Tax The Rich

Comments

4
"which applies evenly to all citiznes"(sic)

There's a reason that concept is so popular...
5
If only we could do that here in California. Stupid Prop 13, Howard Jarvis, Voters...
6
I heard someone on the radio call in today and complain that an income tax was, "socialist."

Explain that one to me.
7
Never forget that Oregon al-Thea anti-American terrorists claimed that Oregon voters would "never approve" an increase in the income tax for Millionaires.

But they did.

Climb aboard the Millionaires Income Tax train, cause it's coming to our State!
8
@6 - socialist is what won us two world wars, when we jacked up the income tax to 70 percent on Millionaires.

It's code for "I hate America and want the US to fail so I can loot it with my al-Thea comrades".
9
$200,000 sounds like a lot of money, but two married software engineers with experience would make that much. its the upper end of that income range where people are rich but still think they are middle class.
10
@9, just because they are two married software engineers doesn't mean they aren't pretty darn well off. Very few households make that much money, as a percentage.
11
Plus it's deductible from your federal tax filing. I won't be playing too many violins for someone in that position.
12
@9

This is a marginal tax. This means that if you make $210,000, you only get taxed on $10000, meaning you paya whopping $450. Do you really think someone making $210,000 can't afford an extra $450 in taxes?

Also, this tax would apply to 1% of the population. I think that counts as rich.
13
Only 2.7% of households in the US make more than $200k. So yeah, that definitely qualifies as "rich".

I also must add that in confirming that statistic, I ran across this map, which I am in love with. Look at Alaska! And what's going on in Wyoming there?
14
@13: Jackson Hole is what's going on there.
15
@9, that couple making $200K would pay zero taxes under Brown's plan. The tax kicks in at that level for an individual (one and a half times that level for a head of household), and twice that for a married couple.

So take two MS managers making $250k/year each. They'd pay an extra $4500 in taxes, all of that coming from the $100k above $400k. That's not going to hurt a family taking down half a million a year. They probably shit ten times that in annual vacation budget.

In exchange for this small effect on upper incomes, everyone, including those of upper income, get a 1.3% reduction in sales taxes compared to the no-income tax alternative. That's a damn good deal.
16
@12, it's worth repeating that in most cases someone making $210k would pay zero additional taxes. Only if they were not head of household would they have to pay $450. If they were head of household, they wouldn't pay that $450 until they made $310k, and for a married couple they'd have to make $410k. We're talking very high incomes here, not your average family of software engineers.

@13, and realize that for two-income households the threshold is $400k.
17
@6, Yeah, "Mike from Capital Hill" gave that opinion on KUOW's "Conversation" show today. Here's how he responded to Ross Reynold's questions: "I'm completely one hundred percent opposed to this taxing the rich through an income tax. There is a scandal...scandal, quote unquote, that came out yesterday that the Republicans want to in the next election period scare people into voting for the Republicans because they say that the Democrates are moving toward a socialist way of government. I don't think it's really a scare tactic. It seems to be reality. These types of bills just prove the point that the Democrates are moving us toward a socialist state. It's socialist in the fact that it's a redistribution of wealth; the wealthy people who are working hard and earning that money and distributing it to the poor..."

Explain it? Easy, he's an young man ignorant of history who drinks from Ayn Rand's big tumbler of libertarian Kool-Aid.
18
Yeah, whoops. So, 1.5% of households make >$250k, so it would almost certainly be <1% making >$400k. US-wide. Not sure how Washington would differ.
19
@ 13 - That's a great map!

That big pale stripe across Alaska - I guess caribou don't make a lot of money..
20

I cannot see how this is taxing "The Rich".

Bill Gates fortune is 60 billion.

His income is a mere 1 million....higher than many, but not beyond a high powered couple with a business or two good lawyers or doctors.

Unless we tax assets, like land and securities, there is no equity. More wealthy (asset rich) people need Government to protect their property and their money. Let them pay for it!
21
Or we could just end the three wars we're fighting right now - the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, and the Drug War against MJ.

That would balance all the budgets, even for the states.
22
our regressive tax system means for years the rich in washington have paid some $4000-10000 less EACH YEAR in taxes than if the exact same family same income etc. lived in Oregon or fucking socialistic fucking Idaho with their communistic socialistic income tax.

So for years the rish have accrued this benefit....thousands a year....times...many years.

btw why are we calling this tax the rich instead of "let's lower the sales tax"? the yahoos also need the math on how much they will save with lower sales tax. when they ask about this law, don't just explain to them it's a marginal rate i't's $400K not 200 for a couple, etc., then do the math for them showing what "marginal" (catually I think you mean it's a rate only an excess above a threshold...not marginal, mm?) they don't GIVE A SHIT about those wonky details just tell them HEY YOU MAKE ABOUT $60k -- YOU'LL SAVE ABOUT $70 IN SALES TAX!"

and leave it at that.

23
@20, okay let's wait for perfect proposals and do nothing until then, you are sooo right!
24
The 2/3 majority requirement to pass any new taxes means that the richest people only need to buy the votes of 1/3 of the legislature to prevent anybody from getting their grubby little working-class mitts on their piles of money. Then they pass that savings down to us in the form of jobs!

Or not. The point is they could if they wanted to, and by God, anything else is Stalinism.
25
Here's and idea to make the bitter, bitter medicine of an income tax go down easier. Tax income, but eliminate estate taxes. Olympia get's their cut of your productivity while you're alive, but your estate is untouched once you die. I bet a bunch of rich folks would go for that.
26
I still think the proposal is wimpy. A much more sweeping, progressively multi-bracket income tax is in order, along with a much more substantial sales-tax cut!
27
If we're going to put an income tax in place, we should re-think the whole tax structure. You don't just toss out a single tax that targets one group. That's grossly unfair and bad policy, especially if we're talking current income. Folks who earn a lot of current income already pay a ton in federal income taxes. The super-rich avoid quite a lot of it through Bush-era tax breaks on things like capital gains.

So think it out, be fair. This ain't that.
28
Yay! Lisa represents my district. REPRESENT SPO-CAN'T!
29
If an income tax passed, and you make less than $200,000, you would still probably lose your sales tax deduction on your federal taxes (assuming it gets renewed, as it always does) if you itemize.

Once middle class people understand that, the income tax won't fly.
30
nothing like socking it to people who pay 8.8 percent total tax (the rich).
31
@30 - people who earn 200k/year in regular income pay way more than 8.8%. the really rich may pay that rate, but the upper middle class, the high wage earners, pay 24-30%. they're the soft middle - too rich for the lefties to sympathize with, not rich enough to pay lobbyists to defend their interests.
32
I doubt it'll even get out of the legislature. The last thing any Democrat running in November wants to see is a referendum on the income tax sitting there on the ballot with them.
33
Saw this at a newspaper window this morning. Rarely do I get the urge to email Gregoire via spotty wifi to say "YES! DEAR GOD YES!" but I did today.
34
It's a wedge. The problem is in 5-10 years there will be an income tax for everyone, not just the rich. Don't break the seal!

35
And we'll end up like CA where the income tax is for most people is a progressive range from 5-10%, in addition to a sales tax that's as much as 10%(!)

FWIW, sales tax in WA was around 5% in the 70s. Seemed government worked just fine then.
36
The "Rich" paying more is popular but IT IS NOT FAIR. The "rich" often use much less of the resources (public school, children tax benefits, unemployment benefits, etc) than the poor and really get nothing special for the taxes they pay. Last time I checked "fair" is you-get-what-you pay-for not you-pay-what-we-think-you-can-afford.

Would it be "fair" if McDonald's charged you based on the cost of your shoes? or how wealthy you looked?

You may like the policy but if you say it is fair you are just fooling yourself.