The Senate had a hearing about their proposed income tax yesterday afternoon. But of course they don't call it that; they call it a sales tax reduction. Fooled you!
You didn't know about the hearing because they gave less than five hours notice. It was plenty of time for Evergreen College students to turn out in force and the Dems like what the students say. And I hear that the text of the bill wasn't available until less than an hour before the hearing.
They are saying they just "want to give voters their choice." Nice. But they don't want to give us a choice on reducing spending, just raising taxes.
A state income tax would require amending the state constitution due to a Supreme Court ruling in 1933 and that requires a 2/3 vote of the public.
But, ignoring the constitution, the Demos intend to give the voters a referendum that would only require majority vote, not the constitutional amendment that requires 2/3, according the to Andrew Garber of the Seattle Times.
This is for YOU.
The current proposal is to TAX THE RICH. But once they put the structure in place they will redefine "rich" lower and lower and lower. Not that they will want to, but conditions will force them to. And the tax rate will go up and up and up. Because they just can't cut spending. AND they won't have to cut spending.
So the income tax will get you sooner or later. Do you want it? The voters in Oregon voted yes in January and employers are moving out. Do you want the same?
Also KIRO. The bill: PSSB 6250 (pdf). Thanx, Pudge.
Posted by Ron Hebron at March 05, 2010 10:46 AM | Email ThisWasn't the original federal income tax for the very rich?
By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time. Form 1040 was introduced as the standard tax reporting form and, though changed in many ways over the years, remains in use today.
Yes, a maximum of 7% on income above $500,000 (equal to about $11 million today). And just 1 out of 100 people paid ANY income tax. Taxation will always increase, because Government will always spend every dollar that it receives; more revenue is always demanded.
If this passes, expect to see a 5% or more State income tax on every WA worker within 6 years.
And expect to see cities and counties jack up their portion of the sales tax with the justification being "the State cut by 1%, our citizens already pay X%, so we'll just take the extra 1% so everything stays the same". Guaranteed.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 5, 2010 11:31 AMIt's a blatant violation of the State Constitution. It's vile class warfare ("don't like us taxing YOU? then vote to tax THEM!"). It explicitly violates the will of the people in multiple ways (i.e., I-960).
It's just like the teacher union contributions thing, which is -- by a longshot -- the most astounding legal corruption I've seen in a state government: the Democrats change the law to allow the teacher union to use dues -- which are foricbly taken from teachers -- for political contributions, which inevitably go back to the Democrats. The Democrats literally passed a law which had the effect and intent of forcing teachers to contribute money to Democrats, using the union as an intermediary.
Then there was Gregoire lying to the people year after year saying we need to slow the rate of spending for the coming lean times, while at the same time drastically increasing spending ... and when the lean times come and we have a deficit, she lies that we even have a deficit, and then says it's Bush's fault.
They do this and things like it all the time and they have absolutely no shame ... probably because the voters idiotically keep voting them back into office.
No one to blame but the voters, at some point.
Not a good idea by the way!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 5, 2010 12:30 PMIn 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes.
The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yet the tax-o-crats think they don't pay enough.
Funny too in all the online articles about the income tax there's a support poll on it, and they are all something like a 70-30 margin against. Yet, people keep electing the same politicians who want it. Stop electing these fools.
Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2010 12:42 PMWe should be living our lives, enjoying our families, and pursuing our happiness, but our government doesn't seen to want to let us do that.
When Jefferson told us the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, I'd always thought of it as a bit of hyperbole, damn if he didn't mean it literally.
Posted by: Steve Pomper on March 5, 2010 12:51 PMWhich means, of course, that this "tax cuts for the wealthy" stuff is a lie: the rich did get a tax cut, but still paid more of the overall tax burden under Bush than they did under Clinton.
This would be just the start of ever increasing taxes and before long the state would be like California, unable to live on the taxes from sales, income and property taxes. It would be a disaster and the state would suffer for it.
Many, if not most, retirees who have the option would leave as well as business owners. It's already happening in Oregon. The states without income taxes would be the beneficiary of this stupidity.
Posted by: Clean House on March 5, 2010 02:00 PMAlaska New Hampshire Tennessee
Florida South Dakota Washington
Nevada Texas Wyoming
Hey, and what's with the ...referendum that would only require majority vote, not the constitutional amendment... part? How can our legistatists just make new rules like that?
Deja vu: Will the last small business(person) please turn out the lights?
Posted by: yaddacubed on March 5, 2010 04:40 PMMike G
They don't care.
Throw them out.
That's the only way to save the families of WA.
Posted by: JoeBandMember on March 5, 2010 07:36 PMOn a $200 pair of shoes, the tax goes down two dollars. Will that two-dollar saving inspire you to buy the shoes?
On a $30,000 car, the tax would go down $300. Does that $300 mean you wouldn't buy the car? I doubt it.
On a $500,000 boat, the tax would go down $5000. That's a nice amount, but consider that the dinghy with Honda outboard will cost $10,000 or more. The electronics will probably cost $20,000. The $5000 tax saving doesn't count. If you want the boat, you'll buy it.
Now if the wise men in the legislature want to cut the sales tax to two percent and eliminate local option taxes, we have a different conversation. That's assuming we have a cap on income tax rates and the income it applies to. I'm waiting.
Posted by: bob in bellevue on March 5, 2010 08:16 PMWhat was the deficit in 2006? What was the unemployment rate in January 2007? How many banks closed in 2006? What was the foreclosure rate in 2006?
As far as the State goes, if we rolled back to the budget of 2007 we would have zero deficit. I don't remember people dying in the streets in 2007 because the State wasn't handing out largess... What's the problem with simply rolling back?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 5, 2010 08:19 PM"Those making over $100k need to make a higher contribution."
Why? Is their money any less theirs simply because they have more of it? How about if we impose a Liberal / Democrat tax? All Liberals / Democrats will have an income tax rate of 99%, all others 1%. How long until we have no liberals or democrats...
On income over $120k? Big problem...that affects many upper-middle class families.
Who actually makes $200k+? Very senior corporate execs (VP level and up). Doctors. College coaches, Some lawyers. Some succesful entrepreneurs (unsucessful or struggling small business owners don't pay themselves huge salaries). All can afford to pay. To whom much is given, much is expected!
Of course, the funny thing is, the vast, vast majority of people reading this aren't affected, so not sure why they are fussing. This of course is the funny thing about right-wingers; they're always voting against their own economic interests!
Posted by: Proteus on March 5, 2010 11:54 PMIt's a ploy, a maneuver. Maybe a diversion, maybe Lisa Brown's way of making herself undisputed champ of WA progressives, maybe Dem's way to insulate themselves from the fact that they have raised so many taxes on the poor.
I'll be surprised if it is on the ballot in Nov., but we'll see.
Posted by: travis t on March 6, 2010 01:39 AMI did, two articles before this one, on the home page.
I think it unlikely to contain a severability clause, because I think the reason it DOES NOT have one is because they knew they would then be hurt by this very argument you make (that we made against the same basic bill last year).
Proteus: 4.5% on income over $200k?/400k? That will affect what..the top 2% Sounds OK.
Except that a. it's unconstitutional, b. it would never remain at $200K, c. the middle class would end up paying for it anyway.
Who actually makes $200k+? ... All can afford to pay. To whom much is given, much is expected!
But our Constitution says, we don't FORCE them to give. Yes, I expect much from wealthy people, in terms of GENEROSITY. That's what the Bible you're quoting talks about. Charity, generosity. Forced taxation is none of these things. You're blatantly misrepresenting the quote you're using.
Of course, the funny thing is, the vast, vast majority of people reading this aren't affected, so not sure why they are fussing.
For starters, we are not greedy and selfish, like you are. Second, we know that it is illegal. Third, we know it hurts the economy.
This of course is the funny thing about right-wingers; they're always voting against their own economic interests!
Riiiiiight. Decreasing jobs and investments is in EVERYONE'S economic interests!!!
Pull the other one.
See post 4. You willing to guarantee that we won't have the same type of creep that the Federal Income Tax has seen? You willing to pay any and all future taxes of those who earn under $200K per year, when the tax rates drop down the scale?
Remember:
In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.
Is that still true? Is it only the top 1% of all income earners that pay Federal income tax, and they pay no more than a highest rate of 7% on the equivalent of $11 million dollars?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 6, 2010 08:53 AM1. Taxpayers approve the sales tax treduction, aka: State Income Tax on the rich.
2. Ruled unconstitutional, it then gets ammended after passing the vote to apply to all, not just those rich people (gasp, can it be so?).
3. Tim Eyeman and Republicans get blamed for sticking it to the small guy.
4. Seattle Media and Dems point and laugh at Eyeman and the republicans who they just threw under the bus.
Vote them out!!
Posted by: Marmstro on March 6, 2010 10:21 AMIt would be interesting for Republicans to call Brown's bluff by just sitting back, letting the income tax move forward. Make no move to kill it. If it really did wind up going on the ballot, it could well induce the WA version of what happened at the national level back in 1994.
R's probably would and should not do that due to inherent risk, but it is interesting to contemplate.
Posted by: travis t on March 6, 2010 05:29 PMThey do.