Washington Votes Forum

 First of all what at all is Conservative about anything you listed above?  Secondly, Reagan would have never supported a new income tax on the people of Washington (who have already been burdened by this liberal government with so many taxes).

Perhaps the legislatures in Olympia need to learn to live within their means.  They brought in even more money last year than the year before, but they have spent even more than that and that is why we have such a budget defecit, so tell me why would you want to give them more of your money?

As for the poor being burdened with unfair taxes I suggest you read this little tidbit that explains taxcuts (it works for taxes in general):

http://theaverageamericanparty.blogspot.com/2008/09/taxes-explained-by-beer.html

TrueSoldier:

 First of all what at all is Conservative about anything you listed above?  Secondly, Reagan would have never supported a new income tax on the people of Washington (who have already been burdened by this liberal government with so many taxes).

 

Reagan worked under an Income tax in California and the Government . He gave tax cuts under those systems , so your understanding of Reagan is completly out of whack with the conversation at hand . I never said raise taxes , i said an income tax was more fair . Your disputing that ?  Second school choice is not a conservative position ? Where have you been . Because minorities get the benefit of conservative values somehow bothers you ?  The fact is I never said i wanted to give Olympia more money , I said an income tax is a better method of collecting taxes . If your concerned about income taxes being used to raise our burden of taxes , that I totally agree with could happen .  But the simple fact our tax burden from what i understand is on the higher levels compared to other states , Evergreen freeom Foundation may help you with "Facts" about this .  So your propsal is to keep doing what we are doing , alloing democrats to run us into the ground while using an antiquated and regressive tax system . Godd for you , what is Reagaisk about that .

 

What would be Reaganisk would be if the Republican party in this state , regardles sof my opinion on this issue or not , stuck up for the principles Reagan stood for ,  as far understanding about how taxes work , I suggest you read our Constitution . It explains the role of government .  The role of government is not to tax folks unfairly in order to stop the meanie liberals from taxing us more unfairly . Stand up for your principles man , your playing slow down the liberals . I am playing to beat them .

 

 

 

 

 

 Way to go!  Let's hear it from our legislators who are truly concerned about Washington residents in this time of economic crisis.

To be honest our government needs to learn to tighten their belts and cut corners just like the citizens have been forced to do!  I don't know anyone who can afford to pay any more than they already are.  I've already contacted my representatives and I encourage you all to do the same!

I was just informed that there is a bill being brought in front of the state senate that is in essence a state income tax.  I realize that it is being pushed through as "Fiscal Reform" and not an income tax.  Here is the bottom line, SB 5104 is a tax the citizens of Washington CAN NOT AFFORD TO PAY!

My husband & I are your typical 2 income household.    Sure we aren't losing our home to foreclosure but we are still struggling just the same!  In October 2008, my niece and her twin infant sons moved in with us because she needed a place to live and could no longer afford to rent a home.  We allowed her to move in hoping that within 6 months she'd be able to pay off the medical expenses incurred from having her two sons and an emergency gall bladder surgery she ended up needing.  Now the company she works for is cutting hours and laying off employees.  The people that work there are fearful that they will not have their jobs in 6 months.  I am a self employed jewelry artist who has seen her business diminish from gross sales of 67,000.00 in 2007 to 33,000.00 in 2008.  After the cost of supplies and expenses that puts my net income at 12,000.00 per year.  I am permanently partially disabled so I can't just close down my business to go out and get any job.  It's a matter of finding a job that's available that I am physically capable of.  My husband is also feeling the pinch at his job as well.  He's seen the company sold, performance bonuses removed, wages frozen, 401K contribution matches stopped and insurance coverage changed.  Our premiums remained the same but our copays are double their previous amounts and the insurance company refuses to cover prescription drugs that were previously covered.  This means that our out of pocket expenses are considerably higher!   With the costs of food, clothing, and energy on the rise just where do you think this money is going to come from?  I know this family doesn't have it! 

I realize that there are programs legislators are trying to save but now is not the time to put another burden on the taxpaying citizens of Washington.  It has become a constant struggle just to meet our daily expenses.  There is no extra for entertainment or luxuries.  Businesses are closing daily and more and more people are losing their jobs.   Unemployment is skyrocketing.  Rather than adding more financial burdens to the hardworking taxpayers perhaps you should figure out how to spend what you've got more efficiently or do without just like the rest of us!

 Gosh I am SO GLAD that we voted Chris Greguire back into Goverment for WASH STATE.  I have lived here my entire life and want to move so badly becuase of the STUPID things she has done.  OMG!  Really!  We need another tax like we need another hole in our heads!  So they must not want ANYONE to work in this state!  Let's all go on welfare & / or other state assistance and then they won't get ANY money from us!!!  This is a JOKE!

 Seems grosly naieve to say there are no taxes on food ( Gas Tax) rent (I raise your rent with property tax increase) medicine ( lower pay to accomodate ins costs) medical services (every business raises its prices to accomodate higher costs) Mr. Engr, you must have a Govt job.

Here's my latest thought...

Let's cut spending where it isn't necessary and yes I'm sure if our elected officials look hard they can find places they can cut costs.  I realize this may cause programs that people rely on to get cut.  Families do help each other in times of need.  We don't mind giving our fellow man a hand up, we object greatly to giving handouts though!  Let's also cut payroll taxes for both business and their employees.  This would be a cost cutting measure that most business could use right now.  Because they would be spending less, they could now afford to keep some of those employees they are laying off.  Lower payroll taxes for the employees would also put more money into the publics pocket which means they would have more money to spend.  We could stimulate our own economy because people would have more money to spend without creating more debt.  The other benefit to this is, that it could potentially put those employees who now have more money into a higher tax bracket which would mean they would pay more or get less back.  Which in turn would give the government more so they had more to spend in the end.  I'm betting that building the little guy up would work faster & better than taxing them further.  I realize this isn't typical thinking but now is the time to get creative in ways that build our country up to a stronger more sound way of living instead of causing us to spiral down that whirlpool faster!

 Here is the solution to the state income tax:  Vote the people who keep bringing it up out, in this case Sen. Rosa Franklin, (D-Tacoma).  IF the opponent in the next election doesn't bring the point out that she proposed a state income tax, then don't vote for that person, vote for the one that does and is opposed to a state income tax.

Only by voting will we bring down these self-centered oligarchs who are busy trying to justify their existence both on earth and in Olympia will we bring the government back to the people.

Of course, if you do like a state income tax, keep voting for these people and slowly let them bleed you dry. 

In my opinion, it's the people who can't understand how unbalanced taxes are that are the self-centered ones.

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/wa%20pr.pdf

I want money going to schools, roads, water systems and the rest of the physical, legal, social and economic foundation that keeps our society together.  That's the role of government, to secure and maintain the foundation.

Of course, keep voting for people who support your values.  If low taxes are what we value, then we will continue to see our society self-destruct.

 And Washington States' tax system will be even more regressive if the State income tax is mandated. What the folks that try to make the regressive tax argument fail to notice is that this law does nothing to adequately repeal exisiting taxes at the center of the regressive tax debate. Repeal sales taxes and property taxes, and only then one can argue that an income tax could more evenly apply the tax burden over all classes.

I too want the State to spend money on roads, infrastructure, schools, and the rest of those things the keep our economy strong. However Olympia has been careless with our tax dollars. Gregoires' spending us into an 8 billion dollar hole is proof of that. Yet during the election she said over and over that we do not have a defecit, instead we have a surplus. And many people believed those campaign lies.

In our household when times are tough, we tighten the belt, and do our best with the money we have. This is how most families function. But in Gregoires' Olympia they simply keep up the wasteful spending. There is too much to even start a list of the ridiculous things Olympia puts in the budget. Everyone should take a look at the budget carefully, and be prepared to be outraged.

And if this income tax gets through, no one is immune from the regressive taxation. .....But at least we will have all sorts of horrible art at highway overpasses, criminal offender centers, in woods at the Sea Tac runway, and at the dumps.

If  Chadlupkes  is worried that people who want low taxes are those making our society self-destruct,he needn't worry about Washington.  Washington is run by Democrats who like to raise taxes, particularly income taxes because, as we have seen recently, they don't pay them.

What we really need are term limits and a restriction on voting to those who actually pay more taxes than they game the system for.  If we could remove from the voting rolls, those who are simply voting for people who promise the most, we could really have a non-self-destructive society.

So why then does the Office of Financial management in their Fiscal Note on this bill tell us that "SB 5104 imposes a tax on all taxable income, reduces the state sales tax, and eliminates the state property tax."?  Maybe because "Part XI, Reducing the State Sales Tax" says specifically that the sales tax is reduced from six and five-tenths to three and five-tenths?  Maybe because "Part XII, Eliminating the State Property Tax" requires that the state portion of the property tax be eliminated in calendar year 2011?

Do you actually believe that state spending has caused the deficit?  An 8 billion dollar hole is proof that tax revenue from existing regressive taxes have failed to generate the money necessary for the expenditures and programs that the citizens of our state have approved through their representatives in Olympia.  We can tighten our belts as a family all we want, but eventually it often comes down to trying to find a better paying job.  For a government agency, this translates to finding additional revenue sources.

Maybe it would help to actually read the proposed legislation instead of relying on talking points generated by people who would rather see our kids fail in school and survive on a minimum wage until retirement than pay their share of what keeps our state moving forward.  I'm just as outraged that people have been listening to these talking points instead of actually looking at reality.

Thanks to libertarian fools like Eyman, raising taxes in Washington is more difficult than ever.  Anything above a 1% increase requires a supermajority in Olympia now, while inflation is at least double that.  That means that the government contractors don't get opportunities for bids because we have to pick and choose which projects to fund, meaning that the people who actually do the work go home to their families without a paycheck.

If you want to limit the ability of people to vote based on their income, which is essentially what you are saying, then you're targeting over 50% of the people of Washington State.  Sounds like Burke:

The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a working tallow- 
chandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person — 
to say nothing of a number of other more servile em- 
ployments. Such descriptions of men ought not to 
suffer oppression from the state ; but the state suffers 
oppression, if such as they, either individually or collec- 
tively, are permitted to rule.

Silly me, I always thought this was what we fought the Revolutionary War against.

It reduces the state sales tax (for now, by legislation) and eliminates the property tax (for the future, by legislation) BUT that never means that when the next or any other future profligate legislature needs more money for its spendthrift ways, it can't (and won't) raise the sales tax again or reinstitute the property tax.  The only safe way for voters to think about this, is a constitutional change to permit an income tax is to also eleminate the property tax in the constitution and set hard limits on sales tax rates and income tax rates in the constitution.

Anything else merely encourages the legislature (and governor) to tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, and spend in order to buy the votes necessary to keep themselves in power.

The reason that they won't put limits on the property and sales taxes into the constitution is that THEY know the limits that they have proposed are ephemeral, not real.

In answer to your question, Chadlupkes, YES, I believe that state spending has caused the deficit.  Kids are failing in school, not because of too little spending but because teaching the the 3 "R" is no longer the basis of our public school curiculum,  If the government were not continually meddling in commercial affairs, maybe employers could raise wages, or if the government would stop illegal aliens from entering the country, there would not be an endless supply of people prepared to take minimum wages.

I would support a constitutional change as you describe.  Let's put the income tax rate in the Constitution so it can only be changed by a supermajority of the Legislature AND a supermajority of the people.  Sounds good to me.  How do we get started?

By what standard do we measure performance in schools, either by the teacher or the student?  Is it test scores, or the ability of a graduated high school student to be able to get into a career that pays their bills, or a college graduate the ability to get a job that will pay off their school loans AND their bills?

If our government did not support labor, employers would reduce wages, not increase them.  That's not meddling in commercial affairs, it's ensuring that we have a financial foundation for our families.  And if we would show through strong social safety nets that minimum wage is something that our own kids should be proud to make, maybe they would be willing to take the jobs that immigrants are taking.

I am suggesting that people who vote should have an income from something other than government benefits (welfare, food stamps, etc.)

If the hair-dresser or a working tallow-chandler were performing a service that people wanted, they would pay him (or her) a wage to do that work.  (I'm not sure but what I'll do any tallow-chandling that I need without hiring it out but that's just me.)  I think they should pay some taxes on their wages.  Then, of course, they (if they are non-felon citizens) should be voting, even if they make minimum wage.

What bugs me is those who do not work (at least at legal jobs - drug dealers, burglars, auto thieves, etc. need not apply) but eke out an existence on welfare and vote for those who promise them higher welfare benefits.  There are, of course, those who immigrate to this country after their working careers elsewhere, and are granted citizenship and social security when they paid in nothing.  Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme had absolutely nothing on Social Security.

But, of course, this is getting off the no-on-state-income-tax subject.  If 40-50% of the American voting public pays no income tax (I believe those are the approximate numbers), and therefore would not pay a state income tax, then they have a natural interest in shifting the tax burden onto the remaining 50-60 % who would be paying all of the state income tax.  Their primary interest becomes in seeing how much they can get from the government.  I am very concerned that we may actually see that in the next four years, we may reach the turning point when more than 50% of the voting  public actually pays no income tax federally (and therefore also in Washington (if we are stupid enough to allow it.))  Having 50% of the voting public electing our government officials based on who promises the most benefits to be paid by the minority of tax-payers is a sure-fire way to destroy society.

I thought we fought the Revolutionary War against "Taxation without Representation."  If those who pay the taxes no longer elect the representation, that is what we will have.

<i> If our government did not support labor, employers would reduce wages, not increase them.</i> 

No kidding!  If the government eliminated the minimum wage, then there would be more legal jobs available for people just entering the job market, for retirees looking to pick up a little bit of money on the side, and for those needing work between permanent jobs.  Why do you suppose illegal immigrants come here in the first place?  Many of them are paid under the table, and for good reason:  Not only can the employer pay less in wages, he or she also can avoid paying other expenses as well.  If there is an accident at the workplace, is the illegal employee likely to sue or file for workmans' comp?  Not if he fears being deported!  The effect of most government regulation is to drive up cost of doing business and therefore to stifle job growth. 

If the labor supply is not there, then wages will increase naturally in an attempt to attract workers.   

I claim that the constitutional change (eliminate property taxes in the constitution and limit sales and income tax rates in the constitution) that we (chadlupkes and I) now both support, would never be supported by the legislature because their interest in is collecting more money from the taxpayers, not providing any sort of "tax fairness."

Aside (unrelated to state income tax) to answer question from chadlupkes about education:  I do have to be careful since my spouse is a retired public school teacher but a number of years ago, she told me that she could during one year, tell within a few days of the start of the school year which teacher of the previous grade each student had.  Some were prepared for her grade level and some were not.  All of those who were not had had one teacher the year before.  However, there is no incentive for anyone to rid the schools of teachers who are totally incompetent.  They keep messing up kids lives until they reach 65 (and the teachers' union will fight to the death to keep it that way.)  She also had an incompetent principal for several years.  Again there was no incentive to remove him.

Yet another problem in our schools is the disciplinary process.  It takes so much paperwork and time to document the problems that just a few problem children can cause, that most teachers won't bother.  This is aggravated by the policy (at least in her former district) that each child got to start over with a teacher change or a semester change.  My spouse might have been able to get an unruly performer out of the classroom for the last couple of weeks of a semester so teaching could be done, but the process started all over each semester.  She retired as soon as was legally possible.

Since I am totally off topic already, I'd like to be afforded the opportunity to take the high school WASL.  I'd like to see what my capabilities are against what we require of current students.  I'll gladly pay the cost of administering and grading the test to see how well I could do.  If I do really well (as I expect I would given my excellent (long ago) public school education and superb private college education, I might want to suggest that we administer the WASL to all government employees to weed out those who are not competent to pass a tenth-grade competency test.  (Note:  This would include legislators who think the income tax is a reasonable idea to get back (somewhat) on topic.)

Second aside to another of chadlupkes's ideas: The government should not be in the business of supporting anyone.  There should be laws prohibiting force and coersion and those should be striclty enforced.  I believe that employers will raise wages to attract good, hard-working and competent employees because it is in their own best interest to do so.  There may be a few whose greed would try to depress wages but since they have no way to coerce their good employees to stay, the good employees will leave for a better chance.  An employer with poor to bad employees will not be in business long (if the government doesn't subsize him.)  I would certainly hope that no parent would encourage his or her child to work for minimum wage.  Minimum wage (if we really need it) should be only for those just starting out to learn the responsibility, skills, and work habits to make them worthwhile to hire and employ at a wage commensurate with their value to an employer.  Of course, there are also those who might make the choice to work at minimum wage (or significantly less than their maximum potential wage) because they strongly believe in a cause that their employer is promotiing,  I could think possibly of community organizers with Harvard law degrees who believe in something larger than themselves and choose to work for that goal.  (It helps to have a spouse who makes a whole lot of money to support you of course.)

People who survive on welfare still pay sales tax, which goes to help pay for schools and the general fund which pays for parks, roads, etc.  People who survive on government benefits still pay rent, part of which goes to property taxes, which pays for school districts, water systems, sewer systems, and the rest of the county services.  Should those people not be able to vote for school board members, city council members, and other legislative or executive positions that control where those tax dollars go?

I have a personal disagreement with taking cash from one person and giving cash to another person.  That is not the role of government in a healthy society.  The fact that we have so many people requiring direct help from the government shows that our society is not healthy.  It's healthy when the unemployment rate is between 2.5% and 3%.  Having it be upwards of 8%, or higher depending on whether we count people who are not receiving benefits because they have given up on the job market, is just insane and shows just how far these economic policies have pushed us.

There is a big difference between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security.  A ponzi scheme is an investment scam.  Social Security is an insurance policy against disability and the hazards of old age.  And the Social Security system is part of our social foundation, with the working generation ensuring the security of the older generation.  I gladly pay into that, knowing the problems.  It is supposed to be a balanced system, with workers today paying for the benefits paid out today.  And it was from when it passed in the 1930's to the 1980's when people realized that the Baby Boomers were going to start to retire in the late 2000's (like, now), and we needed a way to boost the balance in the Social Security accounts to save up for the Boomers.  This passed under Reagan in 1983.  The money in that account was invested in special 30 year bonds, allowing the federal government to spend it freely, reducing the visible debt.  It's a lie.  In my opinion, Social Security funds should be invested in something stable, and the US Dollar doesn't qualify.  Gold might.

Whether someone qualifies for a return under the Federal Income Tax should have no affect or influence over what they owe under a State Income Tax, except that the state tax is deductible from federal.  If everyone in Washington paid the income tax in a payroll tax, problem solved.  Tax Returns should be handled by the Feds, not the state.  I actually don't like the federal return system either.  We should all be paying our share of the taxes, with that tax revenue going to contractors hired by the government to secure our foundations.  We don't need returns, and we don't need deductions.  We need our roads to be drivable, our health care system to work for everyone, and our legal system to properly represent everyone.

As a citizen of this country I AM the government.  That's what a vote is, and that's what it means.  If we don't like the way things are going, we can vote to change them.  Which we did on November 4th last year.

The phrase "taxation without representation" was a call to arms against a corporation, the British East India Company, which had paid lobbyists to convince the British Parliament to pass a tax bill that put their imported tea at a major advantage when put against local production in the North American colonies.  It was the Wal-Mart of the day trying to kill domestic industry and keep people from freedom.  That's what the Boston Tea Party was all about, a reaction against an attempt to destroy local production using "free market" forces twisted by high powered lobbyists.  We fought the Revolution so that local producers of goods and services could have control over their own lives, instead of being virtual slaves in a colony of an Empire.

 After reading 5854, I understand the reason of a state income tax.  It is just another way to Californicate Washington.  Welcome to the NEW northern California state of Washington.

Will the last person leaving due to the legislature Washington please turn the lights off?  After all we don't want too much water rushing down the Columbia, it might be bad for the fish.

 M_DragonKnight: I read 5854 as well and have to ask why public hearings are scheduled BEFORE fiscal notes (what the bill costs the taxpayer) are prepared.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Federal environmental laws, rules, and regulations will also come into play and combined with what Washington State wants to do, I wonder how we are going to pay for it all considering more and more people will be in the poorhouse and looking to government for assistance but there will be fewer people making enough money to pay the outrageous taxes needed to fund these outrageously expensive programs.

 Okay do an income tax. But then eliminate all private land and homes from any sort of tax since it is criminal and unjust anyway.

I guess we all heard wrong about no new taxes, during the elections.

5salive:

You heard right during the campaign when the politicians told you that now "was not the right time to raise taxes" because those politicians were trolling for votes.  On the campaign trail is never the right time to raise taxes.  Right after the election is the right time to raise taxes because the politicians are counting on you to forget all about it ib two years when they want you to vote for them.  As long as the memory of the American voter is measured in 30 minute sitcom time (with 10 minutes out for commercials), we will never get to throw the bums out.

What is needed is term limits but they will never be even put up for a vote because professional pokiticians despise them (which is the very best argument for them.)

Dear Chadlupkes:  I really enjoy this back and forth but I fear we stray from the state income tax quite a bit.  Nevertheless, I'll take the bait.  People who care only about the state income tax should probably skip the rest of this post; others might like to look at the post from Feb 9, 2009 at 7:09 AM.

People who are "paying sales tax" from welfare benefits are using my money (and I presume yours since you appear to be a taxpayer instead of a welfare recipient.)  I disagree that they need to have a say in who doles out money for welfare; in fact, giving them a say preverts the system because they vote for those who promise the most in welfare benefits and thus take even more of our money.  My rule would be that unless you are a net payer of taxes (i. e. you pay more taxes than you receive in direct government welfare payments, you don't get to vote.)

One of the reasons that we can have 8% unemployment is that it is profitable to people to exist on welfare and unemployment.  Since they last so long, one doesn't have to start looking for a job or can be very fussy about the type of job one will take for 39 weeks (or hawever long the benfits last now.)  Extending them merely postpones the time until one NEEDs a job and thus encourages more unemployment.  I think we demonstrated fairly conclusively that if we pay young girls to have babies, we have (and continue to) destroy the American family.  Until the Great Society was instituted in the 1960's, a higher percentage of Blacks were married than Whites.  Whites, with the Great Society, destroyed the Black family and with it the chance for Blacks to rise to the middle class.

A Ponzi Scheme is one in which you pay out profits/income to early investors out of the investments of newer investors.  In fact, retirees of the 1930's paid in absolutely nothing but reaped the benefits of government Ponzi scheme largess.  After the original workers had paid for their parents (since life expectancy was much less in those days (about 65), they started collecting from their kids.  Now with life expectancy (how long to pay out) 20 years longer, and there being more and more retirees, the scheme can't last much longer.  This goverment Ponzi Scheme will last much longer than a normal one because the government has simited withdrawals to a monthly amount (rather than having a run on the scheme like what happened to Bernie.  There is no stable investment that could possibly absorb the amount of money generated by 12% of all workers paychecks.  If, however, each person were required to buy a IRA or euqivalent (and pick either some bank/broker/etc, to invest it for him,) the money would be spread around various stocks and bonds that could absorb it.

The problem with a payroll tax is that not everyone works for an employer.  The (independent) farmer get a payment once a year (maybe) when the crops come in.  The amount he gets is not income because he has expenses to generate that money (expenses that the employee doesn't have.)  It is very difficult to equitably determine how much of the amount a farmer (or any other self-employed person) receives as reward for his labor (pay) and how much is expense (which is one reason that our federal tax code is so huge.)  (One of the flat tax schemes would be much simpler and probably fairer (but that is not the purpose of any politician as we have seen from this discussion.

My understanding of the Boston Tea Party was precisely that the colonists couldn't produce tea but had to import it from a British monopoly so it was an easy tax for the British to collect and the colonists regarded it as a necessity for their way of life.  There was no tax on locally produced tea because there was none.  The British knew that is they tried to tax something that could be produced locally, it would be smuggled or produced and no one would buy the imported product.  The British also tried to tax molasses (for the production of rum - another necessity) but the colonists produced 10 times the rum compared to the amount of molasses on which taxes were paid because of smuggling.  "Taxation without representation" meant that while citizens in Britain got to vote for the politicians who wrote their tax laws, the colonists had taxes imposed on them and while they considered themselves British citizens, but no representation in the British Parliament

I don't know that I'm enjoying this as much as you are.  We're probably both repeating talking points that we have heard from our sides of these arguments, and what I see wrong with your comments and facts is mostly due to my core values and how I see things, not necessarily what those facts are.

So, parents with children in school should have no voice or vote in who hires and fires teachers, and thus no chance to influence how well their children are taught so they can reach for their potential.  People who fall on hard times and lose an income should have no voice or vote on who in government is responsible for helping them get back on their feet.  People who lose their jobs should also lose their house, their car, the education of their children, their access to health care, and should join the people that I see on the streets of Seattle begging for spare change.  How about we require that farmers release their extra inventory to allow all of these people to sell apples on the street.  That seemed to work in the 1930's.  That's what I hear from your statements.  That's the end result that I see from your policy ideas, and frankly I find them fundamentally unamerican and not worthy of consideration.  My grandmother worked at a grocery store at Pike Place Market in the 1930's.  My grandfather came over from Sweden and was one of the people standing in the bread and soup lines that she helped at.  You will never convince me that people who are having trouble making ends meet don't deserve the help they need to get back on their feet.  What you are declaring is core conservative philosophy, saying that those who are worthy to rule have proved themselves by already being at the top of the ladder.  Anyone below that is unworthy just because of their existing station in life.

We have a recorded 8% unemployment because it is worth more money to companies to lay people off work than to keep them employed so they can pay their mortgage.  If a business is not getting a profit out of an employee, the employee loses the job.  Our business model is that any expense must be justified by a return higher than that expense, and that includes labor costs.  People are commodities, labor is inferior to capital.  That's what Lincoln was arguing against in his first annual message to Congress.  "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."  As a body representing the people, Congress and government have their first and top priority the security of those who labor to produce, because without that security, production fails and our nation falls.

It is not in the interest of our nation for tax money to be taken from one person and given to another.  Nor is it in our interest to have employers release 600,000 workers to the street in one month.  Before unemployment was passed, the people who were gathering the most political strength were people who were repeating Marx and Mussolini.  When the government stepped in and provided a financial foundation that enabled people to buy food and shelter, those preachers lost their power.

Your statements putting race on the table are further dividing our discussion into "us" v. "them".  I won't take that bait, because its a poison fruit.

The only thing making Social Security even look like a Ponzi Scheme is the refusal of part of the working generation to agree to take responsibility for anyone else.  And by putting that refusal into political ideology, it makes it very difficult for people who want to provide help to people through a responsible government the ability to do that.  You don't seem to want to let me add my share to the pot so that my parents and your parents can continue to live in peace in their retirement.  You don't want to allow the government to help children who are disabled from birth, or whose parents are killed, or men and women who are disabled through injury or disease.  You seem to be saying that those people "should have" saved enough money to pay for their own care, or that those children should have parents rich enough to pay for their care, or should have saved up enough so that if they are lost in an accident their children don't have to worry about things, or ...  Again, FUNDAMENTALLY UNAMERICAN.  In my opinion.

I would support a flat tax.  With no deductions.  No loopholes.  Every cent of income reported, every penney of taxes paid by everyone.  Academic fiction.  Kennedy lowered the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 70% because he was IN that tax bracket and he knew that everyone in his class could get out of paying most of their taxes because of the loopholes in the law.  He lowered the tax rate and closed the loopholes, and tax revenue went up.  Reagan though he could lower it from 70% to 25% and see the same thing, but he opened so many loopholes it crushed his plans and he had to spend our Social Security to keep the government going.  That's history.

Tea houses were as common then as coffee houses are today.  And merchants from all over the world were arriving in the harbors carrying tea that was bought and sold.  The colonies were starting to grow their own as well.  You're right on the fundamentals.  If someone pays taxes, they should have representation in the legislative bodies that determine those taxes.  Which brings us back to the second paragraph.  Should people who don't pay federal income tax also be exempt from property and sales tax?  How would you track that?  Doesn't that put the lower incomes at an advantage?

Getting back to a Washington State Income Tax, this bill (5104) isn't going anywhere.  There are no hearings in the Ways and Means committee, the leaders of the House and Senate are not going to touch it, and the people wouldn't approve the Constitutional Amendment that would be required.  It was introduced because Senator Franklin believes strongly enough in her values to put it on the table for discussion by us, not by the Senate.  If you're really afraid of an Income tax, don't worry.  There is a decade or more of work that needs to be done before supporters of the idea can get the media and public backing to make it happen.  But I honestly believe that if it doesn't happen, 30% budget shortfalls will be a drop in the bucket.

Alot of text. I don't have that much to say, except to offer that I have lived in two other states, (including California) where there was a state income tax. Neither time did it seriously affect me, or my husband. We got refunds along with the federal income tax. 

The amount taken out of each check is so small compared to federal...I mean...what are we talking about, really?

And if it would help the state get back on its feet - gee, what's wrong with a combination of reduction in the state government and tax increases? It's not like the government got us here. Many folks were part of the housing crisis, too, or suffered at the hands of bad investments, or lost jobs in the private sectors.

I look at our state and ask, what can I do to help it get back on it's feet? If an income tax is part of the answer, I will consider it. 

 I lived in two other states with income taxes also, and yes there is a difference.  Being taxed once is enough, being taxed twice is against common sense, which by the way, if you do like being taxed, you should read Common Sense by Thomas Paine.

As far as getting the state back on it's feet?  Does it look like CA is on it's feet with the IOUs they gave out instead a tax refund?

DK

 Well I believe a income tax as being more fair then a sales or property tax . but your points are good , who would want to have a budget crisis like California right now . Its not the taxing that has been the problem , its been the spending of state and Federal government .  I bet many of us here besides myself would support a state income tax if we had reps who treated our money like it was our money .

That is precisely the problem.  They treat it as though it were our money and since we are no consequence except every other year in November, they can spend it with wild abandon.  We need them to treat it as though it were THEIR OWN PERSONAL money.

However, we keep on electing them so what can they think but that what happens is what we want.  Since every reformer gets corrupted the longer they stay down there, we need TERM LIMITS !

I really worry about our country when race or any other topic becomes a "poison fruit" that we can not even discuss.  At least we can not discuss some aspects of race.  We may all be able to agree that David Duke was a White racist who should be shunned by anyone in polite society.  However, we seem to be unable to say (although I think we all know) that Jeremiah Wright is a Black racist of equivalent stripe.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are Black racists nearly as bad.  They have so perverted Dr. King's message to make it unrecognizable when it comes from their mouths.

The Flat Tax that is most often talked about is a consumption tax, not an income tax.  The basic idea is that one pays an equivalent to a sales tax of about 20% on everything.  The government sends each person an amount of money monthly roughty equivalent to the flat tax on the things one would buy with a poverty level income.  For example, with a 20% tax rate and a poverty level income of $2000 a month, the government would sent each person a check for $400 each month.  The poor would have to spend $2400 a month to cover their groceries, etc. but with the check they end up just as well off (or as poor off) as they are today.  A middle class person may earn $4000 per month and if he/she spends it all, he/she pays $800 in taxes but the $400 check means the net is $400 and has no income tax at all.  A family of four would get a check for $1600. Is that close to something.  The poor could, in fact, by being frugal actually spend less that the amount of the check and have a net gain.  The big losers in such a scheme are the IRS employees and the tax accountants and tax lawyers.

A flat income tax, on the other hand, fails on the idea of whether one taxes gross income or net income and what is the difference.  To put the grocer on a level playing field with his checkers (who would pay the tax on the size of their paycheck) whereas the grocer gets a much larger gross income but has to pay his checkers, buy the food he sells, and the rent on the store.  A huge portion of our current tax code is spent trying to figure out what belongs in the gross but not in the net income.  That problem doesn't go away with a flat income tax. If one tries to tax the gross income of a grocer (where the net income might be 5% of the gross,) no one could possibly be one.

Anyone who is a strong advocate for their community can be seen as being negative towards other communities.  I don't see Rev. Wright's statements as racist, I see them as cultural.  He was not advocating violence and hatred, he was preaching to his flock about justice.  His statements were completely open to interpretation.  Dr. King preached peace and reparations for past injustice against his people and all people.  What I hesitate to discuss is pointing the finger at "them" and saying that their problems with marriage and family are different from "ours".  It's too easy to slide down the slippery slope towards outright racism when the conversation goes in that direction.  Give people family wage jobs, a good education, a strong social safety net and health, and several generations of economic and family security, and divorce rates go down.  It doesn't matter who we are talking about.

I have concerns about welfare programs from the government that give cash from one person to another instead of focusing on provide a foundation for everyone equally.  But you are describing a monthly tax return equal to a monthly minimum wage paycheck to every person regardless of class.  Which of us is coming at this from conservative principles again?  I'm confused.

Personally, I would apply income taxes to gross income, whether we are talking about individuals or companies.  Right now it seems like we pay personal income taxes on gross, and businesses pay taxes on net, if they pay anything at all.  That doesn't seem fair, but it's possibly based on wrong information.  I see businesses getting huge deductions and hear about them paying little to no taxes, while everyone complains that taxes are too high on individuals.

chadlupkes:

Anyone who is a strong advocate for their community can be seen as being negative towards other communities.  I don't see Rev. Wright's statements as racist, I see them as cultural.  He was not advocating violence and hatred, he was preaching to his flock about justice.  His statements were completely open to interpretation.

I tried to look up Rev. Wright's quotes and from what I found, i will have to apoligize for calling him a racist (as long as we agree that a racist is someone who thinks that one race is better than another.)   I was unable to find any quotes from him where he said that Blacks were better then Whites or anything equivalent.  That is not to say I would recommend anyone who believes the discredited rumors that the CIA distributed crack to Blacks or that the U. S. Government created HIV/AIDS to kill Black people listen to the man.  His rhetoric will not improve race relations in the U. S.

I believe that if one gives some one else a family wage job, a good education, etc., they will not value it nearly as much as if the person earns it himself.  Was your mother "given" her job or did she demonstrate that she was the best person for it and earn it and work very hard to keep it?  Did she and your father make you get an education and work hard in school?  Of course, I don't know you but I suspect they (like most immigrants) worked very hard to give their child(ren) a chance at a better life.  Although my parents were native born, I, and my siblings, were expected to study hard, get good grades, and keep out of trouble.  Of course, we were not subjected to being told we were acting Black (or White) by our peers if we got good grades.  Speaking good English was not denigrated as I understand that it is in some areas in our inner cities today.  I certainly believe that Bill Cosby is correct that Whites can not solve the problems in (parts of) the Black community but it must be leaders like Rev. Wright (and Pres. Obama)  who can get over the past sins and look for the opportunities that have been made available, esp. since the 1960's.  Get an education, speak good English, wait until you are married to have children, and work hard have been the recipes for advancement in this society. Those opportunities are (now) available to all in this country and you don't have to have the intelligence and charisma of Pres. Obama to make a good life.

I would actually blame the mainstream media and their love for controversy as having a prime responsibility for the state of our Black community.  Rather than put Bill Cosby, Prof. Thomas Sowell, and Justice Clarence Thomas up as spokesmen and role models for Blacks, they are given Rev. Wright, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton.  The Great Society with its Aid to Dependent Children which made it profitable for a poor girl (of whatever race) to drop out of school, have babies and live off welfare has severely hurt all of the poor but Blacks most of all since they were more of the poor and just getting chances when the Great Society was started.

Anyway, it is good that you were able to grab the "poison fruit" and actually discuss race. Thank you.

Who is talking about giving anything away?  Nothing is free in this world, we've just gotten so unable to show people where opportunities come from, it's easier just to claim that they don't have to value what they are given.  Jobs are offered to people who show they can do the job.  But if we as a society have a choice of "giving a job" to someone as an alternative to seeing them turn to crime or begging on the street, which of those two options is worth more to our society?  Through the act of learning and doing work, people can find the value in themselves.  I believe it is of value to the society to encourage that and I'm willing to put resources, financial and otherwise, to open those doors.

groovyjoker:

It's not like the government got us here. Many folks were part of the housing crisis, too, or suffered at the hands of bad investments, or lost jobs in the private sectors.

And, pray tell, whose fault is it when the state spends more money then it takes in?  The housing crisis, and loss of jobs are a very recent phenomonon, and as someone who was here during the 70's and 80's (which is how this depression should be compared to, as shown by the unemployment figures), the state tightened it's own belt and raised taxes in other areas and invested in WPPSS (the bankrupted nuclear power plants for all of you transplants),  This is also the time WA state become known the highest taxed state for buying gas (and no I'm not if favor of the recent proposal of another 14 cents a gallon tax).  There was no talk of a state income tax.  Those who did did so at the risk of being lynched. 

So, if the state isn't at fault, you must be talking about the people, which is my point exactly.  The people at fault are those in the  legislatrure who decide how to spend the money and how to raise the taxes.  Vote the scumsuckers out.  It has been 20 years of the same garbage only some names have been changed and look what is has done to the state.

Smoke police, highest gas tax, sub-standard schools, the highest B&O tax in the state, some idiot wants to reintroduce Grlizzlies into the cascades because they look pretty in wildlife speicials, and the beat goes on.  We can debate this garbage on this and other forums until doomsday (or until a terrorist, er freedom fighter takes out Seattle), and not get anything resolved.  What matters is our ability as a people to stand-up and be heard.  And voting is the only thing the bat-rastards understand.  Vote them out.  Vote independent, vote libertarian, just vote, but not for the same who made this mess in the first place.

DK

 Sounds to me like Senator Franklin doesn't want to be re-elected next time around..

We, as voters, need to start weeding the legislature of this infestation of out of touch politicians, who do not represent the people who they are supposed to be....

From what I understand, Senator Franklin has tried several times over her years in office to institute a state income tax.  Everytime she tries, the bill dies but sooner or later she'll get enough people on board to support it.   I contacted my Senator & Reps who oppose further taxation during these times of financial duress and I encourage you all to do the same whether you agree with me or not.  Senator Franklin has not responded to my email to her (read my first post in this thread for details).  It was a courtesy copy of what my Senator & Reps received.   Apparently she thinks since I can't vote for or against her that I am not worthy of a response.  Well, I can volunteer for those who oppose her when she comes up for re-election and I have every intention of doing so!  We don't need people in office who are self serving and aren't willing to make the hard choices (cuts in their pet projects) while families are being forced to make those decisions in their daily lives in order to survive.  We don't need to re-elect people who think that the supply of money is endless.  We need creative thinkers who can come up with decent finanical solutions that will help all instead of just a select few.

For my two cents worth as a Washington Taxpayer, I say this is where we need to draw the line in the sand and remain firm.  This bunch in state government is sorrowfully looking for another way to continue to spend money like drunken sailors after running up a huge debt for our state.  If we reward them with an income tax they'll be interpreting it as a green light to spend and they'll have yet another avenue to increase the money they can take from us.  If we turn them down, they will no doubt try to show us how bad they can make it for us by cutting the things that will impact our lives and make it uncomfortable for some.  Doing so will further demonstrate that they do not have any interest in cutting back where they can, but only where they can get the most misery for us to teach us a lesson.  Case in point; the taxpayer driven reduction in automobile license tabs.  This kind of temper tantrums should serve to strengthen our resolve.  At some point, we need to say "no more!" (Personally I thought it should have been years ago...)

Can you give a specific example of an expense that you would cut?

An income tax can be revenue neutral. Its advantage is that it's less regressive than a sales tax, which disproportionately burdens the poor and middle class.   The distribution of wealth is highly skewed in America, due to tax cuts and (reckless) deregulation.  We need to fund necessary government services. Without government, we'd be hunter-gathererers. We need police, courts, childhood immununization, parks, roads,  seat belts, disaster relief, and numerous other government services.  Repunblicans whine about government spending but when they controlled Congress and the White House, there was unprecedented waste and corruption.

Clarification: I meant: "The introduction of an income tax can be revenue neutral if there are offsetting reductions in the sales tax."