You must have skimmed the editorial:

"The cash being poured into the pro-1098 campaign aims to convince you, if you earn less than $200,000, that you will not pay the tax. You may not, in the first years. But the tax will be expanded. Taxes always are."

I think an income tax would be more fair and a more reliable source of state funding. But the Blethams are right--we're all going to be paying it eventually. It is dishonest to not say so.

So now they're against tax cuts?

@8:

I don't know about you @1, but it's gonna be a looooonnnng time before I earn more than $200K a year...

Are they trying to pretend that the source of CA's fiscal problems is too much taxation???

That really is rich. They should have saved this editorial for the Eyman 2/3 initiative.

Blethen and his rag are desperate.

#4 beat me to it. California's tax system and budgeting procedure are, to be sure, broken beyond repair, but the problem is sure as fuck not the mere presence of an income tax.

@1 - Unless Tim Eyman comes along with an initiative to exempt everybody making less than 200k. Oops, like that would ever happen, Tim doesn't give a shit about us.

I think we should take this one step further and make some more brackets on the top end. Say $1-2mil=15%tax , $3-10mil=20%tax, $10mil+=30%tax, and dare I say it, $40mil+=50%tax. Then we should exempt everybody making up to five times the poverty level from ever being assessed income tax.

As a matter of logic, I find it extremely hard to believe that people making over a million dollars per year are correspondingly adding anything close to that in value back into the economy. If you've managed to earn that kind of income, it's not a sign of success, but merely a sign that you have perfected the art of taking money out of other peoples pockets and not going to jail for it. Like the CEO who gets a multi-million dollar pay raise for laying off thousands of workers. Those people don't care about anybody else when it comes to money, why should we care about them.

That's because, according to the Blethen fish wrap, the only people who EXIST are the people who make over 200k a year.

But @7, "the CEO who gets a multi-million dollar pay raise for laying off thousands of workers" IS adding so, so much to the economy without taking meny out of other people's pockets!! Workers &ne people, plus the next quarter shows HUGE increases in profits, which drives up the stock price, so tons of unsuspecting rubes buy high, and the rubes who can't be bothered to even look at stock prices have lots and lots of mutual fund management advisors to do the dirty work for them, and they do that so cheerfully that their management fees go up!! It's all so simple, if you would just TRY to understand!

@9 that's who City Council thinks are the only people who exist.

Yes, because we can all see the millionaires fleeing from California in droves, setting up shop in Alabama.

@10 - But, isn't that "spreading the wealth"?

Yes, Blethens, high levels of tax have not brought wealth to California. Beverly Hills and Silicon Valley have recently engaged consultants from Mississippi and Alabama to instruct them on how low taxes can create a better society. Immigrants from all over the world choose any place but California to start their businesses. The depopulation of California has the locals begging for Mexicans to cross the border simply to fill all the empty school rooms.

we should institute a Hackneyed Portmanteau Fail Tax --- gah.
and it would apply mostfungoody to the Blethens:

@13, certainly NOT! Spreading always occurs in a downward direction, like salt on wounds or santorum on bedsheets. What I am referring to is the movement of nutrients from the lowly, buried roots to the lovely inflorescence of the tree.

And the fact that California is home to many of the most innovative companies in America is apparently unknown to the Seattle Times.

Right now California is reeling because of the recession (which is national) and because of a severe case of Initiative-Induced Fiscal Paralysis. It has nothing whatsoever to do with taxes being too high, unless your brain lives in Wingnut Land, a place where the laws of physics dictate that all social problems are caused by taxes.

@16 - So, "sucking the wealth"? :)

You say that like it's a BAD thing!

@1, personally, I'd rather have an income tax than a sales or property tax system, but let's not pretend our legislature has any balls.

They couldn't raise taxes on anything besides bottled water and non-flour-filled candy during the worst recession I personally have ever seen. What makes anyone think that they'll have the courage to raise the income tax. That'd be unpopular, and they can't do what's right if it makes them unpopular.

If at any point the legislature does raise the income tax (which they could have instituted themselves if they had any courage) we can always do what we can do now: vote for an Eyman initiative in and destroy both the poor and the state simultaneously.

"we can always do what we can do now: vote for an Eyman initiative in and destroy both the poor and the state simultaneously"

that is a good point, because when state services get defunded/ gutted and the basic services are all but gone, they can point to the resultant high crime rate for less spending & more draconian efforts.. if you profess to hate govt. (except for farm/corporate handouts) then you'll probably want to dismantle its' democratization and progressive aspects, by rote.

I wrote three tongue and cheek initiatives that in spite of the initial humor have a serious message. My most recognized was Initiative 1069 to change the state seal to a tapeworm dressed in a three piece suit attached the rectum of the tax payer. Around the vignette the words,
“ Committed to Sucking the Life Blood Out of Each and Every Tax Payer.”

My second initiative is about Pick Pockets and is a rebuttal to Bill Gates Sr. Initiative 1098. Ask yourself the following questions before you vote yes for Initiative 1098. After reading section 1. below, do you believe our state is any different than Connecticut?

Panhandling and Pick Pocket Tax For State Legislatures In Lieu of a State Income Tax

Sec. 1. Whereas Initiative 960 was approved by the voters to prevent the following:

In 1991, Connecticut was facing a revenue shortfall of about $2.7 Billion. Using that crisis, Connecticut's governor pushed hard for a state income tax. The bill eventually passed. 17 years later, we have a good idea of that future.

The income tax that was passed to close a $2.7 Billion now brings in over $7.5 billion a year. Despite all of those extra billions, Connecticut is still facing massive deficits $1.2 Billion this year and another $6 to $8 Billion over the next two years. How could this happen? In Connecticut's case, out-of-control spending was the culprit. The only way to stop that, or at least slow it down, is by taking away their source of food: money and power. Or in layman terms, remove the tapeworm.