Blogs
Feb 26, 2014 at 9:55 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
I propose a Jock Tax to pay for K12 Arts and Entertainment, and Athletics, in the state. Professional sports are "entertainment" and claim tax exempt status for ( in part) education.
The larger point is, there are creative ways to raise revenue beyond yet another property tax levy. $15 opponents want to use the human services issue as a lever for killing or emasculating a minimum wage ordinance. But raising taxes for something worthy is not such a big lift in Seattle.
Elton John isn't a charity.
So, that's the nexus between the tax and funding arts and music in K-12.
If that somehow supplanted general fund money to pay workers $15 an hour, so be it.
Our tax structure is the core of our problems. I'm at least trying to get at the underlying issue.
What you will get back from most legislators is that there needs to be a nexus.
You should know this.
Yes raise the minimum wage, but also make college more affordable and education better for young people. Figure out a way to get us better healthcare. Make healthy foods more accessible. Get guns out of people's hands. Figure out a way to get support systems in place for low income families.
All of these things are part of the problem and raising minimum wage is only a small part of the solution. The discussion needs to be wider.
There's a very good chance that a jock tax would be constitutional. But we'll never know unless we pass one.
Grow the eff up, Goldy.
Oh it's Goldy.
And whats a low-paid athlete? Technically Russell Wilson is a low paid athlete, still under a rookie contract, legally one could easily argue this to avoid paying the tax.
Here's the thing...the majority of money flowing into Washington State is not income from jobs or small businesses. It's money from assets, like capital appreciation and rental monies.
The Feds already solved this problem with a NIIT. It's 3.8% percent tax on "passive income" above a certain (reasonable) amount. It's being used to fund Obamacare.
The simple and logical approach, and one that would be truly progressive, would be to follow this model exactly, and add an additional 1% State Investment Income Tax (SIIT). We'd use the same metrics, same evaluations, it would be essentially a paperless change.
A NIIT/SIIT taxes:
http://taxes.about.com/od/Types-of-Taxes…
Nobody will vote for something that looks that ridiculous in print OR MAYBE THEY WILL.
Speaking of solutions, paying social workers a living wage ($12.75/hour is indefensible) might do a lot to keep hard-working, caring people in those jobs. I've never known a social worker to be able to hack it for more than a couple of years. They're overworked and underpaid.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"plausible". Uh-huh. You're a cartoon.
This also reminds me of the petty solutions politicians propose to help the poor. Give them subsidized or free heating oil in the winter! Give them subsidized or free phones! Have you considered providing them with enough money to live on?
It's a tax he only supports because the people affected by it don't have the collective ability to resist it, nor do they have the incomes that would make people feel bad about it.
It's like taxing smokers except for the fact visiting athletes don't usually have negative externalities that society collectively pays for (I won't listen to you if you call a voter approved bond measure for our bread and circuses an externality in need of remedy).
Basically Goldy thinks he's so smart for finding a tax most people would be indifferent to, but has no underlying basis other than ease of implementation. If you want a tax system based on ease of tax collection, say so.
I'm not a well heeled athlete but I think there are more efficient ways to raise revenue through economic activity we already engage in rather than trying to siphon money off athletes.
I mean, when you're cribbing revenue ideas from Cleveland you gotta take a step back and consider the options.
I know Goldy's 99% troll. Now he's just a lazy troll.
The perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that.
Singling out an arbitrary group of (somewhat) high income people is just lazy ass trolling on your part.
It would be great to see us be able to get the tens of millions of dollars per year social services in Seattle will need just to bring wages up to where they should be, not to mention the millions more we need to bring increase services for all the people who need them. Let's definitely work on that. And the business community should be lobbying for this. I know the members of the CCI have already started doing that.
In the meantime, I don't believe we'll get those taxes raised and paid out to the social services mentioned in the report, let alone the dozens of others not mentioned, who will cut services Jan 1 2015, if $15Now gets their proposal passed. So instead of $15Now, let's do $15 smart and phase in the increase to $15 over a number of years for social services and non-profits. Anything less is irresponsible and is pitting one group of poor against the other.
How many of those others making $12.75/hour are college educated? How many of them have similar work loads? How does the pay of social workers (a field dominated by women) compare to other government jobs dominated by men that require the same qualifications?
Also, do you remember how loudly you were complaining that $40,000/year wasn't "enough" for garbage collectors in this city? So, for the record, you think male garbage collectors deserve better pay than female social workers.
As for your other questions, I would say that virtually all of them have degrees, probably MSWs. Since there really isn't such a thing as case manager efficiency (an experienced case manager may do better work with clients than newbies, but they're not going to be able to magically handle twice the clients), pay is usually based on seniority, via a complicated system of levels and annual steps, which we spent literally hundreds and hundreds of person-hours devising. We pay higher than market today -- but it's not enough. It will never be enough.We do what we can. It will never be for everybody. BTW, management is almost all women as well.
There's the actual revenue a Jock Tax could raise, sure. But it's also about crafting a tax with the best shot at getting the "is income property?" issue back before the court.
1) Seattle passes some sort of income tax
2) The issue of WA income tax is settled in court
If courts now allow income taxes...
3) Tim Eyman is raised from the dead.
4) The rest of the state would immediately push for a constitutional amendment that re-imposed the ban on income taxes. Takes 2/3 of legislature plus statewide vote.
1098 in King County was 45% for to 55% against . The only County that it passed in was San Juan, by a 56 vote margin.
http://vote.wa.gov/results/20101102/Init…
http://socialistworker.org/2010/11/30/wh…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2…
Which means if Seattle tries to overturn the ban on income taxes on its own, the rest of the state would coalesce on re-imposing it.
I didn't say a legal nexus, just a nexus. Asking legislators to raise taxes is difficult enough. Asking them to do so without a logical connection between what is being taxed and who benefits from the tax (a nexus) is routinely cited as an easy excuse not to support legislation.
You're asking legislators to support a raise in Seattle's minimum wage by applying a tax at city and county facilities for the benefit of just Seattle, or were you just going to tax pro sports at KeyArena and exempt the Storm?
Good luck with that.
A logical use of a pro sports and professional entertainment fee on the performers would use in perpetuating and cultivating the very same arts, entertainment, and sports, that the tax is derived from is a nexus.
Exempt performers (and income) that make less than 10x the base wage of a public school teacher, and exempting resident performers (they are paying a variety of taxes just living here).
It would provide some dedicated funding for K12 arts, and amateur athletics.
the mariners - they have about 25 guys on the team. some make a lot, others not so much. either way there isnt that much money being paid to big-time athletes here . we're talking about 40 people tops. and they earn at least 1/2 of their income OUTSIDE the state
this is soooo dumb of an idea, it makes me annoyed that i even read the article.
This is what you get when you let a mediocre writer take on sports! LOB!
mlb average is a little higher , say $125 mil. so the rev pool of this is 225 million. and around the country, the jock tax is about 0.25 percent on avg...lets round up to 1%...you really want to start a tax arguement/fight to win $2.25 million?
you want to go after the the most popular celeb's in town - the Seahawks - for chump change - while the team owners, big business, etc are not targeted? after all of the b&O and liquor tax they helped generate the last 2 years?
you would play right into anti-tax political hands and Poison the well for a lot of middle of the road people regarding good arguements for a more fair, progressive tax structure in the state?
not to mention the subtle racial discriminiation issues around targeting a mostly 'defenseless' minority group (pro-athletes) to advance some 'wacky liberal cause' or 'hidden agenda'....while leaving the real wealthy folks like paul allen & mariner owners (ultra-rich white people) unscathed.
seems like a fools errand to me
Sure, we all remember the guys who played for a decade and retired wealthy, but the vast majority of players play for a year or two, and then are forced out of the league with little to show for it. A huge number of former NFL players are bankrupt or now living what we would consider middle or lower class existences. But these guys are invisible.
So instead of targeting the (often minority) guys sacrificing their bodies and futures for a small chance of a comfortable life, why not target this arbitrary tax at the billionaire owners of the sports team? Or is that too progressive a tax?
Wow... really ? No income tax in the US ? How do you finance public services then ? Like education, social aids, health insurance, road maintenance, a well-regulated police force, and stuff ?
But keep chasing your windmills! How about a tax on air?
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.
"“All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property . The word 'property' as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership .”
Only way to possibly get around this would be a flat tax which I'd support. Time for the moochers to have some skin in the game. Of course you look at Illinois with a flat income tax sales tax and property tax and it's a mess.