It is a much better tax than the old one. I still prefer Lewis' capital gains tax, although obviously we could have both.


It's a start.


Keep polishing that turd, Strangers!

"The Fate of Seattle's Progressive Revenue Tax Will Be Decided Today"

B-b-b-but two years ago, we we're told the head tax -- a flat tax! -- was progressive! So this tax on our jobs is morer progressiver, right?

Also, we were told the head tax was needed to reduce homelessness. After repeal, the number of homeless persons declined. How did that happen?

'"The sentiment of the public has drastically changed in the last couple of years," Council President Lorena Gonzalez said, referring to absolutely no public polling, or other public input of any kind.'

Fixed that for you, free of charge. (Plus, she just hates it when the sentiment of the public expresses itself with tens of thousands of citizen signatures on Referendum petitions to cancel her pet legislation.)

Well, No Tax on Jobs should still have those tens of thousands of signatures on file, so we'll see if a Referendum filing dooms this tax on jobs, too.


Katie's not coming back, dipshit.


I hope it passes, if for no other reason than to piss conservatives off.

And remember David, as goes Seattle, so goes Shoreline (aka Little Seattle). There’s plenty of money to be had in places like Innis Arden and The Highlands.


@4 -- This is essentially an income tax, not a head tax. Yes, it discourages employers from hiring workers, but only minimally, and only high wage workers. In contrast, FICA discourages employers from hiring low wage workers, not high wage workers. The Social Security tax, paid by both employees and employers, stops at $137,700, which is before this tax actually kicks in. I appreciate the sentiment though, and look forward to your essay suggesting we replace the FICA taxes with a wealth tax.

Anyway, this encourages the hiring of more workers -- just lower paid workers. With regards to this tax, a company would be better off paying two workers 100 grand a piece, rather than one worker 200 grand.


@10 -- Yeah, that is the concern. If so, they should consider a flat capital gains tax, or a flat income tax. Both could have a minimum income at which they kick in (and if that isn't legal, there is nothing stopping a city or state from sending out flat refunds). Neither is as good a progressive tax, but if we can't have a progressive tax, both are better than relying so heavily on a sales tax.


@11: Of course we should eliminate the FICA cap, and tax all incomes. That is a federal matter, not a city one, as you well know, so why you mention it here makes for a mystery.

This is not a tax on income. It taxes jobs with certain incomes. The employer pays taxes on those jobs. If it was an income tax, the employee would pay tax on income.

Therefore it is a head tax, although a morer progressiver head tax than the version we repealed two years ago.

(Oh, and you can't have it both ways. If it's an income tax, then it violates our state's constitution. Whether we should have income taxes or not is not a matter for any one city to decide.)

We could try a tax on capital gains, but apparently our City Council would rather continue to fight with us over head taxes than to actually raise revenue in a progressive manner...


Let's remove the FICA cap, include carried interest as income, and have a basic $250,000 exemption (you're only allowed one exemption per our State Constitution) per person. And return to the growth period of the US GDP when we had a 50% capital gains tax, a 90% income tax over $1 million.

And then watch our economy grow again.

Will they complain? Of course.

Will it be just and fair? Of course.

Will they pretend it isn't? Of course.


Biker sweetie, you always make me laugh. Promise me that you’ll never lose that childlike sense of the world. It’s what makes you, you!


It’s fine to do this if they think it’s the right thing to do but at least own it. Yes, this will absolutely have a dampening impact on hiring in Seattle. Yes, the costs will be passed through to either employees or customers especially in lower margin businesses. Now tell us why despite those truths the city is pushing ahead and stop pretending there will not be any changes to the business climate. Show us how you are going to spend the money in a productive way with accountability because a lot of us are skeptical this is nothing more than a slush fund for Share/Wheel to build out a network of tiny house villages that won’t do a thing to actually solve the problems with housing and mental illness. I could be wrong but pronto bike share, the city streetcar and past efforts to manage Scott Morrow and cohorts would say otherwise. I would actually wager it will take less than a year before we start hearing how this needs to be increased. At least by the time the next district elections come around in 2023 there should be plenty of data to determine if this was a net positive.

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.