It's pretty fucking stupid to say you're not going to vote for this because "Olympia" might one day lower the floor, like they are our cruel overlords and can't hear us over the constant screams and whippings. It is almost as though you all are using the inherent difficulties of democracy as an excuse to avoid ever having to actually do anything, opting instead to bitch and moan about your lot in life.

Slippery slope arguments about the income tax are just dumb.

If that were the case, why aren't sales taxes 15 or 20 percent? Why isn't the property tax rate 5 or 10 percent? It's legislative suicide ya nimwits.

That's outrageous, our state is basically a tax shelter for the uber-wealthy!

@107
It seems counterproductive to nitpick the difference between wealth and high income.

When Frank Blethen was bitching about the estate tax a few years ago, he said, "It wouldn't be so bad if the state taxed estates a little at a time, but to tax them all at once isn't fair," or words to that effect. Now, Ryan Blethen is saying an income tax is tantamount to "taxing success." B.S. is B.S., however you frame it. They just don't want to pay taxes at all.

Progressive and regressive tax systems both have their problems. With progressive systems, the rich feel they are being used. With regressive systems, poor people find it genuinely hard to get by. A flat tax at a reasonable rate that everybody can abide would be best. Remember the tithe we learned about in Sunday school?

@ 86: So go to Nevada already...You can't have much of a "business" if you can pick up and go wherever to save a couple grand in taxes. Leave the sunroof off your next freakin' car, and don't opt for the gold-plating on your emblems from the dealership. Or trade the old PSV (Penis-Substitute Vehicle) for something logical to start with. (I seriously wouldn't be surprised if you drove on of those things named after a blow-job). And, with a business so pack-up-and-go mobile, I doubt seriously you would ever break the 200K barrier in a decade, let alone a year.

It absolutely AMAZES me the totally bogus, nonsensical crap people will pay for, but some bucks for education or health care???????

First off, with a "business" so easily moveable it is obviously either drugs or some silly notion of "business." The mom-and-pop corner store is a business, and they would get a serious tax break under 1098. And they aren't going nowhere, BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY!!

Second, the major cause of crime in this country is poorly educated youth. Period. Want proof? Go to New Orleans for a couple weeks, where education is given ZERO importance and has, voila, the highest crime and highest VIOLENT crime rate in the country. Seven years running, so don't blame Katrina. Katrina gave the middle-class the opportunity to leave, which they did (to the tune of 187,000).

Want to end homelessness? A large portion of the homeless aren't homeless...they are houseless. BECAUSE THEY LOST EVERYTHING TRYING TO PAY MEDICAL BILLS BECAUSE THE MULTI-MILLION-PER-YEAR-EARNING-F-FACES WANTED TO ADD MORE TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE and often cutoff or severely reduced health benefits and even retirement accounts!!!

ENOUGH OF SHEDDING TEARS FOR THE SERIOUSLY WEALTHY!!! AS THE FAMOUS LINE IN "CHINATOWN" SAYS: HOW MUCH BETTER CAN YOU LIVE???? (OH, AND YOU TRUST-FUND BABIES OUT THERE, REMEMBER IN NEW HAMPSHIRE INTEREST IS TAXED HEAVILY,AS IS ANY PROPERTY SUCH AS CARS AND BOATS. THAT'S HOW THEY MAKE UP FOR NO INCOME TAX.)

TO HELL WITH THE "LET THEM EAT CAKE" ATTITUDE!

PASS 1098 or still be looked at as a laughing-stock and an example of the poor-people-shoulder-and support-the-rich-and-are-kept-where-they-are-to-keep-doing-so. THIS ISN'T THE PRE-CIVIL WAR SOUTH!!!!!

Maybe these freakin' objectors (most of which are actually "wanna-be" rich guys and gals) should move to Europe, pay exorbitant taxes, but, be able to have seances with Marie Antoinette. Just call Nancy Reagan for a referral to a good medium.

Trickle-down=Pissed-on.

@majorpayne: Thanks for your comments to me a few days back, hope you like 112 as well, although I apologize for the language. Just got back from Providence, so I missed a few days. Oh, yes, people pay income tax there. But the nessecities of life aren't sales-taxed and the other state imposed taxes are quite low.

Is that why so many of the uber-wealthy are still in Newport?? I guess our uber-wealthy may want to look into moving there, or Hyannisport, or the Hamptons, where taxes are sooooo low! Oh puleeeeze!

Yes, indeed, melek. Welcome home.

@69: YOU NAILED IT!!!!

One argument that the opposition is sure to press is that there is no need to institute an income tax on the wealthy. We can close the budget shortfall without compromising the quality of public services solely by reducing spending. Let's stop and think carefully about this line of argument. Reducing public spending means that some public sector jobs are very likely to be eliminated. After all the government doesn't produce goods for consumption; it administers service. So to reduce government spending largely entails eliminating jobs in government, espeically if the spending cuts are not going to reduce the quality of public services.

So it follows that the opposition to 1098 is willing to allow for the elimination of jobs in WA state as the correct public policy. That is, unless the opposition hopes to convince us that all the spending cuts will eliminate mere "inefficiencies" without eliminating any jobs. But that is highly doubtful. What's peculiar is that the opposition to 1098 also seems to think that enacting 1098 will kill jobs. It thus seems that the opposition to 1098 does not want to kill jobs, and at the same time is willing to kill jobs. If so, then the opposition's position is incoherent. The real truth is that there doesn't seem to be any way to move forward without killing some jobs, unless perhaps if voters enact I-1098 into law. For the funds from I-1098 will surely make it possible to, at worst, save some existing public sector jobs, and at best, create some new ones.

One argument that the opposition is sure to press is that there is no need to institute an income tax on the wealthy. We can close the budget shortfall without compromising the quality of public services solely by reducing spending. Let's stop and think carefully about this line of argument. Reducing public spending means that some public sector jobs are very likely to be eliminated. After all the government doesn't produce goods for consumption; it administers service. So to reduce government spending largely entails eliminating jobs in government, espeically if the spending cuts are not going to reduce the quality of public services.

So it follows that the opposition to 1098 is willing to allow for the elimination of jobs in WA state as the correct public policy. That is, unless the opposition hopes to convince us that all the spending cuts will eliminate mere "inefficiencies" without eliminating any jobs. But that is highly doubtful. What's peculiar is that the opposition to 1098 also seems to think that enacting 1098 will kill jobs. It thus seems that the opposition to 1098 does not want to kill jobs, and at the same time is willing to kill jobs. If so, then the opposition's position is incoherent. The real truth is that there doesn't seem to be any way to move forward without killing some jobs, unless perhaps if voters enact I-1098 into law. For the funds from I-1098 will surely make it possible to, at worst, save some existing public sector jobs, and at best, create some new ones.

auntie grizelda: Thanks!
majorpayne: good to be back.
And of course, as always, "bless you and god-speed" to Mr Gates Sr.

The rich. They earn, then they spend it. Sales Tax and Property tax is paid by them also. Those rich guys are buying mansions, they pay a tax. If your state has nothing to sell to them, why force them out. Tax them and they go away. That has happened to some of our biggest companies. They went international to not get taxed. Before they would gladly make money elsewhere and bring it to USA. Now they just keep it in Hong Kong.

How about we just eat the rich? There's a popular saying: "democracy is 20 wolves and one sheep all asking what's for dinner". In fact, whenever there's an unpopular minority, we can just tax or regulate them so they're just like the rest of us. Hooray for egalitarianism! I'm not jealous, I just want to spend rich people's money as if it were my own.

Thank you for the article and most sincere thanks to Mr.Gates and everybody who supports the initiative 1098!

The data in this article is misleading. The tax % paid figures only look at the slice of taxes paid to the state, not the overall tax burden experienced by any given individual. If what matters (in terms of fairness) is how much money people get to spend v. forfeit at the end of the day then overall taxes are the only relevant data to consider. Those numbers will look quite a bit different.

I’m very much of two minds about this initiative but one thing that really doesn’t help anyone who wants to make an informed decision is misrepresentation like this.

very good article. Thanks

Great!

Taxes are a very difficult issue. It gets even more messy once you throw politics into the mix.

I still say just a simple tax rate for everyone, no write offs (except charitable donations that are real charities) .... including taxing us in the poverty level. Right now I don't pay anything but sales tax, but to be fair I'd pay an income tax if it would help. With an income tax my housing cost would adjust itself (basically giving money to myself I know but meh) so it would be balanced out. While I'm okay with not paying income taxes at all, to be fair I would. Everyone should pay the same percent.