Wow! Aren’t we late to the party?

Welcome to the revolution and this is just the beginning.

And thank you Nathalie darling.

That is sneaky, taxing capital gains 'like property'. Why did no one else think of this? Good idea (and I even receive some meager capital gains).

Let's do them all.

Raise a special tax that just hits renters. Since renters make up the bulk of the population, time they pay their fair share and more. They don't pay property tax, but the owners of their buildings do. So Renters are getting off easy. Every person that rents at least 250 square feet pays a 1% tax on their rent. Seems fair to me.

Mosqueda's is just a water downed version of Sawant's tax so its either one or the other. I'm surprised she didn't just submit amendments to the Sawant/Morales bill but that would force her to share the spotlight and dampen her eventual campaign for mayor next year. What will be interesting is if once Mosqueda's bill passes (no doubt to the cries of Sawant claiming she is a corporate sell out) does the group trying to get the initiative on the ballot stop or do they press forward trying to get approval for the more aggressive version. The one thing about all of these taxes though is they are all focused on new spending for homeless services and none of them address the massive budget shortfall the city will be facing in 2021. It seems like they all just assume everything will be back to normal next year revenue wise and I just can't see that happening.

@6 I was? And what guys? And I am a landlord as well. Do you have me mistaken for someone else?
If we're talking progressive taxation, all chips should be on the table. If property taxes go up, rents usually go up to cover that. Higher rents indirectly pay property taxes. That is just pushing the peanut around. Renters still represent an untapped resource of tax revenue. They pay their landlords taxes, and they should also be paying their own.

4 How are renters getting off easy? Not these days when rents are through the roof and to many it would mean food or rent. Did you learn to be that stupid or did it come natural?

I am a former renter and now own a home which most people cannot do anymore.

Housing is so expensive that it forces people into homelessness which should be a crime.

6 Thank you for being a decent person.

7 I don’t think we are mistaken that you are a selfish, self centered idiot that fails to understand that this generation is greatly disenfranchised with the help of dolts like you.

@12: OMG - I think I know who you are. We've met. I think. You'd have a meltdown if you knew who I am.

@8 You're a dipshit. I don't know you, don't want to, but I can tell you've always been a dipshit,and always will be. @11 Renters don't pay taxes. The landlords pay taxes via the rental income they get. Only one kind of tax is being paid on rental property, property taxes. Renters themselves are a vast potential source for tax revenue. A rental tax of 1% to help homeless programs. Now that's progressive. Of course there would be income limits, etc. etc.; there's always loopholes because people don't want to pay taxes. But the majority of Amholes around Seattle rent. And they rent expensive apartments that drive rents up for everyone. Time for them to pay up.

"Washington State Supreme Court ruling that allows income to be taxed like property (it's considered "intangible property") and follow the same rules as property taxes."

Income has one significant difference with property (land and buildings). Income can move. Real estate cannot.

Hahaha, Bellevue's looking pretty sweet about now.

Has the City demonstrated that they need all the funds they have now, AND are require more?
Same for Olympia? I do not remain convinced that government revenue need to continually increase beyond current inflation and growth.
Perhaps that is just me, but I'd like to see the accounting.
I remain unconvinced.

I said do them all.

And then State and County need to EXPIRE all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation, deductions, subsidies, and exclusions with ZERO exceptions.

This will increase spending, as now fossil fuel fleets, facilities, heating, etc will all be ZERO subsidy and zero incentive to keep operating them since there is no tax advantage to not replace them with more efficient non-carbon alternatives. So you can dump your car or truck or whatever, since you can't write off the expense of operation. Net result: greener, faster, and REVENUE. But nobody forces you to get rid of your carbon creating monster, you just get zero incentives to keep operating it.

@4, you jhave apparently not read either Sawant/Morales' proposal or Mosqueda's proposal. They're radically different in just about every respect. Read, then comment.

And I meant @5.

@26 the spending plans may be different but the taxing mechanism is exactly the same, a tax on payroll above $7M. Mosqueda’s proposal has more carve outs which is why it comes in lower. So you either go with Mosqueda and allow some exemptions or with Sawant and tax everything.

'According to a statement from the movement yesterday, Tax Amazon "has collected over 15,000 ballot petition signatures" in just 15 days.'

Sure they have. But purely for the sake of comparison, let's imagine a campaign which began life by ignoring our public-disclosure laws is being honest with us. In 2018, the No Tax On Jobs campaign collected 47,000 signatures in just a few weeks. (They actually stopped collecting signatures before the deadline, which may be unique for a successful campaign.) This huge number of signatures, collected in so short a time, is what scared the Council into repealing the EHT they'd recently enacted.

If Tax Amazon's initiative fails to qualify for the ballot, how will proponents justify our Council enacting something similar, given the huge enthusiasm demonstrated by voters to repeal another "Amazon Tax"?