May 14, 2008
The Evidence Keeps Coming

Not only has Dino Rossi already surpassed his donor total from 2004. Not only is he raising money at a brisk pace against a Democratic incumbent (PDC reports as of the end of April show Gregoire with about $3.7 million on hand to his $3.1 million). He has already raised more in Snohomish County in this cycle than in the last:

"Frankly it's been remarkable how responsive people have been," said Tom Hoban of Everett, owner of Coast Real Estate Services and a leader of Rossi's finance team in the county.

Rossi received $348,000 from county donors from October, when he declared, through the end of April. By May 5, the total had reached $354,453 -- $5,000 more than he garnered in Snohomish County in the entire 2004 election.

"The reaction that we're getting is that many more people are contributing this time around," said former congressional candidate Doug Roulstone of Snohomish, another member of Rossi's fundraising squad.

Consider it more proof that dissatisfaction with the status quo, especially outside the borders of Seattle proper, remains high.

Posted by Eric Earling at May 14, 2008 07:31 AM | Email This
Comments
1. 'Consider it more proof that dissatisfaction with the status quo, especially outside the borders of Seattle proper, remains high.'


Interesting (albeit: self-serving) conclusion (?); let's keep this around and see how it compares with results on Nov 5th. :)

Posted by: Duffman on May 14, 2008 07:29 AM
2. Maybe the NRC should take a few notes from Dino's campaign.

Posted by: Andy on May 14, 2008 07:57 AM
3. Some how Duff. I don't really think people care about what you've said.

Your girl is going to crash know matter how much you spew on SP.

But hey, some people just have their calling. (-:

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 14, 2008 08:20 AM
4. Nov 5th! my man...we'll see for sure then, won't we? :)

Posted by: Duffman on May 14, 2008 08:23 AM
5. Dino wanted to spend Sound Transit's excess taxes from the East King subarea on road building.

What does Dino want to do with Sound Transit's excess taxes ripped from the pockets of Snohomish County families? Or maybe he doesn't have a plan for that . . ..

Posted by: piffle on May 14, 2008 08:34 AM
6. Eric, for your comments to be valid, you really need to compare this statistic to 2000, 1996, and 1992 versus just 2008 and 2004

It's hard to determine if this statistic means anything or if you're just "whistling past the grave yard" like Goldstein, Will, and the others on the other blog when they spout silly statistics on Darcy vs Dave

Posted by: Green Lake on May 14, 2008 08:42 AM
7. The active posters at this site seemed to be based in Sno County. Any of the active posters live in an urban area? It seems from comments that most live in rural areas or small towns. They have no clue what is going on in the rest of the state. Here are the state demographics:

1. For Sno County:

Snohomish County Washington
Population, 2006 estimate 669,887 6,395,798
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 10.5% 8.5%
Population, 2000 606,024 5,894,121

2. For King County:

King County Washington
Population, 2006 estimate 1,826,732 6,395,798
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 5.2% 8.5%
Population, 2000 1,737,034 5,894,121

3. For Pierce County:

Pierce County Washington
Population, 2006 estimate 766,878 6,395,798
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 9.4% 8.5%
Population, 2000 700,820 5,894,121

4. For Clark County:

Clark County Washington
Population, 2006 estimate 412,938 6,395,798
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 19.6% 8.5%
Population, 2000 345,238 5,894,121

5. For Spokane County:

Spokane County Washington
Population, 2006 estimate 446,706 6,395,798
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 6.9% 8.5%
Population, 2000 417,939 5,894,121

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53063.html

So, the question for pubbies isn't got milk, it is got an urban strategy and the answer is No.

How is Senator Rossi doing in King County? Got an answer?

Posted by: WVH on May 14, 2008 09:06 AM
8. Some... er, MORE ammo....er, FACTS to use against the queen;

WA is number 6... when 46 would be preferrable... thanks useless queen.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 14, 2008 09:23 AM
9. Oh! And we've moved down... from 8th in 2007... in 2002 we were #20, in 2005, #16... nice direction you're taking us, useless queen.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 14, 2008 09:35 AM
10. Let's look at the rest of the story, as they say:

http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate02.html

The above link gets one a more accurate comparison. To be 46 or thereabouts puts the state in league with Mississippi and other poorer states whose rank in education and other stats is abysmal. I hope Senator Rossi runs on the plank of let's turn Washington into Mississippi.

Posted by: WVH on May 14, 2008 09:38 AM
11. WVH.

Gregoire took the election by fingers, toes, and 2 recounts. Countless blue state dems voted no confidence in state democrats.

Gregoire has performed substantially worse than Locke and broke several major campaign promises while dropping the ball on every major issue.

I've talked to countless Gregoire voters who are switching. These are swing democrats and definately not Bush supporters. I haven't met a single Dino voter who has changed their mind.

Explain to us again about urban strategy?

Posted by: Andy on May 14, 2008 10:07 AM
12. Andy,

There are problems that large densely populated areas have which are slower in making their way to less populated areas:

1. Transportation, how to move large numbers of people, in, around, and through cities

2. Crime, although I understand that many rural areas in Pierce and Clark Counties have huge meth problems

3. County and city budgets, is there accountability for spending

These issues are neither conservative nor liberal, they are simply good government.

As long as we are talking about what people whisper in our ears, can you say gender gap. it is difficult to unseat an incumbent, no matter the party. I suspect that will be the case here, even though Senator Rossi is apparently wowing them in Sno County. Question, how is he doing in Everett and Lynnwood?

Posted by: WVH on May 14, 2008 10:16 AM
13. WVH- you made 3 strong points for Rossi and suggested we cancel the election because Gregoire is an incumbent woman.

Are you looking for people to buy your hysteria or are you just chained to the keyboard? If not- go outside and play.

Posted by: Andy on May 14, 2008 12:06 PM
14. WVH,
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this information before.

Just for grins, and since they were on the same spreadsheet, I downloaded the Summary Table for Missouri through Wyoming (link on right side of the page), and then froze the window to get the left label columns and top columns. Next, I scrolled over to Washington. Then, I selected the three WV columns and hide those. This left me with a side by side comparison of Washington and Wisconsin. I wanted to see how they compare. Wisconsin does have a pretty decent education system and pretty decent roads (two main issues that I think are important in this election). Wisconsin and Washington are similar in size. Wisconsin has an Income Tax, Higher Property Tax, and a 5% Sales Tax. Its median income is probably less, and outside of Madison, Milwaukee and a few other key metropolitan areas, its overall land value would be more typical of Eastern and SouthWestern Washington. There are a lot more smaller tracks of farms.

So the comparison:
Population: 5,894 (WA) vs 5,364 (WI)
Overall Rev: 42,123,922 (WA) vs 31,424,054 (WI)
Gen Rev: 29,303,365 (WA) vs 26,099,770 (WI)
Property Taxes: 5,790,556 (WA) vs 6,466,173 (WI)
Sales Taxes: 11,975,505 (WA) vs 5,698,094 (WI)
Indiv Income Taxes: 0 (WA) vs 4,973,615 (WI)
Corp Income Taxes: 0 (WA) vs 445,016 (WI)
Income from Higher Ed: 1,508,093 (WA) vs 1,414,699
(WI)

Expenditures: 50,431,244 (WA) vs 39,261,767 (WI)
Education: 12,865,672 (WA) vs 12,564,896 (WI)
Highways: 2,376,131 (WA) vs 2,986,139 (WI)
Highways (Capital Outlay): 1,519,542 (WA) vs 1,780,900 (WI)

So, here it is Wisconsin raises less revenue (even with higher property tax and income tax), spends less on education, and more on highways. They have 13 Four Year Public Universities, 13 Two-year Public colleges, and 16 Vocational-Technical Colleges. They also have better roads.

Sure, Washington has to navigate around the sound with regards to highways and has the mountains to deal with, but does that make that big of difference. It makes one go hmmm?

Posted by: tc on May 14, 2008 02:04 PM
15. This issue isn't how much she raised and he raised. It is how much will she continue to get. The DNC pulled out four weeks before the general election last time. They won't do that this time. They will do everything to keep her in office. And that include giving her all the money she needs. If you don't get that then please go back to politics 101.

The other issue is that where Dino is raising a lot of money, I am not seeing that many new donors. What is going to happen in September?

Posted by: David on May 14, 2008 02:42 PM
16. Wisconsin has had Republican governors for 18 of the last 30 years. Republicans controlled the legislature for most of that time and still control the Assembly.

In Washington, Republicans held the governorship and legislature at the same time for only 2 of the last 30 years.

That explains why Wisconsin--a state which is no Mississippi--gets more out of their tax revenue.

Posted by: besquared on May 14, 2008 02:43 PM
17. Kind of a sad, pathetic day around here at Sound Politics. A year ago, who would have thought the only good news to be found on this blog is that Hillary Clinton won decisively in an election contest the night before. Everything else looks pretty grim for the R's:

- yet another special election loss of a house seat in a blood red district in Mississippi
- their presidential nominee, who they aren't too crazy about to begin with, here in the state embracing the hated pet cause of Al Gore
- while their gubernatorial nominee is no where in sight
- the party leader suffering from historic low approval ratings and historic high disapproval ratings

It's not hard to see why your party has adopted the slogan of an anti-depressant medication.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 14, 2008 02:57 PM
18. the DNC could drop a billion dollars into the race- good luck selling ice, socialism, and broken promises to eskimos sitting in Gregoire's traffic jams.

Of course if you're attending white privelidge camp courtesy of Seattle's failing school districts, you might be dumb enough to buy what they're schucking.

Posted by: Andy on May 14, 2008 04:00 PM
19. There is very little that would be worse for Washington State than having Dino Rossi elected governor.

Think of how great the past four years have been -- while the rest of the country has been suffering. We owe so much to Gov. Gregoire for her courageous leadership to making Washington State the envy of all states -- as evidenced by the awesome business climate rating, the wonderful housing market, the low unemployment, the advances in protecting our environment and the investment in education.

If Rossi had been in charge, one could easily imagine that we'd have none of the above...but we'd have some pretty happy developers -- that's about the only constiutency who would have benefited at the cost of all.

Please Washington voters...vote with your minds...look at the past four years and imagine another four. Don't go with the hollow promises made by developers for developers. Go with what has shown to work.

Posted by: Please no Dino on May 14, 2008 04:07 PM
20. PND @19:

Your point is well taken. Despite the downturn in the national economy, Washington's economy has remained robust. Housing prices have only recently succumbed to the drops they've seen virtually everywhere else.

We are in the midst of a war that over 60% of the voting public regard as a mistake and say we were misled into.

Nationally, the economy is somewhere between stagnation and full blown recession, with signs of sheer panic emanating from the Federal Reserve.

The current President of the United States, a Republican, enjoys record levels of disapproval.

The Republican Party "brand" is so odious its own members compare it to "dog food" that would be pulled from the shelves if it were a retail product.

The Republican nominee for president is widely regarded as the primary architect of a movement to deny Boeing the $40 Billion tanker deal with the USAF, a move that results in the contract going to a European consortium.

That same nominee came to our state yesterday to embrace and legitimize an issue that the Republican base considers a total fraud.

Despite the downturn in the national economy, Washington's economy has remained robust. Housing prices have only recently succumbed to the drops they've seen virtually everywhere else. And unemployment remains low.

And you somehow believe that Dino Rossi, a Republican, with really nothing more to offer than the last time he ran four years ago, and LOST, will be even remotely competitive against an incumbent Democrat this year.

We shall see what we shall see.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 14, 2008 06:11 PM
21. David @15 -

I think every political observer with half a brain recognizes both sides will have ample financial resources in this campaign, both direct and indirect. Thus, I'm really not sure what your point is there.

Also, Rossi has already surpassed in donor total from 2004 AND over 60% of the 32,000+ that have given in this cycle are new donors. If that doesn't speak to "new donors" I don't know what does.

WVH -

Thanks for the lesson in demographics though you insult your fellow readers and this blogger by writing your comment in a way that presumes what you have presented information that is somehow new.

The point with Snohomish County is that it is the closest thing to a bellwether/swing county we have in Washington state. Example: in 2004 Dino beat Gregoire in the county by 2%, while Bush lost to Kerry by 7.5% and Murray whipped Nethercutt by 12%. Thus, useful indicators of increased levels of support in that locale are another data point that Rossi's campaign has some real strength behind it.

Posted by: Eric Earling on May 14, 2008 06:41 PM
22. Eric and Andy,

Sorry you were offended, Eric. How exactly were people insulted by simply presenting data from the largest counties in the state? Is there any thing in the data which was offensive? I never said the info was new since the census data is from 2006.

1. Has Sno county, like the rest of the state been urbanizing? That is your area? If it is urbanizing does that mean it will still be a bellweather county when compared to others?

2. You said:

"Example: in 2004 Dino beat Gregoire in the county by 2%,

Yet, you go on to state:

"while Bush lost to Kerry by 7.5% and Murray whipped Nethercutt by 12%."

So, the question to you is whether Senator Rossi's 2% advantage four years ago will hold up since he is now running against an incumbent? At this point, no one knows what effect the presidential race will have on the rest of the ticket. Apparently, the republicans in Mississippi attempted to tie the congressional candidate to Senator Obama and Rev. Wright, it didn't work. So which side has coatails, who knows. Offended by data in pretty much raw form, really.

2. Andy said this:

"13. WVH- you made 3 strong points for Rossi and suggested we cancel the election because Gregoire is an incumbent woman.

Are you looking for people to buy your hysteria or are you just chained to the keyboard? If not- go outside and play.

Posted by Andy at May 14, 2008 12:06 PM

A poster undercover, perhaps? No, Andy the comments were not hysteria, the were issues which will be faced by the next governor. Here is a statistical model on the advantage of incumbents:

[PDF] Estimating incumbency advantage and its variation, as an example ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
incumbency advantage, and variation across elections within a district. ...... Partisan and incumbent advantage in U.S. House elections,. 1846-1986. ...
www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/inc6.pdf

Senator Rossi would have the same advantage, were he running as an incumbent.

I suppose that the two of you wanted a propoganda blog and are upset that people sometimes post comments that don't fit with your program. Now, if you have something, Andy or whoever which says incumbents don't have an advantage, I really would like to read it. Thought so.

Now, as to who is at this point in time better able to handle the challenges, I still say Governor Gregoire.

Posted by: WVH on May 14, 2008 10:30 PM
23. Besquared@16
That may be true, but not exactly. The Republican Party in Wisconsin would be considered moderates (in general) compared to Republicans here. Republican Party in Wisconsin has a history of progressivism ("Fighting" Bob LaFollotte being the pinacle of the movement serving as governor and then later as senator and running for President under the Progressive Party flag).

My dad who served as county Farm Bureau president for a few years and was involved with the county Farm Bureau for many years did not have many good things to say about Tommy Thompson. The Farm Bureau was typically a Republican leaning organization. Grant County, where I grew up, also has been in the past Republican leaning, except for Platteville (college town). Like I stated earlier, however, Republicanism in Wisconsin is different than it is out here.

Posted by: tc on May 15, 2008 07:34 AM
24. tc,

Regarding your comparison between Wisconsin and Washington. This is what the Tax Foundation says about Wisconsin:

"....Wisconsin's State/Local Tax Burden Among Nation's Highest in 2007
During the past three decades Wisconsin's state and local tax burden has consistently ranked among the nation's highest. Estimated at 12.3% of income, Wisconsin's state and local tax burden percentage ranks 7th highest nationally, well above the national average of 11.0%. Wisconsin taxpayers pay $4,736 per capita in state and local taxes, and per capita state income is $38,639.
Wisconsin's State-Local Tax Burden, 1970-Present

Wisconsin's 2008 Business Tax Climate Ranks 39th
Wisconsin ranks 39th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property. Neighboring states ranked as follows: Iowa (45th), Minnesota (42nd), Michigan (29th) and Illinois (28th).
50-State Comparison of Business Tax Climates (data only)
2008 State Business Tax Climate Index, Fifth Edition (full study)

Wisconsin's Individual Income Tax System
Wisconsin passed the nation's first personal income tax in 1911. Now its personal income tax system consists of four brackets with top rate of 6.75%, kicking in at an income level of $142,650. This top rate ranks the state 18th highest among states levying personal income taxes. Wisconsin's 2005 individual income tax collections were $989 per person, which ranked 12th highest nationally.
50-State Table of Individual Income Tax Rates
50-State Table of State Individual Income Tax Collections
50-State Table of State and Local Individual Income Tax Collections Per Capita


Wisconsin's Corporate Income Tax System
Wisconsin's corporate tax structure consists of a flat rate of 7.9% on all corporate income. Among states levying corporate income taxes, Wisconsin's rate ranks 18th highest nationally. In 2006, state-level corporate tax collections (excluding local taxes) were $145.45 per capita, which ranked 24th highest nationally.
50-State Table of Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2000-2008
50-State Table of State and Local Corporate Income Tax Collections Per Capita and Per Household, 2005
50-State Table of State Corporate Income Tax Collections Per Capita, 2006

Wisconsin Levies Sales Tax below National Median; Gasoline Tax among Highest in the Nation
Wisconsin levies a 5% general sales or use tax on consumers, which is slightly below the national median of 5.4%. State and local governments combined collect $$1,102 per capita in general sales taxes, which ranks 36th highest nationally. Wisconsin's gasoline tax is variable and stands at 32.9 cents per gallon, which is the nation's 8th highest. Wisconsin's cigarette tax stands at $1.77 per pack of twenty and ranks 12th highest nationally. The sales tax was adopted in 1961, the gasoline tax in 1925 and the cigarette tax in 1939.
50-State Table of Sales and Excise Tax Rates
50-State Table of State and Local General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax Collections Per Household and Per Capita, Fiscal Year 2005

Wisconsin Property Taxes: Among the Nation's Highest
Wisconsin is one of the 37 states that collect property taxes at both the state and local levels. As in most states, local governments collect far more. Wisconsin's localities collected $7,324,843,000 in property taxes in fiscal year 2004, which is the latest year the Census Bureau published state-by-state property tax collections. At the state level, Wisconsin collected $104,158,000 in property taxes during FY 2004, making its combined state/local property taxes $7,429,001,000. That brings its per capita collection to $1,350, which ranks 11th highest nationally.
State property tax collections per capita by state

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: Wisconsin is a Donor State
Wisconsin taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than the average state. Per dollar of federal tax collected in 2005, Wisconsin citizens received approximately $0.86 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 39th highest nationally and represents an increase from 1995, when Wisconsin also received $0.80 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (ranked 43rd nationally). Neighboring states and the federal spending received per dollar of federal taxes collected were: Iowa ($1.10), Minnesota ($0.72), Michigan ($0.92), and Illinois ($0.75).
Comparing the amount of federal taxes sent to Washington with the amount of federal spending coming back to the state

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/67.html

This is what they say about Washington:

Washington's State/Local Tax Burden Slightly Above Average in 2007
Estimated at 11.1% of income, Washington's state/local tax burden percentage ranks 16th highest nationally, slightly above the national average of 11.0%. Washington taxpayers pay $4,604 per capita in state and local taxes, and per capita state income is $41,530.
Washington's State-Local Tax Burden, 1970-2005

Washington's 2008 Business Tax Climate Ranks 11th
Washington ranks 11th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property. Neighboring states ranked as follows: Idaho (31st), Oregon (10th) and California (47th).
50-State Comparison of Business Tax Climates (data only)
2008 State Business Tax Climate Index, Fifth Edition (full study)

Washington Levies No Individual Income Taxes
Washington levies no state personal income taxes, joining Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming as the only other states not to do so.
50-State Table of Individual Income Tax Rates
50-State Table of State Individual Income Tax Collections
50-State Table of State and Local Individual Income Tax Collections Per Capita

Washington Levies No Corporate Income Taxes; Levies Nation's Oldest Gross Receipts Tax
Washington's corporate tax structure contains no corporate income tax. Nevada, Texas and Wyoming are the only other states that do not levy corporate income taxes. However, Washington levies the nation's oldest gross receipts tax, the Business and Occupations (B&O) Tax, first instituted in 1933. Washington, Texas, Ohio, Michigan and Delaware are the only states to levy economy-wide gross receipts taxes.
50-State Table of Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2000-2008
50-State Table of State and Local Corporate Income Tax Collections Per Capita and Per Household, 2005
50-State Table of State Corporate Income Tax Collections Per Capita, 2006

Washington Levies Sales Tax above National Median; Gasoline and Cigarette Taxes High
Washington levies a 6.5% general sales or use tax on consumers, which is above the national median of 5.4%. In 2005, state and local governments combined collected $2,205 per capita in general sales taxes, which ranks the 3rd highest in the nation. Washington's gasoline tax stands at 36 cents per gallon, which ranks 5th highest nationally. Washington's cigarette tax stands at $2.025 per pack of twenty and ranks 3rd highest nationally. The sales tax was adopted in 1933, the gasoline tax in 1921 and the cigarette tax in 1935.
50-State Table of Sales and Excise Tax Rates
50-State Table of State and Local General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax Collections Per Household and Per Capita, Fiscal Year 2005


Washington Property Taxes: Slightly Above National Average
Washington is one of the 37 states that collect property taxes at both the state and local levels. As in most states, local governments collect the majority of property taxes. Washington's localities collected $4,859,729,000 in property taxes in fiscal year 2004, which is the latest year the Census Bureau published state-by-state property tax collections. At the state level, Washington collects more property taxes than most states do. In FY 2002, Washington collected $1,526,617,000, bringing its combined state/local property taxes to $6,386,346,000. That amounts to a per capita collection of $1,029, which ranks 22nd highest nationally.
State property tax collections per capita by state

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: Washington is a Donor State
Washington taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Washington citizens received approximately $0.88 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 38th highest nationally and represents a decline from 1995, when Washington received $0.97 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (ranked 31st nationally). Neighboring states and the federal spending received per dollar of federal taxes collected were: Idaho ($1.21) and Oregon ($0.93).
Comparing the amount of federal taxes sent to Washington with the amount of federal spending coming back to the state

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/65.html

Washington compares quite favorably to Wisconsin, according to the Tax Foundation.

Posted by: WVH on May 15, 2008 07:53 AM
25. WVH,
Yet, Wisconsin seems to get a lot more bang for its buck with regards to transportation and education. Transportation could be one of geography (less costly to construct highways), so one would have to compare cost/mile. Education, however, is night and day. Look at the number of Four year universities, two year colleges, and especially, state-run vocational technical schools. They do all this, plus provide for K-12 education for a similar population base and for a similar dollar amount. It isn't just teacher salaries. Their overall workforce, mainly due to the vocational technical schools, has a higher education level. Also, you have to remember that Washington gets Education $$$ from Federal government for the military families. Wisconsin has negligible military $$$ flowing into the state. In the era of Maggie/Scoop, Wisconsin had Proxmire who fought all the "pork" and thus, Wisconsin was last on the list in getting military bases. Wisconsin had to do this on their own.

Posted by: tc on May 15, 2008 08:02 AM
26. tc,

1. Washington runs a money sucking ferry system. Does Wisconsin? Whether the state should be in the ferry industry is another question.

2. According to the Tax Foundation:

a. "Wisconsin taxpayers pay $4,736 per capita in state and local taxes, and per capita state income is $38,639."

b. "Washington taxpayers pay $4,604 per capita in state and local taxes, and per capita state income is $41,530."

I don't know if your comment getting more bang for the buck is accurate as Wisconsin seems to have a higher per capita tax rate.

Posted by: WVH on May 15, 2008 08:15 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?