Comments On: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases by Goldy

Comments On: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases by Goldy http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/27/state-supreme-court-to-rule-tomorrow-on-two-thirds-supermajority-requirement-for-tax-increases Comments On: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 18 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 18 May 2013 06:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
And watch the Red Counties wither up and die on the tax-subsidized vine.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:15:50 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
Maybe it's time for an initiative that says all taxes raised in Washington may be spent only in the county in which they were raised, full stop, and in the county of primary residence of the tax payer who paid them.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:11:16 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]> Posted by Bax]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:43:48 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
If you need a simple analogy, let's assume that a family has their rent increased. However, one parent only has a part-time job and doesn't want to work fulltime. Therefore, they don't have enough money to pay for what they need. But hey, they're OK, because they have a balanced budget.
Posted by sarah70]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:34:00 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
@20 - False. A progressive income tax would help those who can't afford paying 17% of their income in sales + property taxes.
Posted by anon1256]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:25:40 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
Washington also has relatively low property tax rates among states...especially given that it wants to be a big spending East Coast style government.

State by state property tax rates:

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfounda…

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:08:18 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]> THE PROPERTY TAX IS A PROGRESSIVE TAX

Among those who do own material amounts of property, concentration is high relative to that of income. The top 10% of income receivers, as income is usually defined and reported, get about 30% of all income. Every study of property owners shows figures in another ballpark altogether.

http://www.masongaffney.org/publications…
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:06:32 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
You understand that property is a form of asset.

No...apparently not.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:00:21 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
More proof that an income tax won't help. Look at Illinois, doubled their income tax, still a mess. WA state at least has a balanced budget.
Posted by Thanks for defeating your own point]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:51:31 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]> Posted by anon1256]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:18:56 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
Washington is one of only 7 states -- out of 50 -- that doesn't have an income tax. We're in at least as bad financial shape as any of those states that do have an income tax. And of course it should cover everyone; income is income.
Posted by sarah70]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:01:14 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
What is it about the number "65%" you don't understand? Voters know an income will eventually cover everyone and will simply go to line the pockets of state workers and the SEIU. They trust them as far as they can throw them luckily.

But keep chasing windmills, the moderates will always win this one.
Posted by Don Quixote]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:48:11 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
Well, you're fine proof that legalized marijuana is working wonders.
Posted by We smokem idiot pipe]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:45:10 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
That's unrealistic and unrealizable. WA is not TX. WA has Tim Eymean scaring the fuck out of middle-income earners. TX does not.

Middle-class voters are the most potent force in our politics. Frighten them and they will vote you out of office. That's why the SCOTWA punts. And that's why, even if they didn't, the Legislature will not increase property taxes.

A statewide income tax is more realistic and more fair. It can pass, if you frame the issue properly and outfox Tim Eyman. You have to control the message and not let him spin it into an attack on the bourgeoisie.

NY has an income tax, and they have billionaires aplenty. You will notice that the so-called "job-creators" did not flee the Upper West Side in favor of WA as a tax haven. Nor did they flee to Dallas.

Your idea is simply unrealistic. Its impractical, and it would never get passed even if it could work, which it can't. I'm sorry, but there are times when you have to shelve idealism in favor of pragmatic reality.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:38:34 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]> Posted by Rotten666]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:34:12 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]> Posted by sarah70]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:21:40 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
Property tax is a hugely regressive tax. Everyone who rents pays it, because their landlords pass it on in the rent. However, they don't get to take it off their income tax, as the investor owners do.
Posted by sarah70]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:20:21 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
Texas has 2x the property tax of Washington state, no income tax and a 6.5% sales tax. It also made #1 on Forbes best jobs list. Texas has a much broader middle class than Washington. The people who would be hit the most by even a slight, say .25% increase, are the billionaires not the middle class.

Property tax is the only fair way to fund state and social services and transit.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:58:51 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
Asking the poor to shoulder all the burden through sales tax is immoral.

Asking the middle class to shoulder the burden through property tax increases is slightly more fair, but will be met with opposition as the middle class are both the most numerous and the most politically dominant force in our politics. Tim Eyman could not exist were it not for a frightened middle class trying to hold on to what its got. If he had to rely on the upper class alone for support (many of whom such as Bill Gates are progressives), he wouldn't get enough votes to get anything passed. He succeeds by feeding off bourgeois fears of losing everything. Any discussion of property tax increases will only rattle the already terrified middle-income households.

The only thing left is a statewide income tax, if it's both graduated and progressive, and if you can convince the middle class that mission creep will not lead to them losing all the wealth they're struggling to accumulate and hold on to.The latter condition is the difficult part, and it's where the Left has faltered in the recent past.

Will the SCOTWA punt? Given that judges are elected in this state, yes, for fear of agitating the bourgeoisie. Is the 2/3 requirement unconstitutional? Certainly, but it hardly matters. Even if they did strike it down, the legislature won't pass a property tax increase. They might pass sales tax increases, but so you want that?
Posted by Tacoma Traveler]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:52:38 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
(Answer: They hear their master's voice.)

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:47:52 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]> Posted by TechBear]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:29:31 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
Regarding the practical effect of tomorrow's announcement from the Supreme Court, it's not likely to have an impact on tax policy for at least a couple of years because the Republican majority in the state Senate won't pass a tax bill with even a simple majority.
Posted by SuperSteve]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:12:23 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
Seems to work fine; budgets are balanced, unemployment is dropping, investment rising. The great state of WA rejects your tax and splurge, extreme liberalism and embraces the moderate path. Olympia knows that, this great state will never be so stupid as to introduce an income tax.
Posted by Sugartit]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:07:26 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]> Posted by sarah70]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:57:37 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases]]>
If they want to punt badly enough, they will find a way. Someday the voters of Washington are going to have to face the fact that we have a regressive, unworkable tax system. Until then, they will get the government they pay for, and they will get it good and hard.
Posted by Ballard Pimp]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:39:52 -0800 The Stranger