In a Late Night Vote, Washington Senate Passes One of Several Proposed Progressive Taxes

Comments

1

Thanks for keeping us informed, Rich!

2

A sliding scale would seem more appropriate than these totally arbitrary buckets (there's a pretty big difference in Seattle between a place that cost $500K and one that costs $1.5M), but, you know...baby steps.

3

A shack in Seattle costs more than a mansion in Yakima.

Where’s our equity?

4

@4 It's in the fact that you don't have to live in Yakima.

5

...But not in the fact that I can't count. I meant @3.

6

@4 Just like you have a choice to be a single parent, shitty student or poor earner in life?

7

I came at least 7 times while reading this.

8

@6:

Well then, what's YOUR excuse?

10

@9 "Why not start first with looking at ways for the "bloated government" to work efficiently?"

I like it! Problem: Government is too big and expensive. Solution: Create and fund new government agency to conduct study.

11

@6 I'm not sure what equivalency you're making. My point is real estate in Seattle isn't expensive for no reason.

If the average Yakima homeowner saves a few dollars from this good for them.

12

@11
There was no equivalence; they were attempting to shoehorn in an ideological point. Failed miserably, as these things generally do.

13

Yeah, the capital gains tax is unconstitutional on its face in Washington State. Sorry, try again.

14

@9: Where's my tax break for remaining child-free?

15

@4 What’s wrong with Yakima, not white enough for you?

16

The insidious thing about charging a punitive REET rate above $1.5M is that the tiers are not tied to inflation. In a few short years, even humble 2500 sq ft houses on postage stamp plats could start crossing into the upper tier.

Counting on the legislature to make manual changes to the tiers at a later date is beyond foolish. After all, school districts will have budgeted with that largesse taken into account. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

17

@14: I thought libs were against tax breaks for the rich.

18

Since this tax doesn't look at income or total wealth, its just another special tax on homeowners in Seattle and other high cost locales, just like the McCleary funding.

19

@9: Thanks for putting the words "bloated government" in scare quotes...the notion that government is bloated is bullshit and it's nice that you get that. Social services and funding for environmental and labor law enforcement have been slashed to the bone since 1981, even under Democratic presidents. The main government program that's grown since then is the war budget, and as there's no good reason for us to stay in any of the wars we're currently in, a lot of that can be cut so the resources can be directed towards dealing with the actual problems in this society. It's time to stop spending billions killing people in other countries and use the funds wasted on that to help people stay alive and address the climate crisis here AND everywhere else.

21

@17 What does that have to do with my comment (@14)?! I am a low income veteran who never had a valid reason to have kids, and believe I made the wise decision not to. Seriously, sugarlips, your triglyceride levels must be through the roof. Stop if you feel dizzy or lightheaded, and call
9-1-1. High fructose corn syrup is a silent killer.

22

If the capitalist class does not want to pay its fair share of taxes, then they can die. Its really one way or the other, no middle ground here. No organism can survive a blood sucking parasite that grows so large it consumes all the blood. Society is no different.

Pay up, or get in the compost heap. But don't sit there and whine at me about how you cant figure out what the word progressive means.

23

@21: Folks that don't have kid are "rich" because they don't have the expenses of raising kids.
Humor dear, humor, something that goes right over your silly little head.

25

@24: You get tax breaks for defendants regardless whether they're children or not. If you take care of your aging parent in your home you get a tax deduction.

Reducing your carbon footprint should be already part of your own altruism. You don't deserve a tax credit for it.

26

*dependents

27

I'm just glad once again the middle class will help out the poor that's awesome all this hard work is really paying off

28

@23, @25, & @26: Stop senselessly rambling, Corn Pop, before your even sillier brain turns to mush.

29

@20: as the country grew in size and as the wealth created by the labor-including intellectual and clerical labor-of working people-if never properly shared in by those who created it-increased, it was inevitable that the role and size of government would have to increase as well. There is no way this country could function in any civilized or effectively humane manner if the government had stayed forever at a size equivalent to the size it was before the New Deal era.

30

@25: er…"taxbreaks for defendants"?

31

@30: er... @26

32

@31: Sorry...didn't see it in time. Thought it might be a Freudian slip about how you see your kids.

34

@33: You saw my typo correction (26), so don't be disingenuous. There is no reason to give tax breaks to people that don't have children. It doesn't make sense. Not to mention the fraud possibilities.

Children grow up to be taxpayers. So your public expense argument falls flat. In addition, every society needs to maintain a 2.5% fertility rate.

35

@32: np

36

@33: But I am heartened that you and old grizzle want tax breaks. It's a classic Republican virtue. God bless you and have a nice day.

38

@37: I personally don't have any solutions to those issues of which you speak other than being a conscientious citizen and practicing good environmental guidelines. But good luck on your tax break quests.

40

The license fee to have kids should be at least equal to the one for having a dog. And don't even start me on how you get grilled before adopting the shelter dog but there are no qualifications whatsoever to be a parent. Explains a lot of our problems in society.

41

@39: Typically, when having to click Next to get to the comment thread - it has to be an interesting debate. I lost interest.

But carry on by yourself, if you're still interested.

43

@42: Clever try, but 3 minutes too late.

44

The government gives you tax breaks for having kids because you can not have constant economic growth without a growing supply of consumers, producers, and workers.

At the time these were codified, the focus was on economic growth, and no one cared about ecological damage.

Probably a good time for these attitudes to be adjusted a touch, I think we all can agree.

45

@15 Oh, my mistake, I thought you actually had a grievance you were trying to share behind a somewhat cryptic post—I see now that was not your intention. Would you like to clarify the thought behind your original post or are you just here to troll?

It's probably pointless to address this but if you're curious, Yakima is a hell of a lot whiter than where I live.

47

@36: ....said the usual babbling troll with nothing to say after eleven comments. Your brain really has been reduced to mush. Get help.
@46: Oh, yeah, riiiiiiiight! Don't tell me, let me guess: you don't vaccinate your own scruffy rat litter, muffy, do you, because.....ya got six cars in the driveway and......(wait for it)....two of 'em actually RUN? Your 3 year old got his first NRA-approved AK-47 for Christmas because you just luuuuuuv Sarah "Bunny Boots" Palin's senseless babbling? And when Junior grabs your purse in a Wal*Mart and fatally shoots you, it'll be your "time", right? Get your shots, a flea bath, that cheap rug shaved off, and sterilized already, muffy. Then you'll get MY collective thanks along with everyone else's.

48

@46: I may or may not get a tax break for being child-free, but you'll still need to get your shots soon, muffy, compliments of Washington State Legislature, with my collective thanks. Make sure you get properly sterilized, too. :)

49

She's extremely agitated, insecure, easily provoked, can't let things go, it's quite sad actually.