State Rep. Cary Condotta (R-Wenatchee) sends this follow-up to the Star of Grand-Coulee article about the tax proposal that I quoted below:
You uncovered an obscure article on a little test marketing I was doing in a small town in my district. Yes, it is true I have been engaged in discussions about structural changes in our tax system . As one of your brighter readers noted, it is very worthy of discussion. This article is inaccurate in many ways( the governor is not involved and no final proposal is near) but the essence is that we are looking at a number of possibility's. The no prop tax idea was one of them. We have many others.But remember, any tax system change would have to go before the voters as a constitutional amendment. It will have to be acceptable and beneficial to a wide range of interests. We have amazing opportunity before us if we do it right. If you remember my background you will understand why I am engaged in this discussion. Before I was a State Rep. I was a major supporter of Eyman initiatives to LIMIT TAXES. Is there a better way to limit those taxes than though the constitution. Right now the only tax that is technically limited is the property tax. What if we could constitutionally limit them all? And what if in the process we actually had a flatter tax system that benefited 4 out of 5 people ,and made us more competitive in business. I have seen models that do just that, and that's why I am excited about the possibility's. Your readers response is of great value in sensing the reaction to new ideas. I want to assure you as a big fan and regular reader that what I have not changed my philosophy and will not accept or promote any plan that would be contrary to it ... The No prop tax proposal is a NO prop tax proposal. This means all prop taxes state and local would go. This is the best proposal by far but has severe logistical problems. I did not what your readers to think that this was only the state portion. That has been tried before and failed.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 20, 2006 10:27 AM | Email This
Wouldn't that take away the value of good leadership at the local level? Local leaders could spend like drunken sailors, over-develop and do whatever they please if they have a guaranteed income from the state.
I would much prefer the state sales tax going away or being reduced to a nominal level. I am a strong advocate of a State income tax. Our state's "consumption" based system is one of the most regressive in the nation. It also balances the enormous tax burden on the poor and the working class families. Those who can least afford it pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the Bill Gates' in our state.
The tax burden on small business' is way beyond ridiculous at both the federal and the state levels.
Posted by: sgmmac on October 20, 2006 10:40 AMI'm bothered, though, by your assumption in the second paragraph that whatever replaces it will create irresponsible spending. Any new plan would have to specify funding limits in one way or another. And losing local property taxes might cause our local governments to focus on basic services first, instead of funding arts projects out of the general fund and then requesting special levies for things like EMS (as most of them do now). No property tax, no levies.
"Progressive" and "regressive" are terms I've come to distrust. A "progressive" tax means the rich have to pay a higher percentage than anyone else. "Regressive" is a nasty-sounding word to disguise "fair across the board". I believe it's no coincidence the Libs have started adopting the word "Progressive" to hide the fact that they're Liberals. And "liberal" used to be a wonderful word, too, when it meant someone who was generous with their OWN money. It's a shame what they've done to our language.
Any income tax, other than a flat tax, is unfair to those who take risks to better themselves and their communities. I would accept an income tax as an alternative to the sales tax if, AND ONLY IF, it was a flat tax with severe restrictions on the ability to raise the rate.
Posted by: sro on October 20, 2006 11:12 AM#9, though, was redundantdant. :)
Posted by: sro on October 20, 2006 11:45 AMI use the word regressive because that is the term used to describe a consumption based tax system.
As an example, a family making 40 grand a year pays a huge percentage of their yearly income in consumption taxes, sometimes up to 30 and 40%compared to Bill Gates, who pays probably less than 1% of his income in consumption taxes.
What that does to the poor and the working class families is to keep them forever on welfare or living paycheck to paycheck. It also lets the rich get richer and richer. Look at Bill Gates who has been getting away with murder for years in Washington State, because his yearly income has never been taxed by the state.
Small business' are hurt the worse they pay 30% straight up income taxes to the feds, then they are slammed with state B & O taxes on gross income and then their expenses. Many of them go bankrupt.
My sentence about the local leadership is still worrisome to me. We vote them into office and hold them accountable, if they arn't wise stewards with our property taxes, we vote them out of office. Only 22.1 percent of my property taxes goes to the state, the rest is local. If that money is replaced by something else like income taxes, and every county and city gets the same as they did previously, what is the incentive for them to be responsible? It also is problematic, because the districts with the greatest amount of representatives could vote themselves more money........
Posted by: sgmmac on October 20, 2006 11:52 AMI do agree that a clear thought is much gooder than perfect grammar, though good grammer helps clear thought by eliminating much amibiguity.
"I am doing good" is the common way of saying "I am doing well", though means something different.
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 20, 2006 12:30 PM
Absolutely, and other taxes as well. If you buy something big like a car or a washer and dryer. You pay taxes on electricity, gas, and phone. My phone bill from quest looks like a nightmare with city taxes, state taxes, B&O taxes, federal taxes, surcharges, etc. You name it - it's a tax on your phone bill. B&O taxes and property taxes are added into services and things like rent. The federal taxes on gasoline is 18 cents and our curent state rate is thirty something a gallon ......
That family making 40 grand a year, isn't bringing home 40 grand. It's minus social security taxes, medicare taxes and federal taxes, right off of the top. Then they have health insurance, car insurance, rent, food and utilities. If they smoke, drink, or have another sin like eating potted meat, they are taxed at a real obscene level.
Posted by: sgmmac on October 20, 2006 01:52 PMGiven the dismall track-record of the (D)-controlled Legislature, it may indeed be that the ONLY ''safe'' way to impose, enforce, and KEEP hard limits on taxes is to clearly write those limits into the Constitution. That way no matter how much the tax-and-spend liberals continue to lust for ever-higher taxes to fund their push toward a socialist ''paradise'', the voters would always have the last word.
Granted: Given the seemingly endless ''creativity'' of some big-government types in raising taxes, an effective Constitutional amendment in this area would need to be very well crafted. But given reasonable care in that drafting, surely we would be way better off with Constitutional limits than we are now ??
Posted by: Methow Ken on October 20, 2006 10:04 PM
saving grace = i never gave them a dime. similar experience, though, with slow and off-point general responses in a pre-spun form letter. feels like they are saying to a constituent, "Here's a frikkin response--now go away."
note to "elected's" & their staffs: always a good idea to respond to your constituents--and address their point(s). simple concept?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 21, 2006 06:39 AM