Comments
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.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Now, tell your son to run over there and kick Steve Ballmer and the rest of the jackasses at Microsoft square in the balls for funding your opposition.
Can you provide some data on your statement: "we have the most unfair tax system in the nation, with the middle class paying four times the tax rate of the top one percent".
It's hard to pin down in simple terms what the tax rates between folks like me (married with less than $100k/year in income) versus, say, a married couple making $500k a year.
Honestly, a significant number of voters, especially swing voters, don't understand what progressive tax and regressive tax mean, nor do they understand why progressive taxation is more fair, nor are they aware that there are no functioning, wealthy societies that do not use progressive taxation. They could also stand to be told that you have to travel to some of the worst-off countries in the world to find a flat tax system, and oddly enough, none of these hellholes is hotbed of innovation, entrepreneurship or wealth-creation, and rich, smart workers are not flocking there. Nor are highly paid, productive people fleeing progressive taxation. Quite the opposite.
Ideology and reality are in conflict here and you have to confront this wrongheaded ideology if you hope to fix our regressive tax structure.
Could try again and go for an A. Why not?
Kudos, Mr. Gates!
Last I checked, no one was stopping Mr. Gates from donating his considerable wealth to the charitable foundations of his choice. The idea that he somehow needs the state to forcibly separate him from his money rings hollow.
The stupid thing is, this measure is probably going to fail even amongst people whose own tax bill would benefit directly from it.
Let's hope your reasoned voice and conscientious position will prevail over that of the short-sighted opposition!!
YES on I-1098!!
Most people distrust government's ability to spend wisely. Sadly, after the perception of mismanagement, the public no longer trusts our elected officials and government administration.
What is to assure the public that this extra tax revenue will be spent wisely?
That's a fair question, really. We had a 10 year period of insanely high tax revenues and we basically spent that entire period using that money for vanity projects -- instead of rebuilding or expanding critical infrastructure.
The unfortunate reality there is that the only way to address that problem is for voters to pay more attention to and be more involved with what government in Washington is doing. What the Washington State government does is necessary and important. Cutting off its ability to raise taxes will destroy all that necessary and important work. It's a bit like schools -- if schools aren't doing a good job of educating kids, you don't defund them. If cops aren't doing a good job of keeping the streets safe, defunding them won't fix the problem. That tool is not designed to address that issue. The issue of government's conduct is meant to be addressed by informed voting, and a mobilized electorate.
Meanwhile, the state government still needs money, and this measure is an excellent step in the right direction on that issue.
A fair, graduated tax for everyone that makes our tax contribution proportional to our earnings net of basic living expenses - that I could get behind. This "let's tax the people that no one feels sorry for" is opportunism masquerading as reform.
You mean unfair like that?
Suck on it.
More: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/wa_whopays…
Existing rules for the "education legacy trust fund" (established by Initiative 728), into which I-1098 education money will go, already require school districts to provide for citizen comment on planned distributions of funds and to report annually on how funds were used. I-1098 also requires any income tax rate increases to be approved by a vote of the people.
@14: Well said, spot on.
good idea from the heart but it misses the mark.
do a pie chart 3 slices;
-teacher and school admin,
-system admin, and
-pensions and other retirement benefits.
i would venture to guess the last two slices account for 65-80 percent of the pie. there is your work. go fix the pie get the first slice up to say half or 2/3 by reducing the other two. then you will not need money and will have secured the future for the kids.
for God's sake don't, as you suggest "...place all net revenue—$2 billion a year—in a trust that politicians must spend..." If you do that you might as well take the money and throw it away. politicians will simply create more admin, pensions, bloat. then you won't need 2 b but 6 b..
if they have it they are programmed to spend it or lose it so they spend..
gates SR. good idea and well intentioned but under baked--trust the people giving the money let them be the committee that examines the budgets and mandates the pie slices get back in step.
be well, but think about what you suggest--it is a loser.
Well that sure does make sense!
I foresee a lot of charities receiving a lot big checks this December.
Wrong. Obviously the campaign has failed in telling the public how it works. the tax is on the excess over the thresshold, in this case 400K minus 400K equals ZERO so the tax on zero dollars is ZERO you big fat ZERO.
If you earn $401,000 then the tax (what is it, nine percent? four? whatever) is only on the 1,000 over 400,000.
So at no point do you take home less, by making more money.
Got it?
BTW the notion that people live their lives by tax rules is wrong. NYC has its own 4 % income tax on top of a stiff NYS income tax and it seems to be crowded with rich people. And some people give to charities because....they like the charities, mmm?
You have made two bogus arguments in a row.
In any event, charities, in general, make most of their money from small and medium donors. Large donors are an important part of the pie, but this increase in taxes on the ultra-rich isn't likely to so significantly impact their bottom lines that they'll discontinue giving at a level sufficient keep the doors open at the charities they're supporting. No, I think they'll find the money for it. Just a little belt-tightening...