Tim Eyman is nothing if not repetitive, as evidenced by the four times in less than five minutes that he made the same exact argument: that there needs to be a balance between what government says it needs and what taxpayers are able to afford.
Truth is, I can’t argue with that sentiment; I just can’t see how Timmy can use it in defense of I-1033, an initiative that would put even further limits on revenue growth, at a time Washington’s state and local taxes have been steadily falling as a percentage of personal income, and for at least a decade and a half. I mean, isn’t that the best measure of affordability?
And I’m not just pulling my figures out of my ass; I’m pulling it out of Tim’s ass, using the same statistics he uses, as compiled by the conservative Tax Foundation. Indeed, according to the Tax Foundation, Washington’s state and local taxes have fallen from 10.4% in 1994, when we ranked 17th nationwide, to 8.9% in 2008, and a ranking of 35th.
So if Tim really believes, as he repeatedly states, that the issue is whether taxpayers can afford the government we’re getting, I’m not sure exactly what problem I-1033 is intended to solve? He can rant all he wants about high taxes and out of control government growth, but the statistics — his own statistics — just don’t back him up.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
I don’t doubt the Tax Foundation’s figures, which show the average tax burden falling, but we all know the state/local tax burden isn’t evenly distributed.
It’s highly probable that taxes on those least able to afford them have steadily gone up. That’s the demographic Timmeh appeals to, and that’s where you’ll find a lot of the teabaggers.
The obvious solution is to redistribute the tax burden so that everyone, not just the rich, will get to enjoy the luxury of falling taxes. But it’ll be a cold day in hell before you see a Timmeh Lieman initiative to do that. After all, that would piss off the rich sugar daddies who pay his salary.
Roger @3,
That may be the demographic Eyman appeals to, but it is also the one he has harmed the most. Are taxes have become significantly more regressive under his initiatives.
@4
I-1033 is probably his worst yet on that front. Take from the poor using the sales tax and give to the rich by cutting property taxes.
Sez Chris Stefan:
You can’t summarize Eyman much more succinctly.
I-1033 is Tim Eyman’s wet dream.
you know goldstien its funny. jews like you always want everyone’s taxes increased. but when it comes to paying them so the goys can get services, jews like giethner cheat. i know the goys are stupid, but cmon, give em a break once in a while.
Thanks again for the analysis, Goldy. I notice that nobody seems to argue your point about the Tax Foundation’s figures, so the ad-hominem attacks come out.
I was curious as to what Mr. Eyman said about I-747 back in 2001, as I thought we’d heard this before…
Hmmmm….well, according to Mr. Eyman and his allies, we don’t have “accountability” yet, so was he lying in 2001? What makes them think 1033 will ensure “accountability”? Also, since any revenue over the very low limits in 1033 goes to property tax refunds, 1% is too much now. Again, was this another lie?
@8 My property taxes have gone up twice as fast as the property value, so even when voters pass Eyman’s tax-limiting initiatives, he doesn’t deliver.
RR @ 9: Just out of curiosity, how much are the real estate taxes on a hole in the ground located in a public park?
Can we imagine a day when Tim Eyeman, when confronted with the facts which show his arguments in favor of anti-tax initiatives to be so much B.S., will have a growing look of realization on his face that he has been wrong all along, that his antics are not only profoundly injurerous to the residents of the state but extraordinarily embarrassing, and then see him quitely begin to sob, begging the voters for their forgiveness and pleading with them to vote against his initiative….
Nahhh. That would require him to (a) listen to what someone else said, (b) consider the possibility that he is in error, and (c) be willing to put the public interest first, over his own finances and ego. The odds that he is willing to do any of these things is pretty unlikely, and the odds against him doing all three are astronomical.