Seattle Times Editorializes in Favor of State Income Tax!

Comments

1
"Fucking hypocrites."

Maybe you should take a long look in the mirror?

Summer SLOG "Tim Eymans plan isnt so bad after all, assuming it blocks the tunnel."

Fall SLOG "Tim Eymans plan is dumb, its going to starve badly needed road projects."
2
Kinison @1: Maybe you should look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary in regard to any editorializing in The Stranger that Eyman's I-1125 might be good.
3
Goldy, if you like state income tax so much, there are 43 states you could move to where you can have it. I have lived in states both with and without the income tax and much prefer no income tax. And, yes, where I am now we have high-ass property and sales taxes.
4
So what you're saying is we should follow suit and privatize liquor sales while imposing an income tax which will more than offset the drop in revenue from liquor profits.

Sir, this might be the first time you've made sense on the topic.
5
@3: love it or leave it, blah, blah, blah...

@4: I'm opposed to privatization for a number of reasons, but yes, I would make that trade. Privatization in exchange for an income tax sounds like a good deal to me.
6
@2 "Maybe you should look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary"

Maybe you should hone your sarcasm by doing stand up, because honestly its best left for comedians who know what their doing, not political tech trolls like yourself.
7
Goldy, serious question, are there any taxes you're opposed to?

Also, you've responded twice here, but not at all on the post where you claim that public education is inadequately funded on a national level, despite the posters pointing out the documented fact that we're spending 4 or 5 times as much per pupil in inflation adjusted dollars as we did in the 60's.
8
Fuck you Goldy, go choke on your own shit.
9
Everyone knows that Goldy is much loved in Seattle, and despised by the al-Qaeda supporters elsewhere who persist in posting on SLOG.
10
@7: I haven't had time to go back to the numbers, so I can't give an authoritative response. But one factor I'd raise is that the cost of providing government services (like education) inflates significantly faster than background inflation, do to the lack of opportunity for the kind of productivity gains the private sector obtains due to things like automation and outsourcing.

Further, for those who to compare things like class size, and argue that we're spending more than enough money because there are only 32 students to class when in the early 70s it was over 40, well, I don't find that persuasive.
11
@8: Brilliant rhetorical rebuttal.
12
Goldy, I actually have a lot of respect for your ability to dig up and look at numbers and point out where certain people aren't being consistent with their positions. But I'd still like to hear about a tax proposal you haven't approved of.

There have been as many opportunities for productivity gains in public education as in the private sector. Not because of outsourcing, obviously, but automation and computer technology have certainly created opportunities for increased efficiency, which have been ignored by administrators. If you look at administrative costs in public education, I think you'll see a lot of the problems come from there.

Class size doesn't really matter, I think. Besides the fact that there's no evidence that smaller classes improve learning, as long as we're telling teens who can't read that they have to learn chemistry, as long we're telling teens who can't figure out simple percentages that they have to read "Jane Eyre," we're just spinning our wheels.
13
@9 Goldy may be much loved in Seattle, but a state income tax wasn't when I lived there. But with the state mismanaging it's budget and the influx of people from income tax states who may be somewhat receptive to the idea, I think WA will eventually have a state income tax that applies to nearly everyone with income.
14
It seems obvious to me that income tax is a very foolish and inefficient way to collect taxes; it requires a lot more tracking by the state and by the individual paying the tax, costing much more per dollar to collect than sales taxes. There are far fewer businesses collecting sales taxes than individuals living in the state, thus there is far less oversight and review by the state required. I don't have to keep track of anything, so it's easy for me to pay a sales tax, as it is for most people.

I'm going by common sense here. Are there studies about the efficiencies of collecting sales vs. income taxes for states? Is there evidence that collecting an income tax actually improves the overall economy of a state? Because I can tell you, a real job would improve my life more than taxing someone else. Right now, trying to start my own ebay business, but it's not as easy as working for someone else, love to have that time back.

I'd argue that the whole nation should go income tax free for individuals and businesses and we should create a national sales tax to replace it. My only worry is that we'd end up with both.

I'm not wealthy either, so I don't pay income tax now; but it still costs me time and effort to file the proof. It causes some poor slob at the IRS some time to process that proof. It's damn foolish overall. Pure waste of time and effort better spent elsewhere. Being on food stamps and free lunches (automatic with food stamps) for my kids more than makes up for any regressiveness in the tax, as it would for most of us poor people. I don't remember the last time I bought clothes new, wait I do, some socks for my elder son at Walmart. I buy food, power, and not much else. Not sure if there's sales tax on power. So I really pay very little sales tax either.
15
@13,

As an eBay seller, you are legally required to collect sales tax from your buyers and pay the government with documentation. You think that's going to be easier than paying income tax?

Additionally, as someone who's unemployed, you're currently paying pretty much no taxes to the federal government. You'd rather pay a 15 percent tax on goods and services even when you're unemployed? You'd rather see everything you buy automatically go up in price by 15 percent? There is something seriously wrong with you if you can't even advocate for your own well-being.

Sales taxes are dependent on people buying shit, which means that revenue immediately plummets when the economy tanks, which also means that the government has less ability to pay for your food stamps and free lunches. There's a real probability that, thanks to that unreliable funding source, you would lose that help right when you need it most. You think that's a good deal for you and yours?

You and people like you, with your slavish devotion to the welfare of the super rich, are exactly what's wrong with this country.
16
I'm not sure that people understand that Washington already has a state revenue tax (which most states do not have). About 3% of all revenue earned by Washington businesses goes directly to the DOR (department of revenue). Although most states tax personal income--that's take-home money after all personal deductions--we tax all revenue BEFORE employees are paid. My Washington business has 8 employees. We pay 3% of whatever revenue that comes through the door. THEN we pay overhead expenses, THEN we pay salaries and wages. I am surprised that many who are so at arms about getting a state tax are ignorant of what we already pay.