Here, Let Me Solve the Entire Washington State Budget Mess in Three Easy Steps


governor eyman's probably got an initiative ready to file that says the opposite. the cuts are coming, and the rich and suburban won't feel it beyond the hordes of homeless begging at their off-ramps.
It takes a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature to put a constitutional amendment before the voters. With the Democrats now holding only modest majorities in each house, they would need significant Republican votes to get such an amendment passed, and the Republicans are just not going to provide them.

The very rich are too important a component of the Republican Party; they are not going to participate in goring their own. Local Republicans are but a microcosm of the congressional Republicans, so fervent in insisting on extending the Bush tax cuts to the rich.
an extremely simple minded argument. hey, i supported the higher earners' tax, but you don't just get 2.3 billion dollars without paying for it somehow. i know that, in your mind, you think that the rich just have piles of money sitting around gathering cobwebs, but it just ain't true.
To quote The Lesser Bob from 'Office Space': "Naga-, naga-, not gonna happen here anyway."
The Stranger: Fligging a dead horse since 2010.
And this is why the Monday Morning Quarterback position doesn't pay any better.
How about this idea? Create an income tax that is revenue neutral and slashes the regressive sales tax?

Oh that's right, SEIU would never approve.
I detect a hint of sour grapes in Step 1. Not really a hint. More of a stench.

Really, LET IT GO for now. Give us a little reprieve from the failed amendment, and come back to it fresh and new. Don't whine about it until it comes up again. Because, we may become sick of your POV, and then we'll vote against it.
Do this and they can have their tunnel.
I agree with #7. Tie any new income tax with an elimination of the sales tax and I think you could find additional support in both parties.
It will never happen. The people that earn far more than $200,000+ and their paid-for dogs, like the initiative demagogues, would fight it beyond tooth and nail.
Since when have politicians ever done what the majority of voters want?
@3 is correct. Every nation that has had a higher income tax, has failed, economically, morally, and it leads to reeducation camps gulags and wandering hordes of wolves eating your children. Just look at Sweden, or Switzerland, or France, or Great Britain, or Canada! Other examples include the USA in the years 1939 thru about 1981 -- why do you think the econonmy tanked in the 50s, 60s and 70s, only to surge forward in the 80s and the aughts under low-tax republicans? God, debating this stuff with the liberals is like trying to convince them that the earth is flat, they just don't get it!
You forgot to add that high tax rates drive all the businesses away. That's why there isn't a single business operating in Denmark, Germany, or France. They all fled those countries to open up shops in Burma, Somalia, and the Republic of Congo.
It's a nice idea, but fucking poor people is so much more fun.
@13 you know Myanmar is Socialist right? I guess you never heard of Ne Win's 'Burmese path to Socialism'? 70% of the economy is State-owned.
@14 I woke up on 1..1..11 and didn't notice WA state had become Somalia. Maybe ur thinking if the Rainier Valley?
How's that high tax, SEIU combo working in NJ IL NY CA? any calls to the IMF yet for America's "PIGS"?
@2 wrong.

A flat income tax is permitted with a simple majority vote of both houses and one exemption.

The one exemption could be "$1 million in AGI earnings as determined by the IRS".



oh, and kill that stupid tunnel.
"It will never happen. The people that earn far more than $200,000+ and their paid-for dogs, like the initiative demagogues, would fight it beyond tooth and nail."

Yes, funny how democracy allows people to agitate and vote against things that are not in their interest.

It is almost like democracy is designed to allow a minority of voters to oppose something a majority would push onto them, without their consent. As if, as if, the minority group has rights, and freedoms, and an equal say in how things are run.

Wow, who would have thunk?
@20: way to attach a sense of faux nobility to rich pricks using their money to screw the public.
Any income tax needs to be multi-leveled. The compromise of a flat tax is really a way to screw the poor over, once again.

The arguments against it are fear mongering and based off of fiction.
@ 3: So rich people DON'T have piles of money? Isn't that, you know, kind of the definition of being rich? Because I totally don't support higher taxes for the rich people who don't have piles of extra money. Just the rich people who have hoarded more resources than they need at the expense of all the rest of the society they poach their riches from. Which, I'm pretty sure, is all the rich people. Because that's what being rich is. Like, as in, the definition of rich. Is that. No?
I voted against 1098, but I would vote for a similar measure that created a state income tax (graduated) on most income levels, if it entirely replaced the state sales tax. Income taxes in general are far more progressive forms of taxation than sales taxes. Follow Oregon's example!
@3 - Actually, having piles of money sitting around is kind of the definition of being rich...

@ 13 - Your claim is simply blatantly false. It's like you have a magic 8 ball that gives you bat sh*t crazy catch phrases to jam together into a sentence. I guess you just hope eventually it'll come up with something coherent? Better luck next time...
@23 Economically speaking, you should thank the rich for hoarding their money. It limits supply and makes the money you have more valuable. I can break out the economic model if necessary.

socialists are funny when they try to act smart
@ 26: Compassionately speaking, I won't thank them when the money they hoard was gained by exploiting natural and human resources, which is traditionally how the rich get that way. By fucking everybody else over. Also, while hoarding money may benefit the dollar, it doesn't help people. It is unjust to keep so much more than you can ever use, living in luxury, while so very many people go without the basic necessities of life. What kind of human heart can refuse help to those who need it? What is the point, anyways? Is there really anyone left in the world who doesn't know you can't take it with you when you die? Greed is so 1,000 years ago...