You just don't get it. Any and all taxes are bad. Government is no good, can't do anything right.

We have to send our kids to private schools, because public schools are underfunded and terrible. The police can't protect us, so we have to hoard guns. Roads are terrible, traffic is unbearable. Don't you see the logic of it all?

Passing I-1033 screws everyone, #2.

See, that's the problem with the Eastside- As @2 demonstrates, they would refuse to leave a burning building if the firefighter trying to save them happened to be a liberal.

I think we need to rethink this whole initiative/referendum thing. I know its purpose was to promote the democratic process, but it has turned into a fame-making vehicle for ne'er-do-wells and fuck-wits. And there doesn't seem to be any Constitutional oversight/screening in the process other than being able to obtain enough signatures (150,000? Hell, that's 10 gun shows). Maybe we should just elect our legislature and let them be the lawmakers?

Thanks Jonathan. This point can't be made enough...

I'm actually trying to figure out what kind of "gravy train" #2 is talking about. Perhaps they mean the gravy train where my taxes actually go towards public services I can benefit from rather than straight into property owners' pockets?

@2: i'm currently just a regualar tax-paying hipster, but i'm interested in learning about freeloading and mooching, at, i assume, "the government teat".

where should i start?

One interesting angle of this is that a lot of the poorer people in the red part of the state (myself among them) actually own real estate. It might be a trailer on some acreage, but they're paying property taxes too, and it's a hefty chunk of change.

The value of my home here in Spokane went down last year, so my property taxes dropped by $144 (and change) a month. On my sorry-ass, part-time, no-insurance-but-a-baby-on-the-way pathetic income, that made a huge difference. It gave us some breathing room.

I'm not stupid enough to vote for a Tim Eyeman anything, but when you talk property taxes, you're not just talking to the privileged few on the blue side of the state.

Tim Eyman is a salesman. It's how he makes his living. The only reason he sells initiatives is because he can't sell enough watches to maintain the lifestyle he wants. The content of the initiatives is utterly irrelevant to him, but he seems to have found a way to make deep-pocketed self-centered anti-tax agitators pay for his mortgage. God Bless America!

Look, let's get real.

Most millionaires and billionaires (not including sports stars or rock stars who spend like fish) have an effective total tax rate of around 8 percent. We use trusts, tons of tax deductions, and we save a lot so we don't spend much in sales tax. There's no SSI or Medicare tax beyond a very low amount, and money in retirement accounts and set asides is not taxed. It's easy to get the business to pay for living expenses.

People who make less than $40,000 on the other hand, tend to pay rent, have few or little deductions, and at best spend 30-40 percent of their income on taxes. You're being taken to the cleaners by the property-owning rich people like Eyman.

Each and every day.

Is it just me, or was that a longwinded way of saying "I'm a millionaire or better"?

you had me until "Washington State has some of the most efficient and productive local and state governments"

hahahahahahaha how did you type that with a straight face?

Do those statistics factor in B&O taxes? Because a certain amount of the B&O tax that companies pay should be included in any per capita analysis of tax burden per person. This is because states with personal income taxes tend to have lower business taxes, but Washington has higher business taxes since income tax isn't a thing. Since the source is a conservative, I would assume that they do include B&O in their numbers--but maybe not. Few people understand Washington's B&O tax.

EVERYONE pays property taxes.

If you're renting, it's factored into your rent. No landlord is doing you a favor and eating that cost.

The blue part of the state is the freeloader part? I think you have that backwards.

#18, when landlords get their I-1033 property tax "rebate", do you honestly think they're going to lower my rent?

@17: For the most part the B&O tax is already accounted for, as that is pretty much the sales tax.

@18,

True, but, compared to most other taxes in this state, property taxes come closest to being fair. Rich people tend to live in expensive homes (and pay an equivalent amount of property tax) while poor people live in much cheaper homes, whether rented or owned.

Here's the tax structure I'd like to see in the state:

1. Income tax, with a deduction equal to the median income of the county of residence, and a single rate on all other income. Effectively, this would be a tax on upper incomes only.
2. A lower sales tax combined with a flat rebate indexed to median income to represent the basic spending of someone with that income. Effectively, you'd only be taxing high-end items or excessive spending.
3. Property taxes with a higher marginal rate that doesn't kick in until the ten-year average median assessed value of a home in the county of residence. For multi-unit properties, the exemption would be scaled by number of units. This effectively taxes luxury homes and apartments but not modest homes
4. A carbon tax that fully replaces the gas tax, rising gradually through 2050 with the aim of reducing carbon emissions in line with the recommendations of the IPCC (or at the very least, targets in federal or state cap-and-trade law). Taxes on emissions to 80% of those targets would be returned as rebates. Effectively, those who drastically reduce their emissions would be rewarded, while those who meet them would pay nothing, and the big polluters would pay out the nose.
5. An elimination of the B&O tax and replacement with an income tax on net profits instead of gross receipts, per 1. This fixes the biggest drag on small business creation in the state, while maintaining revenue by shifting business taxes to the big, profitable companies here.
6. An estate tax with higher rates and a higher threshold before it kicks in.

This mix of taxes is relatively recession-proof, because you focus on those less affected by job losses and you cover income, consumption, and wealth. It would neuter (only metaphorically, alas) the Tim Eymans of the world by removing lower and middle-income anti-tax resentment (except for the misplaced resentment that has people opposing taxes on principle even when they're not affected.) It would adequately fund state government. It would encourage the things that are good (making a middle-class income, providing for your family without spending money on wasteful things, owning a practically-sized home or living in an affordable apartment, and helping the environment). It would discourage the things that are bad (massive income inequality, consumerism, living in gluttonous homes or driving gluttonous cars.)

sorry, donald, 200K is "upper income" - it's well above the state median household income - roughly 70k/year for king co, 60K/year for the state.

@27: Where do you work that you make $100K a year?

Number crunching has never and will never convince the arch-conservatives and mouth-breathers that Tim Eyman's initiatives are a terrible idea designed to hamstring the government. It's a matter of faith with them that tax cuts will make things better, somehow.