State Income Tax Proposed. Again.

Sheesh. That will not endear Joe to his constituents, with the limited exception of a few liberals. The county council is looking smarter by the moment.

Sheesh. That will not endear Joe to his constituents, with the limited exception of a few liberals. The county council is looking smarter by the moment.

Sheesh. That will not endear Joe to his constituents, with the limited exception of a few liberals. The county council is looking smarter by the moment.

Here’s hope Publicola this year is able to keep track of the difference between a Facebook status update supporting revue (e.g. Senator Brown) and actually supporting revenue in the legislature (i.e. Sens. McDermott & Franklin).

Here’s hope Publicola this year is able to keep track of the difference between a Facebook status update supporting revue (e.g. Senator Brown) and actually supporting revenue in the legislature (i.e. Sens. McDermott & Franklin).

Allison Roundtree #1, I’m pretty sure there are more than a “few liberals” in West Seattle.

Jan Drago got the county council seat that Joe McDermott was aiming for. This is Jan Drago’s view on state taxes from 6 months ago:

We need to restructure our state tax system. We need a comprehensive tax package that includes sales tax, income tax and B & O tax. Only then will we have a more stable tax base and a tax system which is more fair.

http://wa-demchairs.org/kcdems/2009/jdrago.q1.pdf

Allison Roundtree #1, I’m pretty sure there are more than a “few liberals” in West Seattle.

Jan Drago got the county council seat that Joe McDermott was aiming for. This is Jan Drago’s view on state taxes from 6 months ago:

We need to restructure our state tax system. We need a comprehensive tax package that includes sales tax, income tax and B & O tax. Only then will we have a more stable tax base and a tax system which is more fair.

http://wa-demchairs.org/kcdems/2009/jdrago.q1.pdf

I believe WA is one of only 7 states out of 50 which don’t have an income tax. That alone says something. Sales tax plus income tax would be just that: two sources of income instead of one, and a two-legged stool is better than a one-legged stool. With an income tax, California would be much worse off than it is. Taking into account our difference in population and thus the difference in our state budget, we’re not any better off now than CA.

I believe WA is one of only 7 states out of 50 which don’t have an income tax. That alone says something. Sales tax plus income tax would be just that: two sources of income instead of one, and a two-legged stool is better than a one-legged stool. With an income tax, California would be much worse off than it is. Taking into account our difference in population and thus the difference in our state budget, we’re not any better off now than CA.

I believe WA is one of only 7 states out of 50 which don’t have an income tax. That alone says something. Sales tax plus income tax would be just that: two sources of income instead of one, and a two-legged stool is better than a one-legged stool. With an income tax, California would be much worse off than it is. Taking into account our difference in population and thus the difference in our state budget, we’re not any better off now than CA.

Misha, I have no doubt that many of the 34th LD liberals will support the income tax. And full-scale tax reform is clearly needed. But two very, very popular governors were unable to enact an income tax in this state, so we can all bet that an extraordinarily unpopular one (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=b31bce56-1728-4399-96ae-eb207bbc2794&q=16768) sure as heck can’t pull it off.

My point is that the income tax is not widely supported by the population, no matter which district. The voters of the 34th are much less likely to support tax increases than other Seattle districts, with the exception of transportation & transit taxes (easy enough to look up at King County elections) and have often supported Eyman’s tax cutting initiatives. If Joe wants to get elected to King County Council, he might want to engage on an issue that might actually pass and benefit the district.

Misha, I have no doubt that many of the 34th LD liberals will support the income tax. And full-scale tax reform is clearly needed. But two very, very popular governors were unable to enact an income tax in this state, so we can all bet that an extraordinarily unpopular one (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=b31bce56-1728-4399-96ae-eb207bbc2794&q=16768) sure as heck can’t pull it off.

My point is that the income tax is not widely supported by the population, no matter which district. The voters of the 34th are much less likely to support tax increases than other Seattle districts, with the exception of transportation & transit taxes (easy enough to look up at King County elections) and have often supported Eyman’s tax cutting initiatives. If Joe wants to get elected to King County Council, he might want to engage on an issue that might actually pass and benefit the district.

Misha, I have no doubt that many of the 34th LD liberals will support the income tax. And full-scale tax reform is clearly needed. But two very, very popular governors were unable to enact an income tax in this state, so we can all bet that an extraordinarily unpopular one (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=b31bce56-1728-4399-96ae-eb207bbc2794&q=16768) sure as heck can’t pull it off.

My point is that the income tax is not widely supported by the population, no matter which district. The voters of the 34th are much less likely to support tax increases than other Seattle districts, with the exception of transportation & transit taxes (easy enough to look up at King County elections) and have often supported Eyman’s tax cutting initiatives. If Joe wants to get elected to King County Council, he might want to engage on an issue that might actually pass and benefit the district.

yeah, when something isn’t in existence, and you can’t tell if you’d get it passed, the wisest thing to do is STOP talking about what you bleieve in or what works, and instead lower your sights and adjust yoru political positions to what is politically possible.

This is the safe ‘n’ sure way to be known as a “leader”, and also, this is the kind of “leadership” our nation needs more of.

And also, everyone knows all states with an income tax end up being the poorest ones. The correlation between state income tax and state income is about one of the strongest ones you can find!

yeah, when something isn’t in existence, and you can’t tell if you’d get it passed, the wisest thing to do is STOP talking about what you bleieve in or what works, and instead lower your sights and adjust yoru political positions to what is politically possible.

This is the safe ‘n’ sure way to be known as a “leader”, and also, this is the kind of “leadership” our nation needs more of.

And also, everyone knows all states with an income tax end up being the poorest ones. The correlation between state income tax and state income is about one of the strongest ones you can find!

yeah, when something isn’t in existence, and you can’t tell if you’d get it passed, the wisest thing to do is STOP talking about what you bleieve in or what works, and instead lower your sights and adjust yoru political positions to what is politically possible.

This is the safe ‘n’ sure way to be known as a “leader”, and also, this is the kind of “leadership” our nation needs more of.

And also, everyone knows all states with an income tax end up being the poorest ones. The correlation between state income tax and state income is about one of the strongest ones you can find!

“The voters of the 34th are much less likely to support tax increases than other Seattle districts”

yeah the 34th is well known as one of the most conservative districts in the State. They vote for Tim Eyman initiatives, too.

“The voters of the 34th are much less likely to support tax increases than other Seattle districts”

yeah the 34th is well known as one of the most conservative districts in the State. They vote for Tim Eyman initiatives, too.

“The voters of the 34th are much less likely to support tax increases than other Seattle districts”

yeah the 34th is well known as one of the most conservative districts in the State. They vote for Tim Eyman initiatives, too.

You guys are forgetting how this income tax is packaged. The bill is not a straight income tax bill. It also reduces the state portion of the sales tax from 6.5% to 3.5%, and it completely eliminates the state portion of the property tax (maximum of $3.60 per thousand; $1.96 per thousand in King County in 2009 — about 20% of the typical property tax bill). There are a lot of people in this state who would pay little or not income tax (because they have no taxable income), who would vote for this because it would significant cut their sales and property taxes.

You guys are forgetting how this income tax is packaged. The bill is not a straight income tax bill. It also reduces the state portion of the sales tax from 6.5% to 3.5%, and it completely eliminates the state portion of the property tax (maximum of $3.60 per thousand; $1.96 per thousand in King County in 2009 — about 20% of the typical property tax bill). There are a lot of people in this state who would pay little or not income tax (because they have no taxable income), who would vote for this because it would significant cut their sales and property taxes.

You guys are forgetting how this income tax is packaged. The bill is not a straight income tax bill. It also reduces the state portion of the sales tax from 6.5% to 3.5%, and it completely eliminates the state portion of the property tax (maximum of $3.60 per thousand; $1.96 per thousand in King County in 2009 — about 20% of the typical property tax bill). There are a lot of people in this state who would pay little or not income tax (because they have no taxable income), who would vote for this because it would significant cut their sales and property taxes.

Allison Roundtree @ 1, @ 5:

Your ignorance of the 34th LD is, in a word, astonishing.

Allison Roundtree @ 1, @ 5:

Your ignorance of the 34th LD is, in a word, astonishing.

Allison Roundtree @ 1, @ 5:

Your ignorance of the 34th LD is, in a word, astonishing.

An income tax might not be too damaging if it is modest and other taxes are reduced proportionally, BUT… I see two advantages to no income tax.

1) Simplicity. No hassle with the paperwork.

2) Everyone pays sales tax, even those in the country illegally or making their money on the black market. In a state like Oregon, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, pimps etc. get a free ride in many cases if their earnings are under the table.

An income tax might not be too damaging if it is modest and other taxes are reduced proportionally, BUT… I see two advantages to no income tax.

1) Simplicity. No hassle with the paperwork.

2) Everyone pays sales tax, even those in the country illegally or making their money on the black market. In a state like Oregon, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, pimps etc. get a free ride in many cases if their earnings are under the table.

An income tax might not be too damaging if it is modest and other taxes are reduced proportionally, BUT… I see two advantages to no income tax.

1) Simplicity. No hassle with the paperwork.

2) Everyone pays sales tax, even those in the country illegally or making their money on the black market. In a state like Oregon, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, pimps etc. get a free ride in many cases if their earnings are under the table.

T.Chen (# 10), you’re first statement is spot on, but in your second you ignore the inherently regressive nature of the sales tax: the poor pay a higher portion of their income. That’s why the alternative used to be called a “progressive” income tax, because rates were higher the more you made; the rich carried their weight. Until Republicans (and fellow traveling Ds) gradually undid much of its progressive aspects.

But even a flat rate income tax is better than a 10% sales tax. As Toby Nixon points out, the current bill reduces our regressive sales tax, replacing it with a more progressive income tax. For more politically doable. IMO, the only reason we still don’t have this far better tax structure in Washington is because of the forces of regression (selfish money grubbing no-nothings) and the general level of idiocracy endemic to our culture.

The best work to date on Washington’s tax mess is still the Wm. Gates Sr. committee work, at
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports/wataxstudy/final_report.htm
I suggest folks at least glance at it before posting on this issue.

T.Chen (# 10), you’re first statement is spot on, but in your second you ignore the inherently regressive nature of the sales tax: the poor pay a higher portion of their income. That’s why the alternative used to be called a “progressive” income tax, because rates were higher the more you made; the rich carried their weight. Until Republicans (and fellow traveling Ds) gradually undid much of its progressive aspects.

But even a flat rate income tax is better than a 10% sales tax. As Toby Nixon points out, the current bill reduces our regressive sales tax, replacing it with a more progressive income tax. For more politically doable. IMO, the only reason we still don’t have this far better tax structure in Washington is because of the forces of regression (selfish money grubbing no-nothings) and the general level of idiocracy endemic to our culture.

The best work to date on Washington’s tax mess is still the Wm. Gates Sr. committee work, at
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports/wataxstudy/final_report.htm
I suggest folks at least glance at it before posting on this issue.

T.Chen (# 10), you’re first statement is spot on, but in your second you ignore the inherently regressive nature of the sales tax: the poor pay a higher portion of their income. That’s why the alternative used to be called a “progressive” income tax, because rates were higher the more you made; the rich carried their weight. Until Republicans (and fellow traveling Ds) gradually undid much of its progressive aspects.

But even a flat rate income tax is better than a 10% sales tax. As Toby Nixon points out, the current bill reduces our regressive sales tax, replacing it with a more progressive income tax. For more politically doable. IMO, the only reason we still don’t have this far better tax structure in Washington is because of the forces of regression (selfish money grubbing no-nothings) and the general level of idiocracy endemic to our culture.

The best work to date on Washington’s tax mess is still the Wm. Gates Sr. committee work, at
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports/wataxstudy/final_report.htm
I suggest folks at least glance at it before posting on this issue.

@11, TobyinFremont,

While you’re correct about the progressive nature of the income tax, I would argue that as applied in WA and most states, the sales tax is not so heartless. It does not apply to the biggest necessity–food–and thus is not so regressive to those who are truly doing their best to scrape by.

To those who make bad choices–buying big HDTVs, cigarettes, liquor, soda pop, etc.–it is regressive, but it mostly avoids taxes on poorer folks who make good choices. That’s what we should do–encourage good choices.

That’s not true in some southern states, many of which tax food, and that is a shame and extremely regressive.

@11, TobyinFremont,

While you’re correct about the progressive nature of the income tax, I would argue that as applied in WA and most states, the sales tax is not so heartless. It does not apply to the biggest necessity–food–and thus is not so regressive to those who are truly doing their best to scrape by.

To those who make bad choices–buying big HDTVs, cigarettes, liquor, soda pop, etc.–it is regressive, but it mostly avoids taxes on poorer folks who make good choices. That’s what we should do–encourage good choices.

That’s not true in some southern states, many of which tax food, and that is a shame and extremely regressive.

@11, TobyinFremont,

While you’re correct about the progressive nature of the income tax, I would argue that as applied in WA and most states, the sales tax is not so heartless. It does not apply to the biggest necessity–food–and thus is not so regressive to those who are truly doing their best to scrape by.

To those who make bad choices–buying big HDTVs, cigarettes, liquor, soda pop, etc.–it is regressive, but it mostly avoids taxes on poorer folks who make good choices. That’s what we should do–encourage good choices.

That’s not true in some southern states, many of which tax food, and that is a shame and extremely regressive.

Here’s an example of a state, Alabama, that taxes food:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/415/video.html

Here’s an example of a state, Alabama, that taxes food:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/415/video.html

Here’s an example of a state, Alabama, that taxes food:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/415/video.html

given the facts Toby N. states, it’s amazing to me that the proponents of this thing call it “Adding an income tax” instead of saying “Hey let’s cut the sales tax in half, let’s eliminate the state propety tax, and let’s lower most people’s taxes!”

Wonkery and issues orientation defeat communication. In the Democrats. Every time. It’s going to lower taxes for half the population, and they call it adding a tax, no wonder people don’t support it.

Maybe if we actually had some numbers it would be even more clear? “IF you make $65,000, this will likely save you $1800 a year!” is the kind of message that sells. or “Let’s cuit the average family’s taxes by $1800!”

Or whatever the numbers are. You can’t really sell this without the nubmers an without making the tax reduction the cornerstone of the message.

Saying “we are working for greater progressivity and equity in our tax system, and also greater long range stability of revenue sources!” or “Washington State is ranked no. 1 in tax regressivity, this will push us down the list to being number 15 again by lowering the inequity of our revenue sourcing system!” doesn’t really sell this measure too well.

given the facts Toby N. states, it’s amazing to me that the proponents of this thing call it “Adding an income tax” instead of saying “Hey let’s cut the sales tax in half, let’s eliminate the state propety tax, and let’s lower most people’s taxes!”

Wonkery and issues orientation defeat communication. In the Democrats. Every time. It’s going to lower taxes for half the population, and they call it adding a tax, no wonder people don’t support it.

Maybe if we actually had some numbers it would be even more clear? “IF you make $65,000, this will likely save you $1800 a year!” is the kind of message that sells. or “Let’s cuit the average family’s taxes by $1800!”

Or whatever the numbers are. You can’t really sell this without the nubmers an without making the tax reduction the cornerstone of the message.

Saying “we are working for greater progressivity and equity in our tax system, and also greater long range stability of revenue sources!” or “Washington State is ranked no. 1 in tax regressivity, this will push us down the list to being number 15 again by lowering the inequity of our revenue sourcing system!” doesn’t really sell this measure too well.

I’m truly appalled to be agreeing with T. Chen. The sales tax doesn’t badly impact the truly poor because it doesn’t apply to food (although it is applied to non-food staples). Nor of course does it impact the rich, since they don’t worry anyway. It does impact the barely-middle-income. However, I know several people from Canada who are amazed at 1) how small our sales tax is and 2) what few services we can depend on in our country. They pay and they get; we pay some and get very little.

State income taxes can be taken off your federal income tax return (I don’t know how, whether directly off the IRS tax or off your gross or net income). I think Lisa Brown generally proposes an income tax near the end of every session. I’m told that even if it were to be proposed and passed this year, it wouldn’t help for several years. We need additional revenue now. Next year we’ll have more cuts and we need something in place.

Ask people who’ve lived on the East Coast whether our property taxes are comparatively high. They generally laugh at you.

I’m truly appalled to be agreeing with T. Chen. The sales tax doesn’t badly impact the truly poor because it doesn’t apply to food (although it is applied to non-food staples). Nor of course does it impact the rich, since they don’t worry anyway. It does impact the barely-middle-income. However, I know several people from Canada who are amazed at 1) how small our sales tax is and 2) what few services we can depend on in our country. They pay and they get; we pay some and get very little.

State income taxes can be taken off your federal income tax return (I don’t know how, whether directly off the IRS tax or off your gross or net income). I think Lisa Brown generally proposes an income tax near the end of every session. I’m told that even if it were to be proposed and passed this year, it wouldn’t help for several years. We need additional revenue now. Next year we’ll have more cuts and we need something in place.

Ask people who’ve lived on the East Coast whether our property taxes are comparatively high. They generally laugh at you.

@11: Thanks for the link to the Gates report. I plan to take a look at it later.

In the meantime, pardon me if the following is a naive comment addressed by the Gates report or some other reliable source. My understanding of the situation in Oregon is that they too suffer from a drastic fall-off of revenue. Oregon relies heavily on the income tax and does not have a sales tax. So I’m not sure if adding an income tax does much to protect revenue during times of recession.

@11: Thanks for the link to the Gates report. I plan to take a look at it later.

In the meantime, pardon me if the following is a naive comment addressed by the Gates report or some other reliable source. My understanding of the situation in Oregon is that they too suffer from a drastic fall-off of revenue. Oregon relies heavily on the income tax and does not have a sales tax. So I’m not sure if adding an income tax does much to protect revenue during times of recession.

@11: Thanks for the link to the Gates report. I plan to take a look at it later.

In the meantime, pardon me if the following is a naive comment addressed by the Gates report or some other reliable source. My understanding of the situation in Oregon is that they too suffer from a drastic fall-off of revenue. Oregon relies heavily on the income tax and does not have a sales tax. So I’m not sure if adding an income tax does much to protect revenue during times of recession.

Well, good! We need to move Washington State to a progressive tax structure instead the one of the most regressive in the nation. It’s against our democratic and liberal grain, as well as being fiscally irresponsible to have a tenuous income stream for budgeting.

Good for Joe!

Well, good! We need to move Washington State to a progressive tax structure instead the one of the most regressive in the nation. It’s against our democratic and liberal grain, as well as being fiscally irresponsible to have a tenuous income stream for budgeting.

Good for Joe!

Well, good! We need to move Washington State to a progressive tax structure instead the one of the most regressive in the nation. It’s against our democratic and liberal grain, as well as being fiscally irresponsible to have a tenuous income stream for budgeting.

Good for Joe!

@15,

Ahh… sarah68, that’s so sweet how you prefaced your post! It’s so good to be loved…

@15,

Ahh… sarah68, that’s so sweet how you prefaced your post! It’s so good to be loved…

@15,

Ahh… sarah68, that’s so sweet how you prefaced your post! It’s so good to be loved…

How about a compromise. Everyone who makes an income pays 10%. I still think that violates the state Constitution. However I would prefer that to a “progressive” tax that is like our federal tax system. I could be convinced to support 15% if we end the most unjust form of taxation we use, property taxes.

How about a compromise. Everyone who makes an income pays 10%. I still think that violates the state Constitution. However I would prefer that to a “progressive” tax that is like our federal tax system. I could be convinced to support 15% if we end the most unjust form of taxation we use, property taxes.

How about a compromise. Everyone who makes an income pays 10%. I still think that violates the state Constitution. However I would prefer that to a “progressive” tax that is like our federal tax system. I could be convinced to support 15% if we end the most unjust form of taxation we use, property taxes.

The reduced sales/property taxes in exchange for an income tax would seem appealing at face value, IF those rates stated were mandated to be stable, at least for some reasonable duration of time. However, what would (almost certainly) happen is that the rates would be increased over time as the state the local governments grab at more funds for an increasingly growing government sector. Most people don’t seem to understand that if government expenditures grow at the same rate as the economy, the taxation rates would theoretically remain constant. I also understand that having “3 legs” of the stool would make matching revenues (tax revenues) better match growth, all things being equal. Politically, however, it would just be one more reason to not deal with unsustainable public pensions and overall out of control spending.

The reduced sales/property taxes in exchange for an income tax would seem appealing at face value, IF those rates stated were mandated to be stable, at least for some reasonable duration of time. However, what would (almost certainly) happen is that the rates would be increased over time as the state the local governments grab at more funds for an increasingly growing government sector. Most people don’t seem to understand that if government expenditures grow at the same rate as the economy, the taxation rates would theoretically remain constant. I also understand that having “3 legs” of the stool would make matching revenues (tax revenues) better match growth, all things being equal. Politically, however, it would just be one more reason to not deal with unsustainable public pensions and overall out of control spending.

Isn’t Toby Nixon a Republican? God, I’m about to be in partial agreement with one of them…I think…

reducing the state portion of the sales tax would be the most important aspect of any major tax reform. As the Gates report (and there was recently another report that basically had the same conclusions) points out, the poor pay a disproportionate amount of their income, a HUGELY disproportionate amount, into taxes in this state because of the sales tax.

Sarah68 is flat wrong by indicating that sales tax doesn’t affect the poorest of the poor. Period.

The taxes that the poor in this state pay directly include sales tax, gas tax, sin tax, and vehicle licensing tax. If they lack a car, then just two. There is, of course, the indirect payment of property taxes in the form of rent, and B&O Taxes in the form of lower wages, but, realistically, we are one of the top states for pay.

I haven’t read the specifics of the bill that Sen. McDermott has proposed, but generally, I’ve been a big fan of either a flat 8.5% income tax, or a graduated IT that has a top bracket not exceeding 9%. Lower the property taxes significantly (but not entirely), and lower the state portion of the sales tax to 1.5% or so. Realistically, one would have to really work with the numbers and a bunch of extra information that I’m just too lazy to look up for a Publicola post, but in the end, with an income tax, we could affect real change to the tax structure in Washington State, and save the VAST majority of taxpayers money. Sure, people in Medina, Mercer Island and Bridle Trails would be paying considerably more in income taxes, but I highly doubt it would be so much as to have a drastically negative effect on their lives.

Just sayin’, is all.

Isn’t Toby Nixon a Republican? God, I’m about to be in partial agreement with one of them…I think…

reducing the state portion of the sales tax would be the most important aspect of any major tax reform. As the Gates report (and there was recently another report that basically had the same conclusions) points out, the poor pay a disproportionate amount of their income, a HUGELY disproportionate amount, into taxes in this state because of the sales tax.

Sarah68 is flat wrong by indicating that sales tax doesn’t affect the poorest of the poor. Period.

The taxes that the poor in this state pay directly include sales tax, gas tax, sin tax, and vehicle licensing tax. If they lack a car, then just two. There is, of course, the indirect payment of property taxes in the form of rent, and B&O Taxes in the form of lower wages, but, realistically, we are one of the top states for pay.

I haven’t read the specifics of the bill that Sen. McDermott has proposed, but generally, I’ve been a big fan of either a flat 8.5% income tax, or a graduated IT that has a top bracket not exceeding 9%. Lower the property taxes significantly (but not entirely), and lower the state portion of the sales tax to 1.5% or so. Realistically, one would have to really work with the numbers and a bunch of extra information that I’m just too lazy to look up for a Publicola post, but in the end, with an income tax, we could affect real change to the tax structure in Washington State, and save the VAST majority of taxpayers money. Sure, people in Medina, Mercer Island and Bridle Trails would be paying considerably more in income taxes, but I highly doubt it would be so much as to have a drastically negative effect on their lives.

Just sayin’, is all.

Isn’t Toby Nixon a Republican? God, I’m about to be in partial agreement with one of them…I think…

reducing the state portion of the sales tax would be the most important aspect of any major tax reform. As the Gates report (and there was recently another report that basically had the same conclusions) points out, the poor pay a disproportionate amount of their income, a HUGELY disproportionate amount, into taxes in this state because of the sales tax.

Sarah68 is flat wrong by indicating that sales tax doesn’t affect the poorest of the poor. Period.

The taxes that the poor in this state pay directly include sales tax, gas tax, sin tax, and vehicle licensing tax. If they lack a car, then just two. There is, of course, the indirect payment of property taxes in the form of rent, and B&O Taxes in the form of lower wages, but, realistically, we are one of the top states for pay.

I haven’t read the specifics of the bill that Sen. McDermott has proposed, but generally, I’ve been a big fan of either a flat 8.5% income tax, or a graduated IT that has a top bracket not exceeding 9%. Lower the property taxes significantly (but not entirely), and lower the state portion of the sales tax to 1.5% or so. Realistically, one would have to really work with the numbers and a bunch of extra information that I’m just too lazy to look up for a Publicola post, but in the end, with an income tax, we could affect real change to the tax structure in Washington State, and save the VAST majority of taxpayers money. Sure, people in Medina, Mercer Island and Bridle Trails would be paying considerably more in income taxes, but I highly doubt it would be so much as to have a drastically negative effect on their lives.

Just sayin’, is all.

The fact that we’re in a job recession right now isn’t a good reason for not trying to enact an income tax. After recovery, an income tax would help fill up the rainy day fund to the point that another recession wouldn’t kill us like this one is. Probably a good idea to plan for future cycles, right, rather than just looking at this particular period?

There’s not a state in the nation that’s not in trouble now. The ones with income taxes will pull out faster once jobs are added than the ones that don’t have income tax.

Property tax is mainly unfair to renters. Most counties in WA have procedures for paying less tax, or postponing your tax, if you make under a certain amount, so it’s not the case that all poor elderly will taxed out of their homes. If you know anyone who’s worried about that, tell them to check with the King County Assessor’s office. It’s a simple procedure when you prove your income. Renters, however, are SOL.

The fact that we’re in a job recession right now isn’t a good reason for not trying to enact an income tax. After recovery, an income tax would help fill up the rainy day fund to the point that another recession wouldn’t kill us like this one is. Probably a good idea to plan for future cycles, right, rather than just looking at this particular period?

There’s not a state in the nation that’s not in trouble now. The ones with income taxes will pull out faster once jobs are added than the ones that don’t have income tax.

Property tax is mainly unfair to renters. Most counties in WA have procedures for paying less tax, or postponing your tax, if you make under a certain amount, so it’s not the case that all poor elderly will taxed out of their homes. If you know anyone who’s worried about that, tell them to check with the King County Assessor’s office. It’s a simple procedure when you prove your income. Renters, however, are SOL.

The fact that we’re in a job recession right now isn’t a good reason for not trying to enact an income tax. After recovery, an income tax would help fill up the rainy day fund to the point that another recession wouldn’t kill us like this one is. Probably a good idea to plan for future cycles, right, rather than just looking at this particular period?

There’s not a state in the nation that’s not in trouble now. The ones with income taxes will pull out faster once jobs are added than the ones that don’t have income tax.

Property tax is mainly unfair to renters. Most counties in WA have procedures for paying less tax, or postponing your tax, if you make under a certain amount, so it’s not the case that all poor elderly will taxed out of their homes. If you know anyone who’s worried about that, tell them to check with the King County Assessor’s office. It’s a simple procedure when you prove your income. Renters, however, are SOL.

Is there some particular reason why Josh chose a response from a right-wing think tank?

Particularly one that’s incorrect?

Across the nation, every single form of tax has seen significant declines during this, the worst recession in 60 years. Even taxes on oil production in Alaska and Texas have fallen. Here in California, our three primary sources of tax revenue: personal income tax (PIT), sales tax, and property tax – have all declined. No tax is “recession proof.”

However, you always want to levy your taxes where the money is. In California, as in Washington, as in pretty much every other state in the union, the fastest growing incomes have been in the top bracket, and this growth was only slightly slowed in 2009. California’s decline in PIT revenue has been significant at the lower end of the income scale, but not that big at the upper end, and so overall, CA PIT revenue has declined to a slower and lesser degree than sales or property tax revenue.

If the goal is a more stable source of revenue, an income tax on incomes of $250,000 or more is probably a good bet. It’s not immune to a recession, but few taxes are.

I certainly hope that McDermott is selling this as an income tax on the wealthy. There is consistent support in polling in Oregon and California for those taxes. I have not seen the polling from Washington, but I would be surprised if it were significantly different from the other two West Coast states.

Is there some particular reason why Josh chose a response from a right-wing think tank?

Particularly one that’s incorrect?

Across the nation, every single form of tax has seen significant declines during this, the worst recession in 60 years. Even taxes on oil production in Alaska and Texas have fallen. Here in California, our three primary sources of tax revenue: personal income tax (PIT), sales tax, and property tax – have all declined. No tax is “recession proof.”

However, you always want to levy your taxes where the money is. In California, as in Washington, as in pretty much every other state in the union, the fastest growing incomes have been in the top bracket, and this growth was only slightly slowed in 2009. California’s decline in PIT revenue has been significant at the lower end of the income scale, but not that big at the upper end, and so overall, CA PIT revenue has declined to a slower and lesser degree than sales or property tax revenue.

If the goal is a more stable source of revenue, an income tax on incomes of $250,000 or more is probably a good bet. It’s not immune to a recession, but few taxes are.

I certainly hope that McDermott is selling this as an income tax on the wealthy. There is consistent support in polling in Oregon and California for those taxes. I have not seen the polling from Washington, but I would be surprised if it were significantly different from the other two West Coast states.

Is there some particular reason why Josh chose a response from a right-wing think tank?

Particularly one that’s incorrect?

Across the nation, every single form of tax has seen significant declines during this, the worst recession in 60 years. Even taxes on oil production in Alaska and Texas have fallen. Here in California, our three primary sources of tax revenue: personal income tax (PIT), sales tax, and property tax – have all declined. No tax is “recession proof.”

However, you always want to levy your taxes where the money is. In California, as in Washington, as in pretty much every other state in the union, the fastest growing incomes have been in the top bracket, and this growth was only slightly slowed in 2009. California’s decline in PIT revenue has been significant at the lower end of the income scale, but not that big at the upper end, and so overall, CA PIT revenue has declined to a slower and lesser degree than sales or property tax revenue.

If the goal is a more stable source of revenue, an income tax on incomes of $250,000 or more is probably a good bet. It’s not immune to a recession, but few taxes are.

I certainly hope that McDermott is selling this as an income tax on the wealthy. There is consistent support in polling in Oregon and California for those taxes. I have not seen the polling from Washington, but I would be surprised if it were significantly different from the other two West Coast states.

I do not like income taxes. I think that they exist to punish the successful. A flat is not my prefered choice but it is more just. Everyone who makes an income pays the same %. That is just. It is not right that someonewho workd hard, takes risks and is successful should pay more in taxes. Personially I would rather see impact taxes. Meaning the more impact you have on goverment the more you pay. That is why I like gas taxes for roads. The more you use the roads the more you use gas the more you pay in taxes to upkeep them.

I do not like income taxes. I think that they exist to punish the successful. A flat is not my prefered choice but it is more just. Everyone who makes an income pays the same %. That is just. It is not right that someonewho workd hard, takes risks and is successful should pay more in taxes. Personially I would rather see impact taxes. Meaning the more impact you have on goverment the more you pay. That is why I like gas taxes for roads. The more you use the roads the more you use gas the more you pay in taxes to upkeep them.

I do not like income taxes. I think that they exist to punish the successful. A flat is not my prefered choice but it is more just. Everyone who makes an income pays the same %. That is just. It is not right that someonewho workd hard, takes risks and is successful should pay more in taxes. Personially I would rather see impact taxes. Meaning the more impact you have on goverment the more you pay. That is why I like gas taxes for roads. The more you use the roads the more you use gas the more you pay in taxes to upkeep them.

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles also sponsored the legislation.

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles also sponsored the legislation.

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles also sponsored the legislation.