Washington Votes Forum

ThinkerFeeler:

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

While it is true that cuts in either sales or property taxes could make an income tax be revenue neutral today, they would have to be put into the constitution to keep them that way.  It might be useful to recall that the federal income tax started out at 2%.  So did our sales tax start at 2%.  The rates will keep rising unless the rates, the amount taxed, the total revenue (except for inflation and population growth), etc. is fixed in the constitution.  If that were done, of course, the politicians would drop it like a hot potato.  They really don't care about tax fairness, tax regressivity, or anything except about how to get more revenue to buy more votes for their reelection.

The only solution is term limits.  If they were not continuously worried about reelection, they might be able to spend time looking at our problems.

ThinkerFeeler:

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

 I've said it once, I'll say it again.  Do you really believe they will lower the sales tax?

Do you really want to have to pay the state on time and wait on your refund only to be told "sorry we don't have the money, but we will give you and IOU."

Why don't the people who want both a sales tax and an income tax go to California, where they have both.  Why californicate Washington, leave Washington for Washintonians.  WE DON'T WANT TO BE ANOTHER CALIFORNIA!

DK

ThinkerFeeler:

Its advantage is that it's less regressive than a sales tax, which disproportionately burdens the poor and middle class. 

Pray tell how do you justify this statement?  If you buy less you pay less tax, the more you spend the more tax you pay.  It is the only truley fair tax the country has.

As for funding government, do you really think the government needs to spend money to tell us the people how good they are?

Do you really think the government should spend jaunts for the governor to fawn over the O?

Do we really need to fund illegals in schools?  (they're breaking the law remember?)

Do you really think the government should spend money to be more like California?

As for unprecedented corruption, where have you been during the first two weeks of the Obama administration?  Oh that's right, the reason dems don't mind income tax is because they don't pay them.   However, your analogy, doesn't hold water as their hasn't been a republican as Governor since Dan Evans, and I don't think the Republicans have ever controlled the senate or the house in the United States, which is what we're talking about, not whatever national paranoia your buying into.  For even bring that up, whatever points your argument may have held (none) were immediatly lost and your posting became null and void. 

DK

 Shut down ORCAA.  Get rid of Governement PR, quit paying the education and health care for illegals (we can't afford the legals), and the rest would be according to an independent audti of state programs which we were suppose to have a year ago.

DK

Yeah, we don't need clean air, and our people are certainly wise enough to stop polluting without any motivation.  That would save $2.4 Million, according to their projected 2009 budget.

And I guess we don't need anyone telling us what our government is doing.

Isn't it the responsibility of the Federal government to identify illegal residents, not the state?  Sure, we provide education to their children, but it's in our Constitution that anyone born on our soil is a citizen of our country.  So, you're saying we don't need to provide our own citizens with an education or health care services?

That review is ongoing, and the first thing we need to do is go through the tax deductions one at a time to make sure that they are gaining more than they are costing.

chadlupkes:

Isn't it the responsibility of the Federal government to identify illegal residents, not the state? 

I thibk it is the primary reponsibility of the federal government to prevent illegals from crossing the border initially and to remove them when they are found, but it is the responsibility of all of us to identify them when they are here.  This would, to me, mean the state before it gives them a driver's license, welfare benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, or releases them from prison.  It would mean hospitals who treat people who then can not or will not pay for their treatment.  It would mean cities and would even mean tax exempt churches.  It would mean individuals and businesses before they hire them to work.

chadlupkes:

it's in our Constitution that anyone born on our soil is a citizen of our country

The actual wording of the 14th amendment is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  There may be legitimate questions of what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" might mean.  For example, if international treaties approved by the Senate are, per Article VI, the supreme law of the land and one of them requires that foreign nationals be allowed to contact their embassy or consulate if apprehended for a crime, are they truly "subject to the jurisdction of the United States?"  Are illegal aliens "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?"  It might be argued that one only becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by agreeing to that  when one applies for legal permission to reside here (which, of course, an illegal has not done.)  Of course, it has been normally agreed, I think, that the clause refers to diplomatic personnel here representing a foreign country and I believe that any children born to such diplomatic personnel are routinely denied citizenship.  I think it has also been argued that members of treaty Indian tribes (which are in some senses recognized as foreign states for the purposes of executing a treaty) may fall under this clause.  It might be a stretch to find that the children of illegals fall under that clause but not nearly as great a stretch as some of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court.

Nathan, thanks for restoring a reasonable tone to the discussion.

Our border is permiable, same as a cell wall in biology.  Objects can flow across that border if they are what the cell needs, and the cell has mechanisms in place to reject anything that does not belong.  The objective of the Department of Motor Vehicles is to ensure that our roads are safe to drive on, and a drivers license is proof that someone has gone through the classes and proved competent to drive on the road without causing a wreck.  There are arguments back and forth about whether a drivers license should be tied to immigration status, and honestly good arguments on both sides.  Personally, I consider safety on the road to be of high enough importance to say that the two things should not be directly connected.

Undocmented workers in our country are here because they are given jobs.  If those jobs were not available to them, they would not be here.  That's why I look at employers and suggest that hiring an undocumented or illegal worker should have penalties as high as those placed on the worker themselves.  Send the undocumented worker back to their home country, and throw the employer in jail for breaking the law.  If we started doing that consistently, there would be no illegal residency problem in the United States.  Canada does that, so does Mexico.  Most countries do.  We don't because we have a powerful business lobby that prevents funding going to enforcing our laws.

I'm not super familiar with how our immigration laws apply to the First People.  I think they are all citizens of the US, with special jurisdiction of Tribal laws within the Reservations.  I know that they have always served in our Armed Forces as equal citizens.

chadlupkes:

Our border is permiable, same as a cell wall in biology. 

But a cell doesn't provide lawyers to the invader to make interminable appeals, force parts of the cell to provide free medical care, give welfare benefits, etc.  Cells simply kill the invader.  Isn't that a concept?

 As the tax laws now stands those that own property, drive cars, and own businesses pay the lions share of the bill.  While those who do not own property, depend on public transportation, and don't work get the benefits but don't get the bill.  I think we should all pay into the system at least a little, and state income tax does just that.

 If the Government wants less of something or in other words to 'discourage it' just tax it more.  As in liquor and tobacco.  The liberal mindset does not seem to get this when it comes to income.  How about economizing and living within your means Washington Legislators, like your constituants have to do?  People are losing their jobs, taking pay cuts, their retirement funds have taken a nose dive, and property value's are in the toilet.  So Creating a State Income Tax is your ingenious answer to make it easier to get your grubby hands on my paycheck?  It's not supposed to be EASY to tax people.  How do these people continue to get elected for Pete's sake?  Fricken Vultures is what they are.

 Sales tax taxes EVERYBODY.  It's a consumption tax.  Once politicians get a hold of taxing your income, they'll NEVER let it go.

 As the law stands now, those who buy things other then food pay taxes.  I own property, and I drive and I do not want to pay property tax.  I am so adamant about this I am looking to move out of state.  IF they ever shut-down sales tax I would not mind, but, they are not. 

And you are right about those who own businesses pay a lion's share of the tax, but guess which state legislatures made that dream-come-true for the owners?  It is my belief that the californicators are against anybody living in the state of Washington so they're pricing people out.  Therefore only the elite if any will be able to life here.  Again, Californication.

It would be better to shut-down some government -"entitlements" like automatic pay raises for the legislature and governor and force the state to balance the budget rather than to expand an overlybloated system and raise taxes to support the state's addiction to money.

I support the recall gregoire movement.  http://www.idiotorliar.com/

DK

 Washington Citizens were warned:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzGsFOO80T8    only it's 8 bazillion now

Taxpayer98422:

As the tax laws now stands those that own property, drive cars, and own businesses pay the lions share of the bill.  While those who do not own property, depend on public transportation, and don't work get the benefits but don't get the bill.  I think we should all pay into the system at least a little, and state income tax does just that.

I think you don't understand how income taxes get set up.  There are healthy deductions which mean that roughly 35-40% of Americans pay no federal income tax and, in fact, many receive back a negative income.  My suspicion is that a state income tax would simply charge some percentage of the federal which would mean that 35-40% would pay nothing.

For renters, it is not the landlord who is "paying" the property tax but it is included in the rent.

 Having lived in this state for 40-plus years now and having watched it deteriorate at a steady pace since the influx of Californicators started coming in, it is no surprise to me that the elitists and humanists are now attempting to drive out the common citizen through increased taxes and more government control. I have been sickened especially in the past ten years as the Locke administration sold us all down the road by giving the unions so much power, including so much money, that is directly funneled right back into the big government pockets of the D's in this state.

 You can't say it any better than than Winston Churchill: 

"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like 

a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

May I suggest the State live within its budget. Yes, I know that will mean 

some cuts but I almost can't afford the taxes on my home now much less 

more taxes.

 Mr Dim Bulb,

Your comment is not only erroneous but is patently offensive.  Labor unions built the middle class, which conservatives have managed to almost eliminate.  California immigrants are by far the minor factor in population growth in Washington.  No one is more elitist than a Republican.  If you don't like it here, move to Montana.  or Florida, original home of the redneck.  Or the Tri-Cities, home of the knee-jerk cronies of Timmy Eyman, that loser Dino Rossi and  the crooked BAW.

Sscott

When you have worked for the state of Washington for 26 years in the budget arena, as I have, you will have a better idea of the real world, my abusive liberal friend. I notice that it is only liberals who feel compelled to name-call and be derisive rather than focus on the facts.

My comments are accurate. You can look up the facts. Thousands of state employees now pay dues to the unions, which were given power by Gov. Locke (who negotiated away such things as seniority) which many state employees who are about to lose their jobs (in spite of paying onerous dues to these unions) could have relied upon in the past. These dues are fed directly back to the liberal democrat party in this state, which if you take a look around you, have not done the citizens here a tremendous amount of good. Record deficits, collapsing infrastructure - impossible to blame conservatives or republicans for any of that in Washington, my friend. Again, having lived here for 40 years, a graduate of the University of Washington, and working the state finance for 26 years - I daresay I have a better grasp of reality than you seem to in this regard.

You are not only wrong, but unable to admit when you are so. Also, your pattern of abuse and insults only continues to prove that the liberal left is unable to deal with the facts.

 HIWATT: I completely agree with you. I worked for the federal government for over 25 years and found the main purpose of the union was to provide a comfortable office with refreshments for those who didn't want to do any work. Managers and supervisor's hands were tied in trying to fire anyone no matter how incompetent, lazy, belligerent and worthless they were.

At least we weren't forced to join the union although that may have changed since I retired. But all employees who actually wanted to work and accomplish something were affected by the union because they are the ones that had to take up the slack for the non-producers.

 Implementing a state income tax isn't the worst plan of the legislator's plans. Climate change regulations are going to make millions of us destitute if they don't kill us first.

HIWATT - This is probably one of the best posts I've seen in this forum.  Cheers and thanks for setting it straight in a very knowledgeable and cordial manner.  SScott

SScott - your post below just sums up completely how well the Democrats marketing works on voters in our state. They want you to believe that all R's are like George Bush/ Cheney and obviously it works.  They sell you on their warm & fuzzy mantra that they are the good guys, saving the planet, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor and that labor unions are really working on behalf of workers. It makes it real easy for people like you to turn around and feel like you're on the "good" team (D's) and call the "other side" (R's) mean names.  Please remember that "your" team has had the control and has spent us into this budget mess.

SScott - your post here is just full of anger, chest-pumping and ignorant name-calling.  For a party that is supposed to be so compassionate, you sure are full of hate.

SScott's post - "Mr Dim Bulb,

 i have a saying i tell people when it comes to voting...if the politicians say it`s something they need, vote against it!

if they come out and tell us it`s not good for the state/country, vote for it! don`t forget...they made the rules, they can change them! whenever they over spend, due to their 'grade school' type power struggle, we, the people, pay for their mistakes!

this lady senator, from tacoma, that`s sponsoring this bill, does it every session! been doing it for yrs...i actually think lisa brown from spokane is the one behind the scenes, pushing it, and the lady senator from tacoma, is just doing what she is told!...c

It is about time this Gov. go away we need to remove her.

If you think this bill only effects the rich think again. The State has tried to give us a state income tax 6 times

since 1889. If you let them get there foot in the door we will have both a state sales tax and state income tax

and be the highest tax state in the country. Lets stop this.

James Nelson Enumclaw, WA.

PS. if we get this I am moving away from this state and Texas will be my home state.