Seattle: I voted no on BOTH tax increase measures.

[maxsolomon]

i may be a godless hedonist, but i voted NO on raising the sales tax. 8.8% is too goddamn high - how about an income tax so rich fucks can pay their share? 1%? 2? other states do it, & they are not the USSR.

&

i may be a godless hedonist, but i voted NO on raising the property taxes, even 1/10 of 1%. with the increase in valuation on our decrepit 60 year old house - over 100% in 5 years - we can barely afford to stay in the city as it is.

figure something else out, government. show some balls & stop throwing everything to the voters.

[flamingyouth]

1. My dad said yesterday that he was doing the same.

He's a huge bleeding heart, but he's pretty much had enough and I think he feels the same as you. I'll vote on the property tax increase, but I haven't decided on the sales tax one. It's pretty insane to raise it much more, if you ask me. It's a regressive tax.

My head about exploded when I saw Ron Sims talking about building a new county building because the current one is "ugly." :mad:

[eridani]

2. No matter where you live, contact State Rep Bob Hasegawa

http://www.bobhasegawa.com/

11th LD, and his big issue is tax reform. This is like getting universal health care--a big policy shift which must be backed by a grassroots movement.

[upi402]

3. i'd go for indexed income tax

hell, a flat tax would be more fair.

in lieu of that, however...
?
this measure doesn't state the consequences as reducing bus routes, just no expansion or extended services.
i'm looking at no too but really want a state income tax and reduced or eliminated sales tax and RE tax.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. The problem with an income tax...

From the Washington State Constitution, Article VII, Section 1: All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.... The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.

Various court rulings have stated that income is a "class of property" and, as such, any income tax must be taxed identically. The effect was to overturn a state income tax proposed in 1932 and prohibit any similarlly graduated income tax.

Further, from Article VII, Section 2: ... the aggregate of all tax levies upon real and personal property by the state and all taxing districts now existing or hereafter created, shall not in any year exceed one percent of the true and fair value of such property in money...

Past courts have ruled that this limit holds to the class of property, so that property taxes are not aggregated with other taxes. The effect of this is that, without changing the state constitution, any income tax would be capped at 1% of total income.

The Legislature could implement a flat income tax of up to 1% total income. It might be possible for "income" to be subdivided into different classes, such as employment earnings, investment income, etc. and possibly squeeze out another percent or two. But to implement a graduated income tax would require that the Legislature propose two different constitutional amendments (amendments can only alter one section of the state constitution), that both proposals pass by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature, and that both proposals are ratified by a majority of the voters. Extremely unlikely.