Gosh! A survey by the Association of Washington Businesses said it would hurt job growth. Shocking.
I feel that an income tax is a tax on productivity. If we want to tax wealth, and I think we should, we should expand luxury taxes and implement a tax on passive income instead of taxing active income.

I'm not opposed to taxation. I think that property, licensing and consumption taxes should be the bulk of our tax base. Taxing passive income would also be a good way to tax the very wealthy without unfairly targeting the majority of workers in the state. Taxing active income, no matter the size of the income, is not a good way to encourage people to earn.

I am afraid that when this initiative passes, and time marches on, the incomes eligible for taxation will be made progressively lower every year until everyone is paying a state income tax. Again, taxation is fine, but taxing at the paycheck hurts.
Pretty sure "Reaganeer" is a made-up word intended to make conservatives hard by using the word "Reagan" and fool liberals who weren't paying close attention into thinking that Kaushik's point is somehow pro-Reagan.

Corporations make jobs when they need more workers to keep up with production demand. They hire new people when it will help the bottom line to do so, not when they have extra tax-break money jingling around in their pockets.

Wealthy individuals create jobs when they need their pools cleaned.
what a horrid job - terrible how folks have to whore themselves out to make ends meet. hang in there, Funk. you can go through the motion it 5 more weeks.
I own a small business. Funk is full of shit. 1098 would be a net gain for me. I don't make enough to pay the income tax, and the reduction/elimination of B&O tax would help my small business, not hurt it. In fact, less B&O tax might free up enough money to pay another part-time employee.
Here's a fact.

More than 90 percent of US jobs come from small business.

The definition used by the IRS has that as businesses that make LESS than $250k.

In other words, the very job creation comes from the people who will get a TAX CUT on the B&O tax under 1098, NOT the people who will pay more taxes cause they make LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY AND PAY much less as a percent of their income than YOU or poor people do.

And that is a fact.

Source: US Treasury Department.
@2 move to Somalia.

You'll love it.
Could "Reaganeer" be a misheard "Regan-era?"
@8: Nope. I repeated it back to him because I was confused too. He said "Reaganeer."
Reagan had 90 percent tax rates for the rich.

Time to go back to those!
So on the one hand, the business (lobbying) community says that an income tax is a job killer and would cause companies to decide to go elsewhere. But on the other hand they also say that Washington is currently--despite being only one of seven states without the "job killing" income tax-- a state with one of the most unfriendly and unwelcoming business environments, not least because we don't invest enough in education and infrastructure. Boy, we must really be doing something wrong. I can't believe that all of the businesses that seem to spring up around here are so out of the loop. Or maybe I'm just hearing echoes of the national debate--no tax increases, but don't you dare cut any spending, because by some crazy math it will all work out somehow. If only we could print money in our state like the Federal government does (has anyone thought of doing that?).
@2 your solution of taxing "passive income" is the equivalent of taxing savings--that wouuld be a disaster. We want people to save. Perhaps what you mean is that we should institute a VAT--a consumption tax, rather than an income tax. Don't disincentivize earning, but for goodness sake, don't discourage savings and investment. That's just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
@12 we do?

Are you sure?

We used to encourage people making $100,000 or less to save but we got rid of that tax exemption. I seem to recall it was some conservative President that did that.

@8 You are correct. I did say Reagan era.
"reaganeer" is an ear grown on the back of a lab mouse.
I have not anyone point out that ALL of us lose our Sales Tax federal deduction if we pass an income tax. Only those paying the new income tax get to then deduct ALL that amount from their federal taxes.

In my case my tax liability goes up $300 ($279 property tax savings and $598 federal tax increase).

They love to point out that 20% reduction in property taxes, yet avoid the "state portion" fine print. So a big difference between assumed $1,200 reduction and $279 actual.
@14: Ah, you beat me to it by quite a bit. But yes: Mr. Funk tells me he said "Reagan era."

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.