We’re not going to do across the ballot endorsements this election year. Instead, we’re going to focus on three initiatives that we think are particularly important.
Yes on 1098
Initiative 1098 would institute a state income tax on people earning more than $200,000 / year (or households earning more than $400,000) while reducing B&O tax on small businesses and property taxes.
We have lived so long without a state income tax in Washington that it sounds like heresy. It also sounds like a tax, which nobody likes. Well, we’re not going to argue that it’s a tax on somebody else, so you shouldn’t care. That’s not the point, and this is Wallingford, so there’s a few of you that may be impacted.
The point is that the tax system we have in Washington State places an unfair burden on those least able to pay while letting those with oodles of money cart their cash away.
The core concept is that the state has the same revenue burdens as any other state, so it has to collect the same amount of taxes. Instead of collecting them as income tax, it collects them as sales tax and property tax. The problem is that low-income people spend more of their money on things that have sales tax than high-income people. When you buy a new shirt for work, you pay sales tax. When you buy stock for your portfolio, you do not. As a result, the lowest 20% of the wage earners pay more than 17% of their income in taxes, whereas the highest 1% of earners pay less than 3% of their income in taxes.
These graphs illustrate how this distribution works in Washington State:
Hardly seems fair, right?
Look, nobody wants to pay taxes. But there are things like roads, public safety, and education that cost money, and we live in a society that has decided to delegate responsibility for administering these to a government. Taxes will be collected to do so. The question is only from where. We can try to squeeze more money out of those who already have the least, or we can distribute the burden equally across the different strata of our society.
Washington State ranks 47th in the nation in terms of the amount we spend on public education, and we want to cut it more?
No on 1053
Initiative 1053 would require a 2/3rds majority in the legislature to raise taxes.
Again, nobody likes taxes, so making it harder to raise them seems like a good idea, right? Here’s why it’s not:
- With the economy stumbling, overall tax revenue is down, but the burdens of the state (educating children, safeguarding the public) remain the same. If there’s no money, there’s no money for schools.
- This exact idea has been tried in California. The result? A “paralyzed California government” that is struggling “through one of the grimmest fiscal crises in its history” (California Lawmakers Pass Overdue Budget, New York Times, Oct 7th, 2010). The idea that government is just spending money on whatever it pleases because it has so much money to burn is just lunacy. We’re already seeing deep painful cuts in education and other areas because there isn’t enough money to pay for programs. Let’s not make it worse.
If that’s not good enough for you, take a look at who wants this bill to pass and ask yourself why. Four big oil companies, British Petroleum, Shell, Conoco and Tesoro, have donated over $300,000 to the Tim Eyman’s campaign to pass this initiative.
Why? The Seattle Times article Proposal to boost Washington state’s hazardous-substances tax gaining momentum offers a clue. Environmentalists have been trying to pass a tax on hazardous substances to help pay for toxic waste site clean-up and are nearing the 25 out of 49 state senate votes necessary. This proposal would push the goal line out to 33, meaning it would only take 17 extremists (or perhaps 17 Senators taking campaign gifts from oil companies) to block this legislation and leave the public footing the bill for the clean-up, while the companies that produced and sold the chemicals pay nothing.
Tim Eyman earns his living pushing through these “citizen initiatives” that are bankrolled by corporations. Don’t let him get away with it.
No on 1107
Initiative 1107 would end sales tax on candy, bottled water and soda, money that is presently being used to fund education and social services in the state.
Washington State is already being forced to cut $600 million in funding for higher education over the next two years due to lack of revenue, and now somebody wants to take more away? So candy and soda can be cheaper? Who on earth would want such a thing?
Oh, the American Beverage Association would. In fact, they’ve spent over $1.1 million in support of the initiative.
Disgusting.
you should stick to writing stories about the latest window displays along 45th. there are plenty of other places where politics are discussed ad nauseum, so i’m not sure why you’re subjecting us to your musings that would be best left private.
if you’re so enamored with taxes, no one is stopping you from writing a check to the government. keep your hands out of my wallet…. we’re taxed enough already.
it’s also amusing that you in the top of your ‘endorsements’ you lament how lower income are taxed more than higher income, and then in the bottom of your endorsements you favor a regressive tax on food items that… wait for it… wait for it… tax lower-income folks more as % of income than higher income folks.
but then, as emerson said, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. so at least you can take comfort in that.
The article you link to on 1107 was published in June. Total spending by the American Beverage Association to date is pushing $15M to repeal a $0.02 tax that benefits education and social services. Here’s something more current: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013087109_apussugartax.html
It’s called editorial privilege, Rolf-who-speaks-in-canned-slogans-and-who-thinks-candy-and-soda-are-food.
1098 (yes) + 1053 (no) = income taxes for all very soon
if that’s what you want, just come out and say it
Correct, Rolf, the world isn’t all black-and-whites. There are some taxes that are appropriate and some that are not. Emerson said it right.
Gregg, while I think that an income tax isn’t a bad thing, the “slippery slope” argument is weak and unfounded. There’s just no evidence for it.
And neither of these comments address the fundamental question: if you don’t want taxes, where do you suggest we get the money to pay for public education and safety? Until we can answer that question (or come out and say that you think education isn’t worth spending money on), I think it’s irresponsible to talk about cutting tax revenue for the state. Constructive criticism means suggesting a viable alternative.
eh, candy and soda aren’t food?
as daniel patrick moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
but at least i know what to get you for christmas, protected static… a dictionary! here’s definition #1 for ‘food’ in dictionary.com: any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc.
shocking.
Lots in that dictionary definition to parse. For example, “nourishing substance” makes you want to check what “nourishing” means:
“containing substances necessary for growth, health, and good condition”
I don’t believe soda would count there. I suppose it does contain water, which is a necessary substance, but that would cast a wider net than even you would agree with, I think.
Second, the definition you provide specifies that the the PURPOSE of taking it into the body must be to sustain life, etc. Is that the PURPOSE of drinking soda and candy? I would argue not.
So, I would agree with Mr. Moynihan and say that protected static’s opinion is not factually incorrect. It may even be factually correct, but that’s my opinion.
Thanks for posting this article – personally, I think this is the kind of conversation that we need to be having amongst neighbors, especially when the mainstream media presents us with so much misinformation sent to our ears via fear mongering sound bites. Toqueville and others would argue that this is an obligation of citizenship in a democratic society.
Why are we so afraid of paying taxes? I’m happy to pay my fair share, as I’m benefitting from roads, sidewalks, parks, education, etc. We pay about half of what residents of some western European countries pay (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg). As long as my basic needs are met, investing my disposable income in my state and community will benefit my quality of life and that of my neighbors. I wish we could be a bit wiser about how the public’s money is spent, but that’s another debate…
According to the food definition provided, I suppose alcohol is also food. Soda, alcohol, and candy are all okay for us in moderation, though certainly cannot be considered a major source of nourishment for the purpose of sustaining life. We’ve been taxing alcohol for years, and while it is also unfortunately a regressive tax, providing a financial disincentive to its abuse has a demonstrated health benefit (see http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=69448). Poor diet and inactivity lead to nearly five times as many deaths as alcohol consumption (see http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1238), so taxing “foods” that are known to increase the risk for obesity seems like a viable public policy to me.
I agree that our sales tax is the most regressive scheme out there. So why are we keeping that and adding an income tax for those in the 200K plus range. It is always easy to say tax someone else. My problem with 1098 is that it does just that, tax someone else. I don’t make enough to be taxed under this but it just seems wrong.
I, for one, will be waiting for a comprehensive tax bill that brings us into the 21st century and in-line with the rest of the nation with a reasonable sales tax and a normal progressive income tax.
And the “candy tax”… we need to acknowledge that regardless of whether the upper middle class wallyhoudlums (myself included) think that candy and soda are not the most nourishing of food, the poor (working or not) buy a lot of that stuff, thus it simply adding to our state’s ridiculous regressive tax scheme.
We have lived in two states (including Wa) with no income tax, and two that had one. The income tax was far better on our wallets in the long run, because you’re not taxed at every turn, and the state has money. It also makes it much easier for states to survive economic downswings. (Less spending = less money = more potholes, educational problems, etc.)
The goal should be to offset taxes that exist now. Also, I don’t think it will kill Gates Sr. or Jr to pay taxes. That’s a lot of cash we could be taking in that we’re not getting now.
There is an interesting debate going on about the school levy. The league of women voters has come out against it, as have a number of teachers. The thought is that the money would not go to the classroom and by voting no, we’re sending a message to the district that it has to clean up its act. Here’s more information on the seattle schools community blog: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28765366&postID=82177298908621069
I’ve never voted against a school levy, but I’m considering doing it this time.
I was worried Wallyhood was going to do something silly and post some endorsements.
Look, I love you folks, and I love the conversations your posts often provoke. But you’re just asking for rancor and incivility with this one.
When you write your opinion, ask yourself, “Is this the right forum? Does Wallingford actually care about what I think on this issue?”
Owen, I agree w/you. Instead of giving my (counter) opinion to the pro-taxers, I should’ve just said what you said. This debate is important in a washington/societal standpoint, but it’s unnecessarily rancorous to have it in this Wallyhood website.
the owner of this website can obviously put up whatever the hell he/she wants to, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. In this case, it led to (imo) unnecessary partisan wrangling, which I myself added to.
I’m cool with Jordan posting his opinions and endorsements here, but I wish he’d tie them specifically into neighborhood issues somehow to make them relevant to this blog.
For instance, it seems that I-1100 and I-1105 could directly impact the new state-run liquor store on 45th, as well as the U-District alcohol impact area that currently extends all the way to Latona Avenue.
I think this is what blogs are for. Distracting me at work.
“where do you suggest we get the money to pay for public education and safety”
this state generates plenty of revenue. perhaps we should look at how its being spent before demanding more of it.
and “money for public education and safety” too often means bloated pay and benefits, from my experience in several states across this nation. pull at heartstrings, plunder the treasury
I agree with Jared that it’s good to have these conversations amongst neighbors. And sometimes you need a blog to get that conversation going. You don’t have to agree with Jordan. It’s a perfect venue to say why you disagree, if that’s the case, so that others can hear the other side. Go Jordan!
But that ‘bloat’ only exists because of what corporations have been able to do to private-sector benefits. My grandfather, a textile worker in New England, was promised a pension package that was well-within striking range of current public-sector benefits, if not better. A few mergers, acquisitions, overseas spinoffs, and several domestic ‘consolidations’ later, he had nothing but a small lump sum, Medicare, and Social Security. But the investors are still making lots of money off of a foundation built on my grandfather’s sweat. Public-sector unions have been able to preserve what is now called ‘bloat’ only because no one has figured out how to relocate the local police department to Bangladesh or Guatemala.
Post-WW2, that ‘bloat’ used to be the foundation of the middle class. Cops, teachers, nurses, firefighters, mill workers… But now that’s all bloat, and something to be avoided at all costs. Duly noted.
Jen–follow that instinct and vote NO on the school levy. Cut the bureaucracy, school district. The student-to-administrator ratio is way out of whack compared to cities of similar size. (Why, yes, I AM the parent of a Seattle public school student. I don’t expect money from this levy to make much positive difference in the classrooms)
A few facts about I-1098 for you naysayers:
1) Homeowners will save hundreds of dollars annually on property taxes. If you own a home worth 300K you’ll save about $133, a 500K home will save $225. You like paying less in taxes?1098 is for you!
2) 118,000 small businesses will no longer have to pay the hated B&O tax. You do believe that the true heart of our economy is small business, right?
3) If you are one of the lucky couples (I believe around 5% in our state) who make more than $400,000 a year, you will pay 5% on ONLY what you earn ABOVE 400K. Everything up to 400K, you pay NO Income tax. So don’t worry, unless you’re in a very small minority, WA state will STILL be the MOST reggressively taxed state in the union. Yay!
And for those of you making millions, thanks in no small part to our publicly funded infrastructure like our transportation system, legal, and education system, etc…You’re whining about having to a new income tax on a relatively small percentage of your wealth. I think the rest of us would love to have that problem.
Oh, and for the threadworn argument that I-1098 supporters should voluntarily contribute more in taxes if we “love” them so much, I will gladly do so. Just as soon as you guys get ‘off the grid.” Don’t drive on our roads, don’t rely on our water treatment and sewage treatment. Don’t visit our public parks and playgrounds. Don’t call the fire department when your house catches on fire (say, Tennessee might be just the place for you!)
Gosh, I absolutely agree with HAYDUKE!
What Hayduke said! Plus I’d add, don’t hire people to work in your companies that were educated in public schools. Don’t send your kids to public universities and colleges. Don’t hire graduates from there either. Don’t call the cops when someone breaks into your expensive home or car. Don’t ask the court system to prosecute your legal problems.
Hey! That was kinda fun! Who else can add to the list?
protected static,
thanks for confirming where the money will go.
hayduke,
if you think the income threshold will never be changed, i have a bridge for sale in brooklyn for you
You should have wrote your post like Hayduke’s response-the facts and not telling people how to vote.
Thanks for this, I appreciate both your recommendations and the chance to discuss, and I think this is an absolutely appropriate venue for talking about what our neighborhood, city and state ought to look like. This is our home after all.
Hayduke is right on about 1098. Education should be our top priority and it’s about time we revamped our tax system to make it more fair to fund the education system that we all rely on. Even if you don’t have kids in public school, you can’t seriously argue that we ought to make education harder to get or pretend that businesses don’t need workers with basic skills.
The fearmongers who say the tax will be extended to all of us have a selective blind spot. We’ve been talking about tax reform for well over a decade and it hasn’t happened yet. The only way to get it to happen is with an initiative, like I-1098, to the people. The text of 1098 explicitly says that it can’t be changed without a vote of the people, and even if the legislature could muster the political will to touch it (which they won’t) it would be referred to a vote of the people. So YES on 1098.
I agree with the NO on 1053 and 1107 recommendations too. 1053 is just another Tim Eyman attempt to strangle government or drown it in a bathtub or whatever the preferred conservative metaphor is these days. 1107 is an attempt by the national soda lobbyists to keep soda from being taxed like liquor and cigarettes. I know their commercials say it’s about food, but if you look at where the money comes from, it’s pretty much only the American Beverage Association (soda lobby) that is funding 1107. The tax amounts to 2 cents on a can of soda and I think that’s a reasonable price to pay for better schools.
Thanks again.
@JN, I think you’re sort of right.
When I wrote it, I was following the model of newspaper endorsements, but this isn’t a newspaper. It would have been more valuable to what we’re trying to do to offer my opinions, along with facts (which I did offer), but present it more as a “this is what I think, what do you think?” Besides getting people to vote how I think they ought to, my goal is to get people THINKING about the issues and discussing them. A different approach would have been better for that.
Next time.
You will all be paying income tax in 2 years if 1098 passes. It’s not some kind of propaganda Fred and other informed folks above are stating. It’s in our constitution. There are all sorts of initiatives that get modified and/or repealed by the legislature 2 years after the fact.
An excerpt from section 41 of the Washington state constitution…
“No act, law or bill approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon shall be amended or repealed by the legislature within a period of two years following such enactment” (note the within a period of two years part)
So after 2 years it’s fair game for the legislature to modify and have their way with 1098. Do you think the schools, firefighters, and police will have enough money by then? Absolutely not… They will need to start taxing the so called “middle class”, and then gradually grow that tax.
The negative impact prior to the initiative being modified in 2 years is encouraging investment outside of our state. 1098 creates much more incentive to start or grow outside of Washington than the Trojan horse B&O offsets that were added to fool you.
This is why the real name for 1098 should be the Economic Suicide Package.
And now time for a commendation… Heyduke — I’ve seen your standard campaign message improve since you first used a line like that at the Eyman debate a while back. And it’s entertaining to watch your impact. You have a great Hugo Chavez, man of the people like leadership sort of thing going and you should keep it up. It’s an honor to know you sir, despite the fact that you are wrong! 🙂
Oh, if only your vote counted in proportion to the length of your comments to this blog post. Then surely a few of you could change the world — but alas, in the end each will vote for whichever side had the best commercials.
I don’t buy the ‘people will start businesses elsewhere if there’s a income tax here” argument for one major reason: there is already an income tax in 43 of the other 49 states.
Obviously, states like California (home of Silicon Valley) and New York, which have state income taxes, have no trouble getting people to start businesses there. So why would Washington be different?
For someone to flee Washington in search of an income tax-less state, they’d only have 6 to choose from. Wyoming is the closest. Where else? Alaska? Pass. Texas? South Dakota? Pass, pass.
I guess another way to put it is, ConserveSeattle: will YOU leave the state if it passes? If so, to where? If not, why do you expect others to behave differently?
ConserveSeattle: There is no way the state legislature will lower the rate at which the income tax kicks in. They like their jobs too much.
As for 1098’s effect on business, the initiative will exempt tens of thousands of small businesses (many of which are in our neighborhood) from the B&O tax.
Also, the state income tax is deductible from your federal taxes, meaning that some of the money that used to go to the federal government will stay in Washington state.
As the owner of small business in WA state (and Wallingford), I firmly support Wallyhood’s opinions posted here. I support a state income tax, even if they DID lower it to include everyone. Frankly, I’ve lived under both kinds of systems and I have always ended up paying out LESS in a state with income tax than one without. The piddly little taxes they use on everything to make up for the lack of a state income tax are killer – especially for lower income people.
As a citizen of the state who benefits hugely from many things paid for by our city and state government, I also would like to ask the question: if you don’t want to be taxed to pay for these services, where do you expect to get the money from? And don’t say there is plenty of “fluff” in the government budget that could be used. There is always some BS and fluff in the budget, but there is not NEARLY enough to cover the public services we all love and use in this city!
Lastly, those Yes on 1107 commercials are entirely, disgustingly deceptive and I hope no one out there is falling for them. Do the research. I pay out extra willingly for my bottled water and soda and bad-for-me snacks. Yes, lower income families do buy a lot of the junk that is taxed under this. But they should NOT be as I should not be. This stuff is crap, it’s as bad for us as cigarettes or alcohol. If we want to poison ourselves and thus become burdens on society (and healthcare) later on because of this crap we eat and drink, I think it is only fair to pay out to the community in some positive way to make up for it!
Thanks for your endorsements Wallyhood. I think your tone was fine and I think a micronews site like yours is a fine venue for some solid political discourse. (Plus, it’s a relevant topic, since Wallingford is part of King County and the state of Washington).
Even if the income tax passed and were extended to all but the most poor, would that be so bad? Perhaps then we could eliminate or back off of our sales tax.
Denmark by some metrics is the happiest nation on Earth, and the tax rate there is very high. In exchange for high tax, Danes get great childcare, healthcare, and numerous other benefits. Americans tend to be a lot more libertarian in our politics than Scandinavians, but I’m just trying to make the point that millions of people live happy lives under situations were the income tax is quite high and broadly applied.
I also wanted to thank Wallyhood for inspiring this discussion. Neighbors can and should be having these types of conversations. It’s obviously quite easy to do that without name calling and rancor, as some of the commenters, even when disagreeing with each other, have shown. Exercising that skill may be the key to returning civility and sanity to our political dialogue on a larger scale. Keep up the good work, Wallyhood!
I’d be more than happy with an income tax (even if lowered to my tax range) if it meant the state would lower the sales tax. Instead, this income tax simply reduces the real estate tax which is really only going to help out the multi-million dollar homes along Lake Washington (also begs the question of how much real estate Bill Gates Sr. is holding and how is he going to benefit from this). By instituting an income tax that will, I firmly believe, be lowered over time to include at the very least the middle class (remember when the Alternative Minimimum Tax was only supposed to be for the top 1%? Now it impacts any couples making more then $70K and individuals earning more than $46K) and not lowering the sales tax you are just going to hammer the middle class down the road. Worse even still will be those who don’t have real estate so don’t even have that reduction on their taxes.
If I could pay significantly higher taxes and get all the things that Europeans get from their government I would be more than happy to pay out. But with the way our system is currently running and the yahoos who are in gov’t (both sides offer pretty paltry choices this year) I don’t have any faith that the gov’t will spend my money appropriatly and in a way that will benefit society at large.
Jen@36: I believe the property tax cut applies only to owner-occupied homes, so an individual who owns multiple properties probably won’t see a tax cut on but one of them.
It will also newly exempt tens of thousands of small businesses from the business and occupation tax.
Jen, I agree with you that the two major parties have not been inspiring in their politics recently. I would love to see a serious conservative party in this country that is thinking ahead beyond the next election cycle. And I would also love to see a liberal party that holds fast to liberal values rather than discarding them for the sake of political expediency. I wish that we as a community and as a nation could recognize that we’re really all on the same team and we need to elect serious, smart leaders no matter what their politics.
Doug – I own and run a small business and my business would get a tax break if that new tax legislation passes but I still don’t trust Olympia that they won’t lower the tax rate next time they find the coffers empty. And I don’t currently see anything on the ballot about reducing the sales tax. Show me concrete evidence that Olympia will lower the sales tax and I will happily vote for the change. Until then though my belief is that Olympia will just continue to spend more money then they have and then try to tax their way out of it.
From section 1004 of I-1098: “The excise tax rates in section 501 of this act may not be increased for any income level without a majority vote of the legislature and submission of the changes to the people for approval.”
In other words, regardless of what anyone says, it won’t be possible for the Legislature to raise or expand this income tax without us letting them.
Don’t be so naive! There are two absolute truisms of government – (1) government will spend all the money it can get, (2) government never has enough money. Time and time again the people of Washington State have rejected a General State Income Tax; when the pro-income tax people, who complain about the ‘regressiveness’ of sales tax, bring up the issue, they’re asked why they aren’t in favor of a Constitutional Ammendment outlawing sales tax and instituting income tax – they can’t come up with an answer because they want both! Look at California – high sales tax, income tax and billions of dollars in debt. Government must prioritize and make cuts – everyone can’t have everything they want. This 1098 is a Trojan horse – get in the door with a tax that ‘only’ soaks those nasty wealthy and then, in two years, our self-serving legislature will apply the tax to all of us. There are NUMEROUS slippery slopes to worry about and this 1098 farce is just one of the many.
A bunch of folks keep saying that 1098 will be extended to others besides the very rich. So it bears repeating:
a) the law is written so that this will REQUIRE a vote of the people. You can’t get around that. See Eric’s note#40
b) this is worth voting for EVEN IF IT DOES apply to everyone. The existing tax system is “regressive”, which means it places an inordinate amount of the tax burden on those who earn the least money. This seeks to fix that by aligning taxes with income, rather than with spending.
Mike #41 is right, governments never have enough money. Nobody has “enough” that they don’t want more. But that doesn’t mean that some people, or institutions need SOME. We depend on the government to run our public schools, maintain our roads, etc. We need to allocate enough money for them to do so. Today, we don’t. In fact, Washington State spends less on education per capita than _all but 3 of the other 49 states_.
I wish everyone talking about making tax cuts would specify WHAT they want to spend less money on. I’m not saying there isn’t “waste”, but unless we can be specific and quantify it, we can’t have a legitimate conversation about how much there is to spend. Here’s the existing budget (note that almost 50% of it is being spent on education):
http://tinyurl.com/2flutu6
The argument is usually “give them less, and they’ll be forced to prioritize”. But that’s what happened in California, and the court systems are backing up, the government is shutting down for days at a time, etc.
It’s like trying to teach a horse not to eat by giving it less and less. Every time you’ve got one that’s learned how to do it, it dies.