Washington State has the most regressive taxes of any state in the country. In Washington, poor people pay 17.3 percent of their income in taxes, while the filthy rich pay only 2.6 percent of their income in taxes. This is the result of our state’s heavy reliance on the sales tax, which accounts for over 50 percent of all state revenue. Imagine two families, one rich and one poor, going to the same store and buying the same basket of goods and subjected to the same sales tax. For the poor family, it’s a much heavier burden than for the rich family. The sensible way to even out the tax burden is to tax income, like most other states. But Washington doesn’t have an income tax. Never has. Hence our status as a national embarrassment—more regressive on taxes than even Texas or Georgia.
As the debate heats up over Initiative 1098, you’re going to be hearing a lot about “the taxpayers of Washington State.” But it’s a very small minority of high-income earners—only about 38,400 of them—who would be paying the new income tax. That’s because it’s a tax only on individuals who earn over $200,000 in a year or on couples who file a joint tax return that shows them collectively earning more than $400,000 in a year. (Meaning that if you’re half of a wealthy couple and together you earn $399,999 a year, you don’t have to pay any income tax under I-1098. 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.) The new income tax on the 38,400 wealthiest Washingtonians would bring in about $2 billion annually for education and health-care programs—programs that help working families and the middle class the most.
In Washington, people who earn an average of $11,000 a year currently pay 17.3 percent of their income in taxes, but people who earn $1.8 million a year pay only 2.6 percent of their income in taxes. It’s like a sliding scale that’s sliding in the wrong direction. Or trickle-up economics. Or a subsidy for moguls and CEOs. Washington currently has a $3 billion projected budget shortfall for the next two-year budgeting cycle—which means, just like in the last budgeting cycle, programs dealing with everything from health care to public education are going to be hacked away at. Perversely, those cuts will land hardest on those who already pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes.
Bleak numbers, but this initiative could help. In addition to adding a high-earners income tax, if I-1098 passes, the rich and poor alike in this state will get a 20 percent cut in their state property taxes. And 93 percent of all businesses would get a tax cut or an exemption from B&O taxes. Economic stimulus! (This despite claims by opponents that I-1098 is going to hurt businesses in Washington.)
The main argument from income-tax opponents is that I-1098 is just the beginning. Wait a few years, they say, and it won’t be just the filthy rich who are paying income tax—it’ll be everyone. How will this happen? The Democrats in the state legislature! They’ll expand the income tax! They can’t resist! The truth is, in the entire history of Washington State, the state legislature—whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans—has never successfully implemented an income tax. Politicians in Olympia are simply too cowardly to touch this idea. In any case, even if they did decide to destroy their careers by taxing more than just the filthy rich, citizens always have the last word. They can reverse an action of the legislature by initiative or, as they seem likely to do this fall, vote for an initiative like I-1053 (also on the ballot in November) that makes it harder for Olympia lawmakers to institute any tax increases in the first place by requiring a two-thirds majority for any such move.
Who’s behind the $1.5 million campaign against finally fixing the most regressive tax structure in the country? People like Matt McIlwain, the Seattle venture capitalist who was ranked 57th on the Forbes Midas List in 2009 and has personally donated $5,000 (while his venture capital firm has kicked in $50,000) to defeat I-1098. McIlwain sent his kid to private school and supports the anti-gay-marriage group Families Northwest. Wireless communications magnate John Stanton and his wife, Theresa Gillespie, one of the richest couples in America, estimated to be worth more than $1 billion, have put in $75,000 to defeat I-1098. And let’s not forget Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen, who earned $1.13 million in salary and bonuses in 1999, according to the Wall Street Journal, and whose editorial page has led the rhetorical charge against I-1098. Let’s say Blethen now earns only $1 million a year (times are tough for newspapers) and files a joint tax return. Under I-1098, Blethen would be paying only 3 percent of his earned income in taxes. Let’s say times have gotten really tough and Blethen these days earns only $500,000 a year. In that case, he’d pay only 1 percent of his income in taxes under I-1098. Boo-hoo. The main mover behind I-1098, Bill Gates Sr., a famous lawyer and philanthropist and father, has put $500,000 of his own money into the campaign to pass the high-earners income tax. He is one of those people at the top of the pyramid, so he would pay the tax. Happily. 
Download this story as a PDF poster here.
Pol Pot: You are the first person ever to call me a rightwing anything. I suspect 99% of the people on this blog know that the moron in this exchange is not me.
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.
God bless Bill Gates Sr and Bill (and Miranda) Gates, Jr.
The remaining greedy rich Republican PIGS can learn from them.
sgt doom: I feel the same about Ryan Blethen’s picture in The Times. He looks like Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine fame, and his editorials are about as nauseating.
Regressive tax structure? Say WA?
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.
A lot of money has been spent trying to convince us that taxing the rich is a bad idea.
How much has been spent by the poor trying to fight this? That’s right, we’re poor….we don’t have any money???
unregistered loser: You can do only so much with a single initiative. You are way too bogged down in tangents and trivia. What I-1098 does is plenty for a start. Just vote for it and see what happens.
Doesn’t california have an income tax? I wonder if Tupac payed California state income tax. I imagine that around 1994, such dues were exorbitant. So, how’s California doing now? News — It’s a fucksandwich there. This will not fix our budget problems. Spending less is typically how any entity escapesf debt.
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
Honestly I’d rather be locked up in a cold stainless steel chamber with a cattle prod shoved up my virgin ass while being forced to listen to “Uptown Girl” on repeat for 14 hours straight than to sit here and read all these pointless bullshit statistics about taxes. Why isn’t anyone discussing real principles? This conversation is so detached from what is actually happening I could just shove my penis in a vice and derive more pleasure. Wake the fuck up people. Jeaz.
I’m in the camp that believes the legislature will dramatically expand this tax within just a few years of it being implemented.
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.
The percentages in this chart are completely inaccurate. They don’t include the biggest tax on the middle class and wealthy, the Federal Income Tax, most of which goes back to the state. We don’t have a regressive tax system, just less progressive than the states where rich people don’t want to have their businesses.
How about we eliminate the state sales tax and charge a flat-rate 5% income tax against everyone except those below the state-defined poverty line?
For those of you who actually need to be directly compensated for helping others here is a new calculator to help you see how much 1098 will personally benefit you.
http://www.eoionline.org/tax_reform/calc…
Actually, MtnFreak has it right, but could you imagine trying to get an across-the board income tax passed? Never ever happen. Instead, Washingtonians don’t seem to mind being nickel and dimed to death on a daily basis. It is absurd that we don’t have income tax (and we call ourselves progressive….) while at the same time we have a sales tax that is obscene!! Pretty sad when you think about it…We rank 50th out of 50 states in tax fairness, behind such hot-beds of forward-thinking as Louisiana. Oh puleeeeze. Every time I go to the store I am disgusted with the retail taxes. Perhaps why I buy the majority of things when I travel back to New England, and order my cigs on-line. Washington is a gorgeous place to live, but progressive??? Light years behind most states. 1098 at least begins to address this descrepancy in fairness, and God knows we need to add some stability to our school systems. Oh, that’s right, the rich go to private schools. Good luck and God-speed to Mr. Gates Sr. At least he and his son EARNED their money instead of embezzling it like Eyman.
HEY THERE!!! PLEASE GO BACK TO #69 AND CLICK IT ON….FOR SOME REASON IT GOT POSTED AS UNREGISTERED….STRANGER HOPEFULLY WILL FIX THAT
OOPS!! Guess they did!
@majorpayne: Yes, a flat 9% income tax would be better for the poor than the current system, but it would still suck pretty hard. Flat taxes by their nature create a disproportionate burden on low income households.
Re: digitalwitch’s comment. Think about it, now the poor pay 17.6% of their income in taxes. 9% would be a relief. Also, to clarify, I don’t think any income tax should be applied to those under the state-defined poverty level, and only income OVER that level should be taxed for everyone else.
It’s simple: one of these i’s will be asked to spend a little more off their frosting toward the public benefit, the other 72 i’s will have improved budget management and more available resources to purchase the products or services offered by the generous i and its peers.
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.
@65: Actually, because Washington tax filers are not allowed to take the standard federal INCOME tax deduction (most of us non-itemizers take the standard sales tax deduction), a larger percentage of OUR tax dollars go to the federal government than are returned to the state. Just take a look at the standard deduction rates for those two taxes and you’ll understand why this is the case.
Also, I would say 17.3% as compared to 2.6% is pretty darn regressive, and not just ‘less progressive’.
The more money the RICH make, the more they WANT. The more money the GOVERNMENT ~takes~ the more the government WANTS.
You could tax EVERYBODY 100% and it wouldn’t make ANY difference.
About half of those returns “won’t make” over 200k next year….
I agree with 77.. Also, the article states that this tax would bring in 2 billion, from just 38,400 individuals, really? That’s over 50k per year each, on average..!
And this is why we are leaving Washington State for Flordia’s sunny shores.
@79: Good riddance.
melek: Excellent, thoughtful comments. I hope the people who wrote 62,63,64, and many others pay attention.
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.
This correction of our State’s extremely regressive tax structure is long overdue.
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.
Eli,
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.
The information that synonymous seeks may be found on pages 11 and 110 of a report that can be downloaded from http://www.itepnet.org (Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy).
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.
@9 there are several reasons why.
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.
I’m a small business owner that recently moved to Washington from California due to its overall lower taxes. If an income tax is necessary for improving education, fine; I just think they should cap it at around 5%, or about half of what the rest of the west coast is. As the ballot is written, I’ll likely return to California or perhaps Nevada – same taxes, but better weather.
majorpayne
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.
The other thing which I was really driving at is Eli simply did not do his homework on this. I never said if I am actually for against this.
As someone who makes well north of $200,000 per year, I cannot more emphatically urge you to vote YES on 1098.
I can afford it. The State can’t afford not to.
@29: It totally depends on the style manual being used. There is no right or wrong for this capitalization issue; there is only a need for consistency in following the designated style guide.
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.
Hang’em.Taxing them only makes them feel ‘good’.Confiscate ‘their’ shit so people can go to university full time.And while your at it,tax their fucking corporations:after all,their ‘persons’*sigh*.And close those fucking pro-rich tax loopholes.
The “soak the rich tax” that is being proposed is really a band aid. Our system of funding primarily based on sales tax is fundamentally broken. During economic fluctuations, sales tax revenue varies much more than incomes tax revenue. I’d rather see a comprehensive overhaul of the tax system, shifting revenue to an income tax andd reducing sales tax, than an adding an income tax on a very small minority.
Luxury taxes are beautiful!Oops:I meant in comment 91 that the corporation owned by the rich are ‘persons’;so they should be taxed if they ‘earn’ a large income.
THE BIG QUESTION? WHO WOULD PAY THE TAX 3 YEARS AFTER IT PASSED and the legislature could change the limits with a majority vote?
The big question is why should the rest of us subsidize the rich and ultra-rich?
Scott T:
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.
#96- Sales tax revenues fluctuate widely. That’s why our economy is so poor- worried people spend less of their money on purchases and put less tax dollars into the system. The government recieves less funding and is thus less able to subsidize programs for private industry.
jjohn;
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.
synonymous: You asked, “could you please show how someone making $11,000 a year pays 17% in taxes?” I just answered the question you asked. The rest of your diatribe is completely pointless, as near as I can determine.
I think i will abandon my $200k per yr job kick my mom out of the condo I pay for her to live in and stop paying for the food she eats and her medical bills. Then tell my wife and children they need to go stand in line for food stamps. fuck all this shit and hard work. I can just live off the other lazy bastards who don;t want to work. Why should I have work 80hr weeks and feed 2 familes and house two of them and pay all the tax. fuck all you bastards.
I love The Stranger, but an article about taxes that has to have its sources pointed out by the online commenters makes for a pretty sad editorial.
You can’t just throw numbers around on such an obtuse subject. “Everybody knows that.”
Based on this article’s stats and sources, each “rich” person in this state is subsidizing the taxes of ~25 “poor” people.
That’s clearly not enough for The Stranger’s readers. What number would satisfy you?
majorpayne
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.
This does not make sense.
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?
Please vote NO on 1098, this isn’t about income taxes on the wealthy. It’s about the average earner like myself. The state will amend the bill within 5 to 7 years to have income taxes for everyone, regardless.
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.
@101: The article DOES reference its sources—the pyramid references the IRS and the WA state office of financial management, and the bar chart references the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (and you can download its complete report from http://www.itepnet.org).
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.