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.
Editors' Picks
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
It's true about the 8.8 percent.
Basically, if you don't make 200K or more, you don't pay it. Period. It's only the REALLY rich who would be taxed.
I still think the graph's confusing. :P
"Hence that segment of the pyramid, right below the top, where you see 72,858 tax returns from people who earn more than $200,000 per year but wouldn't have to pay. Those are returns from couples who are well-off but don't hit the $400,000-per-couple threshold."
I agree though, the graph is confusing.
They don't MAKE AN INCOME -- a paycheck -- so they won't be paying this new state INCOME tax.
So really, I think those who support this tax are not being straight about who will really PAY. Will the proverbial software millionaire pay it? Doesn't sound like they'll need to pay a cent of it; they only pay their 15% CG's to the feds.
Seems like this state income tax will place a very heavy burden on those who already drive the economy -- small business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc. I know, you probably don't feel bad for "them", but believe me, they pay a bundle already in insurance, federal income tax, state B&O, benefits for employees, etc etc etc. Those taxes are already making it difficult to stay afloat as a business and individually.
I won't be voting for this thing.
However, you're right about small business owners, doctors and lawyers being treated differently: if they own their own business, they will get a pretty substantial B&O tax break, not to mention the property tax breaks they will get on their home, lakefront property, and business property.
Your post deserves an 'A' for creativity, but an 'F' for intelligent thought.
93% of businesses will no longer have to pay a B&O tax, in case you're wondering that's the percent of businesses that typically don't post a significant profit.
In addition, those small business owners, doctors, and lawyers will get a 20% state property tax REDUCTION on ALL their homes.
And if they send their children to public schools, their children will experience an increase in the quality of education.
If anyone is carrying too much of the burden surely you can agree it is the 63% of Washington families paying between 8 and 18% of their income into state taxes.
In the private sector, we are required every so often to prove that we are using the resources we're given effectively. The public sector should have to do the same, but tell me - when was the last time this happened?
Even in a flat tax structure (which is also a stupid idea, but let's use it for the sake of the example) the rich person pays more in real dollars.
Example: Person A makes $20k and is taxed 10%; Person B makes $200k and is taxed 10%. Person A is only left with $18k to try to live an entire year on while PERSON B STILL HAS $180k!
Yes, I know that this is obvious and that we all know this, but the simple fact is that Person B will be just fine and Person A will probably not even be able to live on their income.
Now, shifting the example to take the real numbers into account: Person A actually has $16,540 while Person B is cruising along in their shiny new boat counting their $194,800.
Now, with what's left (which, again, is the real point here), tell me who can afford to pay a little more in real dollars...
Time to get rid of more corporate tax exemptions and tax writeoffs.
This is precisely right. I am a single home owner with no children who pays a BUNCH of money every year in property taxes. Much of that tax money goes to pay for public schools. Why should I pay that money if I have no children using those public schools? Why? Because that is the price I pay for living in a society where we need educated people to make everything work. I might not be using the dollars directly, but I am getting direct benefit.
And my house is worth more than my neighbor's, so I pay more (and they have a child...gasp!).
Pretty simple, really.
Start rants about how "if I ever made that much money I'd be HAPPY to pay......" now.
And for the record, this tax doesn't apply to me and is incredibly unlikely to at any point.
It's regressive because it gives the biggest asset owners the biggest tax giveaway.
The property tax cut will take away 1/2 a trillion dollars in taxes from the state.
This bill is "faux populism". It increases taxes on people who work for their money, and reduces taxes on people who have idle assets.
Overtime, it is obvious they will ratchet down the floor for who pays income tax until everyone is paying it and the state becomes even more unbalanced.
Over the next few years, we will experience a great compression in which high end incomes will come tumbling down.
That will leave an entrenched high asset class - whose taxes you wish to cut. And an income tax. The politicians will then remove the floor and tax everyone. At that point, 16 moves ahead, all we all left with is a tax cut for those will supersized assets.
yeson1098.com
But basically what persuades me on this point is that the rich, the holders of capital, make it at the expense of the lower paid, who by underpaid labor and consumer spending, credit and banking schemes continually sap the money from these lower paid to the higher echelons. I understand economics is not a zero sum game, that capital is also created (largely by wage labor), but for the most part people are getting ripped off by the rich. As Jon Stewart stated simply, "I don't mind giving back to a society that has given me so much."
So is an income tax redistribution of wealth? Socialism? In some senses it is, but it is also not the straw man tea partiers make it out to be. This is not, god forbid, Canadian Socialism (though really people mean Communist Soviet Russia of course).
This article opens with the worst manual of style pet peeve. The proper noun "Washington State" refers to WSU. The state is only named Washington.
Thanks.
Oh wait, most of Bill Gates Sr's money is probably in property, assets, and other foundations and he doesn't give one damn about this initiative because he gets a nice tax cut on all his assets. Meanwhile, anyone who actually does well in life and starts getting up into the upper middle class gets fucked over thus keeping them from ever competing with someone of Bill Gates' wealth. Than in another two years when the economy is still tanking and the income tax measure brings in half the revenue that was projected (as happened in Oregon), they will lower the floor. It is inevitable due to state legislators always spending every dime that comes in. This WILL NOT solve any problems.
Wow, do you realllllly think lawyers and doctors all live in waterfront properties? You must not know any.
Those folks (small business owners, doctors, lawyers) are already carrying a huge burden PLUS I know many who are being called upon to help support their extended families-- many, because those family members are are unemployed/underemployed/or are elders needing serious assistance. And then, try to pay for your kids' college, and maybe try to save a little bit for their very-soon-to-be elder selves...and they are being crushed from all sides.
This tax is absolutely insane. These folks I'm speaking about are seriously holding this economy together, and if the state of WA starts dinging them any further, it will get so ugly around here....
By the way, Gates sr. is also a huge fan of estate taxes. But his family will probably pay $0 on that tax. Sounds good, especially after that second Syrah....
So what? Provided there's an eventual lowering of the state sales tax, I'm willing to fork over my percentage for the good of the community. But then, I grew up in a family where we actually NEEDED government assistance for a period of time, so presumably my continued existence on this planet automatically biases me.
REALLY? Look, this tax is 90% backed by the state employee unions. It will let our state leadership off the hook from tough negotiations. If this was a swapping of taxes, I'm on board 100%. Its not. Its the creation of a whole new revenue stream for government.
It's always good for an LOL when someone says "but the private sector is more efficient!!!". Having been employed in the technical private sector full-time for over 10 years now, I can say that if this is the model of efficiency, we're all doomed.
Hasn't our state consistently ranked in the top 3 in terms of government operational efficiency and overall business climate?
State taxes are deductible against federal, much in the same way that we currently deduct sales taxes above a certain amount, so the point about adding to someone's total tax burden is... ?
Bottom line, based on history, I don't trust the state government.
http://washingtonpolicywatch.org/2010/06…
How many of those people paying 17.3% of their income do you think own real property? I'm betting not many. And to anyone who mentions landlords including property tax in rent costs, do you honestly think low rent landlords are going to drop their rates?
The only thing that makes sense is to counter an income tax with a commensurate reduction in sales tax. Sales tax is the most regressive tax we have. Why not target it first?
a) People pay more a bigger percentage of their money right now if they're making less than $20,000. You could also ask why people are expected to pay more even though they earned less.
b) This is a really easy way to help recover funds without having much of a lifestyle impact on ANYONE, &
c) "Earned" is a subjective term.
The B&O tax is applied at every stage of product development and paid to the state, but it is ALSO added to the cost of the product, passed on to the next level, and eventually SOLD to the end user, who then pays sales tax on the inflated price. The end user is the only one who pays—from his income!
In fiscal 2008, the state collected just over $2.9 billion in B&O taxes from businesses, representing over 18 percent of all taxes collected for the state general fund, and $8.3 billion in retail sales taxes. Those two taxes added together make up about 76% of the 17.3% of income that the poor pay in taxes.
The remainder comes from property taxes. A homebuyer pays tax when buying a house and then has the privilege of paying property taxes EVERY year until he dies or sells the house. The property taxes, again, come out of the homeowner's income. No matter what the income level, those are the taxes every Washingtonian pays, and they all come out of gross personal income.
Since ALL taxes come from income, and the ENTIRE tax load amounts to 9% of aggregate personal income, then a flat income tax of 9% could completely REPLACE the entire unfair and complicated system we have now, with everyone sharing the burden equally. Sure, a lot of rich people would complain that they pay too much. If they would be satisfied to KEEP 91%, they wouldn't mind so much.
I-1098 would demonstrate how this would work, by practically eliminating the B&O tax and eliminating 20% of the state school tax. It would also establish the mechanism for collecting the new income tax. The OFM calculates that this would initially cost $16 million in 2012 and would gradually taper to about $5 million a year.
If the income tax is allowed to "trickle down" to the lowest levels and replace ALL of our present taxes, the county tax collectors would go away, the B&O and sales tax collectors would go away, and we would be left with a very efficient tax collection system collecting a very stable tax.
A bonus would be that every Washington taxpayer who itemizes federal deductions would automatically be able to check the Income Tax block on Line 5, Schedule A, and deduct state income tax. Now, the most anyone in Washington (MFJ) can deduct, without keeping reams of documentation, is $3,339 in sales tax for incomes over $200K in King County. With a 9% WA flat tax, a taxpayer with an AGI of $1 million would get to deduct $90,000 instead and lower his federal tax obligation by 35%. Taking the state and federal taxes together, the millionaire's net state tax paid would be 5.85%, the lowest in the entire country. Who could argue against that?
Those of us who don't think the state needs to be taking any money from people earning $20k a year, that's who.
TAX the FUCKING RICH ALREADY!!!!!!
I am FOR I-1098, and nobody I know has ever called it a rightwing initiative. My post 50 only shows anyone who has the brains to understand plain English that this initiative is the start of something hugely beneficial to Washington.
If you can understand basic arithmetic and political bullshit, my post 52 simply removes the right wing's most popular excuse for avoiding any tax reform that might cause them to pay more taxes. Someone who grosses $10,000 can do better on $9,100 after paying a 9% tax up front than blowing $1,730 on taxes with the system we have now.
Thank you for minding your manners in the future.
The remaining greedy rich Republican PIGS can learn from them.
If all Washingtonians pay the exact same sales tax rate wherever they travel, regardless of race, creed, color, other socioeconomic BS, is that not the most egalitarian method of taxation? If everyone pays the same rate, then there is no discrimination inherent in the actual tax method, correct? So, the argument for a graduated income tax is discriminatory in nature. Discrimination is thus 'okay' in the context of taxation. Income discrimination is still discrimination, whatever social justice-ness you'd like to cloak it in. And if the sales tax is so regressive, why not take a swipe at it through this initiative? Pussies. Pause. Let's talk federal wealth redistribution -- most of the people who pay a 'disproportionate share' of the sales tax receive/qualify for a federal income tax return -- most of those who would pay the graduated income tax, receive no such return and in fact pay the taxes that support the bulk of our system. What? Almost half of America pays no federal income tax. But those that do should now have to pay a state income tax too? To prop up a bloated DSHS and pay for the ceaseless budgetary onslaught of public employee colas? State employees, collectively, and across certain sectors of employment made over $50 million in pay increases this year! That is fact – visit OFM.WA.GOV and look at the collective bargaining agreements. If you want to support that while these same people cry about the economy, than be my pathetic and deluded guest.
I contend that solid public school education is delivered best through active parenting and Nat'l board certified teachers -- the income tax will not make kids any more successful or smarter, it's simply a band-aid on the threatened balloon of huge public employment.
To borrow an earlier analogy -- let's say that an income taxable person walks into a mall to buy goods alongside of a non-income taxable person. Both by a pair of designer jeans and fresh-to-def Mikey Aire Farce Puns. Proportionately, the lower income individual pays more of a share of his/her annual income in sales taxes than the 'rich' person. How terribly sad. Lower income individuals should have greater purchasing power, and are perhaps entitled to a certain materialism, like that of the 'rich'.
Paying the sales tax is a choice consumers make -- maybe, just maybe for the lower income individuals, it just might be designed to discourage rampant consumerism and poor budgeting principles, and enourage smart shopping and savings. Same applies to automobiles and other discretionary spending, even diapers (use cloths -- no one is entitled to convenience in the marketplace).
FOOD IS NOT TAXED -- DRINKABLE WATER IS CHEAP AND EVRYWHERE
So, let's discriminate to promote a base level of materialism and consumer entitlement!
Or, buy less shit, and not shit that you don't need if you don't have the money.
And really. Is this idea so terrific that it makes objectivity impossible? You should blow this initiative.
And let's not forget that the wealthy tend to support charitable causes in capacities greater than the rest of us.
How much has been spent by the poor trying to fight this? That's right, we're poor....we don't have any money???
No, Major Payne. This is either a missed opportunity to change a tax structure much maligned for sales tax regressivity, or an outright revenue grab dressed thinly in progressive garb.
I'm saying -- Do not laud the measure on its anti-regressivity when it does nothing to change the structure of our tax system save by adding another major tax. This, on top of the $800 million tagerted from last year's desperate beer and candy revenue creep (which by the way, are essentially taxes on lower income individuals and hipsters who purchase Pabst), this is simply another revenue grab albeit a different target. Basic Health Plan slots were drastically increased on the precipice of the recession, the worst possible time, and should return to the early 2007 level anyway. By the way, the deficit we are currently facing near mirrors the amount of federal stop-gap funding the state took last biennium(?) at around $3 Billion. We can't pay for everything and this tax on top of what we already have perpetuates over-expansion. It is not sustainable.
What this initiative does is save those respective public labor forces from further cuts, which in no way match for misery or numbers the experince of certain private sector industies, and will not improve either service for taxpayers.
But, go ahead and endorse discrimatory policy.
"Sure, other motherfuckers, if I was rich I wouldn't mind giving a little more."
That's fresh and progressive. So, compost that dumb shit your speading
Therefore, I cannot support it. I cannot afford to pay income tax, sales tax and property tax.
Throw out the sales tax or the property tax entirely, then we can have a conversation about an income tax.
But as it is, I will certainly be voting against this initiative.
http://www.eoionline.org/tax_reform/calc…
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
It's time to prune the tree and get it healthy for next season.
Also, I would say 17.3% as compared to 2.6% is pretty darn regressive, and not just 'less progressive'.
You could tax EVERYBODY 100% and it wouldn't make ANY difference.
Regarding people under the poverty level paying tax, please keep in mind a few things. The proposed income tax would be based on AGI, not gross income. Seniors on Social Security and unemployed would have a zero AGI. The standard deduction would reduce federal tax to zero for anyone who still has a low AGI. For those few left below the poverty level, like students with earning potential, the sooner they get used to the "real world," the better, and a flat state tax with no loopholes would provide the most benign portal in the entire country.
Leaving out loopholes for anybody would be a great "principle" to shoot for (@63).
@67, a flat 5% tax is not high enough to REPLACE all of the taxes we have now. It might suffice to get rid of the sales tax, but the hidden B&O tax is worse, and property taxes are almost as bad. At least 9% is needed to replace everything else and the bureaucracy that goes with them.
Part of the beauty of a flat tax would be the low cost of collection. I-1098 would establish the mechanism for collecting an income tax (see the OFM report I mentioned earlier). I have no doubt that I-1098 is a "demo" to show the way to a flat tax for voters who can't see the forest for the trees.
The wealthy get off comparatively cheaply in this State. This modest initiative's passage still wouldn't raise the percentage of income the super wealthy pay up to the percentage of income being paid by the poor and the working poor.
Did you do any fact checking? If so could you please show how someone making $11,000 a year pays 17% in taxes? The sales tax rate varies about 8-10%, and most groceries have no sales tax. Most excise taxes like utilites are below 10%, fuel might be the higest at about 15%. Now if one were to use about 5,000 gallons a year in fuel, and use a lot of tobacco and alcohol, then just maybe you could hit 17%. Maybe you are talking about taxes that are not passed on to the consumer but increase prices through business absorbed taxes. Or you could argue an effective tax rate, but since someone making $11,000 a year pays no federal income tax, and qualifies for earned income credit which is essentially a refund of the social security tax, the effective tax would essentially be on almost all the earned income. You may have evidence to support the 17.3% claim but you have provided none, in fact no one has provided any. I agree Wasington has a regressive tax system and there should be changes but you will never make progress but stating outlandish "facts" that seem to have no basis.
Also, you keep incorrectly referring to this as an income tax, its not, it is an excise tax and there is a significant difference. This mistake makes me think you did not consult a tax or even economics professional whatsoever about this article.
Washington is singled out on page 11 as the most unfair state in the country for poor people, with the 17.3% and 2.6% figures. The chart for Washington on page 110 shows graphically that sales and excise taxes make up 13.1% of the taxes the poor pay, and property taxes account for 4.2%. B&O taxes and excise taxes are buried in the price of the commodity, and the sales tax is applied to the inflated price, so those taxes are combined in one bar of the graph. Food may have B&O tax buried in its cost even though it has no sales tax.
Property tax is part of the rent paid to a landlord, or part of a mortgage payment, or paid directly to a county tax collector and is not part of a sale, so the graph shows this tax separate from the other taxes, making the two sets additive.
1. because if we vote for it, it's the law, and tough shit, rich man. You won't be hurting so stop whining.
2. because if we take from the pooor it helps prevent them from being rich; it's hard to pay for education and health nd saving and everything else when taxed 17% then you are more likely to need social services anyway. IOW we currently he a shell game of taxing the poor to provide benefits to the poor; it's sort of a wasteful wash.
3. because we buy stuff with the taxes and the stuff is good to buy, because our leg. reps. voted for it.
4. same as 3 but add that spending money is good for the poor an deveryone else, as you might have noticed it's the income tax states that tend to be better off? Just like switzerland and germany and france are doing better than somalia and guatemala? we all do better when all do okay, got it? even you, the rich, do better.
5. no one "should" have to pay taxes. but the rich "shouldn't" have to pay even less than the poor, cuz, um, do I have to spell it out dude -- the rich got more money so when we load up a $450,000 income couple with this onerous tax and they only pay what, $5K more in taxesw, who gives a shit, that means they get only 4 weeks at sun valley every winter not five weeks whereas if we get that $5K from 100 poor families we're taking food clothing textbooks and health care out of their budget. Can you grok that?
6. it's immoral to load taxes onto poor people who can't afford it douchebag.
You really showed me nothing. I can provide graphs and pie charts all day that show different variations on all income levels. As far property taxes, b&o taxes, etc built into the price of everything that is no different than any other state. Every state has property tax, some higher, some lower, in most states companies pay an income tax, you think that is not built into the cost of goods? Did you ever think about Texas, Ohio, Michigan, do you understand their tax system? For that matter what about Renton? If you try and equate the cost of tax in goods into the total tax someone pays you will be lost all day long because it will never be the same for the each person. All I'm saying is provide logical arguments. The reality of this argument does not hold.
I can afford it. The State can't afford not to.
AP prefers lower-case "Washington state."
The Gregg Reference Manual prefers "Washington State."
Chicago 14 is ambiguous on this particular example (see 7.40), but the examples there and in 7.44 imply that "Washington State" is probably preferable when referring to the political entity.
Various in-house style guides prefer the "up style" as well (e.g. SAIS Review at Johns Hopkins; Washington State University uses the "up style" referring to the state and not the school; the U.S. Department of Energy uses the "up style"; AJIL uses "up style"; etc.). There are just as many examples of entities that use the "down style." It's not "right" or "wrong" either way.
You could not be further from the truth, this is a misconception (and the propenents of the bill have bought into it) Sales tax provide a more steady income than income tax.
I'll explain it in simple terms, if a company is not making money it pays no tax (and can even go back to years it did pay tax and get a refund of that tax against the losses it currently has), opposed to a b&o tax which is levied regardless if a company is making money (yes it decreases with sales but there will always be some tax paid). Its the case for an individual, no job=no income tax, but they still must pay the same sales tax to purchase goods regardless. On the flip side a sales tax state may see the benefit of a good economy through an increase of goods being purchased, but they do not enjoy the same swing upwards when a company may be posting large profits. Sales tax may be regressive and benefit rich more than poor but it provides lesser swings compared to an income tax in good or bad economies.
Both ST and income tax revenues fluctuate widely with economies, that is why Europe has mostly moved to a vat tax, Texas shifted away from an income tax and California has proposed a BNRT. All I said is ST revenue has less fluctuation than income taxes, if you look at all the tax systems I mentioned above they are all much closer to a B&O type system than an income tax system in part for that reason. As far as a poor economy WA is better off than California which has both taxes, and don't forget the income tax only state of Oregon, their economy flat out sucks. There are also about a thousand other factors that go into all that but you made a broad sweeping statement in single sentence with absolutely no basis apart from maybe what you deduced by reading a few articles and what your buddy told you at the bar.
You can't just throw numbers around on such an obtuse subject. "Everybody knows that."
That's clearly not enough for The Stranger's readers. What number would satisfy you?
What you showed me is marketing material, there is no substance to those numbers. You also showed me you know just enough to be dangerous (kudos you do more than most) but you really do not have a deep understanding of taxes, if you did you probably would not be in such huge support of this bill, no one posting here is seeing the windfall that will be blessed upon a certain group if this passes (and guess what its not the poor or the middle class). Therefore I don't need to spend anymore of my time discussing this with you.
Sidenote: Whenever the rich support something there is usually something in it for them, and often it does not become apparent for many years.
IF this tax actually pumped $2 billion annually for education and health Care, where is it stated that Olympia can not redistribute current funding for those programs?
Why swap one tax for another? How do the 'poor' (who probably don't own property) benefit from reduction in property taxes? Landlords will likely pocket any savings coming their way.
This is a new version of smoke and mirrors.
Vote NO on 1098.
A very compelling argument, but fallacious.
Who paid you to run this advertisement as news?
I plan to live in WA for the next few decades and don't want State income tax on my hard-earned $35,000/year.
I would save $208 off my property tax, which is a major concern all over my county. Since the property tax cut is available to everybody, the rich would benefit as well.
The B&O tax is hidden inside the cost of everything we buy (yes, even food), and the sales tax is applied to the final cost of nearly everything but food, so eliminating the B&O tax would lower sales taxes.
All you folks who keep sniping "Olympia will do . . ." should remember that you vote for those people, so use your brains and insist that they do what you want. I will vote for I-1098 and for representatives who will promise to make it work and who will continue to work for tax reform.