unemployed would have a zero AGI. The standard deduction would reduce federal tax to zero for anyone who still has a low AGI. For those few left below the poverty level, like students with earning potential, the sooner they get used to the "real world," the better, and a flat state tax with no loopholes would provide the most benign portal in the entire country.
Leaving out loopholes for anybody would be a great "principle" to shoot for (@63).
@67, a flat 5% tax is not high enough to REPLACE all of the taxes we have now. It might suffice to get rid of the sales tax, but the hidden B&O tax is worse, and property taxes are almost as bad. At least 9% is needed to replace everything else and the bureaucracy that goes with them.
Part of the beauty of a flat tax would be the low cost of collection. I-1098 would establish the mechanism for collecting an income tax (see the OFM report I mentioned earlier). I have no doubt that I-1098 is a "demo" to show the way to a flat tax for voters who can't see the forest for the trees.
82
This correction of our State's extremely regressive tax structure is long overdue.
The wealthy get off comparatively cheaply in this State. This modest initiative's passage still wouldn't raise the percentage of income the super wealthy pay up to the percentage of income being paid by the poor and the working poor.
The wealthy get off comparatively cheaply in this State. This modest initiative's passage still wouldn't raise the percentage of income the super wealthy pay up to the percentage of income being paid by the poor and the working poor.
83
Eli,
Did you do any fact checking? If so could you please show how someone making $11,000 a year pays 17% in taxes? The sales tax rate varies about 8-10%, and most groceries have no sales tax. Most excise taxes like utilites are below 10%, fuel might be the higest at about 15%. Now if one were to use about 5,000 gallons a year in fuel, and use a lot of tobacco and alcohol, then just maybe you could hit 17%. Maybe you are talking about taxes that are not passed on to the consumer but increase prices through business absorbed taxes. Or you could argue an effective tax rate, but since someone making $11,000 a year pays no federal income tax, and qualifies for earned income credit which is essentially a refund of the social security tax, the effective tax would essentially be on almost all the earned income. You may have evidence to support the 17.3% claim but you have provided none, in fact no one has provided any. I agree Wasington has a regressive tax system and there should be changes but you will never make progress but stating outlandish "facts" that seem to have no basis.
Also, you keep incorrectly referring to this as an income tax, its not, it is an excise tax and there is a significant difference. This mistake makes me think you did not consult a tax or even economics professional whatsoever about this article.
Did you do any fact checking? If so could you please show how someone making $11,000 a year pays 17% in taxes? The sales tax rate varies about 8-10%, and most groceries have no sales tax. Most excise taxes like utilites are below 10%, fuel might be the higest at about 15%. Now if one were to use about 5,000 gallons a year in fuel, and use a lot of tobacco and alcohol, then just maybe you could hit 17%. Maybe you are talking about taxes that are not passed on to the consumer but increase prices through business absorbed taxes. Or you could argue an effective tax rate, but since someone making $11,000 a year pays no federal income tax, and qualifies for earned income credit which is essentially a refund of the social security tax, the effective tax would essentially be on almost all the earned income. You may have evidence to support the 17.3% claim but you have provided none, in fact no one has provided any. I agree Wasington has a regressive tax system and there should be changes but you will never make progress but stating outlandish "facts" that seem to have no basis.
Also, you keep incorrectly referring to this as an income tax, its not, it is an excise tax and there is a significant difference. This mistake makes me think you did not consult a tax or even economics professional whatsoever about this article.
84
The information that synonymous seeks may be found on pages 11 and 110 of a report that can be downloaded from www.itepnet.org (Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy).
Washington is singled out on page 11 as the most unfair state in the country for poor people, with the 17.3% and 2.6% figures. The chart for Washington on page 110 shows graphically that sales and excise taxes make up 13.1% of the taxes the poor pay, and property taxes account for 4.2%. B&O taxes and excise taxes are buried in the price of the commodity, and the sales tax is applied to the inflated price, so those taxes are combined in one bar of the graph. Food may have B&O tax buried in its cost even though it has no sales tax.
Property tax is part of the rent paid to a landlord, or part of a mortgage payment, or paid directly to a county tax collector and is not part of a sale, so the graph shows this tax separate from the other taxes, making the two sets additive.
Washington is singled out on page 11 as the most unfair state in the country for poor people, with the 17.3% and 2.6% figures. The chart for Washington on page 110 shows graphically that sales and excise taxes make up 13.1% of the taxes the poor pay, and property taxes account for 4.2%. B&O taxes and excise taxes are buried in the price of the commodity, and the sales tax is applied to the inflated price, so those taxes are combined in one bar of the graph. Food may have B&O tax buried in its cost even though it has no sales tax.
Property tax is part of the rent paid to a landlord, or part of a mortgage payment, or paid directly to a county tax collector and is not part of a sale, so the graph shows this tax separate from the other taxes, making the two sets additive.
85
@9 there are several reasons why.
1. because if we vote for it, it's the law, and tough shit, rich man. You won't be hurting so stop whining.
2. because if we take from the pooor it helps prevent them from being rich; it's hard to pay for education and health nd saving and everything else when taxed 17% then you are more likely to need social services anyway. IOW we currently he a shell game of taxing the poor to provide benefits to the poor; it's sort of a wasteful wash.
3. because we buy stuff with the taxes and the stuff is good to buy, because our leg. reps. voted for it.
4. same as 3 but add that spending money is good for the poor an deveryone else, as you might have noticed it's the income tax states that tend to be better off? Just like switzerland and germany and france are doing better than somalia and guatemala? we all do better when all do okay, got it? even you, the rich, do better.
5. no one "should" have to pay taxes. but the rich "shouldn't" have to pay even less than the poor, cuz, um, do I have to spell it out dude -- the rich got more money so when we load up a $450,000 income couple with this onerous tax and they only pay what, $5K more in taxesw, who gives a shit, that means they get only 4 weeks at sun valley every winter not five weeks whereas if we get that $5K from 100 poor families we're taking food clothing textbooks and health care out of their budget. Can you grok that?
6. it's immoral to load taxes onto poor people who can't afford it douchebag.
1. because if we vote for it, it's the law, and tough shit, rich man. You won't be hurting so stop whining.
2. because if we take from the pooor it helps prevent them from being rich; it's hard to pay for education and health nd saving and everything else when taxed 17% then you are more likely to need social services anyway. IOW we currently he a shell game of taxing the poor to provide benefits to the poor; it's sort of a wasteful wash.
3. because we buy stuff with the taxes and the stuff is good to buy, because our leg. reps. voted for it.
4. same as 3 but add that spending money is good for the poor an deveryone else, as you might have noticed it's the income tax states that tend to be better off? Just like switzerland and germany and france are doing better than somalia and guatemala? we all do better when all do okay, got it? even you, the rich, do better.
5. no one "should" have to pay taxes. but the rich "shouldn't" have to pay even less than the poor, cuz, um, do I have to spell it out dude -- the rich got more money so when we load up a $450,000 income couple with this onerous tax and they only pay what, $5K more in taxesw, who gives a shit, that means they get only 4 weeks at sun valley every winter not five weeks whereas if we get that $5K from 100 poor families we're taking food clothing textbooks and health care out of their budget. Can you grok that?
6. it's immoral to load taxes onto poor people who can't afford it douchebag.
86
I'm a small business owner that recently moved to Washington from California due to its overall lower taxes. If an income tax is necessary for improving education, fine; I just think they should cap it at around 5%, or about half of what the rest of the west coast is. As the ballot is written, I'll likely return to California or perhaps Nevada - same taxes, but better weather.
87
majorpayne
You really showed me nothing. I can provide graphs and pie charts all day that show different variations on all income levels. As far property taxes, b&o taxes, etc built into the price of everything that is no different than any other state. Every state has property tax, some higher, some lower, in most states companies pay an income tax, you think that is not built into the cost of goods? Did you ever think about Texas, Ohio, Michigan, do you understand their tax system? For that matter what about Renton? If you try and equate the cost of tax in goods into the total tax someone pays you will be lost all day long because it will never be the same for the each person. All I'm saying is provide logical arguments. The reality of this argument does not hold.
You really showed me nothing. I can provide graphs and pie charts all day that show different variations on all income levels. As far property taxes, b&o taxes, etc built into the price of everything that is no different than any other state. Every state has property tax, some higher, some lower, in most states companies pay an income tax, you think that is not built into the cost of goods? Did you ever think about Texas, Ohio, Michigan, do you understand their tax system? For that matter what about Renton? If you try and equate the cost of tax in goods into the total tax someone pays you will be lost all day long because it will never be the same for the each person. All I'm saying is provide logical arguments. The reality of this argument does not hold.
88
The other thing which I was really driving at is Eli simply did not do his homework on this. I never said if I am actually for against this.
89
As someone who makes well north of $200,000 per year, I cannot more emphatically urge you to vote YES on 1098.
I can afford it. The State can't afford not to.
I can afford it. The State can't afford not to.
90
@29: It totally depends on the style manual being used. There is no right or wrong for this capitalization issue; there is only a need for consistency in following the designated style guide.
AP prefers lower-case "Washington state."
The Gregg Reference Manual prefers "Washington State."
Chicago 14 is ambiguous on this particular example (see 7.40), but the examples there and in 7.44 imply that "Washington State" is probably preferable when referring to the political entity.
Various in-house style guides prefer the "up style" as well (e.g. SAIS Review at Johns Hopkins; Washington State University uses the "up style" referring to the state and not the school; the U.S. Department of Energy uses the "up style"; AJIL uses "up style"; etc.). There are just as many examples of entities that use the "down style." It's not "right" or "wrong" either way.
AP prefers lower-case "Washington state."
The Gregg Reference Manual prefers "Washington State."
Chicago 14 is ambiguous on this particular example (see 7.40), but the examples there and in 7.44 imply that "Washington State" is probably preferable when referring to the political entity.
Various in-house style guides prefer the "up style" as well (e.g. SAIS Review at Johns Hopkins; Washington State University uses the "up style" referring to the state and not the school; the U.S. Department of Energy uses the "up style"; AJIL uses "up style"; etc.). There are just as many examples of entities that use the "down style." It's not "right" or "wrong" either way.
91
Hang'em.Taxing them only makes them feel 'good'.Confiscate 'their' shit so people can go to university full time.And while your at it,tax their fucking corporations:after all,their 'persons'*sigh*.And close those fucking pro-rich tax loopholes.
92
The "soak the rich tax" that is being proposed is really a band aid. Our system of funding primarily based on sales tax is fundamentally broken. During economic fluctuations, sales tax revenue varies much more than incomes tax revenue. I'd rather see a comprehensive overhaul of the tax system, shifting revenue to an income tax andd reducing sales tax, than an adding an income tax on a very small minority.
93
Luxury taxes are beautiful!Oops:I meant in comment 91 that the corporation owned by the rich are 'persons';so they should be taxed if they 'earn' a large income.
94
THE BIG QUESTION? WHO WOULD PAY THE TAX 3 YEARS AFTER IT PASSED and the legislature could change the limits with a majority vote?
96
Scott T:
You could not be further from the truth, this is a misconception (and the propenents of the bill have bought into it) Sales tax provide a more steady income than income tax.
I'll explain it in simple terms, if a company is not making money it pays no tax (and can even go back to years it did pay tax and get a refund of that tax against the losses it currently has), opposed to a b&o tax which is levied regardless if a company is making money (yes it decreases with sales but there will always be some tax paid). Its the case for an individual, no job=no income tax, but they still must pay the same sales tax to purchase goods regardless. On the flip side a sales tax state may see the benefit of a good economy through an increase of goods being purchased, but they do not enjoy the same swing upwards when a company may be posting large profits. Sales tax may be regressive and benefit rich more than poor but it provides lesser swings compared to an income tax in good or bad economies.
You could not be further from the truth, this is a misconception (and the propenents of the bill have bought into it) Sales tax provide a more steady income than income tax.
I'll explain it in simple terms, if a company is not making money it pays no tax (and can even go back to years it did pay tax and get a refund of that tax against the losses it currently has), opposed to a b&o tax which is levied regardless if a company is making money (yes it decreases with sales but there will always be some tax paid). Its the case for an individual, no job=no income tax, but they still must pay the same sales tax to purchase goods regardless. On the flip side a sales tax state may see the benefit of a good economy through an increase of goods being purchased, but they do not enjoy the same swing upwards when a company may be posting large profits. Sales tax may be regressive and benefit rich more than poor but it provides lesser swings compared to an income tax in good or bad economies.
97
#96- Sales tax revenues fluctuate widely. That's why our economy is so poor- worried people spend less of their money on purchases and put less tax dollars into the system. The government recieves less funding and is thus less able to subsidize programs for private industry.
98
jjohn;
Both ST and income tax revenues fluctuate widely with economies, that is why Europe has mostly moved to a vat tax, Texas shifted away from an income tax and California has proposed a BNRT. All I said is ST revenue has less fluctuation than income taxes, if you look at all the tax systems I mentioned above they are all much closer to a B&O type system than an income tax system in part for that reason. As far as a poor economy WA is better off than California which has both taxes, and don't forget the income tax only state of Oregon, their economy flat out sucks. There are also about a thousand other factors that go into all that but you made a broad sweeping statement in single sentence with absolutely no basis apart from maybe what you deduced by reading a few articles and what your buddy told you at the bar.
Both ST and income tax revenues fluctuate widely with economies, that is why Europe has mostly moved to a vat tax, Texas shifted away from an income tax and California has proposed a BNRT. All I said is ST revenue has less fluctuation than income taxes, if you look at all the tax systems I mentioned above they are all much closer to a B&O type system than an income tax system in part for that reason. As far as a poor economy WA is better off than California which has both taxes, and don't forget the income tax only state of Oregon, their economy flat out sucks. There are also about a thousand other factors that go into all that but you made a broad sweeping statement in single sentence with absolutely no basis apart from maybe what you deduced by reading a few articles and what your buddy told you at the bar.
99
synonymous: You asked, "could you please show how someone making $11,000 a year pays 17% in taxes?" I just answered the question you asked. The rest of your diatribe is completely pointless, as near as I can determine.
100
I think i will abandon my $200k per yr job kick my mom out of the condo I pay for her to live in and stop paying for the food she eats and her medical bills. Then tell my wife and children they need to go stand in line for food stamps. fuck all this shit and hard work. I can just live off the other lazy bastards who don;t want to work. Why should I have work 80hr weeks and feed 2 familes and house two of them and pay all the tax. fuck all you bastards.
101
I love The Stranger, but an article about taxes that has to have its sources pointed out by the online commenters makes for a pretty sad editorial.
You can't just throw numbers around on such an obtuse subject. "Everybody knows that."
You can't just throw numbers around on such an obtuse subject. "Everybody knows that."
102
Based on this article's stats and sources, each "rich" person in this state is subsidizing the taxes of ~25 "poor" people.
That's clearly not enough for The Stranger's readers. What number would satisfy you?
That's clearly not enough for The Stranger's readers. What number would satisfy you?
103
majorpayne
What you showed me is marketing material, there is no substance to those numbers. You also showed me you know just enough to be dangerous (kudos you do more than most) but you really do not have a deep understanding of taxes, if you did you probably would not be in such huge support of this bill, no one posting here is seeing the windfall that will be blessed upon a certain group if this passes (and guess what its not the poor or the middle class). Therefore I don't need to spend anymore of my time discussing this with you.
Sidenote: Whenever the rich support something there is usually something in it for them, and often it does not become apparent for many years.
What you showed me is marketing material, there is no substance to those numbers. You also showed me you know just enough to be dangerous (kudos you do more than most) but you really do not have a deep understanding of taxes, if you did you probably would not be in such huge support of this bill, no one posting here is seeing the windfall that will be blessed upon a certain group if this passes (and guess what its not the poor or the middle class). Therefore I don't need to spend anymore of my time discussing this with you.
Sidenote: Whenever the rich support something there is usually something in it for them, and often it does not become apparent for many years.
104
This does not make sense.
IF this tax actually pumped $2 billion annually for education and health Care, where is it stated that Olympia can not redistribute current funding for those programs?
Why swap one tax for another? How do the 'poor' (who probably don't own property) benefit from reduction in property taxes? Landlords will likely pocket any savings coming their way.
This is a new version of smoke and mirrors.
Vote NO on 1098.
A very compelling argument, but fallacious.
Who paid you to run this advertisement as news?
IF this tax actually pumped $2 billion annually for education and health Care, where is it stated that Olympia can not redistribute current funding for those programs?
Why swap one tax for another? How do the 'poor' (who probably don't own property) benefit from reduction in property taxes? Landlords will likely pocket any savings coming their way.
This is a new version of smoke and mirrors.
Vote NO on 1098.
A very compelling argument, but fallacious.
Who paid you to run this advertisement as news?
105
Please vote NO on 1098, this isn't about income taxes on the wealthy. It's about the average earner like myself. The state will amend the bill within 5 to 7 years to have income taxes for everyone, regardless.
I plan to live in WA for the next few decades and don't want State income tax on my hard-earned $35,000/year.
I plan to live in WA for the next few decades and don't want State income tax on my hard-earned $35,000/year.
106
@101: The article DOES reference its sources—the pyramid references the IRS and the WA state office of financial management, and the bar chart references the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (and you can download its complete report from www.itepnet.org).
I would save $208 off my property tax, which is a major concern all over my county. Since the property tax cut is available to everybody, the rich would benefit as well.
The B&O tax is hidden inside the cost of everything we buy (yes, even food), and the sales tax is applied to the final cost of nearly everything but food, so eliminating the B&O tax would lower sales taxes.
All you folks who keep sniping "Olympia will do . . ." should remember that you vote for those people, so use your brains and insist that they do what you want. I will vote for I-1098 and for representatives who will promise to make it work and who will continue to work for tax reform.
I would save $208 off my property tax, which is a major concern all over my county. Since the property tax cut is available to everybody, the rich would benefit as well.
The B&O tax is hidden inside the cost of everything we buy (yes, even food), and the sales tax is applied to the final cost of nearly everything but food, so eliminating the B&O tax would lower sales taxes.
All you folks who keep sniping "Olympia will do . . ." should remember that you vote for those people, so use your brains and insist that they do what you want. I will vote for I-1098 and for representatives who will promise to make it work and who will continue to work for tax reform.
107
"The new income tax on the 38,400 wealthiest Washingtonians . . . "
I have no problem at all with making the tax structure more progressive in a manner that actually gets to the "wealthiest". The problem is that the above sentence is absolutely wrong. What this tax will do is hit the 38,400 (or howver many) HIGHEST INCOME Washingtonians. Those are not the wealthiest -- although there may be some overlap.
I have no problem at all with making the tax structure more progressive in a manner that actually gets to the "wealthiest". The problem is that the above sentence is absolutely wrong. What this tax will do is hit the 38,400 (or howver many) HIGHEST INCOME Washingtonians. Those are not the wealthiest -- although there may be some overlap.
108
It's pretty fucking stupid to say you're not going to vote for this because "Olympia" might one day lower the floor, like they are our cruel overlords and can't hear us over the constant screams and whippings. It is almost as though you all are using the inherent difficulties of democracy as an excuse to avoid ever having to actually do anything, opting instead to bitch and moan about your lot in life.
109
Slippery slope arguments about the income tax are just dumb.
If that were the case, why aren't sales taxes 15 or 20 percent? Why isn't the property tax rate 5 or 10 percent? It's legislative suicide ya nimwits.
If that were the case, why aren't sales taxes 15 or 20 percent? Why isn't the property tax rate 5 or 10 percent? It's legislative suicide ya nimwits.
111
@107
It seems counterproductive to nitpick the difference between wealth and high income.
When Frank Blethen was bitching about the estate tax a few years ago, he said, "It wouldn't be so bad if the state taxed estates a little at a time, but to tax them all at once isn't fair," or words to that effect. Now, Ryan Blethen is saying an income tax is tantamount to "taxing success." B.S. is B.S., however you frame it. They just don't want to pay taxes at all.
Progressive and regressive tax systems both have their problems. With progressive systems, the rich feel they are being used. With regressive systems, poor people find it genuinely hard to get by. A flat tax at a reasonable rate that everybody can abide would be best. Remember the tithe we learned about in Sunday school?
It seems counterproductive to nitpick the difference between wealth and high income.
When Frank Blethen was bitching about the estate tax a few years ago, he said, "It wouldn't be so bad if the state taxed estates a little at a time, but to tax them all at once isn't fair," or words to that effect. Now, Ryan Blethen is saying an income tax is tantamount to "taxing success." B.S. is B.S., however you frame it. They just don't want to pay taxes at all.
Progressive and regressive tax systems both have their problems. With progressive systems, the rich feel they are being used. With regressive systems, poor people find it genuinely hard to get by. A flat tax at a reasonable rate that everybody can abide would be best. Remember the tithe we learned about in Sunday school?
112
@ 86: So go to Nevada already...You can't have much of a "business" if you can pick up and go wherever to save a couple grand in taxes. Leave the sunroof off your next freakin' car, and don't opt for the gold-plating on your emblems from the dealership. Or trade the old PSV (Penis-Substitute Vehicle) for something logical to start with. (I seriously wouldn't be surprised if you drove on of those things named after a blow-job). And, with a business so pack-up-and-go mobile, I doubt seriously you would ever break the 200K barrier in a decade, let alone a year.
It absolutely AMAZES me the totally bogus, nonsensical crap people will pay for, but some bucks for education or health care???????
First off, with a "business" so easily moveable it is obviously either drugs or some silly notion of "business." The mom-and-pop corner store is a business, and they would get a serious tax break under 1098. And they aren't going nowhere, BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY!!
Second, the major cause of crime in this country is poorly educated youth. Period. Want proof? Go to New Orleans for a couple weeks, where education is given ZERO importance and has, voila, the highest crime and highest VIOLENT crime rate in the country. Seven years running, so don't blame Katrina. Katrina gave the middle-class the opportunity to leave, which they did (to the tune of 187,000).
Want to end homelessness? A large portion of the homeless aren't homeless...they are houseless. BECAUSE THEY LOST EVERYTHING TRYING TO PAY MEDICAL BILLS BECAUSE THE MULTI-MILLION-PER-YEAR-EARNING-F-FACES WANTED TO ADD MORE TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE and often cutoff or severely reduced health benefits and even retirement accounts!!!
ENOUGH OF SHEDDING TEARS FOR THE SERIOUSLY WEALTHY!!! AS THE FAMOUS LINE IN "CHINATOWN" SAYS: HOW MUCH BETTER CAN YOU LIVE???? (OH, AND YOU TRUST-FUND BABIES OUT THERE, REMEMBER IN NEW HAMPSHIRE INTEREST IS TAXED HEAVILY,AS IS ANY PROPERTY SUCH AS CARS AND BOATS. THAT'S HOW THEY MAKE UP FOR NO INCOME TAX.)
TO HELL WITH THE "LET THEM EAT CAKE" ATTITUDE!
PASS 1098 or still be looked at as a laughing-stock and an example of the poor-people-shoulder-and support-the-rich-and-are-kept-where-they-are-to-keep-doing-so. THIS ISN'T THE PRE-CIVIL WAR SOUTH!!!!!
Maybe these freakin' objectors (most of which are actually "wanna-be" rich guys and gals) should move to Europe, pay exorbitant taxes, but, be able to have seances with Marie Antoinette. Just call Nancy Reagan for a referral to a good medium.
Trickle-down=Pissed-on.
More...
It absolutely AMAZES me the totally bogus, nonsensical crap people will pay for, but some bucks for education or health care???????
First off, with a "business" so easily moveable it is obviously either drugs or some silly notion of "business." The mom-and-pop corner store is a business, and they would get a serious tax break under 1098. And they aren't going nowhere, BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY!!
Second, the major cause of crime in this country is poorly educated youth. Period. Want proof? Go to New Orleans for a couple weeks, where education is given ZERO importance and has, voila, the highest crime and highest VIOLENT crime rate in the country. Seven years running, so don't blame Katrina. Katrina gave the middle-class the opportunity to leave, which they did (to the tune of 187,000).
Want to end homelessness? A large portion of the homeless aren't homeless...they are houseless. BECAUSE THEY LOST EVERYTHING TRYING TO PAY MEDICAL BILLS BECAUSE THE MULTI-MILLION-PER-YEAR-EARNING-F-FACES WANTED TO ADD MORE TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE and often cutoff or severely reduced health benefits and even retirement accounts!!!
ENOUGH OF SHEDDING TEARS FOR THE SERIOUSLY WEALTHY!!! AS THE FAMOUS LINE IN "CHINATOWN" SAYS: HOW MUCH BETTER CAN YOU LIVE???? (OH, AND YOU TRUST-FUND BABIES OUT THERE, REMEMBER IN NEW HAMPSHIRE INTEREST IS TAXED HEAVILY,AS IS ANY PROPERTY SUCH AS CARS AND BOATS. THAT'S HOW THEY MAKE UP FOR NO INCOME TAX.)
TO HELL WITH THE "LET THEM EAT CAKE" ATTITUDE!
PASS 1098 or still be looked at as a laughing-stock and an example of the poor-people-shoulder-and support-the-rich-and-are-kept-where-they-are-to-keep-doing-so. THIS ISN'T THE PRE-CIVIL WAR SOUTH!!!!!
Maybe these freakin' objectors (most of which are actually "wanna-be" rich guys and gals) should move to Europe, pay exorbitant taxes, but, be able to have seances with Marie Antoinette. Just call Nancy Reagan for a referral to a good medium.
Trickle-down=Pissed-on.
113
@majorpayne: Thanks for your comments to me a few days back, hope you like 112 as well, although I apologize for the language. Just got back from Providence, so I missed a few days. Oh, yes, people pay income tax there. But the nessecities of life aren't sales-taxed and the other state imposed taxes are quite low.
Is that why so many of the uber-wealthy are still in Newport?? I guess our uber-wealthy may want to look into moving there, or Hyannisport, or the Hamptons, where taxes are sooooo low! Oh puleeeeze!
Is that why so many of the uber-wealthy are still in Newport?? I guess our uber-wealthy may want to look into moving there, or Hyannisport, or the Hamptons, where taxes are sooooo low! Oh puleeeeze!
116
One argument that the opposition is sure to press is that there is no need to institute an income tax on the wealthy. We can close the budget shortfall without compromising the quality of public services solely by reducing spending. Let's stop and think carefully about this line of argument. Reducing public spending means that some public sector jobs are very likely to be eliminated. After all the government doesn't produce goods for consumption; it administers service. So to reduce government spending largely entails eliminating jobs in government, espeically if the spending cuts are not going to reduce the quality of public services.
So it follows that the opposition to 1098 is willing to allow for the elimination of jobs in WA state as the correct public policy. That is, unless the opposition hopes to convince us that all the spending cuts will eliminate mere "inefficiencies" without eliminating any jobs. But that is highly doubtful. What's peculiar is that the opposition to 1098 also seems to think that enacting 1098 will kill jobs. It thus seems that the opposition to 1098 does not want to kill jobs, and at the same time is willing to kill jobs. If so, then the opposition's position is incoherent. The real truth is that there doesn't seem to be any way to move forward without killing some jobs, unless perhaps if voters enact I-1098 into law. For the funds from I-1098 will surely make it possible to, at worst, save some existing public sector jobs, and at best, create some new ones.
So it follows that the opposition to 1098 is willing to allow for the elimination of jobs in WA state as the correct public policy. That is, unless the opposition hopes to convince us that all the spending cuts will eliminate mere "inefficiencies" without eliminating any jobs. But that is highly doubtful. What's peculiar is that the opposition to 1098 also seems to think that enacting 1098 will kill jobs. It thus seems that the opposition to 1098 does not want to kill jobs, and at the same time is willing to kill jobs. If so, then the opposition's position is incoherent. The real truth is that there doesn't seem to be any way to move forward without killing some jobs, unless perhaps if voters enact I-1098 into law. For the funds from I-1098 will surely make it possible to, at worst, save some existing public sector jobs, and at best, create some new ones.
117
One argument that the opposition is sure to press is that there is no need to institute an income tax on the wealthy. We can close the budget shortfall without compromising the quality of public services solely by reducing spending. Let's stop and think carefully about this line of argument. Reducing public spending means that some public sector jobs are very likely to be eliminated. After all the government doesn't produce goods for consumption; it administers service. So to reduce government spending largely entails eliminating jobs in government, espeically if the spending cuts are not going to reduce the quality of public services.
So it follows that the opposition to 1098 is willing to allow for the elimination of jobs in WA state as the correct public policy. That is, unless the opposition hopes to convince us that all the spending cuts will eliminate mere "inefficiencies" without eliminating any jobs. But that is highly doubtful. What's peculiar is that the opposition to 1098 also seems to think that enacting 1098 will kill jobs. It thus seems that the opposition to 1098 does not want to kill jobs, and at the same time is willing to kill jobs. If so, then the opposition's position is incoherent. The real truth is that there doesn't seem to be any way to move forward without killing some jobs, unless perhaps if voters enact I-1098 into law. For the funds from I-1098 will surely make it possible to, at worst, save some existing public sector jobs, and at best, create some new ones.
So it follows that the opposition to 1098 is willing to allow for the elimination of jobs in WA state as the correct public policy. That is, unless the opposition hopes to convince us that all the spending cuts will eliminate mere "inefficiencies" without eliminating any jobs. But that is highly doubtful. What's peculiar is that the opposition to 1098 also seems to think that enacting 1098 will kill jobs. It thus seems that the opposition to 1098 does not want to kill jobs, and at the same time is willing to kill jobs. If so, then the opposition's position is incoherent. The real truth is that there doesn't seem to be any way to move forward without killing some jobs, unless perhaps if voters enact I-1098 into law. For the funds from I-1098 will surely make it possible to, at worst, save some existing public sector jobs, and at best, create some new ones.
118
auntie grizelda: Thanks!
majorpayne: good to be back.
And of course, as always, "bless you and god-speed" to Mr Gates Sr.
majorpayne: good to be back.
And of course, as always, "bless you and god-speed" to Mr Gates Sr.
119
#1 Sgt. Doom-- Please reference these GAO studies, I would be interested in reading. I see from GE's annual report, that they did not pay income tax in 2009 due to losses from their financial services division, but it should be noted that they paid $5.2 billion in income taxes over the previous two years. http://www.ge.com/ar2009/pdf/ge_ar_2009_…
ExxonMobil paid over $15 billion in income taxes in 2009 and over $66 billion over the previous two years. http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/309…
ExxonMobil paid over $15 billion in income taxes in 2009 and over $66 billion over the previous two years. http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/309…
120
I don't want to sound odd here, but from the perspective of a foreigner, not having an income tax seems...well, really, really strange. Income taxes on all wages are the norm in most nations, even states of the US I believe.
Just be thankful you don't have a flat tax, so both the rich and the poor pay 20% of their income in tax...
Just be thankful you don't have a flat tax, so both the rich and the poor pay 20% of their income in tax...
121
The rich. They earn, then they spend it. Sales Tax and Property tax is paid by them also. Those rich guys are buying mansions, they pay a tax. If your state has nothing to sell to them, why force them out. Tax them and they go away. That has happened to some of our biggest companies. They went international to not get taxed. Before they would gladly make money elsewhere and bring it to USA. Now they just keep it in Hong Kong.
122
How about we just eat the rich? There's a popular saying: "democracy is 20 wolves and one sheep all asking what's for dinner". In fact, whenever there's an unpopular minority, we can just tax or regulate them so they're just like the rest of us. Hooray for egalitarianism! I'm not jealous, I just want to spend rich people's money as if it were my own.
123
Thank you for the article and most sincere thanks to Mr.Gates and everybody who supports the initiative 1098!
125
The data in this article is misleading. The tax % paid figures only look at the slice of taxes paid to the state, not the overall tax burden experienced by any given individual. If what matters (in terms of fairness) is how much money people get to spend v. forfeit at the end of the day then overall taxes are the only relevant data to consider. Those numbers will look quite a bit different.
I’m very much of two minds about this initiative but one thing that really doesn’t help anyone who wants to make an informed decision is misrepresentation like this.
I’m very much of two minds about this initiative but one thing that really doesn’t help anyone who wants to make an informed decision is misrepresentation like this.
126
Why not think outside the box. Income taxes are so 20th century...Time to look at a fair statewide FLAT TAX SYSTEM...
128
The the filthy rich do not pay taxes due to having accountants and tax lawyers. Folks like Bill gates will not be affected that much.
130
If the stopped sending our jobs overseas, that would help our states economy. We send jobs overseas so money is going out and never coming back in.
We need to return the jobs back here, where money spent is put back into the state.
There should be an outsource tax placed on companies by the gov't to make up for lost revenue ;)
We need to return the jobs back here, where money spent is put back into the state.
There should be an outsource tax placed on companies by the gov't to make up for lost revenue ;)
133
Very thought provoking! My problem with the entire argument is that it's mostly people making under $200,000 who are writing articles and of the opinion that those over $200,000 should pay more taxes. It's always "Can't someone else do it?". I make under $200,000 and I say 38% flat tax rate for all making more than $50,000. No mortgage break, no health break, no investment break, just a flat tax. No IRS, just our employer writing a check to us for 62% and the Fed for 38%. No April 15th.(BTW I make more than $50,000 so it includes me). and all government assistance is tax free. Who's in?
134
Since this is a State debate... write the check for 12% to the States, 26% to the Fed, and 62% to the worker.
135
I still say just a simple tax rate for everyone, no write offs (except charitable donations that are real charities) .... including taxing us in the poverty level. Right now I don't pay anything but sales tax, but to be fair I'd pay an income tax if it would help. With an income tax my housing cost would adjust itself (basically giving money to myself I know but meh) so it would be balanced out. While I'm okay with not paying income taxes at all, to be fair I would. Everyone should pay the same percent.
RSS
Twitter
Comments (135) RSS