Driving home from this morning’s I-1077 kickoff, I listened to KUOW’s The Conversation, as the Washington Policy Center’s Paul Guppy raised a familiar trope in opposition to a high-earners income tax, arguing that many high-earners will simply pick up and leave:
“People with high incomes are very mobile, so it’s easy for them to change their residence, to move their income or change their tax status in someway, so I don’t think that the supporters would realize as much revenue from this tax as they expect.”
Uh-huh.
A reporter raised this issue to Bill Gates Sr., who brushed it aside by asking “Where do you go?”… the point being that 43 other states already levy an income tax, so it’s not like I-1077 puts Washington at such a competitive disadvantage. “You could go to Alaska, I guess,” Gates continued, but even that level of dismissiveness takes the question too seriously, for the entire critique is predicated on the bizarre notion that we shouldn’t levy a tax on rich people because a handful of them might go out of their way to avoid paying it.
Guppy’s argument also ignores the fact that one of the advantages of being wealthy is that it enables you to consume and enjoy the finer things in life. For example, nobody forces anybody to spend $50,000 on a Lexus when a $10,000 Hyundai can get you from point A to point B just as well; wealthy folks choose to purchase luxury cars because they can afford them, just like they choose to raise their families in Medina or Mercer Island over, say, White Center or Gold Bar.
Likewise, I don’t expect a family earning a million dollars a year to move to South Dakota to save $30,000 in annual taxes. I mean, what would be the point of being rich?
As Gates explains, Washington is “a great place to live.” And it’s the folks who can best afford to live here who are actually least likely to leave.
Reminds me of NYCs smoking ban. At the time it was passed I was doing a project and temporarilly living there.
A colleague claimed, “That’s just stupid. Everyone will just go to bars out-of-state.” (or words to that effect.)
Me, “Really!?! Manhattanites are going to hop the train to Jersey on a Saturday so they can smoke? Bitch, please! Take the next ten seconds to think about how rediculous you sound.”
Anyone who has more money than brains (and doesn’t appreciate how lucky we are to live here):
Please leave! Now!
Oh, and eat shit!
And don’t forget the late Tom Stewart. Moved his company to Arizona where not only his company had to pay a corporate income tax, but he and all his Arizona employees had to pay a personal income tax as well. Boy, Tom sure showed Washington state.
I guess few of the so-called rich realize that the capital invested in relocation, retraining, retooling, and relogisticizing (yes I made that up) is far more then the amount of additional tax paid– unless they plan to move to China or India, in which case, even a tax cut would not incentivize the prevention a eventual offshore operation, and in fact might help fund it; or they think we’re too immobilized by fear to realize this obvious explanation of their bullshit line.
Right, Boeing?
tpn @4,
I think most of these folks do realize this, which is yet another reason why they don’t just pick up and leave.
Don’t be dissing Rat City. I grew up on the outskirts of White Center. In fact, that will probably be the opening line of my autobiography: “I grew up on the outskirts of Rat City.”
Bud @6,
I’m not dissing it. I’m just suggesting that the kinda folks who will be paying this tax are unlikely to choose to raise their families there. They could, because the housing is cheaper. But they choose to live in pricier neighborhoods because they can afford it.
And now for some empirical proof that a state income tax doesn’t drive people to live in AK, TX, WY, SD, etc:
http://www.eoionline.org/tax_r.....-Apr10.pdf
Just for fun, and to be fair to Troll who tried to pass off the Laffer curve as science today, I took a look at the eoio website.
If you want fun among non-partisan groups, compare EOIO “about us” section with the American Legislative Exchange Council. One group can’t help themsleves in their naked partasianship.
Goldy, please explain your special education in economics and finance?
Oh yeah, you have none, and just like your glorious leader, are making this up as you go along.
some say kemper freeman will head to afghanistan if subjected to rich man tax.
If rich people tend to move to states without an income tax, how come California and New York (both of which have substantial income taxes) have far more rich people than our state?
Goldy, please explain your special education in economics and finance?
goldy haz minor from harvard in econ, asswipe.
@10
Eeeeheeeheeehee…
When you’ve got no arguement, go with the “what makes you an expert” retort. Very amatuer. Very weak.
Take a few days off sonny. You’re outmatched.
Washington will always be a popular state to live because: (a) it is freaking beautiful; and (b) it is liberal, cosmopolitan, and still part of the West. And, it has Seattle. A state income tax has nothing to do with why people live here–okay, maybe 12 or 14 Teabaggers might consider that issue important. Washington has the 3rd largest population of states west of the Mississippi, despite being one of the smaller states west of the Mississippi in terms of square mileage. Which western states have more population? California and Texas. Imagine that. I don’t worry about a state income tax on the rich hurting us.
14
C’mon, now, let’s encourage righton to keep spewing. As we know, he is allergic to both facts and reason, so his continued spewing lets us know where the opposition lies.
“I don’t expect a family earning a million dollars a year to move to South Dakota to save $30,000 in annual taxes. I mean, what would be the point of being rich?”
That’s the core of every one of these silly arguments. NY is the home of liberal gays and Jews…and Fox News. Why doesn’t the most conservative news organization, Fox News, move to the most conservative states, say Alabama or Mississippi. For gods sake, CNN is in Georgia (of course in the biggest liberal metro center, Atlanta). I’m sure they’d save on taxes and have a more favorable environment (less folks who think Glen Beck is just plain crazy). So why does Fox News stay in liberal New York city? Because other factors outweigh the childish debate over “liberal vs conservative”. Similarly taxes aren’t why people live in a state. At least 99% of people. Family, jobs, schools, social activities, entertainment, etc…all rank above that. I’ve lived in 5 states, not once was my move based on who had the lowest taxes. Never. I never KNOWN anyone in my 40 years who’s moved out of a state because of taxes. I’m sure SOMEONE has, but they’d be in a tiny tiny tiny minority. Statistically insignificant.
The private jet set will also benefit from the 20% cut in property taxes, no? That’ll have to kick them back a fair portion of the extra taxes they’d pay. Living on the shore in Medina ain’t cheap.
I hope they’ll still be able to slurp black caviar and Chateau Lafite.
A poor person never hired anyone. Poor people are useless. They are parasites. It’s the rich who are of value to society. This will take money from the rich, and hand it over to the unions. I say if there has to be an income tax, make it start at $80,000, so it will fuck overpaid government and union workers.
18
What the fuck is “Chateau Lafite”? Are you being classist?
Troll
Ah, I remember when you first appeared here, you claimed to be a Democrat . . . You have the credibility of Scooter Libby. Go fuck yourself, Troll, in a quiet corner of your mother’s basement.
@19
Eat the rich. After all the poor are tough and stringy.
I’m single – have some money from companies I’ve started and sold. I started a new technology company a year ago and would like to stay in Washington State, but if this measure passes I’m moving back to Austin, TX or I might even consider Reno, NV, or maybe the Valley in CA.
Washington is a great state, but part of Washington’s competitive advantage over California is no income tax. When that advantage goes away I can guarantee you people will move because I will be on one of the first boats out. This tax feels like a penalty for working really hard and being successful.
23: “This tax feels like a penalty for working really hard and being successful.”
Seriously? Michael, you make sense most of the time, but this? Hey, some years, I might feel that income tax, other years not. I want to feel that tax. And, if I do, I’ve had a good year. Moving because of a tax? Really? To fucking Texas (even if Austin) or Reno?
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if the last name of this “Michael” was Dunmire?
Timmeh would shit a brick.
Michael @ 23:
Why wait?
I moved to Washington from Oregon to escape high taxes, and I can certainly move again if the need strikes. And high expenses just for being here, annoying government intrusions, and obnoxious neighbors could all trigger that need.
It’s not that funny to say high costs chase people elsewhere. NYC found that out when it raised taxes recently.
There is no question that taxing the rich produces more optimal social outcomes. Excitable and prone to emotional outbursts, they should be leashed, and house training them is generally difficult.
@23 and 27 – ok. If you want to live where there aren’t high taxes, please move.
@23: “Washington is a great state, but part of Washington’s competitive advantage over California is no income tax.”
That depends. Our state tax structure penalizes manufacturing, but it’s a great place to be if you’re Microsoft or one of its highly paid employees. So ‘competitive advantage’ is in the eye of the beholder.
@38..so withing two sentences, you piss on and insult the same people that you feel should carry more burden than you do.
nice.
The more you lefties comment the more you show your ignorance of econ 101. All things being equal, the higher cost place loses customers. And yeah, Magnolia is prettier than Reno, but you know what, not everyone agrees with that, and some people actually value 300 days of sunshine over green hills and our views.
But the debate ought to be on why would we want to increase overall taxation in a recession; that’s one of the worst factors in the great depressiosn; just when people needed money, the government took more.!!
27: I haven’t seen the figures on NYC, but I can think of a lot of reasons why that reasoning wouldn’t apply to a Washington State High-Income Tax.
First of all, NYC is just that – a city. It’s a heckuva big city, but it’s just a city. People can work and socialize in NYC and still live outside the city. Heck, people can live in an entirely different state, such as N.J. or Connecticut, and still work and have a social life in NYC, as many have done for quite some time.
Yet despite this, many of the most wealthy Americans still have homes in NYC.
So if Seattle were to try to impose an income tax on it’s own, it would have a problem – people would still work in Seattle and drive into the city for their recreation (concerts, plays, waterfront, Seattle Center, etc.), but live in the suburbs. But a state-wide income tax avoids that problem. Unlike NYC, Seattle/Tacoma/Everett/Bellevue are nowhere near a state border.
So how about the residents of the border cities? Couldn’t they move to another state, and still work in Washington state? Well, that isn’t going to help those in Vancouver, Washington, becuase Oregon has it’s own income tax. And the people of Bellingham aren’t going to easily live in Canada and commute to work in Washington state. I don’t know if Idaho has an income tax or not, but even if it doesn’t, how many rich people in Pullman would be affected by a high-earners tax?
Goldy once said there needs to be a “much needed public discussion of whether our democracy is served by making the initiative process the private playground of wealthy individuals and powerful special interest groups.”
http://horsesass.org/?p=21602
Why isn’t he saying that now?
Troll @ 19 said: “Poor people are useless. They are parasites. It’s the rich who are of value to society….”
Spoken like a true Republican fascist. Substitute “poor” for Jews, and “Germans” for “rich”, and you pretty much have one of Herr Goebbel’s propoganda diatrabes leading up to Nazi Germany’s final solution.
What an example of someone who is utterly lacking in basic moral values, such as empathy. We should use these comments every day to remind us of why the Republican party is so bankrupt.
glad to see these right wing idiots are staying out of the debate.
Look, let’s face it. marginal income tax rates of 70 or 90 percent like we sued to ahve are too high; but reasonable rates of 39% federal or 9% state over the high $400K threshold are a minor annoyance to the wealthy.
And yes, if you look at evidence, wyoming and south dakota are wastelands while NY NJ CT MD MA CA etc. are highly desirable places to live just chock full of rich folks. Just like:
Paris
Rome
London
and so on. Because the right wing idiotic argument that says “aha! a tax increases costs! thus is marginal inducement to leave!” is so incredibly stupid and moronic because it utterly ignores the fact that the tax money gets spent on stuff like roads, education, infrastructure, health etc. producing social investment with social return.
So dear right wing morons, this is why you’re not actually going to move to the upper Amazon basis out of reach of gummint, or Somalia, or even not to Alaska Wyoming or South Dakota.
And I’ll bet not even Reno NV. Nice place. But small and not a real city and thus not as much fun to live in.
Hard to find qualified employees. My god man, haven’t you seen Reno 911?
You’re going to move to Reno and join those yahoos?
Thank you you will improve the average IQ of both Nevada and Washington State.
Idaho has an income tax. It is a myth that “right wing states don’t have an income tax”. Most states red or blue have an income tax, duh.
To all the right wingers claiming they will move:
you’re all lying.
If you were motivated only by cost of living and not by an overall multifactor calculus involving many other things, you’d already have moved to upper South Dakota where you can buy a mansion for $250,000. Or to Detroit where you can buy a perfectly nice house for $9,000.
You’re not so homo economicus as you claim to be.
@35
I said that in the context of this proposed tax. A poor man has never hired anyone. Don’t believe me? Go to the Seattle Public Library. Follow the smell B.O. and malt liquor, then nudge awake a napping bum, and ask him how many people the lazy fuck has hired this year.
@20, Not completely sure…I’ve only heard it mentioned in songs and novels. But I’m pretty sure it’s a white version of Chateaubriand.
Idaho has a sales tax, too. California has a state income tax and a sales tax.
Loosing some millionaires might not be all that bad…..I can think of a few Mariners and Seahawks that shouldn’t let the screen door hit ’em in the ass.
@2 And please…take Timmie, Troll and RightOn with you. After all, we’re only talking about space in just one of your Benzes for an extra child seat.
@39: The dirtiest, smelliest homeless person has more value to society than you. You’re a waste of skin and oxygen (and electrons).
Troll @ # 39: Nice attempt at backtracking. You were very general (and absolute) in your original statement, now you are trying to qualify them.
Most poor aren’t bums sleeping in the public library. Neither do all rich people create jobs (most of the ones I know personally just trade paper around and call that “wealth creation”). I do know quite a few employers, but few of which I, or they, would call wealthy on an individual basis – they probably wouldn’t qualify for this income tax.
Your generalizations only serve to create a straw-man which you can easily knock down. You may call it a victory, but everyone else calls it nonsense.
Is anyone else noticing that Goldy is throwing up an avalanche of posts this morning, trying to bury my comment where I quote Goldy saying:
“much needed public discussion of whether our democracy is served by making the initiative process the private playground of wealthy individuals and powerful special interest groups.”
@44
No, didn’t notice. But then, no one here is more delusional and paranoid than you.
Even after this income tax passes, Washington will still have the lowest taxes on the wealthy of all the non-shitty states. Even most of the shitty ones will still have higher taxes on wealth.
Let’s face it, most people don’t have the drive, brain power or personality to make it to the higher tiers that life can offer. So, instead those settle for a crappy life and how they should to stick it to those who actually make choices to make their lives better. Want to make over $200,000 a year? Go to school, learn how the world of business works, and make it happen instead of sitting around with your hand out.
Not everyone was meant to be rich and if you’re not then perhaps you should have made better choices with your life. You know it, I know it and it’d do you well to get over the denial that you didn’t live up to your potential.
Of course, there are those who don’t necessarily equate large sums of money with success in life. Businessmen are great at stockpiling wealth gained at any cost. I’d prefer scientists, doctors, researchers, poets, musicians, philosophers, religeous leaders and ethesists define success.
Though Dickens’ Scrouge would certainly agree with you @47.
@48 re 47: Was thinking the same thing. Shorter WW:
# 47 wants to continue the fiction that anyone who isn’t rich is in that position due to their own fault. The rich, according to this philosophy, all earned their position by merit. All one has to do is work and study harder, and everyone can become rich!
This theory goes back to Calvinist/Puritan philosophy, and it has it’s merits in that it encourages moral virtues which often do help a person economically: hard work, self-reliance, thrift, sobriety.
But as a predictor of wealth, it’s total B.S. The biggest single factor in predicting the economic well-being of any individual is the advantages they acquired by being born into a particular family. Those advantages include access to funding at expensive prep schools and colleges, business networks which can land them jobs at companies managed by friends of the family, capital to fund new investment and business ventures, etc. Such advantages can offset any number of moral failures, lazy habits, etc..
Pres. George W. Bush is a rather illustrative example. His father’s and grandfather’s influence allowed him to select the least-inconvenient military service available. They got him admitted into Yale and later Harvard Business School even though his grades wouldn’t have made his application in the door if he were applying solely on merit. They got him his first job buying mineral rights from family farmers in Texas, and set him up (twice) in business ventures which his father’s political friends bailed him out of by buying the companies just before they would have gone bankrupt. His father’s influences then set him up as a managing partner of a Texas sports team, which used taxpayer funds to keep it from going under before it was sold at a large profit. Then based upon that one semi-successful business venture (and a lot of smoke hiding the other failures), he goes into politics and wins the governor’s manion – again using his father’s network of political contacts and contributors, and later rides that same train to the Presidency.
In contrast, there are millions of thrifty, sober, hard-working people who studied hard and got college educations while their idiotic company executives (examples of the class described above) are rewarded for managing for the next quarter’s earnings and selling off their operations offshore.
Of course, if we do pass this measure, all the wealthy Boeing executives might move their headquarters from Washington state elsewhere in order to avoid the income tax…
Oh, wait, they already did that, long before this proposal was even discussed. I guess they must have moved to a low-tax city like somewhere in Texas…
Oh, wait, they moved to Chigago. They have an income tax there, even though they didn’t have one in Washington state when the corporate headquarters was moved.
goldy hates the initiative process…accept when it doesnt….
@51…I think the point you and many others are missing is that income tax is one thing, but to introduce an income tax(and please dont be so stupid to think that its only going to be the rich that pay it) ON TOP OF the already assinine taxes we have in this state is the problem.
How many of those other states you refer to have a 9% sales tax, oppressing property and BO taxes, etc……
I can think of one: California, and we see how well they are doing….going broke, people leaving in droves, etc….
our state(and fed) govt is addicted to money and using that money to keep themselves in power.
govt should always be figuring out how to reduce its spending and taxes, not increase them. its fucking ass backwards and you fools have bought into it.
Pussy with a slap-chop @ 53:
Vince so many problems with your poltical ideology you cannot see who actually fucked up California and the Federal Government. Furthermore, you’d never accept the responsibility for your actions as to who you voted for and the destruction they caused to America.
You’d never consider voting for Democrats even though we have a proven track record of fiscal responsibility.
But nooooooooooo, you’d rather piss your time away whinning about Liberals.
Stick to what you do best, chump, slappin’ your nuts.
Moron.
@54…pussy-mouth-talking-bigger-than-his-ass-can-back-up Lavrentiy (GBS) Beria…
First of all, you have no idea who I have voted for over the years….
and sorry burst your bubble, but neither the democrats or republicans have shown any sort of fiscal responsibility for over 30 years..
other than that, go piss off wannabe tough guy
Huron, South Dakota.
Yum.
Tax heaven.
Calling you.
Go.
Go now.
Sell the house.
Sell the car.
Sell the kids.
And go.
We won’t regret it… er…. I mean you won’t regret it.
We could avoid new taxes if the state could stick to spending only on roads, police, fire and schools. Its the socialist expansion of government that has us in the toilet
@57
Yeah, you’re right. If only we would stop spending money on health care, all the poor people would just die already and not be such a drain on society. And if only we would stop trying to protect the environment, we could have a regulation-free capitalist paradise instead of a beautiful place where, um, people (including wealthy software company employees) like to live.
PS: Education and transportation do indeed account for, like 80%+ of the state budget (I’m too lazy to look up the exact number right now). But dang, that last 20% has really turned Washington State into a replica of North Korea, hasn’t it?
@53 “govt should always be figuring out how to reduce its spending and taxes, not increase them.”
Here’s the fundamental disconnect. By the above logic, the ultimate endpoint is no government at all.
Instead, government should always be figuring out how to make our country/state/community a better place, in accordance with the wishes of the people, as expressed primarily through elections. Sometimes that will require spending more, sometimes spending less, often spending differently to adapt to changing times. The argument over exactly what government should do is endless, and should be endless.
But folks such as Vince are out of ideas to argue, so they fall back on a kind of government by nihilism. “Government is helping someone who isn’t me, so government should stop doing anything — except for the things that do help me. And keep government out of my Medicare too!”