by Goldy, 04/26/2010, 1:15 PM

Last week’s I-1077 kickoff marked an unexpected change of tactics for Tim Eyman. He not only made eye contact with me for the first time in god-knows-when, he actually chatted jovially as we shared our mutual disdain for government by jaywalking together across Yesler.

And then moments after Bill Gates Sr. ended his remarks, Tim invited the media outside, where he attempted to establish himself as our state’s most visible and vocal opponent of a middle class tax cut.

Yes, that’s right, Tim Eyman, who’s made a career out of hawking tax cuts, is positioning himself to be the voice of the opposition to an initiative that would cut taxes for 97% of households, and 90% of businesses.

Huh?

So whose side is Tim on? The overwhelming majority of businesses who would see their B&O tax eliminated? The 97% of households who would see their taxes go down? Or the 3% of households — our state’s wealthiest — who will be asked to pick up a little more of the cost of maintaining the extraordinarily high quality of life in Washington state?

31 Responses to “Whose side is Tim on?”

2. N in Seattle spews:

So whose side is Tim on?

Michael Dunmire’s.

Now ask us a difficult question.

3. notaboomer spews:

if ur related to this goldy, perhaps he could make you a fraternal donation:

http://tinyurl.com/22kfhsc

4. notaboomer spews:

did you makeout at the bar after the presser?

5. delbert spews:

Goldy, stop lying. You know the income tax will creep down to everybody eventually. Then we have a sales tax, a B&O tax AND an income tax.

And no jobs. But since you’re chronically unemployable, I guess it just doesn’t matter to you.

6. Spit in the ocean spews:

Goldy , as opposed to the initiative process as you have been over the years , you have finally crossed into the political reality , that politicians don’t work that good here . You have finally reached the only logical approach to a broken government . Welcome to the real Washington , Initiatives rule , Goldy .

7. Toby spews:

It’s funny that those most against taxing the rich are the same ones who would not be allowed in their houses to so much as hang the drapes.

The thing to remember about the rich is that they pee in their pants, one leg at a time, just like the rest of us.

8. ArtFart spews:

@7 Yeah…except their pants cost a hell of a lot more than mine.

9. rhp6033 spews:

Joel Connelly seems to agree on this one….

Income tax on the rich: What’s Eyman afraid of?
By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

“…With the unveiling of Initiative 1077, a hybrid of B & O and property tax cuts plus an income tax on the wealthy, a shaft of light has penetrated our state’s dark, depressing, Eyman-dominated tax debate. Eyman no longer holds center stage, which led to an outcry Friday from the perennial initiative mercenary. To a growing hunger for reform, he offered boilerplate and canned villains….

In Eyman’s case, right-thinking believers are asked to fight “they” by opening their checkbooks to support an initiative to repeal tax measures passed by the Legislature. Contributions will, of course, underwrite Tim Eyman.

What’s lost? The answer is intelligent discussion: The strident overwhelms the sensible, not only on shout-a-thon talk shows but in public radio’s Eyman-centric state capital coverage.

Eyman usually moves to cut unpopular taxes. He sounds like a populist, but the rich reap a gold mine in his initiatives while the working poor get the shaft.

“He’s afraid of what will happen if the coalition behind (I-1077) succeeds: Given a chance to enact real tax reform, voters could be less inclined to listen to him. He needs Washington’s tax structure to be unfair so there will be an appetite for his schemes in the future,” the Northwest Progressive Institute noted on Friday.”

Income tax on the rich: What’s Eyman afraid of?

10. Ezra Meeker spews:

Sure the legislature will respect the will of the people and only tax the wealthy… Just like they respected the will of the people on I-960. Two years (sooner if they decide it’s an “emergency”) and everybody with a job will be declared wealthy.

11. MikeBoyScout spews:

@9 rhp6033 on 04/26/2010 at 2:37 pm,

Right on. Joel nailed it. Timmy is on his own side.

12. Scrofula Scabies Smegma and Rabbit, Attorneys at Law spews:

Time for a betting pool here, unless that’s a felony like online hold’em.

How many millions of $$ will Gates & Gates & Preston and the rest of the liberal legal establishment dump into buying passage of 1077 in the Gates State?

How many of those $$ will be pulled in from out of state?

How vanishingly remote is the possibility that the buying, by tax-sheltered liberal lawyers, of a WA income tax will be called Gatesgate by anyone but me?

13. Scrofula Scabies Smegma and Rabbit, Attorneys at Law spews:

Whoa! There IT IS!!! At the top of goldy’s homepage …

Ted Nugent Live, August, 30 minutes from uptown downtown Seattle.

Be there or be [ ]. Get your guns.

14. Daddy Love spews:

1 CRU

I beg to differ. Ted Van Dyk says “The present Gates proposal is both sensible and well intended.”

His musings on constitutionality are beside the point of who would see benefits. And I believe that his editor’s titling that implies that so-called ‘progressives’ will have concerns about “the camel’s nose” to be completely incorrect.

Unless delbert here is a progressive. Say it ain’t so, del, say it ain’t so!

15. Daddy Love spews:

Goldy –

I don’t get your math. How is it that “97% of households…would see their taxes go down?”

I mean, there are an awful lot of renters out there, and I doubt that property tax savings will be passed on to them. Do you really mean “97% or property-owning households?” “97% of homeowners?”

Please ‘splain this to me.

16. sarge spews:

@15: Property tax is a component of every single lease, commercial or residential. Real estate ownership isn’t a monopoly in this state, so yes, in a competitive environment, with vacancies, as we have now, real estate tax cuts will get passed on to renters.

17. Daddy Love spews:

5 del

You know the income tax will creep down to everybody eventually.

Actually, no one knows anything of the sort, least oif all you. If your representatives makes change such as this to the tax later, you can campaign against them/elect someone else. That’s kind of the representative governement deal. If you don’t think they care about that, then why haven’t they passed an income tax before this?

Then we have a sales tax, a B&O tax AND an income tax.

And? So what? We have all kinds of taxes now. The mere fact of their existence is not very compelling. It’s as though you think you are making an argument that you don’t bother to state.

I don’t run a business myself, so I don’t really care too much about B&O except that it is representative of our ridiculous overall revenue machine. I’d prefer to see a VERY steeply progressive income tax and a better designed business tax and NO sales tax, but that’s just me.

18. proud leftist spews:

DL @ 17
Are you not aware that Delbert is prescient and all-knowing? Yup, he’s got all the answers. I don’t know why we don’t install him as king.

19. Goldy spews:

Daddy Love @15,

Sarge is right. If you believe in markets, then lowering the property tax on rental properties should, on average and over time, result in lower rents, as the property tax is part of the cost of doing business.

In fact, this was the main drawback to the property tax homestead exemption I championed; by shifting burden to commercial property and rentals, as well as high value residential, it could have adversely impacted renters.

20. ArtFart spews:

@12 Very.

In case ya haven’t heard….those guys don’t have to go to any other states to beg other people for money. They have lots and lots of their own.

21. MikeBoyScout spews:

@19 Goldy 04/26/2010 at 4:53 pm,

If you believe in markets, …

How about we leave Glibertarian Randroid religion out of the equation?

Rather than quoting or promising some magic bean formula that gets us to 97% of households let’s focus on what we know. The argument is strong enough that we need not attempt to sweeten the pot with hypotheticals.

22. MikeBoyScout spews:

Adding to my previous post….
Regardless of the eventual court case that comes as result of this initiative’s passing, it is time to strike while the iron is hot and avoid any risk of being dragged down some bunny trail of an argument.

The reason this initiative polls so well is that a super majority of residents in this state realize that the losers in the financial collapse of 2008 are everybody but the richest. The people don’t begrudge the rich of their money, but we understand full well that the most advantaged among us didn’t and couldn’t have lost as much as the rest of us.

There are many real advantages in what this initiative offers. Let’s stay in the message framework that works.

23. Roger Rabbit spews:

“So whose side is Tim on?”

He’s just another prostitute for the privileged rich who think they’re being screwed because they have to pay one-fifth as much of their income to the state as poor folks do. But hey, look at who’s paying Timmeh’s rent.

24. Roger Rabbit spews:

Speaking of prostitutes, check out the Bunny Ranch lineup!

http://www.bunnyranch.com/bunnybabes/bunnybabes_featured.php

(NSFW)

Yep, we should take up a collection to send Goldy. He’s a good blogger, but great bloggers get laid. (Caution: Timmeh is in there somewhere, but I can’t figure out which one is him.)

25. Roger Rabbit spews:

A federal appeals court has let stand a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart alleging gender discrimination that could cost the retailer billions.

http://www.aolnews.com/money/article/appeals-court-clears-way-for-class-action-discrimination-suit-against-wal-mart/19454899

26. righton spews:

anyone who sides w/ Connolly must be a moron; that poor guy hasn’t had it right for decades….

who’s against a broad Sales plus Income tax?

I’m against it; you give them an Income tax, it will quickly become like California, hitting most all of us

(ok, i’m biased; i’m part of the 52% paying an income tax)

27. heckuva job, rabbit spews:

Here’s a variation on the theme of costly gender discrimination, via today’s Daily.

A Dub Dialy writer named (ahem) Lolita needs a little stash of recession cash. She applies for appropriately menial jobs, but loses out to 50-year-old unemployed men.

Then a recurring employment ad for beverage servers pulls her in. In no time she’s pulling $200/night, is winning hot waitress contests, and is told that she has the talent and the tail to make at least $1000. Each night. All this from wearing a darling little high-school cheerleader skirt.

Sounds like nice work and easy money. She keeps most of her clothes on, even during the contests, and probably makes at least double the take-home going to those menial 50-year-old men. Men.

Want to bet that Colacurcio not only fails to promote his cheerleader servers who are 50-year-old men, but that he doesn’t even hire 50-year-old men to serve lady’s drinks to lonely guys who want only a cute skirt and ten minutes for telling their true confessions?

What part of sexist exploitation and gender discrimination does Seattle not understand? And why, asked Nabokov, is there no Lo to behold?

28. Ho Ho Ho spews:

There’s just something weird about a rabbit dumping on whores. Rabbits get screwed by definition. They breed like bunnies and they jump from hole to hole.

If sharks don’t eat liberal trial lawyers because they share a kindred sense of professional courtesy, then why can’t whores and bunnies be buddies? They go together like love and marriage, horse and carriage, Walla and Walla.

Every time I look at the happy hooker ads in the back of the Savage Stranger, I immediately think of Rabbit. Not that there are many of those times.

29. Richard Pope spews:

I-1077 only taxes the income of rich individuals, and does not tax the income of corporations at all. Put an income tax on corporations at the same rate as individuals, and I could support it. But not like it is written.

30. MIke Barer spews:

I think initiative are just a reflex action for TE.

31. rhp6033 spews:

# 27: So you are saying sexual discrimination in the workplace at Wal-Mart is justified because it’s expected for a waitress gig at a topless joint???????