If you think Initiative 1098, which would impose an income tax on the top two percent of Washington residents, has no unintended consequences then be sure to read the lead editorial in the September 8, 2010 Seattle Times.
Posted by warrenpeterson at September 08, 2010 09:25 PM | Email ThisWe often hear the libs in here claiming they are willing to pay more in taxes. I'm assuming none of you trolls would be affected by this proposed income tax (if I am wrong, please correct me). Therefore, are you voting "yes" on 1098 because
1) You hope the legislature will eventually lower the threshold to your own income bracket?
or
2) You are willing to see taxes go up but in fact only if it goes up on someone else instead of you?
So--which is it, liberal trolls?
Posted by: Michele on September 8, 2010 10:41 PMHuh? I'm supposed to feel sorry for them why?
Posted by: Bruce on September 8, 2010 11:27 PMI-1098 will reduce the taxes paid by middle and working class Washingtonians, especially thousands of self-employed and truly small business owners who will see their B&O taxes eliminated in most cases. To see how much you would save, check out this handy calculator.
George Bartell is not a small businessman, nor is he middle class. He and his family own a business that generates over $250M in sales each year. It's privately held so there aren't many details available. Bartell doesn't give any specific data so it's not possible to say exactly how I-1098 will effect him. But it's safe to say he is wealthy and worried that I-1098 will reduce his personal income by a few percent. He doesn't give a rip about truly small business owners who will benefit from the B&O tax credit in I-1098.
Bartell is intentionally misleading by suggesting that I-1098 taxes the money he would put into his stores. Money spent operating the stores, paying employees, buying inventory, etc. is a business expense and is not taxed by I-1098. If anything, I-1098 provides additional incentive to spend profits improving his business rather than holding it as personal income. If I-1098 passes, rest assured Mr. Bartell will continue to invest in his stores if that investment offers suitable return, just like he always has.
Apparently in the world of the uninformed, people gleefully act against their own self interests for the "better good". Sure has worked out well for, oh, say, Cuba, Russia, State of California....
Scottd is clearly a graduate of the Seattle Public Schools sometime in the past 20 years as proven by the utter lack of understanding of economics, business, taxation, history and human nature.
Only a complete fool would believe within 2 years the WA state income tax would not apply to all, would cripple our ability to attract new business, vastly expand unsustainable state spending. A great description of a WA state income tax is the Nevada, Texas business relocation act.
Posted by: Hank on September 9, 2010 08:45 AMI-1098 will reduce the taxes paid by middle and working class Washingtonians, especially thousands of self-employed and truly small business owners who will see their B&O taxes eliminated in most cases. To see how much you would save, check out this handy calculator. "
You would be correct if you consider only the first two years after the implementation of this, if it passes. However, after two years, everything above goes out the window or if you will, down the toilet, as the tax rates and those affected WILL BE CHANGED by the State Legislature - that is as much of a sure thing as the sun rising in the east tomorrow.
Reject I-1098 ! That is exactly what the voters need to do. The consequences are that this state will become more like other states that have both taxes and grow government, while economically damaging citizens and small businesses. This is statism cloaked in a shell game, sponsored by Gates Sr, who is being dishonest by hiding and denying what the ultimate effects will be - shame on him - if he has any ! Evidently, scottd sounds like a shill for old man Gates.
Posted by: KDS on September 9, 2010 08:48 AMYes, and? What's your point?
Huh? I'm supposed to feel sorry for them why?
Um. Because he is smaller and would be getting taxed at a higher rate.
How do you not get this?
scottd: I-1098 will reduce the taxes paid by middle and working class Washingtonians
Sorry, my principles cannot be bought. It is not only a bad idea for our economy (which negates your attempt to buy me off), but it is also patently unfair, and on top of it all, it's unconstitutional.
I note for the record that NO ONE has been able to demonstrate that my argument against the constitutionality of I-1098 isn't accurate.
George Bartell is not a small businessman, nor is he middle class.
So we should therefore cause him harm?
He and his family own a business that generates over $250M in sales each year.
Yes, and we therefore don't want to cause him harm that will jeopardize that business and those jobs.
He doesn't give a rip about truly small business owners who will benefit from the B&O tax credit in I-1098.
Yes, we get it: you are selfish and greedy and malicious. You can stop trying to prove the point: we concede it.
If anything, I-1098 provides additional incentive to spend profits improving his business rather than holding it as personal income.
You're looking at it backward. A business is not a charity. People are in business to make money. And what this does is reduce net income, so therefore, they will look to increase their income to compensate for the harm being done by government, which hurts the business.
If I-1098 passes, rest assured Mr. Bartell will continue to invest in his stores if that investment offers suitable return, just like he always has.
Except, of course, that the returns become less suitable as he gets a smaller piece of them. Obviously.
My point is that Bartells is contradicting itself. How is it unfair to be subject to the same tax laws as your competitors?
The only possible explanation is that Bartells was lured into being an S Corp by existing tax law and now faces huge expenses in transitioning to a C Corp. Without seeing any data to that effect, I simply don't believe it. As a $250M+ business, surely Bartells already devotes significant accounting expenses to (legally) minimizing its taxes, and surely they can afford to change their structure if it will save taxes in the future. It seems far more likely that they want to protect the tax advantage that they currently get over their competitors from being an S Corp. Fine; let them lobby for their interests. But Bartells -- and the Seattle Times -- is lying to say this is about fairness.
Posted by: Bruce on September 9, 2010 10:18 AMWarren, there are unintended consequences for every decision. In Risk Management 101 we teach usage of the simple 5-square chart.
Peanut Gallery - Have hope. There's a very good chance that the majority of voters shall not vote their interests on 1098 this November. I think we will.
But claiming that 1098 is definitively a precursor to an extension of excise taxes to levels lower than are in 1098 is still wrong. To be more effective I'd recommend you add that it shall also lead to premature male pattern baldness. That should scare 'em! :-)
Where they tax everything. If you think it wouldn't happen here. Your a bigger fool that I thought!
Gov spends & taxes to feed it's spending.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on September 9, 2010 12:39 PMBut the people who are pushing I-1098 seem determined to see to it that his investment will NOT offer a suitable return, so that he will simply close up shop and move out of the state, taking what little of his money remains with him.
The unspoken assumption here is that the I-1098 proponents are a better judge of what constitutes a "suitable return" than he is.
Posted by: CK on September 9, 2010 01:48 PMDon't give the courts the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of I-1098. Vote NO on I-1098 !
Posted by: KDS on September 9, 2010 02:41 PMI agree. If you're idiot and want less of your hard earned money in your pocket and more of it flowing into the wasteful hands of government, by all means, vote Yes. You can bet your arse I'll be looking out for "MY" best long-term interests this November, but I can't speak to the voting habits of the usual turnips in this state that can't seem to THINK their best interests any further out than the next 2 years. Pathetic.
"they are running away from explaining what the tax structure of this state will look like in 5 or 10 years - if this thing passes."
I don't think you should rely upon any statist to predict the future.
You should consult an expert on predicting the future, like recent Emerald Queen Casino headliner, Sylvia Browne.
Also, again re the comment we get from the leftists here that you are willing to pay more in taxes; (tensor says he is, but he wisely has not commented here). So why then are you voting for this thing, anyway? If you are willing to pay more in taxes (while acting angry at those of us here who are already paying far more to the state than you likely are), and if you don't fit into the $200k/400k thresholds of this proposed tax, then WHY ARE YOU VOTING FOR THIS? Iow, if you are so willing to pay more as you say, then WHY ARE YOU VOTING TO GIVE YOURSELVES A TAX CUT while voting someone else a tax increase? Shouldn't you be voting "no", because you would be paying less? Doesn't this out you as insincere, because you would be paying less?
Anyone? anyone? Buuuuuelller.....
Let's assume George Bartell is in the $1 million+ income category. Therefore, he would face a 9% state income tax.
THAT'S 'A FEW PERCENT'?
Aren't you underplaying the scope of that amount? How would YOU like it if other people voted YOU a NINE percent income tax? Suddenly, it wouldn't seem so small, would it? Stop underplaying 9% in just state income tax alone. That's a huge number. If you don't think so, then YOU pay it. Voluntarily.
And @ #7: lol, even Castro says his commie system doesn't work. Guess the cubans are getting tired of driving 1959-model cars!
Posted by: Michele on September 9, 2010 09:16 PMWell if you already know what tax rates will be in 5 to 10 years, tell us.
What will be the WA tax rates be in 2015 after I-1098 passes and we see more of Tim Eyman - guaranteed?
And KDS, the fact that all you can talk is smack based upon your physic vision should tell you all you need to know.
Let's assume pigs have wings. Therefore, he would face pig excrement falling on his head.
No virtue in that, at all. Touche
Posted by: Michele on September 9, 2010 09:34 PMDon't strain your brain.
I am not "pay any extra in taxes".
I am voting for I-1098 because it is in my interests, and more importantly in the interests of my fellow Washingtonians.
I am proud to pay my taxes, and happy when my hard work and good fortune enables me to pay more than the average.
I hope so.
Let's assume George Bartell is in the $1 million+ income category. Therefore, he would face a 9% state income tax.
THAT'S 'A FEW PERCENT'?
Michele, you're confused about I-1098 and maybe mathematically challenged, so let me help you out.
George Bartell is married, so the first $400K of his income is not taxed. If he makes $1 million a year, he would pay $24000 or 2.4% of his net income. I think that qualifies as a few percent.
The Seattle Times (and Warren) want me to believe this tax of a few percent might cause Mr. Bartell to sell his business. That's baloney. Besides, who cares? As a sometimes customer, I know his stores don't offer a substantially different experience than a Walgreen's or Rite-Aid. It really doesn't matter to me who owns the store.
On the other hand, I-1098 will save me close to $3000/year. I know many other small business owners and self-employed who will save similar amounts. You can check out the calculator I linked in my first post to see what you would save.
I don't enjoy paying taxes any more than anyone else -- but there's nothing sacred about the status quo in our state which has one of the most regressive tax structures in the country. Maybe you think middle-class people should forgo a substantial tax reduction so wealthy people like Mr. Bartell can continue to enjoy some of the most favorable tax rates in the country. You're free to think that, but I think you're a chump.
The bottom line is this: Mr. Bartell is unhappy because I-1098 would reduce his personal income by a few percent. I support the measure because it will raise my personal income by a few percent. Both of us are looking after our self-interest. I'm sure Mr. Bartell hasn't passed on any opportunity to reduce his taxes in the past -- why should I?
Guys like Bartell create jobs here. That's millions (more like billions) in aggregate that won't be available to pay employees and instead will be put into the hands of inefficient-spending Oly bureaucrats.
Plus, what's to say they won't raise that 5 or 9%? That's right--there's NO guarantee whatsoever. Or what's the guarantee they won't lower the income threshold? That's right---no guarantee whatsoever.
You may think that combined federal/state income tax rates (not even including the other taxes people pay) of 45% to 50% are fine, but that is simply because you are not willing to pay it for yourself. I'll bet you'd vote no on that for yourself. Because it's outrageous on anybody.
So get off your high horse and vote this thing down, because you aren't willing to pay more in taxes. You are just willing for OTHER people to pay more. Not impressive at all.
Posted by: Michele on September 9, 2010 11:06 PMIf the state wants to cut B&O tax (and they should) they should cut it for everyone. This proposal does not do that. They just jacked it up for service businesses 20% recently. They could do it again in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Michele on September 9, 2010 11:26 PMhmm, Yes. I want to use the calculator for short bus riders provided by a pro 1098 website ran by Evergreen state college graduates that believe government is fundamental in structuring you and your family's life financially and otherwise (see social justice loons afraid to admit it).
I'm sure it's on the up and up...
Posted by: Rick D. on September 10, 2010 07:10 AMBut they are not.
How is it unfair to be subject to the same tax laws as your competitors?
They ALREADY ARE. This law would make them pay HIGHER rates than their competitors.
scottd: seriously, we GET IT. You can stop trying to prove you are selfish, greedy, and malicious.
Posted by MikeBoyScout at September 9, 2010 09:17 PM
Are you for real ?? Nice job at a vacuous argument. Keep up you self-centered narcissistic insurgency and faux-Teabagger impression. LMAO.
Posted by: KDS on September 10, 2010 09:30 AMHow many businesses and retirees will stay here if that advantage goes away? Would we miss them?
Would the top 2% cap survive after 2 years? How dumb do you think we are, Gates Sr. and SEIU?
Posted by: alcogito on September 10, 2010 11:05 AMThe state is short by a few billon. The economy is down, and thus revenue is down. Spending needs to be cut (and is being cut), however, taxes still need to go up. So the question becomes, who will pay? Which tax increase will have the least negative impact on the economy?
On one hand, we know that middle-class tax cuts get spent quickly, and increase economic activity.
On the other hand, we know that tax cuts on the wealthy raise a lot of revenue, with little downside. Why?
Because wealth individuals tend to save, not spend their money. A corporate exec, making $500k/year in personal income isn't going to miss an extra 2%. A CEO making $5mil+ per year may save a bit less, perhaps, but he's not going to fire his maid, or chauffeur.
And as for the small business owner? The vast, vast majority of them have salaries/income well below $250k...let alone $1m. The larger ones, if they are remotely intelligent incorporate, so as to separate business from personal income. Thus, their personal salaries have NOTHING to do with what, or how many employees they hire. Thats as moronic as saying that because Steve Ballmer pays an extra 10% in taxes, that will cause Microsoft to layoff employees. Nonsense! Executive salaries have NOTHING to do with hire/fire decisions.
Posted by: Proteus on September 12, 2010 10:52 PMThat's not the point, proteus. Not only is taxing that executive an extra 2 percent unfair, it's also contrary to the Washington state constitution. Also, by instituting a state income tax, you are letting the camels nose under the tent for increased taxation by legislators rather than quelling their insatiable appetite for wasting our hard earned tax dollars sent their way. It's really simple--Quit freaking spending money you/we don't have. I do it everyday in my life, Queen Christine will have to learn that very simple life's lesson one day, might as well be today.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 13, 2010 06:35 AMWhat say you, tax-happy trolls?
Posted by: yaddacubed on September 13, 2010 01:53 PMit's also contrary to the Washington state constitution
Thats why we have a supreme court to decide such matters. From all reports, it IS constitutional.
instituting a state income tax, you are letting the camels nose under the tent
Standard "slippery slope" arguement.
It's really simple--Quit freaking spending money you/we don't have. I do it everyday in my life
State budgets are a bit more complicated than your personal household budget, or even a small company budget. Things like labor contracts, state and federal laws, etc tend to get in the way.
State-Income-Tax-payers will be able to deduct the tax from their federal taxes, but lower earners will not be able to deduct sales tax anymore. Swell!
Untrue. Taxpayers have a CHOICE as to which one to deduct. If you've ever itemized a 1040, you'd know that.
That's not for simpletons like you or Barack Obama to decide the salaries of privately held companies. People are free to pursue other places of employment if they have issues with their compensation. It's called life.
From all reports, it IS constitutional.
Not according to the last 5 state supreme court rulings. If it is changed, it will be because silly liberals on the court have set aside the clearly stated state constitution language and do what liberals always do, lie and go with their feelings.
State budgets are a bit more complicated than your personal household budget, or even a small company budget.
Not really. Queen gregoire and democrats in the legislature spent beyond their means and sacked us with a 3B dollar budget shortfall. That's called financial incompetence, no matter how you slice it.
Standard "slippery slope" arguement(sic).
I simply live in a little place called reality, you should try it sometime.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 14, 2010 06:18 AMsilly liberals on the court have set aside the clearly stated state constitution language and do what liberals always do, lie and go with their feelings.
Yes, those "silly liberals" who were elected, according to the constitution, and by the people to maintain, uphold, and interpret said constitution. Problem?
Queen gregoire and democrats in the legislature spent beyond their means and sacked us with a 3B dollar budget shortfall. That's called financial incompetence, no matter how you slice it.
Could you do a better job? Go ahead and balance the state budget..plenty of tools online to help you. Note that you have to maintain state law, and follow federal regulations and existing labor contracts while doing so. The GOP showed us they were the party of "fiscal responsibility" from 2001-2008, leading to the current financial meltdown. Until those wingnuts understand simple math, and realize that unless they are willing to CUT spending (which they are not), or raise taxes, that we'll continue to go deeper into debt.
The moronic philosophy that cutting taxes down to zero will somehow raise revenue doesn't fly in that place we call reality.
Posted by: Proteus on September 14, 2010 08:17 AMAnd no one here has called for that other than your paranoid/delusional red herring posted above. Oh, and if you prefer to live in the land of reality, the Democrat party isn't the place to begin your journey. If nothing else, the last 18 months of debt accumulated under this Obamanation should have taught you that. No worries though, we'll correct this in 2010 and 2012.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 14, 2010 09:05 PM