Discuss

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/426470_incometax13.html?source=rss

All additional taxes do is allow government to grow bigger.

I'd be OK with it but it sets the line at $200K. They should move it a bit higher like ($500K) and set some sort of adjustments for future inflation.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/tax-the-filthy-rich/Content?oid=4837455

It boils down to the "Have's from the Have not's" of the world.
If you happen to be in the "haves" catagory making $200K + you'd call BS on the income tax. The "Have nots's" are thinking, "SWEET, not going to affect me, so hell yeah I'll vote for it. And truthfully, I wouldn't like it, but couldn't blame them.

Sort of like the Social Security trust fund right?

Oh wait.



The truth rears it's ugly head.

This state doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

I don't want the state to get into the personal income tax business. Pretty soon we are all going to have to file state taxes to prove we aren't over the limit. Then they start lowering the limit.

Two things get my attention. One after three years ( or whatever ) the legislature can and you bet your ass will keep lowing the cap to we all get nailed.

Second what is not well know is businesses relocate and attract top caliber employees in critical areas of their businesses using THE LACK OF A PERSONAL INCOME TAX as a carrot. The impact on new businessers and discressionary located business will be large, in other words they will move slowly but surely. The BO bs Bill Sr is all over TV with is a load of crap also.

Bottom line is as former State Supreme Court Justice has said ain't no way the state constitution forbids unequal taxes and it was in the mid 1930's the court said so. Those pushing this thing are betting they can get the current court to reverse the past court. Where have I seen this before?

I am going to vote NO for the following reasons:

1. I am troubled by the constitutionality of this initiative. On the face of it, this is unconstitutional. One of my complaints against Eyman's initiatives is that he presents initiatives that are clearly unconstitutional with the justification that "we are sending a message" to the politicians. Unfortunately, I and every other taxpayer gets to pay for the message through the election process and the inevitable challenge. I see no difference here.

2. I am troubled by the fundamental unfairness of the initiative. How can the bulk of Washington voters vote to approve a tax on a small minority? Again using one of Eyman's initiatives as an example - he put an initiative forward that attempted to curb Sound Transit funding. Since Sound Transit was primarily funded by taxes from a 3 county area I found it unfair to have folks from Grant County determine how I spent my tax dollars.

With this initiative and a number of Eyman's initiatives we see abuse of the initiative and referendum process. Even though I believe that this state does need an income tax, I will not vote for this one. If you cannot remain consistent in your principles, you have nothing.

I think my final answer on this would be:

If you are going to get stuck with Income taxes, you shouldn't also have to pay Sales Tax, and vice versa. Otherwise it's just a double-dip ass-reaming.

The state needs to do away with the sales tax before they impose an income tax.

As over the top as Irie often is, I think he captures a key point on this issue. I also think it should be either or, not both the sales tax and an income tax. In deference to reality, we couldn't do away with the sales tax before imposing an income tax, cutting off the revenue stream. The move would have to be at the same time.

I share the concern that once established as an income tax on the upper crust, it would only be a matter of time (3 years) before the Legislature began tinkering with it, and imposing both taxes on us rather than dealing with state spending.

Sg

What is needed is a Legislature and a Governor who are willing to show some leadership and courage to guide Washington through this economic crisis. So far (IMHO) that has not happened.

Trying to set fiscal policy through the initiative process is only going to make the problem worse (IMHO), but hey, that's what happens when elected leaders wont do the job they were sent there to do.

I ..................... ok but ....................... now I know how the state does math and plans. They watch old Ma & Pa K movies!

A flat payroll tax would mean people who live near our states borders cannot escape paying their share.

FWIW --- It's polling well (end of Aug):
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=094e5f06-2cfd-4d4f-93e7-986902ebc73b

You can see 41/33/26 (yes/no/uncertain)

Eyeman's initiative also polling well.

I'm voting NO on both.

I think we should pass an initiative to end the intiative process.

Winner.

I take this moment to disagree with Dan. I like it that WA has the initiative process, even though Eyeman abuses it. Kinda' like supporting the free speech of those I disagree with.

Sg

The intiative process is a bastardization of the design of our representative Republic.

I hate initiatives.

Initiatives came into being in this state because of a corrupt legislature and they are successful now for the same reason. At the federal level we are a Democratic Republic not a Democracy but the states within their own boundaries do not nor was it intended that they have that as a guiding principle.

Think of it this way. If the rules of disclosure applied to our elected officials that apply to used car salesmen, how many would stay out of jail. Not many!