Bush's right wing SCOTUS has said money trumps truth, money trumps justice, money trumps government by and for the people. Get used to it.

So, if they're willing to spend $16 or $17 mm in WA State, maybe what we should do instead is get a bunch of people in other states with citizens' initiative provisions in their constitutions to submit similar bills; make them spend $100 or $150 mm and see how they like them apples.

And given all that, you at the Stranger are jacking yourselves off about the issue why?

Your time would be better spent helping to get us to a progressive tax structure where we wouldn't have to be debating these regressive sales taxes on the backs of the poor as a gimmick to fix the perennial budget crisis.

And you know they would have taxed soda a lot higher, and a long time ago, if the point was to discourage consumption. The purpose of this tax is to patch a hole in the state budget. If you started telling the truth about that then you'd be engaged in a conversation about unjust taxation instead of about the evils of corn syrup.

This whole thing is no different than that stupid "latte tax". We desperately need smarter legislators.

@3: not smarter, merely WILLING TO LEGISLATE.

@3: Agreed that the ideal policy would be a progressive tax structure. So would universal, single payer health care. And street parking prices to ensure about one open space per block. And a use tax on junk food.

From a public health point of view, this 'gimmick tax' is quite a bit more substantive than the latte tax example you offer. There are genuine costs borne by society (including the State health department) for people (poor or rich) eating this crap. Is a use tax--to come closer to covering the costs of the decision to drinking liquid candy soda rather than water--really an unjust tax?

Sure, the general sales tax is an unjust tax. The B&O tax in this state seems a bit unjust to small businesses that cannot weasel their way out like the giants (Boeing). A use tax on something that has external costs otherwise not borne by the user? You have to make that case.

Use taxes are regressive, Jonathan. Republicans and libertarians love use taxes. If we charged every person a use tax in exact proportion to the costs of the all the government services they consumed, the poor would be able to afford nothing. No police, no fire, no health care, no education. Nothing.

The middle class would get damn little either. The structure of wealth in our society is too drastically skewed to make anything other than progressive taxes viable.

You have notice that every budget cycle, the state of Washington is in a state of crisis? This is a state that runs on sales taxes and use taxes. Look how that works out.

A tax structure built on use taxes is a libertarian paradise, with a vast sea of slums and shanty towns surrounding islands of walled and gated communities protected by private security guards, and the whole thing headed for hell in a handbasket.

@7: Yes. I get it. Use taxes are regressive. Hence, I strongly support I-1098. I supported Ron Sims over Gregoire for this same reason. (He was honest, when campaigning for governor, and campaigned on a state income tax; he lost.)

My point: This particular use tax is marginally less regressive than the other option the legislature is politically prepared to consider: an increase in the general sales tax rate.

So, we agree. The legislature is incapable of enacting good policy. This is, I'd argue, a case where they didn't choose the worst possible policy--merely a bad policy.

I'm putting my efforts into passing I-1098 rather than salvaging this bit of foolishness. I suspect you'd agree on that too.

The same argument was used to justify every previous sales tax increase too, Jonathan. All the previous increases were supposedly the only option. All the previous increases were supposedly the only way to preserve desperately needed programs. All the other times they made taxes more regressive, they said it was the only politically feasible option. And they always said some time in the future they would "salvage" the situation. The fact that 1098 has a chance of passing is proof that all those arguments are false: they could have done the job themselves long ago but it was too easy to bullshit liberals into supporting yet another sales tax increase.

So let's say you sign on to more sales taxes "just this once". What happens next time when they come back asking for more? Will you finally draw the line next budget cycle?

I love the argument here:

OHNOES! CORPORATIONS ARE SUPPORTING THE BILL. FUCK THEM.

Meanwhile, Initiatives with little to no corporation funding fail to get on the ballot, partially because of lack of funding.

If Dominic was actually honest for once instead of doing the whole "track the money" song and dance, he'd find out he was actually supporting a heavily regressive tax structure. It's really a win-win for corporations. If it passes, they win for helping it pass. If it doesn't pass, the taxation still rests on the poor. WHEE!!! Aren't politics grand?