Dear Stranger readers,
2020 is finally behind us, but our recovery is just beginning. Reader support has ensured that our dedicated and tenacious team of journalists can continue to bring you important updates as only The Stranger can. Now we're imploring you to help us survive another year. Ensure that we're here to ring in our upcoming 30th anniversary by making a one-time or recurring contribution today.
We're so grateful for your support. Thank you.
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.
Sign up for the latest news and to win free tickets to events
Buy tickets to events around Seattle
Comprehensive calendar of Seattle events
The easiest way to find Seattle's best events
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
laughable platitude when the topic is that said down-payment is clearly insufficient.
Due to the importance of fossil fuels in our current life style and the lack of clean energy infracstucture, a carbon tax has to be strongly progressive to be revenue neutral.
This is pure double-speak. For communities that are most impacted by climate change, the most urgent priority is to stop the damage, which I-732 would do. Investment would be great, but an initiative doesn't have to solve all the State's problems at once.
And a cut in regressive taxes plus a low-income rebate, which I-732 has, would be a pretty good investment in low-income communities.
FYI are you aware you're using "revenue neutral" in a weird personal way? It *could* be regressive and be revenue neutral, that works just be bad and unfair.
You could say "has to be progressive to take the same % of each person's income" if you'd like.
Right?
Right?
Hmm, kind of quiet.,,