News
Sep 15, 2014 at 6:00 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.
More In News
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
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 was at a forum a couple of years ago in which Frank Chopp blithely dismissed any notion of an income tax. It has been tried in this state many times, and fails every time it goes on the ballot. Last time it failed, even with the financial backing of Bill Gates Sr. For reasons that escape me, the voters of this state seem content to wallow in the most regressive tax structure in the country. It will take considerable effort and considerable time by a long-term grass roots campaign to sway a significant number of voters to change their minds.
Good luck.
No it's not. The tax base grew at 3.1% in 2013 (down from it's typical 9% growth). Inflation was less than 2%.
How does someone pay 11.2% of their $17,000 income on sales tax? That means they are paying over $1700 a year on sales tax? Spending more than they earn? I know we tax weed now, but does WA state tax food or rent?
Yes, liberals like to think of money as the same as a good or service. But sadly for you, Washington voters, by a 2-1 margin, see marginal utility in keeping more of their income rather than shipping it to the SEIU ⌠sorry âOlympiaâ.
I'm pretty sure she'll win. "Resentment" is popular down there I hear.
We in VA actually (and bizzarely) look kind of...progressive by comparision. At least according to that infographic.
The facts and remedies laid out by Jayapal here have been known for quite a while. The problem is that the solutions require: an amendment to the state constitution; simultaneous laws passed by the legislature reducing sales taxes and restructuring B&O; a governor & attorney general who will sign & enforce those laws.
Neither side trusts the other to follow through with the other half of the package, and both sides profit from the gridlock. We pretty much need a superstar governor to run exclusively on the tax reform platform, and win by a large margin, for such a major political change to happen.
The trust part of this comment is hogwash because the politicians could surely push through a grand compromise bill (or set of bills) at the same time, or a public initiative could remedy the various tax structures.
The real fact is that politicians simply don't have much of an incentive to push through such reform. What do they stand to gain? Some votes from poorer voters? At the risk of less support from wealthy voters (and more importantly, donors)? For a cause that at best half the electorate supports? That is not an environment conducive to legislative action.
The easiest backdoor income tax at this point is a higher property tax. I imagine undoing whatever Eyman initiatives are still in place is a much easier and more politically palatable effort.
Legislatures like to spend and, frankly, well over half of government spending at every level is sheer waste, or spent on programs that have counter productive unintended consequences. We don't need more revenue: we need government that spends much less.
I have never heard a Washington State politician mention this.
Ever.
So, good luck, Pramila Jayapal.
By the way, the fastest grown states have:
(1) No income tax
(2) Moderate sales tax (below 5%)
(3) 1-2% property tax, with no caps on year to year adjustments.
If you read the Washington State constitution, it allowed for the definition of "property" as meaning all assets.
If we restored our state to the original Constitution, we would not have unfair and unbalanced taxation.
It failed because everyone knew that if they started off with an "income tax on the rich" it wouldn't take long for the crooks in Olympia to ratchet it down upon the middle class and poor.
The biggest burden on this state are the Washington Longtimers who get 99% of the benefits from owning most of the land while contributing nearly nothing in return.
The math is the real problem. Poor people are paid at the federal and state levels for their citizenship. Between medical care, child care, housing assistance and a raft of other incentives to poor life planning they are net beneficiaries of our taxes, not payers.
Second, I call bs. Excluding payroll taxes the very poor pay no taxes, in fact get checks. Nor is our tax system at the federal level (which the author really shouldn't be discussing since that isn't the system she's proposing to remedy) inequitable. 47% of tax filers pay no income tax. The top 15% pay nearly 60% of all taxes. Well, I was wrong. That is in fact profoundly unfair- to those who pay for others citizenship.
Like all leftist claims to equality or fairness or equity this one uses those words to argue for their opposite ideas.
Weird how activist judges going against the electoral will to redefine marraige are heroes of the people. But when every single time an income tax is proposed it's soundly defeated, it's a few rich folks corrupting the system.
Odd.
What does this even mean?
@9 Ever notice how they never give examples of how it plays out? If I make 200k and I buy a car, or a bunch of tvs or whichever and its 3% of my income, thats still more than someone on minimum wage paying taxes on shoes ikea furniture and cheetos.
If your issue is that philosophically the rich should pay more, and don't, maybe outlawing lobbying first would make more sense. Since poors aren't represented well, even though they pay similar tax rates. This makes state actions like 9 billion in tax exemptions to boeing much more egregious, considering the author claims we are 10 billion short.
Nice anecdote.
"I-1098 failed because people .... voted OVERWHELMINGLY against it."
There. That was easy wasn't it.
But of course, you think "the people" are idiots. And I encourage leftists to call "the people" idiots. It does wonders for your cause.
But I'm humble. And willing to learn. So please, oh great and powerful Mile High, which fact isn't true?
The federal tax breakdowns by percent? Nah. Straight off the IRS website.
Poor people actually get in direct assistance or checks, more than they (don't) pay in taxes? Again, demonstrably true from government figures.
So, Mile High, where is the lie?
The editorialist can't make her point honestly, so she's mixing a claim of state tax inequality with data from federal and state taxation.
Which is a pity, if a predictable one. She's partly right. Our tax system is a complicated mess which loses revenue precisely when it's most needed, during difficult economic times.
And then of course she states a lot of philosophical ideas of what governance should be. Without bothering to give any reason the reader should share her assumptions.
All in all poorly argued on misstated or misunderstood numbers, heavy on assumptions and ignorant of logic. She should start using profanity and bigotry, and the Stranger would probably hire her.
The main LIE here, SB, is this: "Weird how activist judges going against the electoral will to redefine marraige..." You said it, and it's a lie. Liar.
Oh. So they aren't overturning popular will in states which value family and marriage? The fags and dykes aren't suing where they know they can't engage in lies about 'marriage equality' they already have?
The main push in the attacks on marriage haven't been in court lately?
Weird. Because I don't recall a recent story about legislation to destroy marriage, just a lot of activist judges saying to hell with electoral will.
That's all you need to know about him right there.
What taxes do they pay? Are they really paying 11.2% of their income in sales taxes, as claimed by Olympia on their website? What exactly are they buying that means they buy taxable items worth more than they annual incomes? Rims? Sound systems? Weed?
Nope, just wondering how you buy more stuff that is taxed than your actual income. Olympia is claiming the poors in WA state pay 11.2% of their incomes in sales tax. Basic math tells me these figures are bullshit.
The word is puzzled. If I make 20k a year, to pay 2k in sales tax, I'd have to spend my entire income on taxable items. So, either someone is playing with numbers, lying, or badly confused. Assuming that's what the state department of revenue is claiming. Alternatively, they're claiming that rent and other necessary items fold the tax burden in and pass it on to the tenant or buyer. Though this would be impossible to prove, so our scrupulously honest state officials would never....
Sorry, choked on my coffee thinking about a government employee being honest. Or competent. Or employable in the private market.
1. renting a cheaper apartment
2. Consuming less taxable items or buying second hand on craigslist.
3. Drink wine instead of beer.
If you can't do those two basic things, maybe you're just stupid? Are we taxing stupidity?
I mean, I figured out the benefits of using a Roth IRA to reduce my tax burden when I was 24 years old.
My little brother argued like you do. When he was 5.
Last chance, little fella. What specific fact did I get wrong I intentionally?
Nothing? Just You're a liar?'
All right, little guy. Probably time for your afternoon nap now. Sleep well, kiddo.
Ahh, so questioning the numbers is 'trolling' now.
Enjoying your bubble?
If what Miles High Matt said is considered great disputation, I'd let your cat (I assume you're a cat person) or your doorstop handle it.
@47
Trolling is countering fantastical or dishonest statements with provable facts?
The poor in this country pay no taxes. They don't. There may be a valid discussion to be had regarding whether they should. Why tax someone who can't afford it, and barely makes it now- or fallacious claims that wealthy people get more from government and owe more for it at least reflect considered worldviews. There may be a discussion on whether we 'owe' each other medical care, food, housing and so on. Tax burdens on the middle class are a field ripe for discussion.
But nobody can honestly claim the tax burden on non tax payers is too high.
When your mom gets you up from your nap consider looking up the word 'lie.' Hint- a differing opinion isn't a lie. When there's two competing factual claims a lie is a possibility. If it's written in The Stranger it is always a lie. Hope this helps little buddy!
Yes, the poor don't pay much taxes, and they shouldn't. Next topic.
You haven't presented one provable fact in support of your beliefs EVER, SB. That's comedy gold
Anyway, you don't state opinions, you present lies as facts. "Activist judge" is an example. If it was your opinion, you wouldn't present it as a fact. Which you do. Whichakes it a lie, and you a liar. As always.
Swish.
@Matt in Denver, given that subhumanblues doesn't comprehend that the "fact" he keeps jumping up and down pointing at isn't what he believes it to be you're spinning your wheels here. Look at it this way doesn't there need to be some knowledge on the part of the liar that what they are saying is a lie in order to say that they are lying? It isn't that Subhumanblues is lying its that Subhumanblues is delusional.
Glad we agree.
This from the guy who insists that his opinions trump the Supreme Court's rulings and who doggedly refuses to admit that sexual orientation exists despite all the evidence of it being shoved in his face.
I found a lie, and it took me about five seconds. Once a liar, always a liar.
@31, 33: NO NO NO, Seattleblues is right! Those activist judges ARE going against the will of the people and the actions of the legislature to redefine marriage in terms of who is or isn't allowed to marry whom! He's totally right!
Here's the link to the court case he's talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
@35: High resolution KEK in 1080i.
"Glad we agree."
Agreement is free. And?
Have you gotten to adding numbers in school, little guy? You HAVE! Neat!
Try this for practice. If your mommy pays $10 in sales and payroll taxes but gets given $50 in cash or help paying for your diapers, how much money did she contribute to tax revenue?
Give up? That's okay! You'll get it next time, buddy!
The mother in your example contributed $10 in tax revenue. Receiving government aid doesn't count as negative tax revenue, you idiot.
Poor people are net expenses of tax revenue at all levels. This doesn't make them bad or evil. But they are not taxpayers. What they contribute is more than offset by specific payments or help in paying to live.
And if the state, or the editorialist, is claiming that poor people pay 17% in taxes they're deluded or lying. At the federal level there's about 9% in payroll (Fica mostly and a couple others) taxes. At the state they may pay a few hundred a year in sales tax. Say another percent. So for 10% of their income (all of which they'll get back with interest on retirement) they get to be citizens of the greatest nation on earth. And again, this DOESN'T account for direct benefits given them at state and federal levels for being poor.
That's the way it is. I'm not happy about government encouragement of bad life decisions, but there it is. However, when leftist morons whinge on about how much the poor pay in taxes, that does annoy me. Partly the sheer blind stupidity or dogged dishonesty of it- but also the rank ingratitude are highly irritating.
To be fair, you're partly correct. Not only are we paying out of public revenue to encourage poverty. No, that amount in food stamps, HUD assistance, child care and medical care aren't all of it.
I also get to pay lazy and otherwise unemployable bastards to steal my money and give it to these people.
Thanks for reminding me of the expensive bureaucratic bullshit involved VL!
Hint: 1789.
Hint: It's because you're wrong.
Unlike you, I'm A Patriotic American. I'm proud to pay taxes, because I'd rather be poor in a country that takes care of its own than rich in some fuck-you-I-got-mine third world shithole. You can quote me on that, especially the stuff in bold. I don't begrudge a homeless man a few dollars out of my pocket and I don't begrudge a poor family in a poverty-stricken backwater a few dollars out of my paycheck.
I do my patriotic duty and don't get my shorts in a tremendous knot if someone gets a meal or a roof over their heads they didn't earn. It's only money, for fuck sake! Do we really care that much about a few dollars here or there? You could really do well to read Matthew 6 a few times. I'm no Christian, as everyone knows, but it's some beautiful preaching on the themes of righteousness, humility, and purity of heart.
And when a poor-hating, homophobic clown says an editorialist is "deluded or lying" about taxes, it is just as easy to dismiss it. Why should I care what some bigoted clown says or thinks? I shouldn't; you are simply wasting your time like some kind of idiot. Go ahead and make yourself blue in the face spouting off your nonsense. So you are bigoted and hate poor people. So what?
You can continue to repeat how much you hate poor people (and gays), but at some point you have to ask your self, does anybody care? The answer is no. In the end you are just some clown mindlessly banging his head against a wall, and for what? If anything else, please answer that.
Government is not supposed to be set on a stable, three legged stool. Thinking of government as something we need to financially stabilize as opposed to something that we need to control sets a dangerous precedent. The phrase "The government that governs best, governs least." isn't some anti-Federalist screed, it is a sad acknowledgement of the limitations of the governmental process. Giving the government more money, control, and power, with less limitations, leads to the rich getting richer, not the poor getting their tax burden relieved. In this regards, an income tax in this state needs to come with significant sales and property tax relief. It is not enough to "progressify" the tax system in this state. We must also "de-regressify" it, and the way to do that is to remove legs from the magic three legged stool.
Re-vamping the B&O tax is a very curious red herring, especially in this state, and I am surprised you took the bait. In my lifetime, small business has gone from employing over 99% of all workers in the nation to less than 66%. No state B&O tax has been the cause of small business suffering. Our local regulatory hurdles and taxes for small businesses are on par with other cities of our size in our country. In the end, this is a curious solution without a problem.
Everything should not be on the table. That is precisely the attitude that landed us in this present mess.
What we need is precisely what you say cannot be done. We need comprehensive, sweeping tax reform all at once. Any other alternative simply plays to the corporatists at the expense of the 99%. This is a perfect example of why the perfect is not the enemy of the good. When the chips are truly down, andthe good really needs a friend, everybody else (yourself included) show themselves to be fair weather friends, siding with moderation as opposed to good.
We are rapidly coming to a diametric crossroads in our society. I fear your attitude results in little more than the typical Seattle process precisely when the typical Seattle process is the single most destructive thing that can be done.
Change is needed. Change will happen.. Will you, Pramila, embrace that change and harness it for our good, or are you going to try and blunt that change, allowing others to harness it against the public? Your words speak to the latter, and that worries me.
Remember, Tuesday is pudding day!
(At least you have that to look forward to.)
So you're just gonna use the police to confiscate my vacation home?
Don't like paying sales tax, don't buy anything.
Half of you jokers don't have a income, so it's a wash.
We Americans don't have a tax raising problem, we have a system of Government that spends like a drunken Marine Artillery Section.
Nothing but peso shows, and jugs of Mojo, and you will always eat for free at the Mess hall.
Sorry, I just choked on some locally sourced, artisanal kale.
3-25-13 State Level Tax cuts Donât Boost Job Growth. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03…
2012 Tax Exempt Study â Department of Revenue WA State shows $7.6 billion of our tax dollars given to corporate and special interest groups
FACT: WA Republican House and Senate block numerous bills to tax the millionaires and close the loopholes and at the same time blocked funding to lifesaving services including food and disaster relief.
DISCUSTING that elected officials will NOT vote to tax the rich 1%. Less than 1% tax on 13 million US millionaires would raise $175.3 billion that would bring 222 million people in the United States up to the poverty line.
How Much Money Would it Take to Eliminate Us Poverty? http://www.demos.org/blog/9/23/13/how-mu…
This is criminal. Washington State One of Three States Where Poverty Is Increasing http://budgetandpolicy.org/schmudget/was…
2014â˛s Most & Least Fair State Tax Systems http://wallethub.com/edu/most-least-fair…
More than 30,000 homeless children attended Washington schools last yearhttp://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/08/17/3332975/dont-gut-social-services-to-satisfy.html
When are people going to wake up and scream enough of this insanity, we use to be fine, we had money in the bank. But no the fools had to go and become "[progressives, ie socialists/communist) now we are crumbling and blowing large sums of cash we don't have on projects that cater to a few the will always need subsidized, it's called insanity!
Then we read articles like this were a politician visits special interests, in other words thieves, wanting more of other peoples monies for themselves claim it's for social good when in fact in leads to more social welfare and subsidies.
Stupid, stupid, stupid!
When are people going to wake up and scream enough of this insanity, we use to be fine, we had money in the bank. But no the fools had to go and become "[progressives, ie socialists/communist) now we are crumbling and blowing large sums of cash we don't have on projects that cater to a few the will always need subsidized, it's called insanity!
Then we read articles like this were a politician visits special interests, in other words thieves, wanting more of other peoples monies for themselves claim it's for social good when in fact in leads to more social welfare and subsidies.
Stupid, stupid, stupid!