Comments

1
Any resolution with which all nine councilmembers can immediately and unanimously agree is either obvious (not taxes!) or meaningless (it’s this one).
2
This is such a lame sign, when the infamous Boeing sign went up Seattle was actually losing population rather than gaining it at ever increasing rates
3
who is the public pressuring for the head tax? I think lots of the public is opposed.
5
As one of the attorneys in the income tax lawsuit, I have looked at this. It raises very different issues than the income tax, but the City Council still can't shoot straight. If they pass it, they will just be asking for another challenge. The sad truth is that Washington's tax system really is broken. We have a nineteenth century system in the age of the internet. But we need to fix the system, not pile on more taxes. We could have a much fairer and more efficient system.

Matthew Davis
6
And how is March going to be advantageous over November?
7
@5, you apparently don't know that the City had a head tax in the early 2000s. It was cancelled when the Recession hit.
8
This is not going to be a slam-dunk, no matter Gonzalez's very welcome determination. Bagshaw apparently wants a levy put forth instead, which means property tax. That will not go over well and is a hell of a lot more regressive than a head tax which will hit only about 5% of the City's big businesses.
9
That's fine, I'm sure the homeless can wait until spring to come indoors. I mean, the Seattle Process is important. No but seriously, they rejected a head tax and then pledged to pass the same head tax, but like, later? That's the same excuse I use to avoid cleaning my house! If you've already decided to pass the tax, what is the point of another task force? You're only shooting yourself in the foot here. If the task force recommends against the tax, then you have to break your pledge. If they support the tax, then you get shit for not passing it in November. This is not what leadership looks like. This is cowardice.
12
@12 the concept of a Poor Farm has some good points but it’s hard to believe addicts would actually work for their own keep.
13
Why don't they simply close all those damn taxational loopholes only the Upper Class know about and can use???

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
Preview

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