No "Green Shoots" in the Evergreen State

[OlympicBrian]

No "Green Shoots" in the Evergreen State
By Dan, Seattle
11/20/2010

Washington State is the home of Microsoft, with $58.437 billion dollars in revenue last year, and is near the top in US stock market capitalization. Microsoft has 93,000 employees (it is unknown how many of these are offshore.) Washington is also the manufacturing home of Boeing, with $67.00 billion dollars in revenue last year, and 157,000 employees, many of which are in Washington State. Seattle, Washington's largest city, also has a major port. In addition, Washington State is a beautiful place to live.

You would think with all this going for Washington State, its economic house might really be in order, and should be showing some advanced progress, as compared to some other states. According to the US government, we are out of the recession. Yet here are some interesting facts:

1) Seattle ranks about halfway down in unemployment, relative to other states (number 26.) Not too bad, right?

Well, things in the Evergreen State aren't that hot...

2) Seattle's largest downtown office building, the Columbia Tower, is around 40 percent vacant. Its owners have missed a mortgage payment. The buildings owner paid $621 million, the building is worth only $330 million.
3) Seattle recently recorded the highest year-over-year increase in foreclosure rate in the country, comparing third quarter of 2009 to third quarter of 2010.
4) Washington State median income fell from 2008 to 2009, and is projected to fall again for 2010.

In another series of related events, Washington State seems headed for fiscal disaster:

5) A state ballot initiative promoted by Bill Gates' father, to implement income taxes on the rich--and lower other taxes on everyone else-- inexplicably failed at the polls. There was apparently a lot of pressure and lobbying by wealthy interests against the measure; ultimately, the failure of the measure makes Washington State citizens look foolish.
6) A state tax on candy and pop was repealed by ballot initiative, apparently under pressure of an industry group, the National Confectioners Association--who were quite pleased.
7) The state budget picture has worsened--there is a sharp tax revenue decline--and the shortfall for the next two years has grown to a whopping $5.7 billion dollars. As a result, the governor has been scrambling to make cuts in programs to the poor. The state's chief economist says he could not point to a specific reason for a recent drop in tax receipts.

Let's get real, something is very wrong in Seattle and Washington State (and yes, this reflects what is going on in the rest of the country.) With everything Seattle has going for it, you might expect to see some leading signs of recovery, other than the fact that unemployment is down slightly from its peak. Clearly there are structural problems, and problems with people's basic understanding and attitudes. The average citizen does not accept that tax revenues have to be raised somewhere, for the state to stay afloat. The rich won't bear any responsibility--they pressured against the passage of the state income tax for the rich. And Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, has threatened to move Microsoft jobs out of the country if federal tax loopholes are closed--he also spent $425,000 to defeat the state income tax (personally, I'd love to see Steve try to drag away many of his employees--who mostly like their jobs and love the beautiful area.)

So no "green shoots" even in the Evergreen State, the home of two of America's top companies.

[jancantor]

1. Here's WHY the income tax failed. It's not "inexplicable" at all

WA residents do NOT want an income tax. One of the reasons I moved here? No Income Tax!

The initiative WOULD only set an income tax on high earners (over 250k) and it was written such that the cutoff point could not be lowered? Right? Well what the proponents failed to mention is that regardless of what it said, the WA constitution takes precedence. According to same, after two years, with a mere majority vote, the state legislature can amend the # to any income level they damn well choose. Note that the last 3 similar financial laws passed with "promised" levels were ALL amended by the legislature after the 2 yr period.

Iow, people didn't necessarily vote against the "tax the rich" proposal. They voted against it because they knew that come 2 yrs, it could be lowered, and if our legislature is at all consistent, it would be.

The ballot initiative was flawed for this reason. It was a trojan horse, and about 2/3 of the voters recognized that, and voted against it.

[WestSeattle2]

3. Amen. I voted against it as well for that very reason. Anyone

who has lived in Washington for more than five years, could see the handwriting on the wall. You know darn well that within 10 years they'd be taxing incomes as low as $40k - and the sales taxes would continue to climb as well. Recent arrivals actually believe politicians when they say "we won't raise your taxes." There is a reason these income tax initiatives always fail, usually by a substantial majority, and it's not because the voters are stupid; quite the opposite in fact.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. No. It's because the voters are stupid.

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/wa_whopays_factsheet.pdf

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Don't call me low-information before answering this question;

Did you know that because of our lack of an income tax, our tax structure is the most regressive in the nation?

A) yes, you did. In which case, it's reasonable to ask what brought you to the home of progressivism on the web.
B) no you didn't. In which case, don't EVEN try to call anyone else low-information. Ballmer's disinfo campaign did a real number on you.

BTW, you can educate yourself by clicking on the link.

[jancantor]

22. I know that this claim is frequently made

and depending on how one defines "regressive" (which is somewhat subjective), it is correct.

I am well aware of this claim and the stats behind it. I ALSO know that the sales tax does NOT tax staples like food, etc. I'm all for improving the structure. I am not for installing an income tax.

You assume (to your detriment) that I am unaware of the same facts you are, merely because I disagree with you. That's a fallacious assumption.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Okay Mr Economist.

How do you propose to improve the structure in progressive manner* without an income tax?

(being charitable here; I'm assuming that you know what progressive taxation is and that you agree that it's a worthy goal)

You are either unaware of the facts, or got lost and wound up here somehow.

[jancantor]

29. Or you either can't accept that somebody can disagree with you

and not be either evil, stupid, misinformed or a stealth freeper oh noes! Among other things, we could have more luxury type taxes. Sales tax on a 50k car could be higher than on a 20k car. Sales tax does, and I support this, NOT apply to stuff like food, etc. and shouldn't apply to basic staples. People at lower income levels tend to spend a greater %age of their income on food (although we spend much less as a %age than most of Europe of our disposable income). Taxing prepared food but not staples is a good thing to do, and that IS what we do.

Also note that our sales tax does not apply merely to products. For example, my gym membership is taxed by the state. I also propose we legalize marijuana and tax it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. I can accept that you disagree. I can't pretend that you're right. n/t

[jancantor]

97. I have no problem with you disagreeing

I have a problem with claims that if somebody thinks the way I do they must be either stupid, uninformed, have bad intentions, etc. That sort of argument. Informed, well intentioned people can have different pov's. And I thank god that the fine people of WA state agree with me about income tax.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. Those who voted against it ARE either misinformed or have bad intentions.

Rob from the poor to give to the rich is a bad intention.

In fairness, this tax system is pretty much designed to ensure that you remain uninformed about our actual tax share.

But God didn't give you this system; the billionaires did.

[jancantor]

100. Thank you for proving my point

It is the sign of a poorly developed understanding of issues when you can only assign the "uninformed or bad intentions" label to those that disagree with you. It's just as disgusting when Dems do it as anybody else. Informed, well intentioned people can and frequently do have different viewpoints.

I am VERY informed about my actual tax share. Fwiw, WA state gets about 60% of its income from sales taxes, the other 40% come from other sources. I specifically sought out states w/o income tax when I decided to move from an income tax state, and I know others who feel the same way.

Plenty of very rich people (Gates) DO support the income tax initiative, btw. Sales tax doesn't apply to food (one of the biggest expenses for the poor). It shouldn't apply to utilities either (I would change this). You can play rhetorical games all you want. This initiative was a trojan horse, and the fine people of WA state did right by rejecting it - overwhelmingly. The same people who reelected Patty Murray (an effective Senator) voted correctly here too.

Good for us.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. You're welcome.

But it's a sign of a fundamental understanding of the issue; there's no way to make the system progressive, or even flat, without an income tax.

Prove me wrong. At what income level does it make economic sense to move here? Now explain how good intentions can produce a system like that. If you can't answer the first part, you're uninformed. If you can, but can't answer the second part, you don't have good intentions.

[jancantor]

103. Depends on what your assumptions are

At what income level does it make sense to move here (I am assuming you mean SOLELY based on taxation?)

Well, certainly at mine. I make a base salary of about 85k. I also have some dividend income and capital gains depending on how i choose to reallocate investments. However, I can choose to work overtime and make easily another 30 or 40k. I am more incentivized to do so here in WA, since the state is not penalizing me for doing so. They penalize me for CONSUMPTION not for working harder (longer hours).

In the state I left, I was making considerably less, but my income tax burden was still SUBSTANTIAL

If I made less money, I'd buy used gym equipment and pay no sales tax (from craigslist, etc.) whereas since I can afford it I pay for a gym membership, and the state gets a cut of sales tax. If I choose to go out for meals (I eat out one meal a day usually), I pay sales tax. If I made less money and ate out less, I'd pay far less in sales tax, since food (unprepared) is not taxed.

I believe in luxury taxes (NOT "sin taxes" like taxes on soda), and that's a way to make sales tax PROGRESSIVE.

Sales tax is and can be progressive in that poorer people pay a greater %age of their income on food (no sales tax) and rent (no sales tax). Utilities, below a certain threshold should also be free from sales tax (they aren't).

luxury taxes are essentially a way to graduate a sales tax (higher sales tax rates) while still penalizing CONSUMPTION vs. earning. As it should be.

If you don't tax rent (we don't) , utilities (we do) and food (we don't) with sales tax, you essentially make the three big expenses for lower incomes SALES TAX FREE.

It's when you start buying "stuff" and especially new stuff, that you get hit with sales tax. Buy some used furniture off craigslist or a yard sale? No sales tax. Buy a 30k livingroom set from Nordstrom's? You just gave the state a hefty bunch of $$$$.

Ultimately, no income tax means that everybody (the poor and the rich) takes HOME more money, since it's not taxed at the time of earnings. It is how one spends it that determines how much of a cut the state gets. Spend on food, rent, and utilities (with my utility proposal)... no sales tax.

My first intention is that everybody (the poor, the middle class and the rich) be able to take home more $$$$ for themselves and their families. Under a sales tax system, that's the case. If you have less income, you can be assured your rent, food and utilities would not be taxed by the state.

Here's another thing... IF and it's a BIG if, we could pass an initiative that would only tax higher incomes (phasing in at 250k as was PROPOSED), that would be something I would consider. The problem is that it is not possible under our state constitution , to pass such a law, since ... after two years, the threshold value can be changed. THAT is simply unacceptable. As long as that remains the de jure reality, income tax will be a no go in this state. We will not stand for it.

[OlympicBrian]

9. Yeah, only one in nine without a broad-based income tax...

Thanks for the link.

It's pretty funny that it got voted down, seeing as to how we are only 1 out of 9 of the states with no personal broad-based state individual income tax.

And, what of the other provisions, which lowered taxes for the average Joe? Doh.

I'll say it again. We look like fools.

[jancantor]

11. We look smart

considering hte legislature would have carte blanche to lower the threshold, according to the state constitution, after 2 yrs. With a majority vote.

[eridani]

82. You look like mass murderers

People who are cut off of Medicaid and Basic Health are going to die.

[Truth2Tell]

106. You don't look very smart in this thread.

You have the most basic facts about 1098 flat wrong. And you sound like a shallow greedy country club elitist prick who somehow arrived at the wrong message board.

[Hannah Bell]

68. sales tax is 6.5%. your fact sheet has low-income families paying 13% of their income

in sales & excise taxes.

the biggest retail expense of low-income families = food.

And most food items are exempt, as are most prescriptions.

excise taxes = liquor, tobacco, gas...

The only way you get that 13.1% is if you assume low-income households, on average, spend almost half their income on highly-taxed items like liquor, tobacco, & gasoline.

Progressive Features

 Provides a refundable earned income tax credit (EITC) contingent upon state appropriation

Property tax is the most regressive feature in washington.

[eridani]

79. Wrong. That's just the STATE sales tax

Total tax burden includes city and county sales taxes and FICA.

[Hannah Bell]

86. yes, i know. and it's a *state* income tax we're talking about; that's

why i didn't include local taxes or fica. presumably the reason for a *state* income tax is to collect taxes for the *state*.

[eridani]

89. There is also a state property tax

This would have been slashed witn 1098

[Hannah Bell]

117. yes, but the "slash" amounted to 5% of total property tax. The state portion was reduced

20% across the board; the state portion is about 1/4 of total prop tax, so 20% of that = 5% of your total.

Which, as I said earlier, amounted to about $100 on average, or about $68 on a $150K house taxed at $9/$1000 of value as in seattle. Not what I consider a "slash".

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. Here's the life of a working class person;

At work at the redi-mix you pay a L&I tax of about $60/month. On the way home, you buy a pack of cigarettes and a lottery ticket while filling up your car. Counting the B&O tax that the merchant passed to you, gasoline taxes and sales and tobacco taxes, about $10 of that purchase was invisible taxes.

Stop off at the landlord. About 10% of the rent goes to pay for the property tax. Next stop, the utility company; in addition to the taxes imposed directly on the customer, they also pass through all the tax costs imposed on them. Make a couple of cellphone calls to let the daycare (whose costs are inflated because they pass through many fees and taxes) know you're running late, taxes on the call? 13%.

The average state’s consumption tax structure is equivalent to an income tax with a 7.1
percent rate for the poor, a 4.7 percent rate for the middle class, and a 0.9 percent rate for
the wealthiest taxpayers. Obviously, no one would intentionally design an income tax that
looks like this — yet by relying on consumption taxes as a revenue source, this is effectively
the policy choice lawmakers nationwide have made....

his analysis has focused on the most regressive state and local tax systems and the factors
that make them so. Aside from their regressivity, however, many of these states have
another trait in common: they are frequently cited as “low-tax” states by the media or
by their elected officials, often with an emphasis on their lack of an income tax. But this
raises the question: “low tax” for whom?
No-income-tax states like Washington, Texas and
Florida do, in fact, have average to low taxes overall.
Can they also be considered “low-tax” states for poor
families? Far from it. In fact, these states’ disproportionate
reliance on sales and excise taxes make
their taxes among the highest in the entire nation on
low-income families.
The table to the right shows the ten states that tax
poor families the most. Washington State, which does
not have an income tax, is the highest-tax state in the
country for poor people. In fact, when all state and local
sales, excise and property taxes are tallied up, Washington’s
poor families pay 17.3 percent of their total
income in state and local taxes. Compare that to
neighboring Idaho and Oregon, where the poor pay 8.6
percent and 8.7 percent, respectively, of their incomes
in state and local taxes — far less than in Washington.

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

http://www.wutc.wa.gov/webdocs.nsf/de53b07997d108ea882563b50072c5b3/d4713d125d30161888256bdd007a0f29!OpenDocument

Bill Gates chose Washington because you are willing to pick up his tax bill.

[Hannah Bell]

87. I'm asking a very simple question: the *state* sales tax is 6.5%,

so how does the chart figure the lowest income quintile pays 13.5% of their income in *state sales and excise taxes*?

it's a math question. property taxes, for example, are *not* "state sales and excise taxes". neither is L&I.

so bringing up those taxes is irrelevant to my question. it's impossible to pay more than 6.5% of your income in sales tax, and since food & other necessities aren't taxed, impossible even to pay 6.5%.

so either the chart is mislabeled or they're including some illegitimate stuff with the "excise taxes".

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. You're reading it wrong.

"This study assesses the fairness of each state’s tax system, measuring the state and local
taxes paid by different income groups in 2007 (including the impact of tax changes enacted
through October of 2009) as shares of income for every state and the District of Columbia.
The report provides valuable comparisons among the states, showing which states have done
the best — and the worst — job of providing a modicum of fairness in their tax systems overall."

It's actually 13.1%, but you're missing two major points a) B&O taxes are passed on to the consumer - in fact it's the largest single piece of the pie, and it's completely unmeasurable by the consumer. You pay more in the inflated cost of goods than you do in actual state sales taxes. b) Local sales taxes are in some cities nearly as much as the state tax rate.

Washington voters don't want an income tax because we're all kept ignorant about how much we actually spend under the current system. The first principle of a fair tax system is knowing what your fair share is. It's part of the reason that Tim Eyman has been so successful. No one knows what they or anyone else pays, they just kinda know it's a lot.

I'm uninterested in semantic hair splitting. The math question is easy. State and local taxes hit Washington's poor people 3.5x as hard as rich ones, mostly because of invisible taxes which pervade the system.

[Hannah Bell]

109. i agree that in principle, flat taxes on consumption are more regressive than a progressive

income tax. but the state income tax proposal:

1. would have been a tax *added* to existing taxes, including local taxes. There was no provision in the bill for a reduction of the state sales tax or local taxes.

2. would not have removed the B&O tax, only increased the exemption to $4800. a boon, maybe, to small to medium-sized businesses, but not so much for consumers, because the bulk of consumer purchases, directly or indirectly, are from large businesses at some step in the production chain.

3. would have cut (state portion) property tax *across the board* by 20%; that works out to about a 5% total cut for big corporate properties & bill gates' estate as well as small property owners. It wouldn't have changed the regressive structure of existing property taxes, simply lowered them. The average reduction would have been $100, but big property owners would have saved 10's of thousands.

4. The income threshold on the new income tax could have been lowered by simple majority two years later.


So I don't see that 1098 (which was what we were talking about) does much to improve the problems you talk about.

1. It doesn't remove the B&O, or make it more transparent to consumers.

2. It doesn't do much to reduce the tax burden on low-income to middle earners, unless they're small to medium-sized business owners.

3. It doesn't necessarily increase overall progressivity a lot because of the property tax reduction, the bulk of which would go to big property owners. You're trading an average 7% tax on income over $200K for an average 5% property tax reduction.


Some erroneous points in your post:

- B&O revenues are less than sales & use tax revenues, so it's unlikely they cost consumers more than sales & use taxes:




- There are no localities that have a higher sales & use tax anywhere near the state rate of 6.5%. The highest combined rate is 9.5%.

http://dor.wa.gov/docs/forms/excstx/locsalusetx/localslsuseflyer_quarterly.pdf


- If B&O revenues are 40% of sales & use revenues and the *highest* combined sales & use tax is 9.5%, we can figure that the B&O adds an average of about 3.8% to the price of goods, making total rate for these three taxes about 13.3% in the highest-tax localities.

Therefore it seems to me unlikely that the "average" low-income person is spending 13.1% of their income on these taxes when food and medicines aren't subject to sales tax -- unless there are hidden assumptions (e.g., food stamps aren't counted as income).

And since, as you say, taxes aren't transparent, there's no good way for the voter to determine who's telling the truth about the claims being made by either side. Even if they believe the current set-up is regressive, they can't know whether the proposed adjustment would be better -- they have to take someone's word for it. So the gut instinct is to stick with what's known unless they have strong feelings one way or the other.

So while I agree with you in *principle* about all these essentially flat taxes being regressive in comparison with a progressive income tax, I can see why a majority voted against 1098.

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. ITEP studied the issue nationwide. I repeat their findings.

Given the choice between my gut and the findings, I'll go with the study.

http://www.itepnet.org/pdf/wa_povertyday_0910.pdf

Mea Culpa: You make good points about my assumptions of the study's methodology.

For poor people, ITEP describes the effective tax rates as follows;
General sales taxes - 4.4%
Other sales and excise taxes - 3.9%
Sales and excise taxes on business - 4.8%

I speculate that "General sales taxes" are direct purchases subject to the state 6.5% rate. Further, "other sales and excise taxes" include utility taxes, gasoline taxes, and local sales taxes. I also surmise that "Sales and excise taxes on businesses" are the B&O tax and taxes (including property taxes) passed through by utilities and other businesses.

I also think it's safe to assume that "property taxes" also include the portion of rent attributable to tax.

The initiative may have been imperfect, but it was a dramatic improvement over the status quo.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. You migrated to the state with the most regressive tax structure in the US

Steve Ballmer and others in the top 1% of income earners, paid 2.6% of his income in state taxes. Those in the bottom 20% of incomes paid 17.3%.

His $450,000 investment in defeating the initiative was a bargain. He has a net worth of $16 billion. Last year was a really shitty year for him; he only made $1.2m in compensation.

If you moved here because you like this kind of tax structure, then please go home.

[jancantor]

7. Most people here like the No Income Tax structure

that's why attempt after attempt to instigate an income tax have failed. Could the tax structure be improved? Absolutely. Is an income tax the solution? no

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Because the income tax measure failed, the state will raise the sales tax.

Merry Christmas.

They don't like income taxes because they're already overtaxed. They're not bright enough to realize that they're overtaxed because there's no income tax, and are thus carrying Mr Ballmer's share.

[jancantor]

20. Ah yes, the "they are just stupid" argument

Iow, diminish those you disagree with. The state may very well raise the sales tax. Let's see. This initiative was a mistake and I'm glad it failed --- miserably. And I disagree that they don't like income because they are already overtaxed. Here in WA we... DISLIKE INCOME TAXES. I know I moved here partially for the reason that I dislike income taxes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. The reasons to prefer sales taxes:

I like being ignorant about my fair share.
I think being poor isn't punishment enough.
Diapers? If they can't afford to have kids, they shouldn't. Same with schools. Not my problem.
I live in Vancouver, and I can buy all my Costco shit in Portland and avoid taxes.
My boss tells me that if I vote for income taxes, he'll move the rest of his operation to Bangalore.

Stupid is the most benign possible excuse for voting against it.

[jancantor]

35. I have a bunch of friends who moved here from Hawaii

and live in Vancouver and they do exactly that. They shop at Costco in Oregon. Diapers shouldn't be taxed with sales tax. They are a staple. Just like (unprepared) food should not be. That's key to a sales tax imo, and ours could use some tweaking (more luxury taxes for instance).

Also of course we need to legalize marijuana and tax it. I think marijuana sucks, but it should be legal and taxed. Sales tax taxes stuff that is generally not NECESSARY. Rich people tend to buy a lot of stuff new (sales tax), more prepared and restaurant foods (sales tax) etc. Sales tax should not apply to diapers, food (non-prepared), etc. It also doesn't apply to buying stuff used from individuals a la furniture, a tv, etc.

Poor people can be much less affected by sales tax. Food - not taxed.

WA needs to exempt residential utilities, at least below a certain amount. That would be a good change.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Rich people buy a lot of stuff new? Let me tell you a story.

One of the biggest boat manufacturers on the west coast is located in my county. When it's time to actually do the transaction, a limo excretes an attorney with a couple of suitcases filled with $100 bills. The new boat goes offshore 200 miles for a sea trial, and when they come back, it belongs to someone else.

A $200 million tax-free transaction. Meanwhile, the working mom who scrubs the boat's toilets in preparation for the visit from the dignitary pays 17% of her minimum wage on sales, gas, property, utility, B&O and sin taxes.

Knowing how overtaxed she is, she might even vote against an income tax "because it's just a matter of time before they start taxing me".

Everyone making less than $60,000 is getting screwed. Everyone making more than $500,000 is laughing their asses off.

[jancantor]

52. Ok, anecdotes are nifty and all, but...

there are plenty of sleazy ways like that to beat the income tax, just like there are to beat sales tax. Not to mention that income tax doesn't tax WEALTH, it taxes income. I agree with your point. People try to game the system. Some succeed.

But the working mom is RIGHT. It is a matter of time. The last THREE times the legislature had the chance to do so, they did. I am sorry but if you voted for the income tax in WA, you did it with the implicit assumption that it could be lowered to ANY threshold income the legislature damn well pleased.

[WestSeattle2]

57. Why the drama? Sales tax isn't even due if the purchaser is

from out of state.

http://dor.wa.gov/docs/Pubs/WatercraftVesselTax/BoatBroc.pdf

Those attorney's are wasting a ton of time and effort circumventing a tax their client doesn't need to pay.

[OlympicBrian]

61. Well, now that you mention it

Agree.

Most of the new federal tax proposals screw the poor and middle class, while conveniently ignoring the viable tax base which has emerged over the past few decades; you know, income disparity has gone way up--there is more at the top to tax. I'm talking millionaires. And yeah, new marginal brackets should extend all the way up to Ballmer et. al., too.

I was very surprised this progressive 1098 state measure did not pass. But, there was big money pushing hard against it. The "oh no they might create lower brackets" propaganda was paid for richly and re-broadcast until everyone was talking about it--so it was effective.

[jancantor]

65. It's not propaganda. It's called reality and learning from history

It;'s the old "fool me once... " :)

The last 3 times the legislature had the opportunity to act similarly, they did. Oh, but "it's different this time"

Only a naive person would believe that. I trust the common sense of the people of WA state.

[Hannah Bell]

67. the reasons to prefer sales taxes are:

1. no one snooping in your business. it's a biggie.

btw, no sales tax on grocery food items & some other essentials.

another reason that ill-conceived proposal went down to defeat is the combination of income tax & sales tax = double taxation in the minds of many. it was a trojan horse, i agree with the other poster.

[OlympicBrian]

26. An increased income tax would hurt the poor the most

You're right, a higher sales tax could happen. As I pointed out, some of the largest chunks which grew alot were spending for DOT, Public Schools, and Medical Assistance payments.

I doubt they will cut back DOT spending during this practical recession.
I doubt they will cut back on Public Schools.
I don't know if they will allow rural hospitals to close, if that's where all that "Medical Assistance Payments" money is going.

[eridani]

93. Only if it wre a flat tax. A progressive tax would leave all poor people paying NO income tax

--and reduced sales and property taxes. The reason why spending is skyrocketing is that health care costs for public employess are skyrocketing, just like health care costs for everyone else.

[Hannah Bell]

110. There was no provision to reduce sales taxes in 1098, and the property tax

reduction was across the board. bill gates would have got his property taxes lowered too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. If you meant to type "least" then you're right. Otherwise, not. n/t

[Greyhound]

72. Sure, you all love it until your kids can't get an education, your house burns

down, and you can't get anywhere because the roadbeds have broken, then you whine & cry for someone to bail you out, just like those Wall Street assholes.

This is also the attitude that makes thousands of you to flood into Portland every weekend so you don't have to pay a sales tax either. Now what would you call someone that wants all the benefits of the social structure but doesn't want to pay for it?
:puke:

[OlympicBrian]

14. Who paid for this message to be parroted?

"because they knew that come 2 yrs, it could be lowered, and if our legislature is at all consistent, it would be."

[jancantor]

15. Generally speaking

People with money. Just like many of the PROPONENTS were people with money, e.g. Gates.

The income tax would negatively affect the rich AT FIRST. That's not the point. The point is it gives the legislature carte blanche to lower the income threshold to any level they damn well choose after two years. I wasn't about to cede that sort of power to the State Legislature, the same ninnies that used their power to make online poker a C felony and the last 3 times they could used that 2 yr rule to change financial legislation.

[Hannah Bell]

69. is the claim true, or not?

[OlympicBrian]

120. Speculation is a kind of claim, yeah nt

[eridani]

28. The explanation is that people are childish twits who want public goods without paying for them.

A progressive income tax that applied to everyone would LOWER taxes for 80% of the population. People can't be bothered to add up their yearly sales taxes, so they don't care about a few dollars here and there and how they add up. They prefer being nibbled to death rather than look at the sum total of what they pay.

Personally, when I was working I was one of the 20% who would have paid more (low level of consumption compared to others in my income bracket). I'm still in favor of it, because lower taxes for the majority makes for a more stable and prosperous society.

Paying taxes is one of those unfun things that grownups do, like changing furnace filters and cleaning out the gutters.

[Hannah Bell]

70. no, it wouldn't, if history is any guide. it would *increase* taxes. washington has an earned

income credit which somewhat mitigates the regressive aspects of its sales tax, and exempts food, medicines and other necessities.

i'm with the poster who says the income tax that started out being "just for the rich" (except of course for folks like bill gates, who doesn't make a salary & socks his money away in his personal tax exempt foundation) --

that income tax would soon be for everybody, & the regular folks would soon be paying income tax *and* sales tax.

anything bill gates is for, i'm against.

[eridani]

80. You prefer Steve Ballmer and Jeff Bezos, who contributed hundreds of thousands against?

States with income taxes for all have LESS regressive taxes. What is it about "If everyone were subject to a progressove income tax, 80% of taxpayers would pay less" is it that you are failing to understand here?

[Hannah Bell]

88. i don't prefer either, but gates is bigger & more political. property tax is

the most regressive tax in washington, & an income tax won't change that.

a new tax, imo, just increases the ways for them to cheat.

i'm surprised you're snarking at me. i've never snarked at you.

[eridani]

90. Wrong, 1098 would have slashed state property taxes

A new tax just increases stability in the system. It is the total amount of taxation that needs to be decided. WTF is this anti-tax crap anyway? Nobody should pay any? Progressives shouldn't pay because we don't like the loopholes like for the Centralia coal plant or putting people in jail for marijuana. Rich people shouldn't pay because that's "punishment" for success. Conservatives shouldn't pay because some of the money helps undeserving trash. Nobody pays. No public goods--just let the corporations do it.

[Hannah Bell]

98. not sure what that has to do with anything i wrote.

[eridani]

104. I'm not sure why you think that the total tax burden has anything to do

--with the number of revenue streams involved.

[Hannah Bell]

107. not sure why you think i think that.

[eridani]

108. Because you want to keep a high sales tax and state property tax, but not have an income tax

Please don't tell me I started out replying to the wrong post!! If so, sorry.

[Hannah Bell]

111. The income tax proposal in 1098 was *in addition to* the high sales tax, & the

property tax reduction was across the board -- meaning, bill gates and boeing would have got the same 20% reduction on the state portion that everyone else did.

The *average* reduction would have been $100. But gates would have gotten a $20K reduction on the taxes on his seattle property alone.

Say your house is valued at $150K & your prop tax is like seattle's, $9 on every $1000 in value. That's $1350 a year, & about 1/4 goes to the state. That's $337. Twenty percent of that is $67.50. That's the 20% property tax reduction they were talking about.

It's hard to hide fixed property; much easier to hide income.

[eridani]

113. But it cut the high property tax and the B&O tax. Politically, cutting the sales tax

--would have been utterly unnoticable, for exactly the same reason people seem to like the sales tax even though it rips them off. Cutting from 9.8% to 5% means that instead of $1.43 at the counter for a $1.29 bottle of conditioner, you pay $1.36. Big whoop. Its intended beneficiaries would have not given a shit one way or another. Cutting B&O would sure be noticable to small business, and if you pay property tax in lump sums twice a year, a reduction would be very visible. Note that frequent voters are older, more likely to have paid off their mortages, and more likely to be on fixed incomes having to come up with big chunks of money twice a year. It's about the visible results.

How can we continue to rely on mainly sales taxes when discretionary consumption is likely to be semi-permanently depressed? And the B&O is probably the stupidest way ever to tax businesses. Maybe a wealth tax on assets other than real estate or retirement savings? Not sure, but it looks like we are fucked for the medium long term.

[Hannah Bell]

115. I agree that cutting B&O would be noticeable to a small business,

since it pretty much exempts them. But it's not going to be noticeable to consumers.

And while an average property tax cut of $100 might be noticeable if you pay it once a year, i think most people pay 4 times a year -- so not so noticeable either.

State sales tax is not 9.8%. Nor are combined state & local sales taxes 9.8% anywhere. I linked the rates in another post.

But reducing the state sales tax by half, as in your example -- from 6.5% to 3.25, though it might not be noticeable on a bottle of conditioner, would save the average person more than the property tax reduction.

The median value of an owner-occupied home in Washington is $168K, the median asking price is $138.6K, per this:

http://www.trulia.com/sitemap/Washington-real-estate/

Which means everyone with a home at median or below would have gotten about $100 or less from the property tax reduction (assuming Seattle's rate of $9/$100).

If you make $25K a year and spend only 1/3 of it -- $8333 -- on items subject to sales & use taxes, cutting sales tax in half saves you $270.

About four times what the property tax reduction does if you have a $150K house.

[eridani]

119. The point is that the same population accepting sales taxes would not notice reductions

--for the same reason that all the teabagger whackjobs think Obama raised their taxes. That's because the actual reductions for most people were too small to notice. In Seattle, total sales tax was 9.8% last I checked.

[Hannah Bell]

123. 9.5% per the wa dept of revenue.

http://www.dor.wa.gov/Docs/forms/ExcsTx/LocSalUseTx/LocalSlsUseFlyer_10_Q4_alpha.pdf

http://www.dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/FormBySubject/forms_LSUAlpha.aspx

Footnotes:
(1) Combined sales tax is a total of local and state sales tax including the 6.5% state
rate, the local rate, and Regional Transit Authority (RTA) rate. If you have rate
questions, go to our web site at dor.wa.gov, or call 1-800-647-7706.

(2) King County Food & Beverage is in addition to the combined sales tax rate for
restaurants, taverns and bars. (See WAC 458-20-12401).

± Hospital Benefit Zone
Unincorporated Areas are locations outside incorporated city limits.
* P.T.B.A. - Public Transportation Benefit Area
** Transportation Benefit District

[Hannah Bell]

38. +100. trojan horse is *exactly* what it was.

[eridani]

92. So what? If everyone paid a progressive income tax, the total tax burden

--would be reduced for 80% of the population.

[Hannah Bell]

112. But that wasn't what 1098 proposed.

[Truth2Tell]

105. You're wrong.

The WA Legislature would have had NO ability to lower the income threshold without another vote by referendum. Thanks for swallowing the right wing carp and re-spewing it out on DU. You made a stupid vote that hurt us all because you can't decipher fact from right-wing fiction. Thanks for keeping our state in right-wing regressive tax hell. Dino Rossi thanks you too. Unfuckingbelievable.

[Hannah Bell]

114. I think that's incorrect.

"There’s something you have to understand about this measure (I-1053, the eyman initiative).
The voters keep passing it and the Legislature keeps undoing it. That’s why it comes back time and again. The two-thirds-vote requirement puts handcuffs on lawmakers, but after two years, they can modify or junk any initiative with a simple majority vote. So when the clock runs out and a tax increase seems expedient, this one always is quick to go."

http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/6152-i_1053_gets_its_first_test_monday_%E2%80%93_will_it_block_ferry_fare_increases.htm

So apparently after two years the legislature could have modified i-1098 with a simple majority -- under the old version i believe it was a simple majority in the legislature OR a referendum.

But I-1053 passed, & now the language is 2/3 of the legislature OR referendum:

This measure would restate the existing statutory requirement that any action or combination of actions by the legislature that raises taxes must be approved by a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature OR approved in a referendum to the people...

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx


So if you have evidence showing that the legislature MUST go to the people if they want to modify an existing tax, please link.

I'm not certain myself, just saying I've not found anything to support your contention.

[gateley]

2. Mr. Gates's measure was defeated because big bucks (Bezos, Ballmer, Acklerly)

assholes made sure to run ads by 'everyday citizens' saying "in such economic times, we can't afford a new tax". Just like nationally, misrepresenting the truth. Two of my friends voted against it because (another talking point that was spread around) in two years' time we'll ALL have to pay a State income tax. I said - you can be SURE of that? How do you know? WHERE did you hear that?

That was one initiative that really fries me. I'm not as passionate about the candy tax (that was so convoluted, I hope they bring it back in a much simpler form - the word 'wheat' shouldn't appear anywhere :7), and the booze thing was okay with me, too.

AND, didn't the good folks of Seattle/King County/WA State? vote down a ban on plastic bags, too? (I was living out of state at the time.) THAT's something that really surprised me - we're leaders in environmental measures. Or at least we used to be.

:rant:

[jancantor]

4. It failed because it was a trojan horse

And despite the fact that it was written in the initiative that the threshold could not be lowered, according to the CONSTITUTION (which takes precedence... by law), once 2 yrs passed, a mere majority vote in the legislature could amend the threshold level to ANY LEVEL THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE.

And noting that the last 3 financial bills of a similar nature were passed, the legislature did EXACTLY that, it's not surprising that the educated voters of WA state saw through this trojan horse.

[gateley]

55. I disagree. You present valid points, but I think this may have actually worked.

Just because they did it in the past does not GUARANTEE they will do it in the future. And those who ARE educated would make our voices heard.

[jancantor]

58. The point is that there is no procedural safeguard against it

The advertising was disingenuous. They advertised it such that it could ONLY apply to those income levels, when the DE JURE reality is that it didn't matter what the initiative said about that - the constitution takes precedence.

We weren't willing to take that gamble. I'm not going to trust the same idiots that made online poker a C felony, to be restrained.

[gateley]

63. I don't know if you were living here at the time, it was YEARS ago, but We The

People voted NO on a raise for the legislature. They snuck off at midnight and gave it to themselves anyway.

So yes, I understand your opinion of them. And share it. I was probably too naive and trusting because I think highly of Bill Gates, Sr and Ann Wyckoff and "assumed" (I know) they would make sure their agenda was adhered to.

[Hannah Bell]

73. bill gates sr is no different from jr, just a more kindly facade. they share the same interests.

it's my recollection that gates sr's firm was the first washington firm with a dc presence (as opposed to washington state corps like boeing using dc firms). he's a major player.

i don't trust anyone in that family further than i could throw them. if i had to speculate about the insider politics involved in the income tax proposal, i'd speculate it has some benefit to gates or some harm to other state players. gates wouldn't be wasting his time on it if it didn't.

[Hannah Bell]

71. and bill gates' big bucks were on the other side. and bill is such a well known

friend of the poor.

lol.

[WestSeattle2]

10. This is why Washington State voters are so pissed.....

Fiscal Year General Funds Expenditures % Change from Previous Year
1997-1999 $39,397,275,000<26> --%<26>
1999-2001 $44,535,542,000<26> 13.0%<26>
2001-2003 $49,527,904,000<26> 10.1%<26>
2003-2005 $53,463,296,000<26> 7.9%<26>
2005-2007 $60,517,243,000<26> 13.2%<26>
2007-2009 $69,176,280,000<26> 14.3%<26>

http://fiscal.wa.gov/FRViewer.aspx?Rpt=Recast%20History%20Expenditure%20Statewide%20Summary

60% growth in the general fund in a span of 10 years. That' crazy - and unsustainable. And now Olympia wants even more money, while unemployment remains in double-digits?!

This is not a Dem/Rep issue at all; it's sanity vs. insanity.

NO NEW TAXES - CUT THE DAMN BUDGET.

Since legislators have proven time and again they cannot responsibly manage state finances, apparently voters will have to do that for them.

[jancantor]

12. The State of WA is too busy making online poker a C felony, banning alcoholic energy drinks

and other important stuff, doncha know?

[OlympicBrian]

13. Sure, some cuts are needed, but in looking at actual spending...

Thanks for the link to the table of spending, very helpful.

In taking a quick look at that table for what large shares of the spending went to:

"Department of Transportation" and "Medical Assistance Payments" went beyond a 60 percent growth rate over 10 years.

And "Public Schools" seem to just about track the 60 percent growth rate.

I can see now why the new income tax was to help pay for education and health; the proposal was true to its claims. Do we want public schools to be top-notch?

[WestSeattle2]

16. Why is it so difficult to just say no? Why do we need to create

new taxes? If there's no money, there's no money. End of story. The state legislature apparently believes that funding the State Historical Society and the Eastern Washington Historical Society take priority over funding public education and health care, so take up perceived underfunding for those programs with the state legislature. Don't come to unemployed taxpayers demanding more money. That's the message that voters are sending, and have been sending for years. Olympia had the opportunity to listen and act all those years and chose not to. In fact they did the exact opposite - piling on new programs and bureaucracies. Now they've placed themselves in the position of having to take a meat cleaver to the state budget. Not too many taxpayers on either side of the political spectrum are shedding tears.

[eridani]

24. Because you kill people when you cut Basic Health and Medicaid n/t

[Hannah Bell]

39. +100.

[eridani]

32. There have been no programs piling up. What has been piling up--

--is health care costs.

[OlympicBrian]

17. I guess rural (eastern washington) small hospitals could fail now if budget is cut

Re: The large line item in the WA budget "Medical Assistance Payments"

Probably this:

RCW 74.09.5225
Medical assistance — Payments for services provided by rural hospitals.

(1) Payments for recipients eligible for medical assistance programs under this chapter for services provided by hospitals, regardless of the beneficiary's managed care enrollment status, shall be made based on allowable costs incurred during the year, when services are provided by a rural hospital certified by the centers for medicare and medicaid services as a critical access hospital. Any additional payments made by the medical assistance administration for the healthy options program shall be no more than the additional amounts per service paid under this section for other medical assistance programs.
...
The legislature further finds that creating a similar reimbursement system for the state's medical assistance programs in small, rural hospitals that qualify will help assure the long-term financial viability of the rural health system in those communities.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=74.09.5225

[WestSeattle2]

23. You can't be serious. Take a look at the following link

and see if there might be places, LOT'S of places, to find more than adequate funding for public education and health care:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/2009/alpha.asp

[OlympicBrian]

33. So you want to cut jobs...

That will help unemployment go up and the deficit down.

[WestSeattle2]

36. So your priority now is public employment over fully funding

Eastern Washington hospitals? OK, if that's your priority I'm sure the legislature will be more than happy to roll with it.

[Hannah Bell]

41. it's not a choice between medical jobs (the biggest cost in health care) & government

jobs, no matter how much you assert it is.

[WestSeattle2]

44. It most certainly is a choice. The University of Washington

Hospital as well as Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, are staffed by public employees. If I had a choice of closing the Washington State Arts Commission to save medical staff at the UW or Harborview , I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Hannah Bell]

46. no, that's the false choice presented by the rulers, sorry.

you shouldn't take everything they tell you as gospel.

they lie, in their own interest.

[WestSeattle2]

48. Not a false choice at all. In fact that very choice is on the

legislature's plate come January. Where in Washington do you live?

[Hannah Bell]

53. It *is* a false choice, and it's none of your business where I live.

[WestSeattle2]

60. I honestly could care less where you live, it's just that you seem

to believe that you know so much about Washington State politics and budget issues that I assumed that you must live in the state.

[Hannah Bell]

66. i *do* live in the state. 4th-generation. i thought you meant *where* in the state.

[WestSeattle2]

31. One place you might look to find funding for your priorities

is the "1% for the Arts" program dictated by the state legislature for all publicly funded capital projects in the state. That's right, King County is building a new $1+ billion dollar wastewater treatment plant in Woodinville - $10 million of that capital budget goes for art work to be installed at the treatment facility. How many states require art work to be installed at wastewater treatment facilities and garbage transfer stations?

I'm thinking you'll find more than enough funding for Eastern Washington hospitals.

[OlympicBrian]

37. An eye-popping $4.7 billion budgeted just to the medical assistance payments

Check it out yourself, click open DSHS and find medical assistance payments for 2010 -- 4,716,722 * 1,000 = 4,716,722,000

http://fiscal.wa.gov/FRViewer.aspx?Rpt=Recast%20History%20Expenditure%20Statewide%20Summary

That is much more than 10 million. In fact, it makes me think that line item goes to more than just rural hospitals.

Once again the main purpose of the proposal was to fund health care and education, which are indeed large line-items in the budget. That is the message Mr. Gates Sr. communicated.

[WestSeattle2]

42. You are concerned with keeping Eastern Washington

hospitals open; I'm merely suggesting that $10 million might help with that effort.

[WestSeattle2]

43. Keep in mind, the state is reimbursed for a large portion of those

medical assistance costs by the feds.

[OlympicBrian]

49. (deleted)

(deleted)

[OlympicBrian]

50. (deleted)

(deleted)

[OlympicBrian]

51. Which brings up a good point

The linked-in budget is a little reflection of the federal budget, and Washington State's draw from it.

[jancantor]

56. Look at the Regional Justice Center in Kent

With the "artwork" on the walls. Is it just me or would artists JUMP at the opportunity to display their artwork on the walls of a well used county building? Iow, the idea that we are paying to place people's paintings etc. on the walls of a county building, when it would be better to let artists place their works there as free advertisement ... well, it just makes no sense to me.

Also, the "ping pong ball" sculpture thing on 6th avenue has to be stupidest piece of "art" I have ever seen, and I come from a family of artists. Don't even get me started on the Metro Phallus.

[Hannah Bell]

74. commissioned art pieces. you're not going to get many artists -- or even amateurs --

paying the costs of a major installation out of pocket just for advertising. it's too expensive. i have no quarrel with paying for art, though i might quarrel with *how much* "connected" artists are getting. i'd rather have artists submit a proposal & let the public vote on them for publicly funded installations.

[jancantor]

76. What is the installation cost to hang a painting

I was most specifically referring to them. The RJC has tons of those. Not even large painting, but many are small paintings they bought to hang there permanently. From a visitor standpoint, I'd rather see a variety of paintings and stuff and it wouldn't cost anything to have local artists be able to hang their paintings there.

One of my relatives pays 50% to a gallery to hang her paintings there. We could offer it for free. I am sure plenty of artists would jump at that opp.

[Hannah Bell]

77. by "installation" i mean the cost of producing the entire piece, plus installing it.

just the cost of the materials in a huge painting i'd expect could run to thousands, looking at the price of art materials these days. i was specifically thinking of big permanent public art pieces, not little painting like the local art clubs hang at the public library for free in rotating displays.

and not only paintings, but statuary, mosaic works, murals, fountains etc.

yeah, there's plenty of bad public art, but good (or "loved") public art defines neighborhoods, is a touchstone for social memory.

[jancantor]

96. again, yes

but at the RJC (and many other places) we are talking small paintings. I agree that huge sculptures etc. are a different thing entirely.

[Hannah Bell]

116. what's the rjc? edit: never mind, i see.

i've never seen the public art at the rjc, but if they have a group of small paintings i'm still not sure that letting amateurs hang their art for the publicity translates to a universal diktat that saves money.

[jancantor]

118. It certainly saves SOME money

to offer a space to hang a painting vs. buying a painting and hanging it. This is hardly a major thing that will save WA. It's just an example of wastefulness

[eridani]

30. It is almost entirely due to outrageous inflation of health care costs

That means for public employees as well as Medicaid and Basic Health recipients. Nothing that single payer health care wouldn't fix.

[OlympicBrian]

34. And probably the recession landed more people on public healthcare nt

[gateley]

59. Your last line sums it up perfectly. We ARE tired of giving them more and more

and not getting what they promised, and hey, how about another carpool lane? They do the STUPIDEST things and take forever getting to whatever stupid decision they finally decide upon. Like, more carpool lanes (how many people do you see in those -- especially on 520 where it's needed the most?)

But I was for this tax. I was hopeful this time we could believe in them (well, not them, but Gates, Pigott, et al).

[OlympicBrian]

62. Agree, the tax was worth a shot...

Six of one...one half dozen of the other? Or maybe worse:

Now, without the candy and income tax, the state will be in greater need from the federal government--who is currently proposing mostly regressive tax plans, except for this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4621723

My point is, someone is gonna pay.

[OlympicBrian]

21. Slight errata: "Seattle" used where I should have used "Washington State"

No big deal, piece reads basically the same, but there are two places where "Washington State" should have been used in place of "Seattle" and the edit window is closed.

[jmowreader]

40. The "candy tax" needed to be repealed

I have the Official List of taxable and non-taxable candies. It makes no sense--any product that contained Wheat Flour is exempt from taxation--possibly because wheat is a major cash crop in Washington.

Now check it out:

From the list:
American Licorice Company: Red Vines 26oz laydown bag, individually wrapped Valentine's, individually wrapped Halloween, 8 oz laydown bag, red/pink chews: all exempt. Red Vines Christmas Shapes and Valentine Gummis: taxable.

Balance Bars? Some are taxable, some exempt. Same deal with Clif Bar products--Luna Protein Chocolate Peanut Butter is exempt, Clif Builders Peanut Butter is taxable.

A Kit Kat is exempt. A Hershey Bar is not.

Granola bars that are just oatmeal glued together with no wheat flour in them are taxable.

This needed to die and be resurrected as just a tax on ALL candy whether there's flour in it or not. I cannot imagine the amount of money the state of Washington paid to research close to 13,000 candy SKUs to determine if they were taxable or exempt.

[WestSeattle2]

47. Yet some would have us believe that by repealing that nightmare

of a tax we're killing children. Rationality is lost on some.

[gateley]

64. I just think it was far too convoluted. It's indicative of how our representatives

complicate everything, putting far too much time and money into projects where it's not warranted. I just can't get over how many "committees" have looked into the traffic problems for YEARS and invariably come up with the same 'solution' - another HOV lane. :crazy: How long have we been "addressing " the Alaskan Way viaduct situation? They've been saying for years and years that the next large quake we have will topple it (complete with pictures of Northridge). It didn't collapse in 2001 and that was a 6.8! Not saying that it's not time to replace it, but they've been trying figure out what to do for fucking ever!

Same with 520.

Same with...

I'm just ranting again because of my frustration with them, but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Seattle is in my soul. :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

75. the convolution & poor results are entirely due to the necessity to protect

favored (rich) interest groups to the detriment of the general welfare.

a committee of folks from the local senior center could design a better transportation policy.

[jmowreader]

101. Children came into it on both sides of that debate

The pro-tax people (and HOW could anyone be pro-that tax? Anyone who wants to argue the candy tax was a good idea should PM me with your email address and I'll send you the candy list.) talked about how getting rid of the tax would hurt children's programs. The anti-tax people said The Children would be stressed by having to pay sales tax on their candy bars.

The confectioners were running an ad featuring a woman who runs a Washington company that makes, from what I can tell, granola bars. They're taxable because oats are not a grain that will exempt the candy from taxability. Oh God...she went on and on about how the tax was going to hit products containing meat. (I went through that whole list and did not find one meat-based product on there...I know chocolate covered bacon is a great delicacy, but come on.)

[EarthFirster]

54. Welcome to the club!

Welcome to the club. No one is blooming, there WHERE NO SHOVEL READY JOBS!!!!!!!! The green jobs are tanking left and right, and solar has about 50 years to go until it achieves even 40% efficiency.

After CLINTON, I warned people, never TRUST a politician, only VERIFY, and I am also not to happy about my Health Insurance being raised, and possible standardization of health care. All grey area, Doctor treated health care will be eliminated, which means I'm unemployable for the rest of my life.

[xchrom]

78. this was an enlightening thread -- people really don't want to support their state.

bizarre. and lazy. and -- well -- dumb.

i appreciated the run down -- thank you.

[eridani]

81. This is why not only WA State, but the whole country is totally fucked

Taxes are bad. I deserve free public goods that other people should pay for but not get themselves. A new bus route that goes near my house is a solid investment in the public good, but one that goes past your house is a frivolous waste of taxpayer dollars, yadayadayadayada.......

[WestSeattle2]

85. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, most people

want to support their state and communities, but are fed up with the waste and lack of spending priorities in government. How is it that we can build new sports stadiums without a public vote, yet 9-1-1 services require a special funding levy? How is it that we can build new symphony halls without a public vote, but a special levy to pay for King County sheriffs is required? How is it that the state can throw kids off state insurance plans claiming to have no money, while they mandate that art be paid for with public funds (tens of millions of dollars) and placed in wastewater treatment plants and garbage dumps? Taxpayers, particularly unemployed taxpayers, are fed up with the "we need more money or kids will die" bullshit. There's no money to fix potholes, fund law enforcement, and provide medical care for poor kids, but there's never any problem finding money for stadiums, symphony halls and art work.

If you are calling the state legislature bizarre, lazy, and well, dumb, there are six million Washingtonians who completely agree with your assessment.

[eridani]

91. You are aware that artists who get paid spend the money and also pay taxes?

True, the stadium was a ripoff, and so are all the special corporate exemptions. (The symphony hall is a net income generator with lots of private donations going into it.) Why in bloody hell would unemployed people give a rat's ass about an income tax anyway? They still have to pay sales tax (and property tax directly or indirectly), but if unemployment was their sole source of income they sure the hell wouldn't be paying any income tax.

[OlympicBrian]

121. I thought about this...

Most great societies and cities abound with great works of art. Ever been to Europe? And, artists deserve work too.