Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 10, 2007

The vote was 45 in favor, 3 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 0 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

What is the point of letting them hold on to my money? If this thing gets passed doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that taxes will increase by 1% so that they will have the same money to spend with more of a cushion? And they will continue to spend the money ineffectively.

It is generally considered to be smart budgeting to put money aside in good years that you can tap into if a catastrophe (personal level - accident or unemployment, State level - Mt. St. Helens, serious economic downturn) occurs. If we pay into it in good years, we don't get tapped for it when we can least afford it (or have the state borrow it and pass it on to our children). It's just a fiscally responsible way of handling our money.

Yes, it is responsible for individuals and government to save for a 'rainy day'. I personally take a bit of my paycheck every month and put it into savings for that very reason... however; I don't force my employer to pay me more so that I can afford to save. I use the money I already make wisely so that a portion is left to save. The government should already be doing this and shouldn't need more of our money so that they can be 'responsible'.

This resolution doesn't actually say taxes are being raised. If you don't like a future tax, vote against it. In the mean time, don't you think there should be money set aside for lean times?