Nice fear tactics, but you're wrong on most points (not surprising coming from a Reichert/McGavick/Romney donor)...

I-1098 "creates higher taxes" on a only few, while lowering taxes on many.

State income taxes will be deductible from your Federal income tax.

Charitable contributions and home mortgage interest will be deductible from your Federal income taxes (the rate of which is higher than the state's rate, therefore making a deduction more fruitful).

aw. I feel so bad for the rich people. Real real bad. You see, I already voted 'yes' on I-1098 and I already mailed in my ballot. :-( I feel really really bad about it too. You're just going to have to trust me on this one. Real real bad. Really.

I am safely in the middle class (50-75K) and I wish the legislature would extend the income tax down to my bracket. Follow that up by dropping the sales tax way down, and we would really be starting to make sense.

As far as I can tell, that's the biggest problem with 1098. It doesn't seem like it will be straightforward to extend it to people like me.

Nevertheless, I say pass it now, fix it later. We have been waiting for an income tax for too damn long.

I don't even live in Washington State and I can smell the B.S. from here.

Here is a distributional analysis of the tax system in all 50 states. http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

Washington State has the most regressive tax system in the country. The wealthiest Washingtonians pay the smallest percentage of their income in taxes. I-1098 is a solid step in the right direction.

Fuck you guys. You have enough money.

"So who do you trust to make investments in new jobs — new and small businesses or politicians?"

I trust both new/small businesses and politicians to create jobs. I don't trust big business and the extremely wealthy to do so, and I certainly don't trust you, Mr. McIlwain. My dad is a small businessman now, my parents ran a small business when I was a kid, and one thing I know for sure is that small business people are generally not high income, in fact they are often very low income. They have to buy a lot of stuff though, and sell stuff. High sales taxes hit them hard, while income tax doesn't matter.

It's not just about defeating I-1098.

We must vote NO on 1098.

But WA State still needs a reasonable and fair tax system.

That is why I propose that we not merely naysay 1098, but offer an alternative...the 4 Covenants that prevent Olympia from applying fair and balanced property taxes, must be removed.

Property taxes must be reassessed...especially after all the growth in population over the last 20 years.

And, as is provide for, "Best Use" principles must apply. That is -- if you have a farm or empty lot next to a full condo or development -- you get taxed and valued at the rate as if your land was being used in the same way.

Let's call this I-1099...Fair Property Tax Initiative and get it on the ballot next year.

1. Fair assessments of all property (including intellectual property).

2. Removal off all state covenants.

Fair.
Equitable.
Reasonable.

Vote NO on 1098

Vote YES for fair property taxes.

The wealthiest Washingtonians pay the smallest percentage of their income in taxes. I-1098 is a solid step in the right direction.

Wealth is measured by assets.

Not by income.

1098 cuts asset taxes, making it even more unfair.

We need fair property asset taxes; not an income tax.

Only the dimmest bulb fails to see this.

We need more than just property taxes, John. Raising property taxes doesn't help out the poor people who are disproportionally saddled with high sales tax.

We need to institute a graduated income tax and severely reduce sales tax.

Washingtonians have to rescind the current property tax convenants and start re-assessing and taxing property fairly.

For example:

http://www.redfin.com/WA/Kent/26719-115t…

$249,000 home in Kent, pays

* Annual Taxes: $3,015

http://www.redfin.com/WA/Bellevue/2822-9…

$2,488,000 home in Bellevue pays

Annual Taxes: $12,380

The $2.4 million dollar home costs 10x as much, but pays only 4x the taxes.

Vote NO on 1098.

Vote YES for fair and equitable property taxes.

#9

I partially agree.

I want, in this order:

Rescind the "Prop 13" type covenants on property tax.

Remove the sales tax.

At that point, I don't think an income tax would even be necessary, and certainly, any tax on income, must account for existing assets.

Thanks SROTU, i have decided to vote No on 1098 and Yes on on whatever else you suggest. Plus, the tits on your avatar chick are tight, homey.

Bailo is profoundly stupid; we could not wish for a better spokesperson for 1098. He wants a punitive property tax because he's a renter, and doesn't understand how taxes work. Note the slightly hysterical tone to his idiocy. This isn't surprising coming from the fellow who has earned the title Worst Person in Washington for what, three years straight here?

Go away and bother the teenage girls some more, John Bailo. Leave us alone.

As for Matt McIlwain, I'm sorry, but your attempt to raise sympathy for people making FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND a year is pure failure.

I call bullshit on the statement "We spend more than $10,000 per public school student per year — above the average private school tuition."

Here's a sampling of private school tuition rates around Seattle.
Meridian School accepts applications for Kindergarten through the fifth grade. Children must be 5 years old by September 1 to be eligible for Kindergarten.
Our tuition for the 2010-11 school year is $16,450.
http://www.meridianschool.edu/?page=admi…

University Prep:
The following tuition and fees are for the 2010-2011 school year.
Annual tuition for the Upper School (Grades 9-12) is $25,410.
Annual tuition for the Middle School (Grades 6-8) is $24,130.
http://www.universityprep.org/admission/…

The Evergreen School:
Tuition for the 2010-2011 school year:
Preschool (3-yrs-old) $9,240.00
Prekindergarten (4-yrs-old) - Grade 5 $18,480.00
Grade 6-8 $19,320.00
http://www.evergreenschool.org/admission…

Seattle Country Day School:
SCDS tuition for 2010-11 is:
Grades K-3: $18,628
Grades 4-5: $20,398
Grades 6-8: $21,781
http://www.seattlecountryday.org/admissi…

Even down in Tacoma, private school is pricey. Charles Wright Academy:
Here is the tuition for the 2010-2011 academic year:
Beginning School: $15,500
Grades K-5: $18,500
Grades 6-8: $20,200
Grades 9-12: $20,900
http://www.charleswright.org/costs

Now if you count parochial schools (read RELIGIOUS) schools in the mix, then perhaps you might be able to get an average of $10,000. Blanchet HS, for example lists the following as their tuition:

Annual tuition for Catholic students registered in an Archdiocesan parish:
$10,020 for 1st student, $9720 for 2nd student, $7512 for 3rd student
Annual tuition for students of another faith, or Catholic students not registered in an Archdiocesan parish:
$11,616 for 1st student, $11,280 for 2nd student
http://www.bishopblanchet.org/page.php?i…

However, private schools are not the same as parochial schools, nor can you lump them together. Thus Matt McIlwain, you are full of shit.
Nice try.

Here's what I don't like about the whole "Tax the filthy rich" mantra.

When people think of the wealthy, they think of billionaires sitting in their spacious mansions, sipping brandy and laughing at the peons who toil in the valley below. They think of hedge fund managers and CEO's, who got their fortunes at the expense of hard working folk, who had their lives handed to them by mommy and daddy.

And without a doubt, some have.

But most did not. Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Programmers, Bankers; these all have incomes near or over 200k.

If a man has worked hard to achieve his position, and he does his job well, why does he deserve to be taxed more then others, just because he has achieved some success?

I do think that Washington needs tax reform; we do have a regressive structure that needs to be addressed. But not like this.

You're right, extending tax cuts to 90% of Washingtonians in this political climate while opening the door to a less regressive tax structure when the economy recovers is wrong wrong wrong.

The only way these poor dullards will ever strike it rich is if we increase their tax burden while keeping the rich comfortable. They'll appreciate it more if they're part of the 2% of Washingtonians that make it that high up the ladder.

Congratulations, Matt. You have set a world record for number of bad faced lies per column inch.

@15: Keep in mind that the first $200k is exempt from state income taxes. So if you're an unmarried lawyer make $225,000, you pay 5% on only $25,000 of your total income. Throw in breaks on property taxes and B&O and the tax increase for people like this is likely pretty minor.

Does this shit remind anyone else of that old Mercer Island recession sketch on Almost Live?

I was leaning toward voting for 1098 initially, but I came to a similar conclusion as SROTU above -- I would actually be in favor of establishing a (progressive) income tax on most income levels in the state, but ONLY if the state sales tax were abolished at the same time. Sales taxes are inherently regressive, fail to be uniformly applied, and imho hurt actual small businesses. Property taxes and income taxes are the way to go for a fair system of taxation. The comments above on reforming the property tax assessment system are pretty interesting, worth looking into as well. Please get a better version of this measure on the ballot for 2012.

Dear Matt McIlwain,

While I appreciate the time you took to attempt to convince us Sloggers to vote against 1098, I have come this conclusion: Fuck you.

Sincerely,

Nuthin'

@15: "If a man has worked hard to achieve his position, and he does his job well, why does he deserve to be taxed more then others, just because he has achieved some success?'

because he can afford it?

"It falls heavily on our economy’s most productive sectors, the very businesses and business owners creating jobs for our citizens."

If I see Libertarian entitled fuckwits like Matt right bullshit like this one more time I'm going to start punching them. This is total bullshit from the beginning to end.

1 - the top earners are ABSOLUTELY NOT the most productive sectors. They are nearly entirely dependent on the rest of us who work and earn and spend money on whatever crap it is they're peddling.

2 - 98-99% of small business owners earn less than $200k/year in income (and even those that earn more will only be taxed on the amount _over_ $200k - making the proportion who will be materially affected well under 1%). So that means that this will not affect small business owners - much like the arguments against the estate tax are full of fantasy stories about supposed family farms/businesses that are sold b/c of the estate tax.

Of the remaining 1% of business owners (think Ballmer, not your neighborhood plumber) who would be affected - they can afford it, given that they're earning a higher share of income than any time since before the great Depression. If the income tax passes, they will not move out of state (go look at CA, NY and NJ, for example - high taxes, plenty of rich people), and even if they do, they will be replaced by other enterprising individuals not yet making $250k/year. And the economy will do fine - the last time we modestly raised taxes on the upper echelons of society (mid-90s) tax revenue rose, deficits shrank and unemployment hit all time lows.

I get it - rich people don't want to pay taxes. My 4 year old doesn't want to eat broccoli or cooperate with his teacher all the time either. Doesn't mean I listen to him, and neither should we listen to these petulant whiners.

Then what's your solution @15? The rich pay on average 2% of their income in taxes in WA state, while people making $50k or less (50% of the WA population) pay 20% on average.

I'd totally favor a full income tax and a repeal of the sales tax. Maybe I'd even favor lower property taxes and higher income taxes. But there's no mechanism that's perfect, and holding out for one just means WA state digging further into a hole WRT infrastructure, schools, assistance for the needy and all the other services that make this a place I'd like to live.

1098 goes a teensy way towards correcting this problem. There's not a single progressive tax mechanism that doesn't result in people who make more paying more. And this pales in comparison to the tax rates that people used to pay (back when, you know, we had a flourishing middle class and income growth for all, not just the top 1%).

So the state is facing the second year of cuts-only budgets, with Gregoire talking about 10% across-the-board cuts. Vital social services are being cut, including education and health care for the poorest, most vulnerable populations. This during a deep recession when the need for these services is increasing. And yet McIlwain tells us that we are already spending plenty on education (why else mention that $10,000 per student per year is such an extravagant sum?) and has nothing whatsoever to say on the other services facing deep cuts.

There is absolutely nothing more to this position than people who can afford to pay taxes saying they don't want to. While "somebody else" is always the most popular choice for who should pay taxes, it's time we stopped swallowing these ridiculous promises that if we rob the most needy people of services in order to hand more money to rich people, something good will happen. No, it won't. We've tried that.

Let's try having the people who can best afford to pay pitch in their fair share for once.

It's pretty bold to argue against a tax for the rich by saying we spend too much on child education.

@26- They have no shame.

If you're a well-off lawyer who makes $225k/yr and really really really doesn't want to help child education, get married to a golddigger. Then you can make up to $400k without any tax impact.

Uh, rich people: suck it. Move to Texas.

Another whiny rich puke who doesn't want to pay his fair share of taxes. We're not fooled.

@15: "If a man has worked hard to achieve his position, and he does his job well, why does he deserve to be taxed more then others, just because he has achieved some success?'

Because he didn't do it in a vacuum. Taxes pay for public services like roads, schools, building codes and inspections to make sure we're in safe homes and businesses, maintenance and upkeep to public areas, etc. The world that we choose to live in costs money, and it is unlikely that any successful person did it 'on his own'.

Incredibly weak argument, yet 1098 probably won't pass. "It falls heavily on our economy’s most productive sectors, the very businesses and business owners creating jobs for our citizens." What the hell does he think the state does with money put it under a mattress? Would he invest in a company with such a bad argument for success?

How about anyone who speaks on this topic reveals their income. In the first sentence.
That will provide a level of clarity to the discussion that all opponents have been diligently trying to obscure.

This: "If I-1098 were to pass, the legislature could extend the income tax rates in two years with a simple majority vote."

is a complete red herring. It's true, but the Legislature could do that *right now* with a simple majority vote. That they have had absolutely no will or stomach to tells you what you need to know. (vote yes, as the legislature never will)

Nice try. Maybe you should quit smoking those old, rotted golf club booties and start living in the real world.
Your shrill, vacuous screed, the squealing of a fatted weaner-pig with its tail caught in a gate, is nothing if not hilarious.
I don't even need to smoke pot or drop a tab of acid to start laughing uncontrollably.

I'll end by saying that if you're stupid enough to buy this asshole's pathetic rationalizations, you have bigger problems awaiting you than having to pay a few dollars in income tax. The men in white coats are already after you for being crazy enough to think you can get away with not paying YOUR fair share of OUR expenses.

Hey, maybe you'd like to move and open up a spot for someone who doesn't mind paying their fair share to make Washington a better, more progressive place to live... with good schools, roads, and water supplies, energy independence, a clean environment -- and fewer right wing nut cases than any other state in the U.S. (if only!)

Good point. My income is $13K before tax. If it were $200K or $200 million or $2 billion, my opinion would be the same BECAUSE I DO NOT OBJECT TO PAYING MY FAIR SHARE... repeat: F-A-I-R S-H-A-R-E.

If I make more money, I owe more in taxes because I take more basic resources -- not only money -- out of the system.
Capitalism is a zero-sum game. It's a dog-eat-dog, winner-take-all, slash-and-burn system that by design screws low-income people and rewards oligarchs.

Taxes are how we can level the playing field at least in the arena of public expenses. If someone removes more from the system, they owe the system more. What part of "fair share" do you right wingers not understand?

See... I can go for several sentences without calling right wingers "dipshits." I told you I could.

Let's face facts with your math there buddy. The state, in one way or another, needs to take 2 billion out of the economy every year to pay for the services it renders. If it's a big problem to you that the government takes out 2 billion dollars to pay all the people working for it, just where the fuck does government ever get it's money? Should they just continue to print it like it's going out of style? You say this is the wrong tax at the wrong time, so one could conclude there's both a right tax at a right time, both opinions missing from your article. You hit a few points that I'd love to edit, but beyond trying to tell me all about the scary tax demons the private sector has to face, when they have to face these demons every year. Any business owner basing their entire business on taxes is a tax broker, and they don't give a fuck about the tax rate, they just want to make money. So yes, government will take 2 billion dollars from the private sector, and you'll beg for more once an educated work force is turned out.

I dream of the day the government would force me to pay an extra 9 percent of my income. THAT DAY CANNOT COME SOONER. I will be on cloud nine, and I won't even miss waiting another year to be a millionaire.

Business owner making a half-million a year isn't paying squat currently. Janitor making 25k and wanting to save up to buy a taco truck is paying over 17% of his income to taxes.

What's fair for the private sector? 1098 starts us on the road there.

"So who do you trust to make investments in new jobs"

Politicians - at least non-Republican ones. Those actually ACCOUNTABLE to the people.

YES on 1098.

It is easy to say "fuck you" and a lot harder to find good jobs.

The two largest job creators in state, biotech and software are fueled by investment money which will leave if 1098 passes. I know because I am one of those investors who will leave--and I have only brought in millions of other peoples money and created thousands of jobs in the state. So no matter how much "fuck you" and "tax the rich" crap I get, I will still move money out of the state, as will others and there will be less jobs, and less growth...less revenue than expected (look at Oregon, who is tax trouble already even after "fucking the rich").

And many on the board will say "fuck you you rich fuck, you are threatening us, get the fuck out--we just want happy progressives living here and we dont care about jobs and economics, and paying the rent and and that scumbag lowlife right wing business stuff". And I can say, I love this state, but increasing my capital gains rate over 50% in a single whack--and taxing innovation and investment in the growth industries in the state, is unwise and has consequences for you, even if you hate me, and hate all business folks who are successful.

And then the legislature will look around for more money, and will pull the money "earmarked" for education and will put it elsewhere (because they can even under this initiative and have done it more than 70 times). Where do you think they might get new money? Ahhhh. The citizens...even people who say "Fuck" alot. And the tax will be applied to more and more, and more--people who are not rich. "No", you say..."Fuck you" you say, but the facts are clear...In every state, 100%, not a single exception in the whole history of the United States of America, over and over, those who started with an income tax put it on everyone. WA will too.

So you will get :

1. less jobs, higher unemployment
2. no guarantees of higher education spending
2. income tax on everyone

Now you are really angry because facts hurt. You say again, as many on this board have said "Fuck you... fuck the rich"
I say, its is the hard-working people of WA who will be the most Fucked in the end.

So you have the power to Fuck the Rich if you vote yes on 1098, but you may be fucking yourself harder along the way.

If Microsoft actually paid it's share of B&O taxes, instead of licensing its software through a Nevada shell corporation, we wouldn't need an income tax.

@42: States without an income tax (take your choice):
•Alaska
•Florida
•Nevada
•New Hampshire
•South Dakota
•Tennessee
•Texas
•Wyoming
(P.S. Fuck you).

42 and 45, you are nicely predictable with your sarcasm so sweet. I will assume based on your post that you have taken the path of ignoring the facts and have decided to fuck yourselves, which is clearly a choice you can make in this democracy. I have great confidence the voters of WA are smarter than that and will choose not to fuck themselves. Yes on 1098 is a path to taxes on all, and fewer jobs, with no real tax reform, and no education reform.

P.S. 45, I probably wont move to a state on your list, given the effective tax rate of WA since it wont be deductible will be the highest in the nation (including on capital gains on innovation and start-ups), so there are many options (49 of them.) I wont be the only one, so even if you vote to get rid of me it wont likely be effective. :)

where oh where to start. okay. let's say we all pay ten percent currently. i make 10,000,000. my ten percent is more dollar bills than the ten percent jim the plumber's apprentice pays, as his is only ten percent of thirty thousand. 1,000,000 is more than $3,000 get it? therefore the more money you make, the more money goes to government. percentage of income doe snot matter. toyota does not care what percentage of your income their car cost. all they acre is the end result of monies in their pocket. same with government, except for those attempting to perpetrate this percentage of scam.

lastly. When was the last time a poor person offered you a paying job? I say we make more people rich not more people poor.

Where, oh where to start, smurftall? Here's a thought: start by constructing a grammatically correct sentence. Then, follow up with the use of spellcheck. Lastly, don't parrot ignorant, nonsensical talking points you heard last week on the Glenn Beck show.
Otherwise, you will end up looking as stupid and pathetic as the back piece in your photo.

So, Seattle investor, and all the other altruistic investors of this great land, who work diligently for the sole purpose of allowing us lowly plebians to work to put bread on the table, will run screaming from Washington state if 1098 passes. Our entire economy will collapse, and there will be breadlines miles long, all because paying income tax is absolutely the worst disincentive to job creation EVAH.
Right.
There no other considerations at all in the equation. Got it.
Oh, and, uh, fuck you.

Income tax only taxes the profit that one takes out of a business, not, say, money that a business owner spends on hiring, upgrading equipment, raising wages, remodeling, etc. Therefore, for the small business owner making over $200,000 ($400,000 if married) in profit, income tax provides an incentive to invest money back into the business rather than taking so much out of the business. I would think that would be very good for job growth and the economy in general.

THANK YOU @44