Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, February 27, 2013
Olympia State Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement for Tax Increases
Posted by Goldy on Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:31 PM
The Washington State Supreme Court has announced that it will likely release an opinion tomorrow morning on League of Education Voters v. State, the constitutional challenge to the relentless string of initiatives requiring a two-thirds legislative supermajority to pass tax increases. I'm not likely to sleep well tonight, but if I had to wager, I'd say they toss it out.
As I've previously written Gerberding v. Monroe is a fucking roadmap for deciding LEV v. State. The precedent is clear. So if the justices rule on the underlying issue, I am fully confident that they will rule the two-thirds supermajority requirement to be unconstitutional.
I'm just not quite as confident that they will have the balls to rule on the underlying issue, for every previous time this issue has come before court, our popularly elected justices have weaseled out by ruling that the issue was not yet "justiciable." Fucking cowards.
Still, it's hard to see them hiding behind justiciability yet again, considering the legal contortions it would require: essentially requiring both houses of the legislature and the governor to violate state law in order to properly bring the issue before the court. So if a majority of the justices have a shred of self-respect, I expect to breathe a sigh of relief after tomorrow's opinion is released.
Stay tuned.
27
@5 "Unfortunately, the east side of Washington gets the services the west side pays for, so our red neighbors don't feel the need for more revenue."
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.
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.
26
Goldy, don't be confident precedent will really matter. Judges make results-oriented decisions. They decide what they want the result to be then come up with a legal justification for it. So if they want the limit to stay, they'll manufacture a reason to make it stay.
25
@20, yes, Washington state has a balanced budget, because it's constitutionally required that we do. That's why we've cut about 10 billion in the last 3 years from our services to Washington state residents. We're due to cut another 1-2 billion this session. We're gutting our state because of balanced budgets and no new revenue.
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.
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.
24
@22 - Flat rate taxation is not progressive, it's regressive. An elderly couple on fixed income who owns a 200k home shouldn't be taxed at the same rate as Bill Gates. Give up the linkage to the reactionary Tax Foundation as if they were an authority on anything other than protecting their rich friends.
@20 - False. A progressive income tax would help those who can't afford paying 17% of their income in sales + property taxes.
@20 - False. A progressive income tax would help those who can't afford paying 17% of their income in sales + property taxes.
23
#18
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…
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…
22
THE PROPERTY TAX IS A PROGRESSIVE TAX
http://www.masongaffney.org/publications…
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…
20
"We're in at least as bad financial shape as any of those states that do have an income tax."
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.
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.
19
Even if the court ruled it unconstitutional, this legislature would never vote for an income tax. Republicans and a number of Democrats would oppose it. Democrats have to clean their house first, which not incidentally is going to demand educating voters about taxes and government. If they don't do it, they'll eventually become irrelevant. Check out the Italian election results to see what happens when traditional parties lose all credibility (an Occupy-like party got 28% of the vote and refuses to collaborate with any other to make Italy governable).
18
Good God, @17, where do you get SEIU in with an income tax? Be a union-hater if you wish but at least make some sense.
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.
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.
17
"A statewide income tax is more realistic and more fair."
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.
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.
16
"WA needs a statewide graduated and progressive income tax. Another important means of generating revenue would be Senator Hasagawa's bill to create a State Bank of Washington modeled on North Dakota's state bank. "
Well, you're fine proof that legalized marijuana is working wonders.
Well, you're fine proof that legalized marijuana is working wonders.
15
11,
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.
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.
12
I thought you were nattering on about an assets tax over the last few years, Bailo. Did you give up on that?
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.
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.
11
#10
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.
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.
10
WA needs a statewide graduated and progressive income tax. Another important means of generating revenue would be Senator Hasagawa's bill to create a State Bank of Washington modeled on North Dakota's state bank.
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?
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?
9
How come Democrats fight this so hard, but never challenge the restrictions on property tax increases?
(Answer: They hear their master's voice.)
(Answer: They hear their master's voice.)
8
Legal contortions? This is basically the same court who ruled that the state's Denial of Marriage was constitutional because there was a "legitimate state interest" in defining marriage as existing for the sole purpose of procreation.
7
@3 - contrary to popular belief, most members of the Legislature are not lawyers.
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.
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.
6
"we have a regressive, unworkable tax system"
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.
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.
5
Unfortunately, the east side of Washington gets the services the west side pays for, so our red neighbors don't feel the need for more revenue.
4
Before we get buried in piling on to the Democrats in the legislature, which seems to be a sport of the ill-informed, what if they had enacted a new tax with 51%? Eyman and his friends would have filed a referendum which would have been voted on the November after enactment, giving the Supremes the perfect excuse to delay; and if the referendum won (as two did last November), the Supremes would punt.
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.
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.
3
Dude, legislators (most of whom are lawyers) obey a law until it's declared unconstitutional BY A COURT. Unless they attempt to enter legislation in order to provide a test case, which I was told happened in this case. Then they don't expect to "pass a law with 51%".
This is the real world and we're not Englishmen following Blackstone.
This is the real world and we're not Englishmen following Blackstone.
2
dude chill out. it's perfectly normal to require a ripe old dispute -- remember Rosa Parks? Yes, she had to sit in the "white" section and get busted for there to be a "case or controversy" under the us constitution. it's right there in article three. it's in hundreds of decisions that say no advisory opinions. similar requirements exist at the state level, too, and the normal thing is for the democrats to have balls, pass a law with 51% or a tax in this case, and go try to collect it, then the taxpayer sues saying hey you violated the eyman initiative. but no, democrats don't have balls.
btw the failure there is more message than anything else. they don't bother to call this minority rule, or pointout our rights include a right to legislation by the majority -- seriously go read the declaration of independence, it's all about king george frustrating our local assemblies -- read some blackstone who says this right to majority rule in parliament is a fundamental right of englishmen....it's always only the right that actually makes their case. so don't blame the court. blame the cowardly democratic legislators who cravenly OBEYED WHAT THEY SAID WAS AN ILLEGAL MEASURE for YEARS before haing the guts to sue.
btw the failure there is more message than anything else. they don't bother to call this minority rule, or pointout our rights include a right to legislation by the majority -- seriously go read the declaration of independence, it's all about king george frustrating our local assemblies -- read some blackstone who says this right to majority rule in parliament is a fundamental right of englishmen....it's always only the right that actually makes their case. so don't blame the court. blame the cowardly democratic legislators who cravenly OBEYED WHAT THEY SAID WAS AN ILLEGAL MEASURE for YEARS before haing the guts to sue.
1
I seem to remember an attorney member of the Senate telling me that legislation WAS brought before the Legislature -- so it is justiciable. He was disgusted to find several justices still yammering about that.
But even if the Court decides it's unconstitutional, it's unlikely any revenue-raising bills will be passed, because the legislators' constituents would then toss them out.
But even if the Court decides it's unconstitutional, it's unlikely any revenue-raising bills will be passed, because the legislators' constituents would then toss them out.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
In Which Peter Steinbrueck Peforms in Blackvoice by Goldy
-
The Daily Show on Poor, Bullied Christians by Paul Constant
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS