As is my wont, I had planned a more thorough, well researched rebuttal to the Seattle Times latest unsigned editorial dissing Initiative 1098, but suffice it to say that the author is just talking out of his or her ass.
The Times cites absolutely nothing to back up its assertions, though as always, with great authority, instead relying on base fear-mongering (approve an income tax on the wealthy, and soon we’ll all be paying it) and the usual Friedmanesque bullshit (taxing the rich is a job killer).
Again, nothing but foul-smelling, flatulent ass-jabber.
On the first point it should be obvious by now that state Dems are total cowards when it comes to tax increases; why do you think the measure’s backers were forced to rely on the initiative process? Which of course illustrates the huge, gaping, bottomless hole in the anti-1098 campaign’s cynical slippery-slope argument: all substantive tax increases always come before voters. So if our Legislature ever found its nuts and attempted to expand the income tax as part of a broad based tax restructuring, you can be damn sure that voters would have the final say via either initiative or referendum.
And on the job killer argument… well… prove it. Don’t just tie up one of Milton Friedman’s ossified coprolites in a pretty bow and present it as a law of nature. Attempt to explain to your readers why taxing the wealthy, like 45 other states do, is more of a job killer than, you know, actually killing the jobs of the thousands of teachers, healthcare workers, firefighters, police officers, prison guards and other essential government employees for which this tax will help pay?
Betcha can’t. Know why? Because you’re talking out of your ass.
Goldy,
How much do you think your taxes should go up?
@1: Some better questions:
How far is your head up your ass?
Is that drool cup for the goat smooge dripping down your chin?
its an honest question dickweed.
goldy supports increasing taxes for the citizens of this state.
I want to know how much HE is willing to pay up..or is it that he only supports tax increases for other people, and not himself?
once again, zits fails to produce anything of value…just like his life in general.
@3: No it’s not. Just typical troll turd flinging.
@4
ya, thats what I thought: zits with another irrelevant post.
keep up being consistent.
I love it.
@1
Goldy doesn’t make much money – see the donations request – hence the ease with which he argues for higher taxes. Note, those donations could be directed to the state, but Goldy believes he’s a more worthy cause despite the fact it doesn’t look like he’s a thorn in anybody’s side.
Ya wanna really help, Goldy? Create a business that produces real revenue, pay yourself a big, fat salary, and then donate a fat portion of it to either the state or IRS.
Because right now you’re not producing squat for the state treasury.
@1, and then 3, and then 5
Of course, rather than make any substantive arguement, go with the rhetorical question. It’s not an “honest question” and you know it.
But just to humor you. I am 100% willing to pay income tax. You anti-taxers don’t seem to notice that property taxes keep going up. King County just assesed my house at a value 8% greater than 2009. While real estate values continue to plumit, somehow, the parcel I own is rising? Tuition to UDub went up $1,100 from 2009-10 to 2010-11.
A rhetorical question for you? What department at UDub would you propose eliminating to stave off taxes? Which fire stations would you like to shut? We have a lot of parkland in the state. Pick which ones we could just close to the public. Better yet, pick which ones we could sell as timber and clear-cut?
re 1: http://teachingamericanhistory.....cument=501
New Nationalism Speech , Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
In this speech, Roosevelt (the Republican) explains, among other things, the rationale for a graduated income tax.
A simple question for you: Will you read this speech?
“Milton Friedman’s ossified coprolites,” heh.
Is there any other kind? Of course, I for one don’t want to know what conservatives have been eating.
Goldy, you talk about fear-mongering.
Well, this isn’t fear-mongering. This is fact:
“Under the state constitution, after two years the Legislature can change a voter-approved initiative by simple majority.
Look at Initiative 960, which required a two-thirds majority for the Legislature to raise taxes. It went into effect Dec. 6, 2007, which meant that on Dec. 6, 2009, the Legislature could suspend it by a simple majority. Already it has done so, using a simple majority to raise taxes by $800 million.”
@8
sure its an honest question.
You guys jump all over Tim Eyman in precisly the same exact way.
So Goldy, are you gonna grow a sack and tell us how much YOU are willing to increase YOUR own taxes? Or are you gonna dance around it?
Goldy is asking his fellow Washingtonians to pony up more of their income to support the projects he likes…so lets see how much he is willing to contribute?
Whats it going to be Goldy? 5% of your income? 10%? how much you gonna give? If you arent willing to give anything, then just say so…and perhaps write those of us who will a big giant “thank you” card for carrying your burden.
@9
maybe.
Sorry Goldstein, but your opinion is meaningless and irrelevant at best on this particular issue. Someone who has been as chronically unemployed as you have been for this long, and has to resort to beg for money to continue to live under the guise of a “fundrive” and then wants to sock it to “high-earners” is kind of like Rosie O’Donnell giving dieting advice. Nice try. The Times are right on the money here, all your whimpering won’t do a fucking thing to change that. See you after election day when you’re flailing your little arms around and shrieking when this thing crashes and burns. Good luck!
You want to talk fairness? Here ya’ go:
When rent seekers and corporate freeloaders stop lining up at the government trough with their hand out, I’ll stop demanding the rich should be taxed within an inch of their lives in lieu of just being strung up from lamp posts.
@15
Hey, I’m down with that. The government should not be handing out money to people OR companies.
But strangely, I bet your one of those Patty Murray lovers because she brings in the pork to those evil companies.
hmm…. hypocritical is a way of life for some.
Dutch @1,
You are intentionally off topic, as the subject of this post is whether the high-earners income tax will kill jobs and inevitably expand to hit the rest of us as the Times contends without backing it up.
But… I would be happy to pay the high earner’s income tax.
Nick @11,
And if, after two years, in the unlikely event a legislature too cowed to even debate an income tax were to lower the income threshold to pull in more households, it would inevitably come to the ballot for voter approval via initiative or referendum.
The people will always have the final say on any substantive change in our tax structure. Always.
@16, Nothing strange about it. Senator Rossi would increase the rolls of the freeloaders greatly. That makes Murray (who is far from perfect)the lesser of the two evils in my book.
It always amazes me to see clowns like you express support for scum who flatly state they want to get in office to rob you blind.
@8
State parks, DFW, and the liquor stores are revenue positive for the state. Cut them back and you’ll have to raise taxes!
Goldy, please dude, tell me you arent that naive – I KNOW you arent.
Do you really think the “high earners” tax will just remain for the high earners? Of course you dont think that it will because you know as well as I do what our democratic party led state legislature will do – they will keep lowering the bar on what a “high earner” is until everyone is paying.
Now, since we both know that is the inevitable outcome of I-1098, I will ask you again: how much are you willing to pay up based upon your current income?
and for the record, we both know your post #18 is full of shite. Once the taxing structure is in place(thanks to 1098), the job of lowering the criteria for taxation is as simple as a vote in Olympia….and we all know the usual scare tactics that Oly uses when trying to raise taxes.
Basic macroeconomics tells you that “savings” for the rich have a low multiplier (Bush tax cuts, which see). Using those resources for the common good (government spending) has a higher mulitplier and greater beneficial economic effects.
No big mystery here.
@19
It always amazes me that people like you ASSume which candidates other people support or dont support. But I guess that is to be expected when you see world through the blinders you wear.
@17
Goldy, I am no more intentionally off topic than you are when you attack (for example) Tim Eyman rather than address whichever initiative he is pimping.
If you are gonna play that game on one end, expect it to get played on you at the other end.
@21. Bullshit. Our state dem office holders are cowards, afraid of has-been Tim Eyeman’s shadow. They won’t even bring this topic up for public debate in the Legislature, much less actually act to pass it.
The passage of this measure will give them some political cover, but it’s far from a blank check. They will continue to nibble around the edges and then come back to their base and brag about how “progressive” they are.
I can only wish that we had the kind of state legislators that appear to be so lively in your fevered imagination.
@23: Well, what’s good for the gander…you ASSumed I supported Patty Murray.
You’re the kind of coward who can’t take what they so ineptly try to dish out.
@26
Of course you support Patty Murray.
LNFAO @ coward…oookkk there big guy.
@16
You have a funny definition of pork. Are you claiming that the Pentagon is going to just NOT BUY refueling tankers if the contract doesn’t go to Boeing? So when the Federal Gevoernment makes $$$ available for major highway projects, Senator Murray should just ignore the 520-90-Viaduct projects and let Iowa have the investment?
@1
Depends on what they’re going to spend it on.
If we’re going to use it to build that stupid big-dig tunnel in Seattle or to implement Transportation 2040 (which brakes state law and the state is getting sued over) I don’t want to pay another dime.
If we’re making sure that kids have good schools to go to and can show up at them ready to learn so that when they are older they can get good paying jobs and not be a burden to society (and can generate cash for the state when I’m retired) tax away.
If we’re going to teach creationism bull shit & abstinence only sex ed, if we’re going to tell kids that the earth might only be 6,000 years old and that our ancestors might have co-existed with dinosaurs, then I’ll keep my money in my pocket, thank you very much.
Like I pointed out @#20, some of our state programs are revenue positive. If we’re going to reinvest in those programs so that the state can generate more cash and be more self sustaining in the long run tax away.
If we’re going to give out handouts to the well off like Microsoft’s licensing loophole then, fuck that shit, give me my money back.
So far I’m leaning 60/40 towards greater taxes being a good thing.
Attempt to explain to your readers why taxing the wealthy, like 45 other states do, is more of a job killer than, you know, actually killing the jobs of the thousands of teachers, healthcare workers, firefighters, police officers, prison guards and other essential government employees for which this tax will help pay?
Some of us are also trying to find that edition of F. A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” in which he predicts that England of the ’40’s and ’50’s, with its relatively high percentage of government owned and operated services, would remain one of the strongest economies in Europe.
I suspect both quests will be equally fruitless.
@30
The UK in the 40’s and 50’s was still paying off its debts (lend/lease) to the good old USA. It’s still one of the strongest economies in Europe.
@15 “just being strung up from lamp posts”
Or having their throats slit by the marauding brown horde in the dark of night while they’re sound asleep in their beds*.
Sleep well, wingnuts.
* heh- Unwad your shorts, you krazy teabaggers, I’m just pulling your leg!
Just think – if it wasn’t for Eyeman and his tax cut mania, no one could have bought the income tax to the table.
The real question is:
should trust our tax dollars to people that are willing to cut revenue positive programs to save money?
After all these years of our “professional” polticians (and self-anointed sages in the mainstream media) spouting the conventional wisdom that proposing a state income tax was the political “third” rail, there’d certainly be more than a little irony if they were to sit with their thumbs up their asses and watch the people vote one into effect.
Even if you pay 25% in various taxes, this is still the small piece of the pie. The rest, 75% is your wages and other earnings. This big piece of the pie is where lower and middle class people have been screwed royally since about Reagan taking office (breaking the air traffic controller union was one of the first things this ass-wipe did.)
Focusing on a few extra crumbs in the tax side of the equation allows them to rape the shit out of the 75% of our money that is left.
Getting people to focus on taxes did nothing but make rich people richer. It saved average people almost nothing in real money. It was crumbs from the table of the rich. Meanwhile, they stole from the big piece of pie with exorbitant health insurance costs and everything else.
Corporations and rich people have been raping the shit out of working class people, and they did it in no small part by distracting us with the taxes issue, throwing us a feel crumbs, while their buddies rob us blind behind our backs. Now they want to go after pensions and Social Security, two things that primarily help working class people.
This focusing on taxes has been nothing but a huge dodge while they robbed us blind.
Wake up people! Focusing on the small piece of the pie, which taxes is, is plain idiotic. Look at the bigger piece of pie. Why is working class people’s cut so small when corporate profits soar? It is robbery, plain and simple. The profits of huge corporations are so high right now because they are taking money from the masses and transferring it to a few people at the top. The whole obsession with taxes benefits them the most.
Keep in mind, 50% of us earn less than about 42K per year. 25% in taxes is probably close.
Let me see here…I’m an engineer and my wife’s a health care professional. Do we make 400 grand a year? Far, far from it…and since we’re both closing in on retirement and don’t gamble, it’s highly doubtful we ever will. If we ever do, we’ll gladly pay the tax, after we finish jumping for joy.
Goldy @18:
The Legislature threw out a voter-approved initiative to raise $800 million in taxes.
The Legislature doesn’t care about “the people’s say” and you know it.
Nick @38,
You’re right, the Legislature doesn’t care about “the people’s say” because none of them are at all interested in getting reelected.
Gimme a break.
@39
No Goldy, our legislature really doesn’t care – because they know the dupes in this state will continue to vote for an R or a D, no matter who is on the ticket…mindless partisan voting wins again.
for a self described political hack, you sure don’t get it.
Why do I oppose this? Because I do not trust the legislature. If this passes and is held to constitutional then two years after the legislature can change it. They can expand it to anyone they want.
I do not trust the legislature.
Maybe you could talk Timmy Eyman in to being our philosopher king watch salesman?
The current tax structure in the State of Washington is monstrously unfair to poor and middle income people. Due to the way our taxes are structured the poorest pay approximately 17% of their income in State and local taxes, while the richest pay less than 5% of their income in taxes. This initiative simply makes the tax burden slightly more fair.
Frankly I would love to pay the high-earners income tax. I only wish I made that much!
However I would also be glad to pay the proposed rate on my current income as well. Especially if it was coupled with a lowering of other taxes.
One thing I’d love to see regardless of what happens with I-1098 is massive reform to business taxes. The B&O tax system is a mess and has way too many special tax breaks for the likes of Microsoft. I find the Washington Policy Center proposal somewhat attractive.
“prove it”
California. QED.
Dear Goldy,
You obviously enjoy having a tapeworm attached to your rectum. I am seriously considering filing an a Cap and Trade Initiative that would tax the pollutants that come out of your mouth. Or should I say out of your ass. Obviously, you are talking out your ass when your face knows better.
I wrote a tongue and cheek initiative that is a serious rebuttal to Initiative 1098. Ask yourself four questions:
1. Why would Bill Gates Sr. sponsor an initiative that would tax the rich?
2. Does it have anything to do with the fact the legislature is preparing to give Microsoft a $100 million tax break and amnesty for $1 BILLION in tax evasion?
3. After two years do you believe that the legislature would change the law to tax everyone?
4. After reading section 1. below, do you believe our state is any different than Connecticut?
Panhandling and Pick Pocket Tax For State Legislatures In Lieu of a State Income Tax
An act relating to education and fiscal reform; adding a new section to Chapter 82.04 by creating a 40% tax that will be applied to all monies received from the panhandling efforts, otherwise know as campaign contributions, that are from special interest groups. In addition, a 20% tax on all Democratic legislatures that voted to suspend Initiative 960 and increase taxes or pick the pockets of Washington State tax payers in order to pay for promises made while they were panhandling on the campaign trail. The 20% tax will be applied to all wages, salaries and other compensations received directly or indirectly from their elected office. The panhandling tax will also be used to offset or recoup tax dollars lost from Indian Casino revenues.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Part I
Policies and Purpose
Sec. 1. Whereas Initiative 960 was approved by the voters to prevent the following:
In 1991, Connecticut was facing a revenue shortfall of about $2.7 Billion. Using that crisis, Connecticut’s governor pushed hard for a state income tax. After a long stalemate with the General Assembly, the bill eventually passed. At the signing ceremony, Governor Lowell Weicker sounded optimistic. “When I sign this budget, Connecticut will be closing the book on its past and it’ll be facing toward the future.”
Now, 17 years later, we have a pretty good idea of what that future looks like: The income tax that was passed to close a $2.7 Billion deficit has been raised several times and now brings in over $7.5 billion a year. Add in the $350 million a year that the state currently receives from Indian Casinos, and Connecticut now collects nearly $8 billion more in revenue than it did in 1991.
Despite all of those extra billions, Connecticut is still facing massive deficits $1.2 Billion this year and another $6 to $8 Billion over the next two years. How could this happen? In Connecticut’s case, out-of-control spending was the culprit. In 1991, when the so-called crisis was happening, the state’s total spending was about $7.6 billion. In 2008, the total spending was $18.8 billion, an increase of 147 percent. To be fair, the $7.6 billion in 1991 dollars would translate to $11.4 billion today, but that still means the brainiacs in Hartford are spending 65% more than they were in 1991.
The point is that government knows how to get bigger. Try as they might to slim down, the natural order of things will always take over and ensure they grow larger than anyone thought possible. The only way to stop that, or at least slow it down, is by taking away their source of food: money and power. For this very reason the voters of Washington State passed Initiative 960 in an attempt to remove the tapeworm that is attached to the lower intestine of the taxpayers.
SEC. 2 Whereas, the Democratic controlled legislature failed to implement budget cuts, curb spending, eliminate wasteful spending and continued to spend tax dollars in order to provide favors to special interest groups, with a deficit in the next biennium that is projected to be as high as $8 billion dollars. In spite of this over $150 million dollars was identified as pork barrel spending by the Washington Policy Center’s Citizens Against Government Waste.
This serves as evidence that there was never any serious attention given to reduction in expenditures and that the legislature is committed to picking the pockets of the Washington State Tax payers while continuing to pan handle large sums of money from special interest groups.
Examples on Panhandling include:
1. Washington taxpayers are being asked to pay more than $2.5 million for a community Inviting House, Longhouse and Museum, which would primarily benefit the Suquamish Indian tribe. Yet, the tribe’s leaders are hardly short of money. They operate the nearby highly-profitable, and tax-exempt, Clearwater Casino Resort. $1.5 million for decorative lights on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge
2. $ 442,000 ”SAyWA” advertising campaign
3. $142,000 for Animal Massage practitioners.
4. $66,000 for Christmas Tree Inspections
5. $44,687 for Medicaid Checks for Services to Dead People
6. $31,723 Payments for paying WA State Ferry Employees to Ride the Ferry after Work
7. $254,694 Pension Payments to Dead People
8. $19,050 For Sole-Source Contract to Review Governor’s Communication Operation which appears to be another quid pro quo scenario since the principal owners of the firm gave a total of $2,922 in campaign donations to the governor. This contract comes on top of an earlier contract of $12,000 to another consultant to review the Governor’s communications operations and relations with the press.
Examples of Pick Pocketing include:
1. B&O tax increase on service businesses.
2. Limit on preferential B&O rate for manufacture of certain agriculture products.
3. Suspension of sales tax emption for livestock nutrient equipment and facilities.
4. Cigarette and tobacco tax increase. A tax of $1 per pack of cigarettes has been added.
5. Tax increase on carbonated beverages. Soda and such are taxed at 2 cents per 12 ounces. The bottler is exempt from the tax on the first $10 million sold. Tax is in effect from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2013.
6. Sales tax on candy and gum. Candy and gum are subject to sales tax effective June 1, 2010.
7. Temporary sales tax on bottled water. From June 1, 2010, to June 20, 2013, sales tax applies to bottled water.
8. Beer excise tax. The excise tax on beer is increased from 26 cents to 76 cents per gallon. Microbreweries are exempt on the first 60,000 gallons sold.
Part II
Conclusion
Washington State Laws that apply to monopolies are focused on issues related to trade and commerce. If we purchase bottled water, gum, soda pop, candy and beer, we pay tax. The tax is on our sales receipt and the more we purchase the more tax we pay. Many business, particularly in southern Washington suffer from the fact that Oregon does not possess a sales tax and many residents cross the border to purchase products to avoid paying our nationally high sales tax.
On the business side of the equation, since 2008 six countries have announced plans to cut their corporate tax rates: Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, South Africa, Spain and Taiwan. In an interview in the Korea Times, Choi Kyung-hwan, a member of the new Administration’s Presidential Transition Committee, said, “The corporate income tax reduction is not a matter of choice, but a matter of life and death for Korea in an increasingly globalized business environment.”
In a refrain that is equally applicable to the U.S., Choi went on to say, “Hong Kong and Singapore, which impose significantly lower corporate taxes than Korea, have further slashed taxes recently to draw more foreign investors. Also, France currently levies a 34.4 percent corporate income tax but plans to reduce the tax to as low as 20 percent. Unless Korea cuts corporate taxes, we will not be able to win over multinational firms.”3 Note: Washington State is at 39.2%
The point is that taxes are directly related to trade and commerce. As a result, the monopoly laws that apply to trade and commerce are applicable in regards to the actions of Governor Gregoire and the Democratic majority in the Washington State legislature in regards to suspending I-960 and passing laws to increase taxes that directly impact trade and commerce. We contend that the actions of Governor Gregoire and the Democratic legislators vote to suspend I-960 to be a violation of the following RCW’s
RCW 19.86.020 Unfair competition, practices, declared unlawful. Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
RCW 19.86.040 Monopolies and attempted monopolies declared unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.
RCW 19.86.093 Civil action — Unfair or deceptive act or practice — Claim elements. In a private action in which an unfair or deceptive act or practice is alleged under RCW 19.86.020, a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious to the public interest because it: (3)(a) Injured other persons; (b) had the capacity to injure other persons; or (c) has the capacity to injure other persons.
By conspiring to create a monopoly, we contend that Governor Gregoire in conjunction with the Democratic members of the Washington State Legislature, violated RCW 19.86.020, RCW 19.86.040, RCW 19.86.093 and caused financial injury to the citizens of Washington State.
One specific example is that the Business and Occupation Tax know to be the most repressive tax in Washington State history. On July of 2005, Governor Gregoire stated during a meeting with the Clark County High-Tech Council that she was looking for ways to reform the B&O tax to make it less onerous on business and four years later in February of 2009, in a speech to the Association of Washington Business, Governor Gregoire stated that she would like to overhaul the business and occupation tax, calling the tax, “ill-conceived” and harmful to small businesses.
By creating a monopoly to illegally suspend Initiative 960, the Democratic Party was able to pass a number tax increases. One in particular was to raise the B&O taxes by 20% on service industries which Governor Gregoire repeatedly admitted was harmful to small business. This clearly violates RCW 19.86.093 (3)(a)(b)(c).
Unfortunately, collusion and violation of monopoly laws for which individuals in the private sector are prosecuted are conducted as standard operating procedures in Olympia. As a result, it is time to tax the tapeworm that is attached to the lower intestine of the tax payers.