Comments

1

"Support for such taxes was greatest in District 4, which covers the University of Washington and surrounding neighborhoods."

The district Sean "Jussie" Scott lost in?

Sounds like the union bosses got the poll numbers they wanted all right.

2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpVIT-yccGU

3

@1, huh?

5

It has always been legal in both the City of Seattle, and King County, and in the State of Washington to have an income tax, and to have a capital gains tax.

They only have one bar to meet: it has to either be a flat tax or a mirror of a federal tax (e.g. the federal income tax with all its loopholes) and have only ONE EXEMPTION.

So, for example, you could have a capital gains tax with a SINGLE exemption for $250,000. Or one with a SINGLE exemption for $250,000 OUTSIDE RETIREMENT PLANS. But you can't ever combine them.

You can have an income tax too, but it can only have ONE EXEMPTION. So, an income tax on all income, including passive income or pass thru income, with a basic and SINGLE exemption of $250,000. You can't have other exemptions.

Only that is Constitutional in our state.

This is why Eyman's garbage initiatives always get tossed. He tries to do two or more things.

You can't do two or more things here.

So: Pass an income tax with a SINGLE exemption. Pass a capital gains tax with a SINGLE exemption. Ignore the hues and cries: it's LEGAL.

6

@4 every city in North America has a homeless crisis, as do towns and villages. Stop trying to pretend this is relevant.

8

Yeah, sounds good. We'll just raise corporate income taxes. Then we will increase the local capital gains tax. Oh wait...

This is just another in the long list of Stranger articles that glosses over our biggest problem: We can't have progressive taxes. The whole idea that this is a battle between those who want to "keep taxes low" against those wanting to "tax the rich" is absurd. I get it -- you want a head tax. But a head tax is well, a tax on each head. Rich heads, poor heads -- they all get taxed the same. It was popular back in the day because the king didn't give a fuck. He certainly wouldn't tax the rich heads more than the poor -- those were his friends. Better to tax the peasants.

Now, it may be possible to actually have an income tax or a capital gains tax. I'm not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the income tax got struck down because it was graduated (i. e. progressive). In other words, a flat tax -- on income or capital gains -- might very well be legal. That would be less than ideal (obviously) but it would be a shitload better than a head tax. Someone who made, say, $2 million last year would actually pay more than someone who made $30 grand.

If not -- if an income or capital gains tax is also illegal -- then we are stuck with the same shitty options. We can raise sales taxes a smidge. We can tax every head. We can come up with new, largely regressive taxes (tax Uber and Lyft). But to pretend that the council will suddenly "tax" the rich without making a bold -- and likely challenged in court -- proposal is naive.

9

@5 -- I wrote my comment the same time as you. Thanks, and that really should be the path forward. There is another issue, which is whether a city or county can have such a tax. I really have no idea, but I assume it would take more than just the city council and the mayor agreeing on such a tax.

10

@7 -- Everybody spends other people's money. Otherwise money would be fucking useless. It would be like a 65 Ford Mustang set in concrete in someone's back yard. Pretty cool to look at, but useless to most people.

11

“ Everybody spends other people's money.”

Yes, but some of us spend what we earn through our labor productivity. Some just steal it from the productive because they think they’re victims.

12

@9 that is not an issue. Our State Constitution permits it. It can only be complicated if one tax (state) has a different exemption than another (county or city), but it's not actually a problem for the State Constitution, it is legal, it's just confusing for people or the artificial creations we call corporations and S partnerships or L partnerships. This is why accountants and lawyers rake in the big bucks. Right now, up in Canada, a guy is literally teaching college in the summer near his lake cottage and claiming a legal deduction for "moving for work" each time he moves.

Is it ethical? Maybe not.

Is it legal? Yes, decidely.

14

"other peoples money"

Is this all you chuckfucks got?

All money is "other peoples money," you dumbfucks. Money is only temporarily "yours." That's how it works.

The government prints money. It goes into circulation. Your boss pays you that money for a service or product. You pay that money to someone - like the government - for a service or product. And round and round it goes. At best you may sequester some of that money in an asset. But eventually it becomes someone else's. Otherwise it's useless.

I guess the horror of "socialism" to you dipshits is that we all collectively pay the government some of the money the government itself prints for services. And those services might go to old people. Or disabled veterans. Or brown people. Or poor people.

And not all just to you because your mommy told you that you were a her special little man.

It's just awful. Juuuust awful.

16

"Some just steal it from the productive because they think they’re victims."

HAHAHA.

Like the guy who spends 24/7on the internet making up sock puppets and trolling? You whine about what a victim you are all the time!

Tell me more about how productive you are? Tell me more about how awesome your boss thinks the shit you do all day on their dime is? Go on forward your boss links to every post you make.

Dude you are a parasite. And what's worse is you've tell yourself this myth that you deserve anything you get. But I think even you know that's not true or you wouldn't be here squealing so loud all day every day.

The fact is that the segment of the population who suck most from the gub'mint teat are whiney entitled losers just like you. And frankly I'm okay with that. Parasites serve a function, too.

17

@15 Because the population in the state county and city are at an all time high!

And so is demand for services. And wear and tear on social needs happens exponentially. Not linearly.

Did you think that 20-70K people could just move here in a year and everything would be preserved in amber or something? Roads wouldn't wear out and utility lines would string themselves?

This is the market responding. It's what you dumb fucks always talk about. Supply and demand. Or did you think that government services somehow can violate that law?

God you libertarian dummies are children. You honestly don't understand how anything works.

18

@13 Every city below the snowline in North America has a public camping crisis, as do towns and villages. Stop trying to pretend the Seattle City Council created it.

19

@16 No, no, it's true, some do just steal it from the productive. Look at the Walton family heirs, who have never done an honest day's work in their lives. They're some of the wealthiest people in America, due solely to theft from the productive.

20

We're coming for you, Saul Spady.

21

@11

"Yes, but some of us spend what we earn through our labor productivity."

And others take a portion of our productivity, euphemistically called "surplus labor", and hoard it for themselves without doing labor themselves, innovating, or doing anything prosocial. These people are called capitalists, and these are the people we should be taxing.

23

What people want hasn't mattered in forever. Big business will continue to bankrupt society for its own short term gain... as per yoozh.

24

Libertarianism in America means the same thing it did in Ancient Greece.

Freedom for the slave owners. Misery for the slave.

25

A sample size of 400 and you’re treating it as some kind of consensus?

26

I worked in two universities, where I was a Democrat. I left and founded business after business. I became a Republican. There is a cultural difference between life within tax-funded organizations and within sales-based organizations that changes our perception of money. In the former, I never gave much thought to time spent chatting, attending meetings, extending lunch, feeling afternoon lazy and working the same, buying things I wanted but did not really need. We would often meet to talk about our dismay at the lack of taxpayer support. When I moved into the business world, suddenly I had to be thinking of how my wasted time caused a decrease in revenue. I had to offer something if value to get paid. I had to save money for a business rainy season.

The problem with growing government bigger and bigger is that how they spend each hour of their day is not directly causing their dollars to go up or down. Instead the focus is on expansion in order to more and that means more taxes. Oh how I wish businesses had the power to tax. Life would be so much easier.

28

It should now be obvious that city council was forced to repeal the head-tax by a well orchestrated corporate propaganda campaign that weaponized homelessness.

29

Something that might really help everyone would be a clear explanation of exactly what MONEY is, and where comes from (there's at least two sources). How it "goes into circulation", how it goes ^out^ of circulation, what taxes really do, and what it's underlying ruleset is. You know, how it actually works. Most people have no clear idea.

I'd LOVE for The Stranger to do an article on these basic details, so that we could all work from the same understanding. But any article would probably be book-long...

Frankly, I think our region should issue it's own regional money -- perhaps money that works on a different ruleset than "positive-interest"... Then we'd be able to directly do the things we need, instead of relying on Washington D.C.'s wonky and dumb-headed approach to deploying the National fiat currency.

And yes, we need to tax the fucking rich. Why? Because they keep money locked up in investments and secret hidey-holes, and out of circulation where it will do the most good. Money is a public tool. It's something we created to help society function.

Keeping money out of circulation is a public menace and doing only the 1% any good.

30

Unfortunately, in the early, pre-Amazon days of the campaign, several of the newbies came out against Head Tax II. Even Lisa Herbold said repeatedly that she wouldn't propose one (but I guess she could still vote for it if someone else does).

But, on the bright side, campaign promises are made to be broken!

31

Amazon just needs to leave. There's lots of other great cities in the USA.


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.