The other day I challenged our state’s editorial boards to take the lead in urging state legislators to raise new revenue. And while I’ve no idea if he actually saw my post, yesterday Seattle Times editorial columnist Jonathan Martin did exactly that:
To level the tax burden, the Legislature should give a hard look at a 5 percent state tax on capital gains, the profit reaped on the sale of an investment such as stocks. The idea needs a full airing, because a capital-gains tax would affect the angel investor network that fuels Seattle’s startup engine. Revenue from capital gains taxes are also volatile, swinging with the market.
But nearly all competing tech-centric states have capital gains taxes. California has a 13.3 percent capital gains tax for millionaires, plus a big income tax, and that has not slowed Silicon Valley.
Washington voters have gone all in on the progressive policy agenda, with marriage equality, legalized marijuana, gun control.
It’s time for a bit more progressivism in tax policy.
Sure, it’s just the opinion of a single editorialist instead of the editorial board board as a whole, but it’s an encouraging start. Here’s hoping Martin can persuade his colleagues and his publisher that Washington’s future economic prosperity requires a fair and sustainable tax structure.
It’s utterly ridiculous that I sit here on my lazy fat rabbit ass raking in Wall Street loot and don’t pay a dime of it to the state, while people on food stamps are hit with a 9.6% sales tax on shoes and school supplies for their kids.
Remind me again, which of these states with a tax on capital gains does not require a state income tax form be filed for citizens with general income ?
It seems like you’re putting the cart before the horse if you’re not going to push for taxation based on an entire view of a person’s income, as that’s more palatable for the elite, and think you’re somehow going to institute a cap gains tax first.
But, maybe we can tax donations to political campaigns too ? If certain gun control/antiGMO initiatives are going to attract millions from out-of-state and barrage us with ads for months, maybe we should tax those to pay for things like local public campaign financing ?
http://seattletimes.com/html/e.....exxml.html
Frank Chopp will have none of that. The democrats want more regressive taxing.
Any of you lame fucks think you can estimate the tax costs of the new ST2 financing plan the political appointees on that board are setting up? This ought to be good for yucks . . ..
If you DUMMOCRETINS are so worried about new revenue sources, Puddy has been suggesting this additional revenue source and solution for the last seven years.
All Goldy’s NorthWest Division of Lunatic Moonbats have to do is open their wallets, stock portfolios, bank accounts in North America, Switzerland and Grand Cayman, and send Olympia their fair share of your proceeds! Why doesn’t the braggart @1 start first? Why should Puddy have to fork over more because some people think life is unfair?
Regarding Silicon Valley, it’s kind of hard to move whole companies to new locations unless the cost/benefit ratio is so high on the cost that moving is better a benefit. Remember when Boeing moved corporate headquarters to Illinois? Did it move the manufacturing facilities? Hmmm…? John Nance said it made sense so Boeing executives had shorter plane rides because Chicago was more centrally located.
Washington voters have gone all in on the progressive policy agenda, with marriage equality, legalized marijuana, gun control.
No, they have not. The WA senate has become more conservative as a result of the most recent election, not more progressive. Legislatively, progressives are further from their goals as a result of the latest expressed wishes of the voters.
None of the examples of success – excluding the purchase of marijuana, which is wholly voluntary – you cite has the effect of costing some voters a fair amount of money.
Washington voters have, by varying majorities, agreed with some of what progressives favor. That’s not all in any more than the US is all in behind the GOP agenda because the GOP controls Congress come January.
You are setting yourself up for disappointment if you perceive the results of a few recently passed initiatives as some sort of green light to go for everything you want. There’s still the state senate to convince.
As I recall, there’s a downside to going all in, isn’t there?
You misunderstand the meaning of the term.