Great reporting, Heidi. Well done, Seattle.
first they taxed the bullets, and I said nothing, for I was not a gun nut...
The camel's nose is in the tent. How long before this income tax applies to everyone?
so, subcommandant sawant, exactly when will my regressive property taxes get lowered if you grandstanding actually passes?

also, I seem to have more stuff than space, can anyone help me with that?
@3: HA! beat you to your slippery slope fallacy.
@4 It has to be enacted first. And property taxes aren't the first that should go down. Sales taxes and car tab fees first, then property taxes.

I wish the city council had made lowering other taxes as the exclusive reason for this, because I'm not sure I trust them to lower taxes once they get their hands on a new income stream. We haven't lowered taxes here in ages.

Still, I applaud the efforts to challenge our tax system. We need more of this strength in Olympia.
Sounds o.k. by me as long as the tax money goes to good use. Where is all the pot revenue going, for example? So much more coming into the state but they still hit up low income Seattleites with hefty car fees to pay for public transportation? And while the rich still drive in and out with their gas guzzlers and free parking, clogging up the roadways for the rest of us? Why does this new tax cost so much to implement? Are there jobs in this for the not-so-young-and beautiful? Or is someone else laughing (as well as the taxed) all the way to the bank?

Sure! Tax the rich! By all means. But let's see the fruits of this taxation, for real! Evidence, please.
@3 how long before a tax specifically designed not to target low-income people targets low-income people? I'm sure it will be swift, hold your breath until it's done

As soon as we're all raking in $250K per year, would be my guess...
@7 I can help with that!…

Washington expects to rake in about $730 million from sales of legalized marijuana over the next two years.

While that may seem like a large sum, it amounts to just a small piece of the $41.3 billion in total revenues that are expected to bankroll the state’s general fund over the same period.

What’s more, without a change in law, only some of the state’s marijuana money is available for lawmakers to spend however they want, limiting its utility in dealing with budget challenges such as the state Supreme Court order to fix the way the state pays for schools.

More than 60 percent of the state’s marijuana money over the next two years is slated to go toward public health programs, including Medicaid, substance abuse prevention efforts and community health centers, according to the state Office of Financial Management.

Another $17 million will go to the Liquor and Cannabis Board, which is responsible for regulating the state’s legal marijuana market, while $30 million will be shared with local governments that allow marijuana sales within their limits.

The remaining money that freely flows into the state general fund — about $211 million — adds up to about half of 1 percent of the state’s projected operating budget for 2017-19.
I'm deeply skeptical that regressive taxes will be lowered if this passes. Honestly, show of hands -- if this passes, who thinks the council will actually cut other taxes? That's not really their thing.
What about the fact that the states richest earners will be exempt? Bellevue, Medina and Mercer Islanders aren't responsible for helping out with these problems? Come on.
It will take some time for this to get through the courts (if it does) and then the discussion of how to use the revenue will begin. Pay attention.
The Seattle City Council is the biggest bunch of crooks I've ever seen. I can't believe that anyone would support them. Then again, the majority of their supporters are the under achievers of society.
@12 -- Hopefully you have some suggestions for how the Seattle City Council can tax residents of other cities, since you appear to think it's their job.
I'm cool with the tax, but these mother fuckers in their shirts. C'mon folks at least pretend to show respect in victory.
I hope this is the first step in a state income tax. The rich are parasites on our fair state, as much as the apple maggot or the pine beetle. It's past time to curb their influence.
The sooner the income tax is applied to everyone, the better.
All states should have a three-stream tax system: property, income and sales.
Eh. No problem. My lake house is about to become my permanent address and my Seattle residence is about to become my tax deductible business expense. Problem solved!
Assuming this is enacted—after a few years of feeling lonely a the top perhaps spite will motivate some of Seattle's more powerful citizens to get on board with a state income tax.
Congratulations, City Council: you picked a fight you are almost certain to lose, the city will waste taxpayer money litigating your loss, and the Republicans outside of town will simply play your statements as spoken for campaign ads. Conservatives statewide will stampede for a chance to file amicus curae briefs against your action, seeking the largest possible court injunction against any and all forms of income tax. You could not possibly have picked a better way to defeat any hope of a statewide income tax.

Catalina dear, you do understand the difference between "high income" and "rich," don't you? (Please tell us you do.) This illegal (and quite possibly unconstitutional) tax will target the former, not the latter. If the Council had wanted to tax the latter, they would have taxed only capital gains, and not touched salaried income.

Tensor dear, the rich - regardless of the source - should be taxed for being alive, along with an onerous birth and death tax.

Inherited wealth makes people idiots - look at the Trump family. And greed is often the undoing of the wealthy. They end up against the execution's wall, or find themselves with their head separated from their body.

Catalina dear, since you seem actually not to know, I'll spell it out for you: a person can come from a modest background and grow up to earn a high income from working. Our City Council has vote to tax such earned income from working -- not inherited wealth -- which is a point I thought I had made very clearly.

Please note, I haven't made any statement on the desirability of an income tax, and I'm all for birth taxes, death taxes, and anything else which can reduce accumulation of wealth by persons who never worked for it. I'm merely describing how our City Council has done nothing toward that latter goal, and may indeed have harmed it.
Tensor dear, I understand completely. I am just against concentrations of wealth, no matter how it has been gotten. Is that a hard concept for you to understand?

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.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.