WA Legislature Opens New Class Warfare Front

Mustn't let a good crisis go to waste. Hit the upper class while the media has everyone whipped up over the AIG bonuses. Timing is everything....right?
Not to mention that the sales tax has just increased to 9.5% in WA.
 
Wonder if other states are do devoid of leadership in their legistlative bodies? Wash's Dem driven agendas seems to not be able to connect that authorization on going programs without revenue sources generates deficits.
Interesting how little press is given to the fact that total spending in the State is still higher in the new "reduced" budget is still higher than the last biennium.
Somehow, our esteem legistlators do not understand that capital does not lay idle and those who are fortune enough to have excess are the ones who are most likely to deploy it in ways beyond simple consumer spending.
Nwsteve
 
Washington state has entrenched one-party government.

I'm grateful that, at least for now, Gov. Grimoire is making noises like she's opposing the income tax. We'll see how long that lasts; but I think she's savvy enough to get that an income tax = Republicans back in the majority in the legislature.
 
Say, ha,

Are you ready to move south of the border now?

What would it take? A Starbucks in Buenas Aires?

(I need an advance man to scope out the territory.)

your amigo,

El Gitano
 
haha said:
WA Legislature Opens New Class Warfare Front

Politics | Key senator working on state income-tax proposal | Seattle Times Newspaper

Taxation without representation anyone?

Ha
Click to expand...

I've never lived in Washington, so I'm missing all the nuances. But, the article seems to say that someone is making a proposal that makes the Washington tax system somewhat more "progressive". You call this "class warfare".

Are you saying that "progressive tax rates" = "class warfare"? Or are there special circumstances in Wasington that I'm missing?
 
Independent said:
I've never lived in Washington, so I'm missing all the nuances. But, the article seems to say that someone is making a proposal that makes the Washington tax system somewhat more "progressive". You call this "class warfare".

Are you saying that "progressive tax rates" = "class warfare"? Or are there special circumstances in Wasington that I'm missing?
Click to expand...
I think the term "class warfare" is over used and sometimes incendiary, but in this case I think it might fit. There's little question in my mind that some of these political hacks are using current populist anger against the bailouts of what they perceive to be big-shot multi-millionaire bankers in order to further a punitive agenda against the very wealthy.

Even the governor, in Ms. Brown's own party, is opposed to it.

I don't believe pushing for further progression in the income tax is necessarily aimed at "punishing achievement" or anything like that, but in this case, I do think there's a conscious effort to seize on the current public mood to let 'em have it.

As for enacting a state income tax, every now and then someone suggests it here in Texas, but it's like suggesting Social Security and Medicare cuts at an AARP convention.
 
Independent said:
Are you saying that "progressive tax rates" = "class warfare"? Or are there special circumstances in Wasington that I'm missing?
Click to expand...
What I am saying is very clear. This isn't any normal progressive tax, whatever the merits or demerits of those are.

This is a tax that almost anyone can be in favor of, because as it is being sold anyway, it could not possibly touch more than 1% of voters.

Some very high earning software people, some doctors and lawyers, some Amazon, Starbucks, Paccar execs, owners of successful car dealerships, real estate developers.

IMO the money is better off with these people than it would be in public hands. Many of the things I do every day are currently and were in the past funded by these highly productive local people. Who will do more for medical care in Africa, Bill Gates or Christine Gregoire?

Or, ask any Ferrari dealer how he sees it. I rather enjoy seeing Ferraris on the street, even though I know I will never have one.

Remember, Jesus said the poor will always be with us, and so far it looks like he was right, if for no other reason because what is "poor" will always be defined upward.

Ha
 
haha said:
What I am saying is very clear. This isn't any normal progressive tax, whatever the merits or demerits of those are.

This is a tax that almost anyone can be in favor of, because as it is being sold anyway, it could not possibly touch more than 1% of voters.

Some very high earning software people, some doctors and lawyers, some Amazon, Starbucks, Paccar execs, owners of successful car dealerships, real estate developers.

IMO the money is better off with these people than it would be in public hands. Many of the things I do every day are currently and were in the past funded by these highly productive local people. Who will do more for medical care in Africa, Bill Gates or Christine Gregoire?

Or, ask any Ferrari dealer how he sees it. I rather enjoy seeing Ferraris on the street, even though I know I will never have one.

Ha
Click to expand...

Okay. Assume Washington replaced some of its sales tax with an income tax, with progressive rates that go 1%, 2%, 3%. Further, assume that the 1% started early enough that most people at least paid that amount, but the 3% didn't kick in until $500lk. Then that wouldn't be "class warfare", correct?

I think Ziggy is saying that the real issue here is "Why would anybody support this?", rather than "What is the dollar effect?". I can kind of buy that.

Maybe I'd say that if the supporters intend it to be "punitive", then it's class warfare. If the supporters are simply looking for revenue, note that the Washington tax system is currently pretty flat, and figure it could be more progressive, then it's just "practical gov't financing".
 
They have made some progress since I left in 1969 - my home district got a civil rights lawyer in the 60's and I heard they were forced to actually count Republican votes instead of just penciling in a number.

I sure things have gone downhill ever since. I'm positive 'The God's' voiced their displeasure at the turn of event's with Mt St. Helens.

Of course I was wearing a tinfoil hat when that thought occured.

heh heh heh - you don't even want to know what sneaky things Missouri is contemplating to shore up revenue. :(
 
1% of 500,000 isn't going to cause Bill Gates to stop funding malaria work in Africa. The sky won't fall, really.

The real danger of a new tax is that, once it's started, it tends to get increased every year.
 
eridanus said:
The real danger of a new tax is that, once it's started, it tends to get increased every year.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what we opponents to a state income tax in Texas say. The proponents of it can talk about it being "revenue neutral" all they want by cutting sales taxes and property taxes, but it's FAR easier to raise an existing tax than to enact a new one, so most of us think it best to prevent the new one from taking hold. It wouldn't be long before we'd have an income tax and sales taxes raised back to their old levels anyway...
 
eridanus said:
1% of 500,000 isn't going to cause Bill Gates to stop funding malaria work in Africa. The sky won't fall, really.

The real danger of a new tax is that, once it's started, it tends to get increased every year.
Click to expand...

The bigger danger is that in total, the 1% tax isn't even enough to fund one hour of government -- mostly because the cost of collecting it will be eaten up by administration costs, and more.

Bad idea, won't fly.

-- Rita
 
The high paying jobs will move to California. Oh, wait. Maybe they'll move to New York? No, no. Portland? Hmm, Oregon's income tax is 5, 7, or 9%. New Hampshire? Nah, they have an interest and dividend tax. I think any tax escapees can move to Alaska, Nevada, Wyoming, or Singapore.
 
Gotadimple said:
The bigger danger is that in total, the 1% tax isn't even enough to fund one hour of government -- mostly because the cost of collecting it will be eaten up by administration costs, and more.

Bad idea, won't fly.

-- Rita
Click to expand...

Probably true since WA doesn't have an income tax currently. They'd have to set up a system, get a building, hire employees, etc. However, if they increase the % to 3% next year, and add another tier at 1%, and then do the same in 2011 and 2012, then we're talking real money. :cool:

To paraphrase Agent Smith, "Humans are like goldfish. They'll eat at the public trough until society collapses."
 
Dog said:
Mustn't let a good crisis go to waste. Hit the upper class while the media has everyone whipped up over the AIG bonuses.
Click to expand...

Less than ten years ago, the socialist party (which tends to win power often) in my Canadian province suggested the way to end the deficit was to 'let the rich pay', through income taxes. When the party leader was asked 'who are the rich', the answer was "anyone making more than $50K".

Beware, more people become 'rich' every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
ACA in NJ: Reconcile New Jersey Health Plan Savings credits
Replies
0
Views
170
GoneSwimming
G
Happyras
Thoughts on moving to 55plus community
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
pb4uski
pb4uski
Zona
Beneficial Ownership Info Reporting FinCEN requirement?
Replies
5
Views
251
Closet_Gamer
C
PageTwo
New WA state capital gains tax
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Chuckanut
Chuckanut
Tranquility Base
Front Door Visit From New Edward Jones Representative
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
tryan
tryan

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom