Gov. Chris Gregoire has released a statement regarding Senate efforts to start a debate about a high-earners income tax:
“I recognize the tremendous difficulties that legislators are facing as they craft a budget under these challenging economic conditions. However, as I have stated before, I do not support a state income tax. The new proposal will undoubtedly raise constitutional and legal challenges and probably wouldn’t bring in new revenue in time to address the economic crisis we face.
“I too wrote a budget, and I am keenly aware of the painful choices we must make. I see clearly the faces of Washingtonians hurt by budget cuts. I am looking for wise choices to protect our vulnerable, especially our children, and to make sure we fund K-12 and higher education at appropriate levels so that we come out of this recession stronger. We can’t afford to just ride out this economic crisis and wait for things to turn around. We must emerge from it ready to resume our powerful progress in a 21st Century economy.
“As hard as it may seem in these difficult times, we must make the kind of investments now that will allow us to seize the economic development opportunities that will occur when the state rebounds.
“I look forward to continue working with legislative leaders from both parties to craft a sustainable budget for the next two years.”
I suppose she’s thinking “no income tax, end of conversation,” but I sure hope she’s wrong and that momentum toward an honest debate on a high-earners income tax continues to build.
Yes, the governor’s right that the Kohl-Welles bill and other proposals do indeed raise constitutional and legal issues, and probably would not bring in substantial revenues in time to meet immediate needs… but these needs won’t go away, and now is exactly the time to discuss how we’re going to meet them over the long term. We are in the midst of a crisis. Folks are paying attention. And if we make our arguments carefully and cogently, voters might even be willing to consider new ideas, even if most Olympia insiders are not.
Wow! I cannot beleive I actually agree with the Queen on something. She’s made the right decision unlike the almighty Senator Lisa “egg on face” Brown, who attempts multiple end runs around the will of the people every chance she gets. She belongs in the dunk tank, a good spalsh of cold and dirty water would do her good.
I have to agree with Goldy. A discussion like this will obviously not happen when times are good. No one ever prepares for crisis, it’s always easier to cut taxes.
Wow – I can imagine RR and Daddy Love’s heads exploding just about now. This is just TOO MUCH TO TAKE!
Too Damn Funny!
Goldy and his Northwest Division of Fringe Lunatic MoonbaTS were all frothing at the mouth about taxing rich folks more…stickin’ it to ’em.
You guys are pathetic and now look like you did when Grandma walked into your bedroom without knocking when you were a kid and caught you “chokin’ yer chicken”!
Too Damn Funny!
Hey Puddy–
Is it just me or do Goldy and his merry band of KLOWNS strongly resemble Beavis and Butthead?
Yeah Beavis, tax the rich guys. 1%
No No 5%
No No 10%
I say 20%
No No 50%
I say 90%
Hey Beavis, why not just take it all!
Too Damn Funny!
Daddy ManLove has got to be Butthead!
39. Daddy Love spews:
How excited were you when you posted that ManLove?? Kind of got the wind taken outta yer sails, huh?
Gregoire does not want to go down in Washington History as the implementor of the State Income Tax.
Perhaps the next candidate ought to run on that platform??
From a macroeconomic standpoint, why would it make sense for the Feds to increase spending and cut taxes in order to minimize the impact of a recession and encourage growth; while at the same time, encouraging spending cuts and raising taxes on the state level? If all states did the latter, this would undermine the logic behind generating growth on the federal level, by offsetting it on the state level. As a democrat, why would one advocate such a half measure on the state level, by creating an income tax?
I’m not arguing pro or con on the need to raise revenue to fund services. What I am asking is why people in the same party would pursue contradictory economic policies, ones that would offset one another, and undermine the one thing the Obama administration must be successful on, in order to maintain his support and credibility?
She talks about investing in education but submits a budget that slashes K-12 funding and eliminates 10,000 college seats.
All hat, no cattle.
@1 I take it, then, you’re in favor of taxing the poor and letting the rich skate.
@3 Those things you see above my head aren’t explosions, they’re ears. Haven’t you ever seen rabbit ears before?
@4 I take it, then, you believe those who receive privileged treatment under our unfair tax system that slams the poor and showers favors on the rich should continue to get a free ride.
@7 The answer to your question is grounded in practical facts: Congress can do deficit spending, the state legislature can’t. In addition, the national economy is a federal responsibility, and if federal policies solve that problem, the state revenue problem will also be resolved.
#12: That doesn’t address the central point. If state budget balancing offsets federal stimulus, then it makes stimulus a wash and ineffective, or at the very least, less effective. Not all states are required to balance the budget.
You say the federal economy is the responsibility of the feds, but that doesn’t change reality (“practical facts?”)–there are sub economies based on region or based on industry. The states have more impact on those economies in terms of taxation and encouraging certain types of industry (e.g. if we had a city and a state government that was anti-trade, Washington would shrink considerably) then do the feds. That is why foreign car companies build factories in right to work states. It is relative in the same manner that a “national” economy is to a globalized one. (Side note–if the G20 had not come to some sort of agreement on international stimulus, your pension would be going back into the toilet right about now).
The central point–that a policy of raising taxes during a recession (or even the mistake FDR made in 1937) on the state level–multiplied several times over by both GOP and some Democrats over several states undermines the national policy of stimulus.
Plus, Gregoire would have to be pretty dumb to advocate a new tax right about now. You could kiss that state “D” super-majority goodbye too.
I recognize the tremendous difficulties that legislators are facing as they craft a budget under these challenging economic conditions. However, as I have stated before, I do not support a state income tax. The new proposal will undoubtedly raise constitutional and legal challenges and probably wouldn’t bring in new revenue in time to address the economic crisis we face.
——–
Over the past few weeks, Goldy, you dismissed Gregoire’s “no tax” pledge as either campaign rhetoric or acquiescence (to whom, you never said), and were reminded each time (by me, actually) that Gregoire led the way with this pledge in her interviews and debates and speeches, month after month after month.
Obviously, you weren’t listening to one of her central campaign tenets.
The good people of this state put Gregoire in office for her position on taxes and her leadership skills in general. Hopefully, you’ll finally get behind her and trust those skills and the judgment of this state’s citizens.
Momentum building for high-earners income tax?
by Goldy, 04/01/2009, 6:02 PM
All the build up…The multiple posts regarding income taxes…all attempts to rev up the 10’s of readers who are the fringe of the political mainstream..
Momentum building?
More like wishful thinking…
Note to all: Here is what Christine Gregoire herself said, just a few months ago:
“NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO RAISE TAXES; OR EVEN TALK ABOUT RAISING TAXES.”
Either she meant it, or she flat-out lied just to get elected…..
It’s a tax increase for those who easily afford it (but not out of line with other income taxing states) and a modest tax break for the rest of us. That’s the only way it could work in this state.
It’s all about correcting the status quo.
@8
It is all hat, no horse! If nothing else you might as well get that right.
@9
You do have an attitude about the poor and the rich.
@11
What kind of privileged treatment are you talking about. Don’t talk sales tax, that doesn’t float. Ya I want to build my wealth on the poor, the ones that pay zero federal tax but get a tax rebate. Tell me how that works
Wanna hear the Governer apparently promoting income tax?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffe6Hf_SmHo
Roger Rabbit actually believes Rich People skate. Pretty funny when you cut thru all the crap and realize we are talking about basic government services.
Why should a wealthy person pay more for education than a middle-income person?
Or Public Safety
Or Parks
WHY??
The fact is the wealthy are already paying vastly more than middle-income folks.
Vastly more.
The central tenet of Rog’s illogic is to look at everything as a % of income.
Do rich folks pay more to get a 12′ X 20′ Bedroom Carpet cleaned by the same carpet-cleaner? Hell NO.
Do rich people pay more to go bowling?
Do rich people pay more for carrots at Safeway.
The list goes on & on.
Rog spent his whole career slurping at the trough and has come up with this addle-brained idea that GUV’MINT Services should discriminate based on income.
Crazy.
If anyone is a freeloader, it’s folks who pay little in taxes…and are big users of the service.
Reject the Rabbit’s premise.
20 – Anyone in their right mind would support an income tax as an essential component of tax fairness.
Gregoire has come to the conclusion that the support is not there. I hope this isn’t true but she travels around the state, reads the polls. I have to conclude it is true. If it wasn’t true, Dems and Reps would be working together to make it happen.
I’d like to know which state in the country taxes the fairest. It’s not California for sure and it’s not Oregon – I believe in a modest sales tax.
Which one? With the way things are going here, I might be tempted to move there.
20 – Look fool. The budget is X and the population is Y. Z flat tax rate balances the budget but then a working poor person is taxed to death while a rich person comfortably affords the tax bill.
You still believe in “flattening”? Ok increase the productivity of government services delivery without compromising the quality, cut the services out completely or raise everybody’s income so everybody pays the same rate at an acceptable standard of living.
Sounds feasible? Didn’t think so. Plan B is that the rich pays at higher rate. Since the new deal rich people still got richer so it was no big deal. End of story.
A proposal that levies a tax of say 2% to 5% on high income earners, coupled with a reduction in the sales tax by 1% would probably receive wide support among voters, and help a bit in balancing what is currently the countries most regressive tax system. But this would require skill and bold leadership, two things that are sadly lacking in Olympia.
Cutting the state budget is necessary only because the Governor is afraid to raise revenue. This will only make our economy that much worse. The latest unemployment numbers showed that the number one sector of the economy shedding jobs is government. This is not how you navigate your way out of a recession.
Dear Governor Gregiore,
Bullshit.
When you close state parks and force people to travel father for recreation that’s The Government taking more money out of a family’s pocket book. When you try to shlep off state parks* to other entities you might be “balancing” your budget without a tax increase, but you’re increasing the tax burden on whatever entity (and the folks that fund it) is now responsible for that park.**
You’re “no tax increase” budget is bullshit. All you’ve done is force federal, state and local Governments and park and school districts to raise their taxes.
*Kopachuck State Park near Gig Harbor is on the schlepping off list, only there’s a little problem. The park district that would take it over (Pen Met Parks) would have to raise taxes to take it over and they’re not going to do it. So, Kopachuck stays a state park and the people who wrote the list get to go suck eggs.
**Just one example
eric spews:
This whole debacle is caused by overspending in the face of a recession. $8 Billion increase in spending in 4 years.
Your “IF ONLY WE HAD MORE & MORE BILLIONS” whine is falling on deaf ears.
The government should make cuts…just like the private sector.
Had Gregoire and the Dems only increased spending by $4 BILLION instead of $8 Billion, we would not even be talking eric.
You must be a guv’mint worker.
@16 Apparently she meant it, because she’s refusing to raise taxes.
clueless idiot farts:
Of course, the non-working class (clueless wonder) don’t care about an income tax…
@13 It’s hard to see where you get this notion about Washington “raising” taxes, since state tax revenues are down by about $9 billion. Even if the legislature increased tax rates to raise $1 billion of revenue, there still would be a decrease of $8 billion in taxes paid by Washington residents. That looks like a tax cut, not a tax increase, to me.
@14 I agree the voters didn’t elect Gregoire to reform taxes. They should have, but they didn’t. Some Washington voters perhaps deserve to be screwed by our existing tax systems. Others don’t. Only big business and the very well-to-do are making out under this system, and since most of us don’t fall into one of those categories, obviously a lot of voters are shooting themselves in the foot on this issue.
You get rid of the sales tax completely and totally and I’ll gladly support an income tax.
@18 Here’ how it works, asswipe. The poor pay 17% of their income in state and local taxes. The affluent and rich pay 4% of their income in state and local taxes. Are you able to comprehend that?
Why? Because lower income households are forced to spend their income, while high income households invest much of theirs, and the sales tax doesn’t touch savings or investments. In addition, lower income households spend a relatively larger proportion of their incomes on goods, which are taxed, while higher income households buy a higher proportion of services, which aren’t taxed.
What is it about the sales tax that you think makes it sacrosanct? Why not replace it with a tax that does a better job of spreading the tax burden more evenly?
@20 “The fact is the wealthy are already paying vastly more than middle-income folks.
Vastly more.”
That’s horseshit. Most property taxes, which support schools, parks, libraries, fire departments, and police services, are paid by middle class homeowners and small business owners. Most sales taxes are paid by average families.
@22 At this point I’d settle for a flat-rate tax at both the federal and state levels. If the rich paid the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rest of us pay, that would be an improvement over the status quo. In our money-driven, highly unequal, culture being rich does bring many privileges, and two of them are not having to fight the nation’s wars and getting to pay less taxes.
@23 Gregoire is bolder than Locke was, but almost as gutless as he was.
@25 “This whole debacle is caused by overspending in the face of a recession. $8 Billion increase in spending in 4 years.”
More horseshit. Those spending increases occurred during an economic boom when money was flooding into the state treasury. No one foresaw that Bush’s deregulation and economic policies would lead to the deepest and most rapid economic contraction since the 1930s. Perhaps someone should have foreseen it — and said something — but no one did.
If Cynical had his way, state workers would still be paid 1950 wages. He won’t be happy until those who provide public services earn less than the teenage burger flippers at McDonald’s.
@25 (continued) “The government should make cuts…just like the private sector.”
Trust me, the private sector is going to have the opportunity to make more cuts. Republicans have been effective in cutting the incomes of America’s working and middle classes — there’s no doubt about that. And the people whose incomes you Repubs have worked so hard to cut now have no choice but to reduce their spending. Attention all you cheap labor conservatives out there, your chickens are now coming home to roost! The fruit of all your labors is lower business sales and smaller profits. Enjoy!
“No one foresaw that Bush’s deregulation and economic policies would lead to the deepest and most rapid economic contraction since the 1930s. Perhaps someone should have foreseen it — and said something — but no one did.”
What about all those highly regulated countries that are in the same or worse condition than the USA? Is France less regulated? Germany? China? The regulation argument dies in the face of all the “regulated” nations suffering the same or worse financial problems as the US.
@30 There is no proposal to get rid of the sales tax totally. The proposal on the table is to replace the state sales tax and B & O taxes with a state income tax. Local sales taxes would remain in place.
I suppose theoretically you could get rid of those, too, but then you’d have to replace them with higher property taxes, a local income tax, or some other tax. In fact, there isn’t any discussion of that, or of any other reform of the local tax structure. The closest we ever came to such a discussion was actually a non-discussion, when Tim Eyman led his gullible followers to believe that tax revenues from wide-open gambling could replace a large swathe of the property tax. The problem with his idea was that his gambling tax projections were off by a factor of 100. His gambling tax would actually have produced about $10 a year of property tax relief for the average homeowner.
@30 You get rid of the sales tax completely and totally and I’ll gladly support an income tax.
—————–
But, of course, this won’t happen. And once you have an income tax it will touch most taxpayers in time, despite its original intent. And yet another reminder, the nation is filled with states with income taxes and serious budget woes. An income tax may correct tax inequities, but clearly it’s not a fix for budget deficits.
And a touch of irony, California, which does have an income tax, JUST raised its sales tax by nearly 14%, from 7.25% to 8.25% to help address its budget woes. Add in local levies and the sales tax is a whopping 10.75% in some areas.
Moron @ 27
43 other states have an income tax fool.
Idiot!
@31 RR
The poor do not have to pay any taxes if they don’t want to. Sales tax is a user tax, one of the fairest there is. But no, you want an income tax so they pay nothing and the successful pay it all.
You said higher income households buy services that are not taxed? Please enlighten me asswipe. Sad attitude!
turdblossom@41:
Like Puddy said earlier, Of course, the non-working class (clueless wonder) don’t care about an income tax…
I hope she stays on track with NO INCOME TAX however,I don’t also want to hear they made me do it!
@38
Regulated countries like the ones you mentioned, along with many that are not, are disasterously affected by what’s happening on Wall Street. But that was due mostly to the fact that their economies (investments, etc) were directly tied to the U.S. It’s why they were all watching the developing problems with AIG and CitiGroup very closely. And we can trace this back to the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, and the Banking Reform Act of 1933.
“due mostly to the fact that their economies (investments, etc) were directly tied to the U.S. It’s why they were all watching the developing problems with AIG and CitiGroup very closely.”
OK, but that still kills the regulation argument. If they were so tied to the US Banking industry, making risky, high risk, low risk, whatever kinds of investments, then their greater regulation should have protected them…But it did not..
@46
Actually it doesn’t. Their “greater” regulations would only apply to their own country’s operations. I’m pretty sure they can’t regulate how our banking/financial/investment corporations define policy and procedure.
43 – I care plenty about an income tax.
I couldn’t care less about a fool like you.
@48
99% income tax for republicans! ‘Cause while you can’t fight stupid you can sure tax the hell out of it.
@35
Soros saw it, Franks saw it, but put his head between his legs, Dodd saw it but was collecting too much in kickbacks to say anything. McCain brought it up on the Senate floor unfortunately he was in the minority. The Democrats controlled Congress since 2007 including OVERSIGHT of Wall St. They also voted on spending who would and who wouldn’t get Federal taxpayers Money.
Did the Democrats have their fingers in the cookie jar? FINGERS NO! They smashed the jar with a hammer and passed out our money like there’s no tomorrow
No income tax for Washington! Never, never, ever!
@47
“@46
Actually it doesn’t. Their “greater” regulations would only apply to their own country’s operations. I’m pretty sure they can’t regulate how our banking/financial/investment corporations define policy and procedure.”
Yes of course. You’re still making my argument for me. You see, they CAN regulate their own financial institutions. No one stuck a gun to their heads to invest in the vehicles they invested in. They had to work within the regulations and laws of their country (The same regulations that supposedly would have saved the USA) and despite their own regulations, policies and investments, they DIDN’T prevent their own financial downfall.
48. YLB spews:
43 – ‘I care plenty about an income tax.’
Sure you do. Since you are still unemployed…ahem…I mean “between jobs” and pay nothing, earn nothing, and produce nothing; all the while while being a gov’t cheese leech on society, of course you want an income tax. So basically you want all others to pay for you, when you are neither relevant, entitled to, or deserving thereof. If and when you become employed & move out of Momma’s basement; then and only then does your opinion amount to anything more than a fart in the wind. Dismissed. (and yes– you DO take directions-as those of us that pay taxes pay for you; hence, you are not an equal).