Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Afternoon Jolt: Nearly Half the Population

Today’s Loser: Half the population of Washington State

We’ve already reported that today’s Washington poll brought some scary news for supporters of the 1098 campaign—the initiative loses 53 to 42 in the survey of likely voters.

But the crosstabs show one group of people that came out solidly in favor of the initiative: Households that make less than $60,000. That’s about 43 percent of the voters that were polled (according to the U.S. Census Department, about 48 percent of households in Washington State make less than $60,000 a year).

It doesn’t take a lot of divining to figure out why the lowest income bracket surveyed would come out in favor of an initiative that increases taxes on the wealthy while lowering property taxes 20 percent. But why, if almost half of the people surveyed are so opposed to the measure, does it show such a victorious margin in the poll? The answer’s in the middle-income bracket: Those making between $60,000 and $100,000 came out starkly opposed: 55 to 36, with 9 percent undecided. That, coupled with less-fiery support from the highest bracket (the initiative loses 53 to 44), sails the initiative solidly into loser land.

The old liberal gripe about how people in the lower-income brackets vote against their own interest apparently not true here. In fact, it’s the middle-to-high income bracket—home of the liberals who complain about the duped lower classes—who are voting against the lower bracket; and themselves, for that matter. Who’s duped now?

Also of note: Only three percent of those surveyed in the highest bracket are undecided on the initiative, as opposed to nine percent of the lowest and middle bracket.




  • Disclosure please

    People at the bottom have little fear that the brackets will be dropped to their incomes, but those at $60K to $100K have that fear. Both groups are voting their perceived interest.

    The 1098 campaign blew it by not having Gates promise to fund an initiative to reverse Oly if they raised the tax or lowered the brackets and/or promise to work to make 1098 a constitutional amendment.

  • Anonymous

    The only thing that will save those earning less than the initial high threshold $200K/$400K individual/couple limits from paying a state income tax for the rest of their lives will be the good will of the Washington legislature to not lower the tax brackets and raise the tax rates. Based on history, not a good bet.

    Never has any income tax – federal, state or local – instituted to tax just “the rich” remained that way. In 1913 federal income tax was only paid by 1% of wage earners; rates started at 1%, top rate 7%. By 1918 – just five years later – 95% of all wage earners were paying, rates started at 6% and the top rate had risen to 77%! This pattern of starting with high earners and low rates then rapidly progressing to lower earners and higher rates has been repeated in state after state. The virtually unlimited ATM card represented by taxing income is virtually impossible for governments to resist. The only protection is to VOTE IT DOWN NOW, before the state can get the income tax infrastructure in place.

    VOTE NO ON 1098!!

  • Nemo

    Did you see the full page ad he took out, promising to do just that?

    Guess not…

  • Emily George

    Having been on the Yes on 1098 email list and volunteer list and watching the tv campaign from Clark County, all I can say is “terrible campaign messaging.” At least on the email/activist side their entire tactic seemed to be to point out lies/mistakes by the opposition instead of just relentlessly focusing on what the measure did and why to pass it. I found myself repeatedly confused by the Yes on 1098 emails I received.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Anyone who thinks this is a tax on the “rich” is a dumkoft.

    Follow this discussion over at Patrick.net on Prop 13.

    http://patrick.net/forum/?p=566665

    Compare:

    http://www.redfin.com/WA/Kent/26719-115th-Ave-SE-98030/home/403702

    $249,000 home in Kent, pays

    Annual Taxes: $3,015

    http://www.redfin.com/WA/Bellevue/2822-98th-Ave-NE-98004/home/506537

    $2,488,000 home in Bellevue pays

    Annual Taxes: $12,380

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Anyone who thinks this is a tax on the “rich” is a dumkoft.

    Follow this discussion over at Patrick.net on Prop 13.

    http://patrick.net/forum/?p=566665

    Compare:

    http://www.redfin.com/WA/Kent/26719-115th-Ave-SE-98030/home/403702

    $249,000 home in Kent, pays

    Annual Taxes: $3,015

    http://www.redfin.com/WA/Bellevue/2822-98th-Ave-NE-98004/home/506537

    $2,488,000 home in Bellevue pays

    Annual Taxes: $12,380

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    I think the Gateses should volunteer to pay out of their personal checkbook for any and all taxes levied on the Poor and Middle Classes if Olympia ever spreads the income tax to all brackets.

    Oh, and if they were serious they would never have put in a property tax cut in the first place.

    What they should be working on is a fair and equitable property tax law for Washington State.

    They should rescind all the 4 “covenants” that allow long timers here to pay nearly no tax on multi-million dollar estates, while middle class people with 1 bedroom condos pay the same if not more tax!

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    A full page ad where he guarantees to pay everyone’s taxes personally if Olympia ever extends the tax to below $200,000/$400,000 ??

  • Anonymous

    The poor did vote against their self interest — 1098 doesn’t lower their taxes and it will drive employers out of the state. If you want to lower taxes on the poor it will have to be liquor, tobacco, and gasoline taxes.

  • Trevor

    Strange argument. Historically, it is not “liberals who complain about the duped lower classes.” That is traditionally the left, which usually wants lower class people to support revolution instead of reform. Liberals tend to complain about the uneducated lower classes, their lowbrow tastes etc.

    Regardless, in this case, the only people in whose economic interest it is to defund state government to the tune of billions of dollars– which is what will happen if 1053 passes and 1098 does not– are the very wealthy who send their kids to private schools and whose jobs, mortgages, and businesses are secure.

    All the rest of those voting against 1098? Well, either they trust the top 1% to create jobs more than they trust government. Or their fear of one day being subject to an income tax is so extreme that they apparently would prefer to have unemployment remain over 10% for the forseeable future, decrease access to health care and reduce the quality of public education. Either way, their voting their fears and not their hopes, and it’s hard for me to see how on Earth they’ll benefit in a financial sense from 1098 going down.

  • Trevor

    Strange argument. Historically, it is not “liberals who complain about the duped lower classes.” That is traditionally the left, which usually wants lower class people to support revolution instead of reform. Liberals tend to complain about the uneducated lower classes, their lowbrow tastes etc.

    Regardless, in this case, the only people in whose economic interest it is to defund state government to the tune of billions of dollars– which is what will happen if 1053 passes and 1098 does not– are the very wealthy who send their kids to private schools and whose jobs, mortgages, and businesses are secure.

    All the rest of those voting against 1098? Well, either they trust the top 1% to create jobs more than they trust government. Or their fear of one day being subject to an income tax is so extreme that they apparently would prefer to have unemployment remain over 10% for the forseeable future, decrease access to health care and reduce the quality of public education. Either way, their voting their fears and not their hopes, and it’s hard for me to see how on Earth they’ll benefit in a financial sense from 1098 going down.

  • Gomez

    SurveyUSA shows almost a uniform opposition to 1098 across income brackets. People making under $40K reportedly are 51-34 against. I guess where one believes things stand comes down to what sample of 500 random voters one trusts more. But either way, 1098, and WA taxes on the board across the board, faces certain defeat on election day… leading to a possible day of economic reckoning for the state government and, one can only hope, a total reevaluation of how state tax money is fundamentally used.

  • Trevor

    You mean privatization? Yes, apparently so. The beast is being starved. Enjoy.

  • Disclosure please

    Didn’t see it or hear it on the radio or see it on a TV ad. About the only ads I’ve seen for 1098 are the obnoxious yard signs. Yard signs for an initiative are so lame.

    I’m glad he did it. Too bad the campaign didn’t get the message out. Newspapers are dead.

  • Disclosure please

    The $2.5 million asking price home last sold for $600,000 in 2005.

    The $249,000 asking price home last sold for $394,000 in 2006.

    So a home that sold for less than twice as much pays 4 times the tax.

  • Disclosure please

    Nemo can you link to anything where he says that? I’ve tried to find it and can’t. Checked the campaign site and nothing. Read their FAQs and nothing mentioned in the section on the taxes soon to be on everyone.

  • correction

    what a bunch of malarkey. we used to have super high income tax marginal rates like 80%, it was reduced, so your premise that taxes never go down is wrong.

    btw those decades when we did have the super high tax rates, say 1940 to 1980-ish?

    That is when we did have the long growth and growth that helped the middle class, whereas after reducing the high taxes there followed from 1981 to the present total stagnation for the middle class (except now women work so keeping the same income for twice as much working really is a huge decline).

    how much do you make?

  • innumeracy illustrated

    yes, all states with income tax like ny nj maryland, connecticut are so poor, they have no employers, this is why washington has higher per capita income than ny nj ct. and look at canada, my god, is used to be 80% of our per capita income, but in the last thirty years the changes in the relative strength of our econmy and theirs mean they are at parity with us now, wow, what a decline.

  • Anonymous

    Right. Because as everyone knows the poor and middle classes don’t pay any taxes at all right now – so an income tax would on them would be a disaster.

    Oh wait.

  • Disclosure please

    The nominal marginal top rates were 90% before JFK started cutting them. To be fair when the rates were that high the code was full of tax shelters – oil wells, race horses, fine art etc. – when the rates were dropped most of the shelters were removed.

    The more recent drops have not had any benefits removed – just plain tax breaks for the top incomes.

  • Teutonic

    It’s Dummkopf.

  • sarah

    No, it won’t lead to a “total reevaluation of how state tax money is fundamentally used.” What the passage of all these initiatives except for 1098 will lead to is the almost total defunding of all services for poor and disabled people in the State, and the inability to raise any revenue for as long as 1053 or its ilk are in force.

    You will be lucky if you, personally — all of you — are not affected.

  • mythbuster

    yes, so it is a fact that when we had the 90% tax rates 1945 to 1962 we had decades of economic growth and middle class expansion. this continued until about 1981 in this period tax rates were still very high and it was reagan who really brought them down.

    since then, the adjustments that don’t go much over 39% uncer clinton are NOTHING AT ALL LIKE the super high 60 70 80 90 % tax rates of yore. But it is a fact when we had taxes at super high rates
    1. we DID NOT have economic meltdown as ballmer would have you believe.
    2. economy grew like gangbusters.
    3. no. of millionaires and billionaires also grew!

    Therefore taxes and big government are GOOD, and belief to the contrary is based on mythology.

  • Anonymous

    I never said rates don’t fluctuate – although history has shown that while the federal tax rates go up and down, in the case of state income taxes the trend has definitely been steadily up. My point – and I’ll type slow so you can get it – is that over time taxes originally initiated to just “tax the rich” inevitably get extended down progressively so that more and more tax payers end up paying. And that is a fact, not malarkey.

    How much I make is irrelevant. The tax is dishonest and unfair and should not be supported by anybody.

    VOTE NO ON 1098!!

  • Bendervish

    Inaccurate hyperbole, this smells like cut and paste astroturfing. That phony argument supposes that the unfair burdens of over a century ago are the natural order and it totally disregards progress in our ideas about quality of life. Concepts like this proposed by AaronBurr assume a paternalistic big daddy government, and view taxes as a spanking penalty. Taxes are not punishment, and we are not children of big daddy government. Taxes are a contribution to establish and maintain a social contract between parties. If they are misused or misapplied there is a problem with dispensation NOT collection.

  • Bendervish

    Red Herring

  • Bendervish

    Red Herring

  • Gomez

    And we’ll lose all those services because the state gov won’t even have enough money to run its allegedly essential operations. Hence reevaluation. Even with the added tax money we’re kind of living under a perilous Evangelionic borrowed-time state, where additional taxes are simply enabling the continuation of an unstable, increasingly (prohibitively) expensive balance.

  • Test

    A survey asking about current income levels misses a key point: income fluctuates. A better question would be “would you ever expect to pay this based on one time income receipts.” Many people in the $100K range might be in a position where at one time they would have earned enough to be in the tax bracket. Just focusing on current income gives a misleading picture.

  • CBO

    If they are misused or misapplied there is a problem with dispensation NOT collection.

    Uh, no no no no no.