Fuck. I-5 collapsed in WA

[XavierD]

I still can't figure out why working people rejected an income tax imposed only on households with income >$400,000. Is Grover Norquist's propaganda that effective?

Well I voted against it, and don't plan on making over 400k any time soon... Guess I don't think we should make small groups of people pay for everyone else's things.
Sales taxes are significantly more appealing to me than income tax, even if they are more tied down to the changes in the economy.

But yea, the bridge. Trucking company's fault as far as I am concerned. You shouldn't need big brother to tell you if you are to tall. After all, it is the trucking company that wanted to move all that crap from north to south, not WADOT.

[GeezerSteve]

Guess I don't think we should make small groups of people pay for everyone else's things.
Sales taxes are significantly more appealing to me than income tax. . . .

Well, of course, the proposed tax would not have resulted in "small groups of people pay[ing] for everyone else's things" because the sales tax, RE excise tax, B&O tax and property taxes would remain. WA's lack of a progressive tax and high reliance on sales tax does the converse of your imagined problem: it imposes a proportionally miniscule tax burden on the richest WA residents while putting an undue burden on working people and small biz. Under WA's sales tax, a typical working family might pay 4% of its income and a percentage approaching infinity of their net wealth in sales tax each year, while Paul Allen pays 0.0000000001% of his income and 0.0000000000000001% of his wealth in WA sales taxes each year. That's fair taxation in your book? Re biz taxation, Microsoft and Boeing pay near zero in B&O tax, while my business and other small businesses -- even those who are not profitable -- get hammered with B&O taxes.

One huge problem with discussing taxation policies is that the simple sounding solutions, e.g., flat tax, are deceptively sold as "fair," when, in application, they are hugely regressive.

[GoldMember]

During the time I've been voting (since 1986) I have not seen any proposal to institute an income tax AND eliminate the sales tax. If that was proposed I'd vote for it, but no way am I giving the legislature the power to stick it to me both coming and going. Income tax OR sales tax, not both.

I've been voting since 1974. Here is a history for these measures as put to the voters:

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publ...-measures-1932

2010 – Initiative 1098, to impose a state income tax: Yes 36%; No 64%


1982 – Initiative 435, to impose a business income tax to replace the B&O tax and the sales tax on food: Yes 34%; No 66%

1975 – Initiative 314: to impose a business income tax: Yes 33%; No 67%

1973 – HJR 37, to imposes a state income tax: Yes 23%; No 77%

Clearly, the voters have not been impressed. Your view of not having both a sales AND an income tax is how I felt about it, too; and apparently plenty of other voters. The proposals were along the lines of reducing the sales tax to something like 2% while imposing an income tax. Too many weapons in the hands of legislators where they can raise taxes at multiple levels at their choosing. Booth Gardner was a champion of that approach.

Well, I didn't quite say that.

What do you mean "stand alone?" Car tab fees are part of WSDOT's funding. See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/FinanceExplained.htm Car tab revenue has been slashed as a result of Horseass Eyman's initiatives. But for those initiatives, of course WA would have had more money to replace obsolete infrastructure, and it's not a big leap to suggest that the extra money might have been used to replace this bridge. Yeah, I know it's speculation and that's why I said "a good chance," and neither can you prove that revenue from status quo ante car tab revenue would not have been used to fix this bridge. Throw in the decrease in fuel tax revenue resulting from more fuel efficient cars and the lack of legislative will to do anything about it, and it's no wonder that WA has 366 structurally deficient bridges and 1,693 functionally obsolete bridges. Bridges don't fix themselves.

My comments re the lack of income tax is my standard response to the wah wah I want more government services but I don't want to pay any taxes standard palaver.

What I mean by 'stand-alone' is that transportation funding is a siloed enterprise fund.

On the car tabs, yes they are part of WSDOT's funding. Yes, that revenue stream is stand alone for transportation along with gas tax and other permit fees, etc. I don't disagree with anything you stated and I also wish Eyman would go away. I voted against all his initiatives and felt the car-tab initiative was particularly bad for the reasons you stated. We're not in disagreement at all on this. I had forgotten his first initiative related to the tabs and was more directed toward his increase limitations.

On the income tax, I don't mind paying my share of taxes and I'm not begging for help. I was only pointing out the failure mechanism to such proposals. Bottom line: The voters don't trust the legislature enough to put more tax weapons in their hands. Also, on the last income tax initiative, I think X quoted below hit the target. I think the initiative writers felt that most people would vote for an improvement in services for the many at the expense of the few. I have to give credit to the voters for not imposing a tax on only 3% of the people to benefit the masses. I think that demonstrates a promising thought pattern going forward; all in.

Well I voted against it, and don't plan on making over 400k any time soon... Guess I don't think we should make small groups of people pay for everyone else's things.
Sales taxes are significantly more appealing to me than income tax, even if they are more tied down to the changes in the economy.

But yea, the bridge. Trucking company's fault as far as I am concerned. You shouldn't need big brother to tell you if you are to tall. After all, it is the trucking company that wanted to move all that crap from north to south, not WADOT.

Great comment on the income tax initiative!

Yeah, trucker's fault but considering that bridge had been hit 22 times just in the past year, it still makes sense to try and avoid having it hit, regardless of whose fault it was.

Well, of course, the proposed tax would not have resulted in "small groups of people pay[ing] for everyone else's things" because the sales tax, RE excise tax, B&O tax and property taxes would remain. WA's lack of a progressive tax and high reliance on sales tax does the converse of your imagined problem: it imposes a proportionally miniscule tax burden on the richest WA residents while putting an undue burden on working people and small biz. Under WA's sales tax, a typical working family might pay 7% of its income and a percentage approaching infinity of their net wealth in sales tax each year, while Paul Allen pays 0.0000000001% of his income and 0.0000000000000001% of his wealth in WA sales taxes each year. That's fair taxation in your book? Re biz taxation, Microsoft and Boeing pay near zero in B&O tax, while my business and other small businesses -- even those who are not profitable -- get hammered.

One huge problem with discussing taxation policies is that the simple sounding solutions, e.g., flat tax, are deceptively sold as "fair," when, in application, they are hugely regressive.

Take a look at California. With the disparity of tax law they have in place, the folks with the money are the folks with the moving vans on their way out of the state. Beware of unintended consequences.

[toast2266]

Take a look at California. With the disparity of tax law they have in place, the folks with the money are the folks with the moving vans on their way out of the state. Beware of unintended consequences.

Not actually true, according to pretty much every fact based study and analysis.

On the other hand, regressive tax structures do correlate with low and middle income people moving out of the state because they can't afford to live there. So yeah; unintended consequences.

edit: just in case you want sources as to the first point:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2...ut-people-are/
https://iriss.stanford.edu/millionaire_tax
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/ne...-of-California
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8AH07S20121119

[Hugh Conway]

Take a look at California. With the disparity of tax law they have in place, the folks with the money are the folks with the moving vans on their way out of the state. Beware of unintended consequences.

What the fuck are you talking about? Take the Bay area. We kept the really well paid tech asshole C-suites and sales and farmed out the decent interesting people elsewhere.... to places like Washington.

[GoldMember]

There's been a fairly long history of relocated Californians to our area for years, mostly driven by housing costs in the past. The passage of Prop 30 is recent and the results of it passing are not yet demonstrably proven but the fear of exodus certainly exists.

http://allthingsd.com/20121204/what-...entrepreneurs/

Whatever, not really the issue at hand. What's at hand is how to keep bridges from falling down.

[Hugh Conway]

There's been a fairly long history of relocated Californians to our area for years, mostly driven by housing costs in the past. The passage of Prop 30 is recent and the results of it passing are not yet demonstrably proven but the fear of exodus certainly exists.

Oh, you are quoting a WSJ editorial. The WSJs stupid demagoguery is part of the issue at hand. Shit costs money to fix. If you don't give people money to spend to fix shit... shit won't get fixed.

[GoldMember]

Oh, you are quoting the WSJ editorial staff.

Yeah, the WSJs stupid demagoguery is part of the issue at hand.

ummm.... here is the author's quickie bio:

Ethan Anderson is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He is a former Google Product Manager and the founder and CEO of Redbeacon, the 2009 TechCrunch50 winner, which was acquired by the Home Depot earlier this year.

[Hugh Conway]

ummm....

so he was the shill they trucked in, what's your point? You need money to fix shit. At some point you either a) cut everything else or b) raise taxes because you can't keep chasing c) the fleeting "waste" and one time deals.

[Buke]

Interesting how this thread about an infrastructure disaster has become a debate about state taxation.

I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Eyman is way out in right field but he strikes a chord with a large number of people (me included, although I think I've only voted for 1 of his initiatives). That is, that the legislature isn't effective at making tough choices so given the chance, they'll raise taxes to pay for government services rather than cut less important services 9 out of 10 times. Given the slow incremental growth in taxes over time (whether real or just percieved, I don't know) people finally got fed up with it and took away that power from the legislature. Of course it's worth noting that the legislature can still raise taxes, they just need a super majority, so if it's important enough it can happen without a public vote.

Steve, I agree that our B&O tax system is about as backwards as it can possibly be. However, aren't you an attorney and thus classified as a service. Doesn't that put your tax rate at 1.8% of your gross revenues? The part that pisses me off about the B&O tax system is that it's applied to your gross revenues. This penalizes businesses with higher overhead and operating expenses. It also means that in my industry fees are often taxed multiple times. For instance I subcontract with an architect and contract with a drafter to draft my designs so the architect, myself and the drafter all pay B&O tax on the same dollar.

Ultimately though, the B&O tax isn't a huge deal for me because I'm a sole proprietor that works from home. My overhead is miniscule and my actual income is about 80-85% of my gross revenues so my effective rate is more like 2.25%.

[GoldMember]

so he was the shill they trucked in, what's your point? You need money to fix shit. At some point you either a) cut everything else or b) raise taxes because you can't keep chasing c) the fleeting "waste" and one time deals.

The point was that the state income tax initiatives proposed in Washington have failed miserably at the polls.

Back to the bridge and other infrastructure; I support a new transportation package. The revenue sourcing is still in question but I have no doubt that it involves some increase in taxes in some form, and that they should be in the silo of transportation use as in gas tax, mileage tax, electric/hybrid vehicle surcharge or potentially some other means that can all be blended so they treat users of infrastructure equitably. None of this should involve an income tax and apparently can't as past similar measures have failed. So, get over the income tax crying; it ain't gonna happen. If we want infrastructure repaired/replaced/expanded, the funding will not be derived from a tax that's not related to transportation.

Save your hostile attitude for someone else.

[Hugh Conway]

Eyman is way out in right field but he strikes a chord with a large number of people (me included, although I think I've only voted for 1 of his initiatives). That is, that the legislature isn't effective at making tough choices so given the chance, they'll raise taxes to pay for government services rather than cut less important services 9 out of 10 times.

That's the core of the Eyman cop out. The legislature isn't effective at making "tough" choices because the voters aren't willing to accept cuts in services. They just want the services they receive to cost less in some magical voodoo. How do you make road & bridge repair cost less? You just don't do it....

goldmember - if you truck out a weakass WSJ oped and polls from the 70s and 80s to support your opinions what the hell do you expect? The WSJ are the print arm of Fox News and Washington as a state has changed much.

It's hilarious when it's not sad watching Washington and it's steaming contempt for California make all of the same fuckups as California regarding governance, urban planning and taxation.

[GoldMember]

goldmember - if you truck out a weakass WSJ oped and polls from the 70s and 80s to support your opinions what the hell do you expect? The WSJ are the print arm of Fox News and Washington as a state has changed much.

To repeat, check the date on the latest attempt at an income tax:

2010 – Initiative 1098, to impose a state income tax: Yes 36%; No 64%

Not from the 70's and 80's, although it's worth noting that the level of failure is pretty consistent over the decades.

As for the article, nice ad hominem attack. I don't care who printed the article, it's just an opinion piece and one that makes some sense. Regardless, Prop 30 is at the heart of the debate and I found this article interesting. It even came from the Huffington Post so I assume you likely won't attack the source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3007842.html

In particular, I found this passage interesting:

"More than $30 billion over the next seven years will go to the service of a debt that wasn't disclosed before the voters were asked to approve the tax increase," predicted former CalSTRS board member David Crane in a recent Bloomberg editorial. Crane was reportedly ousted from the board about a decade ago for warning that the system's growth forecasts were too rosy and that a large shortfall loomed."

What should be apparent is that Washington should not want to follow California's lead.

Back to the bridge... I mean the Skagit River bridge, not the one the trolls seem to live under around here.

[Hugh Conway]

What should be apparent is that Washington should not want to follow California's lead.

So why are you ham-stringing government funding like California did 30+ years ago, one of the things that lead it into it's great mess? Why is sensible public transportation such a big fight? Why won't you encourage denser urban development?

Troll's post opeds that fellate their feelings. You can just as easily substitute "the US" for "California" and "the World" for "the other states". The reasoning behind the choices is similar.

[GoldMember]

The state income tax related to CA is what I would not want to see hamstringing the WA economy. I already stated I support a transportation package with new revenue sources with a direct relationship. By direct silos of taxation going to direct public benefit, it seems the waste is less than what happens when taxes go to a general fund that is spent however the legislature decides it should be. CA has fallen into that trap and the results noted above regarding Prop 30 only further demonstrate where I don't want to see WA go.

And you're right, we are following CA to a T in the sense that the answer that the legislature always seems to come to is to tax more so more can be spent. There is a happy medium to achieve public benefit but so far, we haven't found it.

[Hugh Conway]

By direct silos of taxation going to direct public benefit, it seems the waste is less than what happens when taxes go to a general fund that is spent however the legislature decides it should be. CA has fallen into that trap

California has fallen into the "direct silo" funding trap you mean. Because it's had that for years. And it's failed, miserably. It fails pretty much everywhere.

Prop 30 was just an increase in the sales & income tax. California has had an income tax for a long time, so other than WSJ fear mongering, what's your objection? An income tax - of a low nature - helps smooth the tax base. That's a good thing.

[GeezerSteve]

Interesting how this thread about an infrastructure disaster has become a debate about state taxation.

Do you deny any connection between WSDOT's lack of revenue and WA's pathetic crumbling highway infrastructure? Seriously?

Of course Eyman struck a chord with the uneducated masses. So did Joe McCarthy, Grover Norquist, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the other populists who spew deceptive, dishonest and overly simplistic drivel. The fundamental flaw of democracy is that simplistic sound bite myth will always drown out rational analysis of complex issues, see Plato, and that flaw manifests itself with full force re the subject of tax policy.

Bottom line: The voters don't trust the legislature enough to put more tax weapons in their hands.

"Tax weapons?" [sigh] Nah. The bottom line is that the Koch brothers-funded anti-progressive tax lobby once again managed to dupe working people and small businesses to vote against their interests. How do they do that? By, among other things, deeming all forms of taxation as "weapons." So, are you a Koch brothers shill or one of the suckers who took the bait?

As I said, it's just gonna get worse due to McCleary vs. State of Washington. And the Eyman dittoheads and Koch brothers brainwash victims will continue to scream "wah wah I want more government services but I don't want to pay any taxes." My sympathy for working class people who continually vote against their interests is wearing thin.

[PNWbrit]

"wah wah I want more government services but I don't want to pay any taxes."

You forgot the "But I'm not fucking paying for anyone else's" part.

[GoldMember]

CA's income tax isn't of a low nature. As for silo funding, WA has done it that way forever wrt Transportation and it historically has worked fine. The license tabs initiative from Eyman took a bite out but the nickel package and the $.09 have been beneficial. I don't see the new transportation package being any different in terms of benefit.

On the license tabs, the excise tax (in my opinion) was unfair in that each car had essentially the same demand on infrastructure but newer, more expensive cars were charged at much higher rates. By doing away with the excise tax on the tabs, it leveled tax/demand more equitably. It also encouraged the purchase of newer cars and to license in-state for border cities, like Spokane. Having said that, I still voted against the initiative as we have to pay for infrastructure and no tax is perfect. And again, I don't like the initiative process in general and can't think of one I've voted in favor of.

[Hugh Conway]

CA's income tax isn't of a low nature. As for silo funding, WA has done it that way forever wrt Transportation and it historically has worked fine..

"other than all that failing infrastructure it worked fine".

"California has a high income tax so the only way Washington would ever have an income tax is if it were high" despite the proposed Washington income taxes not being high at all.

Ugh, it's like reading some California 70s/80s/90s zombie.

[GoldMember]

"Tax weapons?" [sigh] Nah. The bottom line is that the Koch brothers-funded anti-progressive tax lobby once again managed to dupe working people and small businesses to vote against their interests. How do they do that? By, among other things, deeming all forms of taxation as "weapons." So, are you a Koch brothers shill or one of the suckers who took the bait?

As I said, it's just gonna get worse due to McCleary vs. State of Washington. And the Eyman dittoheads and Koch brothers brainwash victims will continue to scream "wah wah I want more government services but I don't want to pay any taxes." My sympathy for working class people who continually vote against their interests is wearing thin.

Actually, I know very little about the Koch Brothers and don't follow the, Norquist, or any of the rest of thems, crowd. Frankly, while I am a Republican, I'm old-school and absolutely abhor the Tea Party and the impact it's had on what was once just a mildly dysfunctional government. In the new world, I'm certainly considered a RINO by the further right.

I was actually rather proud of coining 'tax weapons'... I will say, though, I think that's how the addition of an income tax is viewed in this state; another weapon used by the Legislature to take money away from the citizens. In any case, I am not that concerned with paying higher taxes and don't make any more demand on our services than most. I guess my only real concern with an income tax is that we (including Gregoire while still in office) use the fact that we don't have an income tax as a recruiting key for new business to the state. It's an economic development benefit that has value to companies. Like mentioned, I support a new transportation package and am willing to pay my share for it. So bring it on and let's get the show on the road, so to speak.

[GeezerSteve]

[I] absolutely abhor the Tea Party

* * *
. . . the addition of an income tax is . . .another weapon used by the Legislature to take money away from the citizens.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

[GoldMember]

Sound bytes taken out of context... I meant that I believe it's how the voters viewed the income tax as demonstrated by the voting record.

[GeezerSteve]

Yeah, we know how the right wing echo chamber works

[Chainsaw_Willie]

If the government wants more of my money than it already gets, I need to see that they are using the money they currently have wisely. Things like those electronic speed limit signs, all the stupid bicycle symbols they've painted everywhere, the bus stops that now project into the street and cause all traffic to halt behind a stopped bus collectively show me that the govt is more interested in polishing the turd than spending wisely. I'm generally against tax increases not because I don't want to pay for necessary services but because I believe the government is rife with waste and mismanagement at all levels*. Show me a tight, efficiently run organization that gets the most out of what i give them and I'll be far more receptive to giving more when it's needed.

*- example: I was working on getting a cdl with hazmat endorsement for awhile. I needed to take a test as part of the process so I go down to the dol and they have a machine where you press different buttons depending on what type of service you need. I press the button for taking a test and get a ticket with a 3 digit number on it. The place is somewhat busy but not packed and there are 8 computers in the testing room of which only three are in use. I figure my number will get called pretty soon but I ended up sitting there for 2-1/2 hours 'til the place closed and only a couple other people waiting for tests got called in that time. There were never more than 5 computers in use at any given time. How ridiculous is that? A child could run that operation more efficiently, but instead we pay half-witted adults to do it with our tax dollars.