By Erica C. Barnett
Editor’s note: This post, originally part of today’s Morning Fizz, has been reposted as a separate piece in order to expand today’s other Fizz item, about Police Chief Shon Barnes’ absences from Seattle.
I was out of town for a couple days last week, so I was a few hours late to the news that three Seattle City Council members—Joy Hollingsworth, Dionne Foster, and Dan Strauss—announced they had found a win-win solution to the problem created by a Hollingsworth-Foster amendment repurposing funds that were supposed to pay for universal school meals in the upcoming school year. The amendment, which took $3 million out of universal meals by delaying that program a year, will pay for $500,000 in annual grocery vouchers for up to 5,000 poor families each year, according to the sponsors.
The council’s big fix: Keep the vouchers, and fund universal school meals—at an annual cost of $3 million—out of the city’s general fund, starting with this year’s supplemental budget.
By the time I read about the proposal, there were already a number of stories and social media posts describing the amendment as a solution that gave everybody what they wanted—the FEPP levy could still fund food vouchers for the poorest kids, while the council would use existing money to make universal school meals happen in time for the upcoming school year. “Seattle City Council proposes plan to fund free meals for all school kids,” went a typical headline.
I found the tone of the coverage perplexing. It was as if people forgot that the term “general fund” means “entire discretionary budget for the year” and that the mayor and council are currently facing a budget hole of at least $175 million. Any time the council or mayor add a new obligation into the budget, they have to cut funding in another part of the budget to make it balance. This isn’t deep budget lore; it’s basic math.
Mayor Katie Wilson was less than impressed with the proposal, noting in a statement that she looked forward to “seeing which critical services they plan to cut from the general fund to make their numbers work.”
Proponents of the amendment delaying universal school meals by a year, which passed 6-3 last week, said they wanted to wait to see what happens with the statewide tax on income above $1 million a year, which is supposed to fund universal school meals statewide. That tax is up for a referendum vote in November and could still face challenges in court. If the tax fails, the city will still have to come up with a long-term funding plan to pay for universal school meals in future years.
Bo taxing authority except sales and property taxes? Is that a fact?
Seattle has had a payroll tax on high incomes that has been working since 2017. We’ve taxed the rich for nearly a decade.
Tax the rich more. Problem solved.
Sawant is a Pavlov response. Just Like Hillary and Obama. No reason for it other than whatever they say it is in their minds.
I’m sure this has been covered as nauseam before, but can we please have another primer on why exactly Seattle can’t just tax the rich? The city is one of the wealthiest on the planet. One of the wealthiest settlements in all of recorded human history. We generally give less of our income in taxes than any comparable group in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.
Yet we can’t afford it. It’s not just state income tax. We’ve already seen multiple plausible and implemented taxes that aren’t as regressive as sales and property taxes. Like the state millionaire’s tax, or Sawant’s head tax. Sorry to those who get mad whenever anyone says anything nice about her.
Just pass a less than brutally regressive city tax. Fund basic services a modern civilized people ought to be able to afford. Why is that so hard?
Most of this is limited by state law. Per MSRC, “Local governments in Washington State do not possess inherent taxing authority and must obtain the authority to impose taxes and fees from the state constitution and/or statutes adopted by the state legislature.” Of the taxes allowed, almost all fall into a property tax, excise taxes, or business license taxes. The rest are fees and charges, which aren’t usually less regressive than sales taxes anyways. Business taxes are potentially an option for more progressive revenue, but these are often very difficult to pass and not necessarily good for the city in the long-term (for the record, I think business taxes are fine but it’s harder to say if they are progressive or regressive. It likely depends on the type of business being taxed, how readily they can pass taxes through, and what the tax impact is on wages – none of which I feel qualified to answer).
You read about the gruesome detail of local taxation in this primer if you’re interested: https://mrsc.org/getmedia/d3f7f211-fc63-4b7a-b362-cb17993d5fe5/Revenue-Guide-For-Washington-Cities-And-Towns.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf
Or you can read the specifically enumerated taxing powers granted to first-class cities in Washington here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.22.280
Seattle is not a rich city. It’s a poor to middling city where some rich people — not a lot — live. The people who have run the city for decades have no idea what it’s worth and allow it to be strip-mined by rent seekers and business interests who squeal like scalded cats if anyone suggests they are getting more than they pay for.
There are more than 115,000 households in Seattle with net earnings over $200,000. There are nearly 75,000 households who own a home worth more than $1,000,000. Seems like a lot of rich people to me.
wow…that’s just not true. where’d it come from?