AP: "WA Senate Democrats introduce income tax bill"
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Senate Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday that would impose a 1 percent income tax on people making more than $500,000 a year.Because taxing only the highest earners will motivate them to locate their businesses here and create more jobs for others, or something. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 01, 2009 10:59 PM | Email ThisThe bill sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, comes shortly after Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, began pondering the possibility of a state income tax on her blog.
I would be interested to see a study of how many entrepreneurs and business owners choose their state of residence based on personal income tax rates. Virtually none, according to my experience and intuition.
There are valid arguments on both sides of the income tax debate, but yours isn't one of them.
Posted by: Bruce on April 1, 2009 11:31 PMA bas the income tax!!
Posted by: Michele on April 2, 2009 12:05 AMYou obviously don't understand economics.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on April 2, 2009 03:25 AMBULL.
The last thing we need to do is go down the same path as Calif. Yes just a small tax. Then just a little bit more, then more.
Pretty soon you've taxed everything you could and your still broke.
And please don't fall it's for the schools/children line. We have been down that path before too!
Spend money on what is need, not some crazy idea that pops in their head everytime the state has a few extra bucks.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 2, 2009 06:26 AMYes, Mr. Kline, we see what gesture you're throwing up with that one hand towards the lifeblood of the economy in the community. Small business owner's have a middle finger too, which you'll no doubt encounter when they choose to leave this regressive state and relocate to one that embraces the hard work and sacrifice necessary to start, run and maintain your own business.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 2, 2009 06:32 AMThis is not just a 1% income tax on people who make over $500k. It is the foot in the door. It will apply to everyone. When? Don't know. But don't be naive. This *will* apply to everyone eventually.
That's the only reason the Dems are doing it this way. They are pitting the middle class against the rich, so that they may stick it to the middle class later.
Does anyone know of new grassroots efforts to stop this treachery?
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on April 2, 2009 08:06 AMAt one time I was Edmonds Dan with a pretty nice little company (with many employees) in the South SnoCo area.
Taxation and Government interference got so bad that I shut it down and well, my new handle gives you an idea of where I am located now...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 2, 2009 08:14 AMFunny how tax increases always seem to be sponsored by city-dwelling Dimocrats.
Posted by: Saltherring on April 2, 2009 08:41 AMThe Evergreen Freedom Foundation is sponsoring a No Taxes rally in Olympia on April 15 at noon and there are Tea Parties scheduled around the state. The Seattle Teaparty will be at Westlake Center from 5:45-7:45 April 15. Other cities also have tea parties scheduled.
Posted by: Burdabee on April 2, 2009 08:46 AMYeah, no one ever starts businesses there.
Posted by: Bruce on April 2, 2009 09:12 AMOnly one bill appears in the search list for "Income Tax" and that bill is for a change to the Constitution to allow an income tax.
Bill Description
SB 5104 Providing fiscal reform.
SB 6147 Providing for fiscal reform.
SJR 8205 Amending the Constitution to allow an income tax.
Wasn't that why they kept trying to amend the state constitution to allow an income tax- and didn't that amendment fail?
Posted by: Cicero on April 2, 2009 09:31 AMYeah, and it's not like we've been bombarded with Californians fleeing that state for the last 20 years.
It may fit into your agenda to have the state impose an income tax, but the entrepreneurs will find a way around it, or else they'll leave.
Trust me, Bruce. Not everybody works for 'the man'.
Posted by: jimg on April 2, 2009 10:21 AMWhy are so many states actively luring businesses from California? Simple, because they can offer a better business climate than California. I know for a fact that many Bay Area business have moved to Reno because the tax and regulatory environment is much, much less.
Posted by: danno on April 2, 2009 11:21 AMI worked with a client in the early 90's called Sierra On-line that had moved their company - and a few hundred highly paid employees - up to Seattle for exactly that reason.
They had been in California for a decade or more before the move.
My understanding is that Sierra got bought in the late 90's by some oversears company (and that the owners banked about a billion when the sold out) so I don't know if the company is still here, they had a big building a a ton of staff for years in an office off the I90 in Factoria.
I also know a current board member and one of the earliest investors in F5 Networks that made his way to Seattle area because he had a young software company and was looking to avoid taxes for himself and his core tech development team. That little company he moved up to Bellevue ended up with over 100 employees before it was bought out. (It might still have them. I lost track of the company when I stopped doing business with them.)
That's only two examples and they probably represented several hundred million dollars of salaries a year cumulatively. I'm sure some research would net others.
I can't think of individual names off hand, but if you can remember the time, there were a lot of high tech businesses that moved from California to Washington back in the 90's. You can be sure it wasn't because of our great weather.
So yes, it is a criteria for the decision making process.
On the other hand, does anyone NOT believe that business owners will consider moving OUT of Seattle if tax laws change? These high income individuals ARE mobile - and often have more than one place of residence anyway.
Seattle is nice and Washington State is beautiful, but so are other cities and states with desirable tax rates. Jacksonville Florida, for instance, is very aggressively working to attract businesses that are fleeing states that have decided to try and fleece their most productive citizens.
"NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO RAISE TAXES; OR EVEN TALK ABOUT RAISING TAXES."
Yep--Christine Gregoire, live up to it. Or continue to hone your reputation as a dishonest politician.
Posted by: Michele on April 2, 2009 01:51 PMYou didn't get a very good grade in Econ 101, did you?
California, N.Y., N.J. and other states are hemorrhaging business, soon to be followed by the increasingly socialist paradise of Washington. First the estate tax, soon the income tax. Idaho, here I come!
The startling aspect of all these proposals is - Just how will the state know your salary is taxable? Will we all have to start filing a WA state return in this scheme?
Posted by: yaddacubed on April 2, 2009 03:11 PMSan Diego use to have a fine aircraft company called "General Dynamics" Between the state and the city. They taxed, taxed and taxed. This was no 5 buck per hour job, and like Boeing they employed thousands and were union folks too.
Yet in 1990 the company told both to easy off or they would leave. Nope and come 1994 they closed their doors and left.
They had been in San Diego since 1923.
You've heard that thing about history repeating it's self.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 2, 2009 04:04 PM+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Business are leaving California to pro-business states like Arizona because of longtime complaints from companies about high taxes, elevated energy prices, pricey real estate and regulatory red tape, but also by the state's gubernatorial recall vote and its need for cash as it faces a $38 billion budgetary gap.
Commercial and industrial customers in California pay more than double the national average for electricity, according to the California Energy Commission. Workers' compensation-insurance costs have posted double-digit annual percentage increases since 1997: They are up, on average, as much as 70% since 2000, according to the California Chamber of Commerce. California landed 49th in a business-tax friendliness ranking calculated this year by the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., taxpayer advocacy group.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 2, 2009 04:14 PMThe Upjohn Company also griped about the tax situation and when Pfizer couldn't get the city to budge on the tax issues after acquiring the company they shut the place down and moved the operations to St. Louis, MO. Upjohn had been in Kalamazoo over 100 years. The Pfizer operations in Ann Arbor, MI were also shut down not long after because of the hostile business climate.
The real problems are spending far above actual revenues and projecting future revenue growth will continue to spiral ever upward. Metro doesn't have a revenue problem. They have a "We are counting on 6% annual growth in revenues forever and ever" problem.
Posted by: Burdabee on April 2, 2009 05:47 PMIt's like being a "little pregnant". After all, as night follow day, the politicians will overspend (for the children!) and then they will lower that tax threshold to $400,000. After all, $400K is still a good living, right? Then $300K, then $200K, then $100K.
ENOUGH! NOT ANOTHER PENNY MORE!
Posted by: SeaRep on April 2, 2009 08:18 PMWhat evidence do you have of that? I've seen data that more people moved from WA to CA during recent decades than from CA to WA. And anecdotally, the Californians I know here came largely because houses there were too expensive, not because tax rates were too high. And why are houses expensive? That's Econ 101, basic supply and demand: too many people want to live there. Or do you subscribe to the Yogi Berra theory of economics ("no one goes there anymore -- it's too crowded")?
Several posters argued that corporate tax rates drove companies out of various states. Sure, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread -- and my comments in particular -- are about personal income tax rates. I guess some of you get so fired up when you hear the word "tax" that you don't care about the difference.
Posted by: Bruce on April 2, 2009 10:44 PMum, Bruce,...last time I checked, small businesses were owned by real live PERSONS, susceptible to personal income taxes. Which, in turn, affects their business decisions as a small business owner. If you're too vacuous to recognize the correlation, then I'm afraid you're even further gone than I initially thought.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 3, 2009 04:59 AMCheck out Directive 10-289. It's coming, bet on it.
Posted by: Interested Observer on April 3, 2009 05:32 AMOne more thing you fail to notice.. If the income tax rates keep going up as per say Calif. Then the unions keep pushing the company they work for in terms of more money. The cycle never ends, until the company pulls up stakes.
I take it you work for the government.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 3, 2009 06:33 AMdon't tell me these guys are "just like you" and yet have access to the best tax attorneys around to plan THEIR families' futures...
my arse...Soviet redux...we all forget history and vote them back in, like lemmings...
Posted by: jimmie howya doin on April 3, 2009 10:43 PM
