It's a little hard to find -- since it's not yet on the bill's page -- but the proposed substitute for the income tax bill is available under that page's Committee Materials link.
It's not an amendment, but a completely different bill. You'll want to look at Section 401 ("For income earned on or after January 1, 2011, a tax is imposed at the rate of four and five-tenths percent on all taxable income of resident individuals and on all individuals deriving income from sources in Washington for each taxable year.") and Section 504 ("There is allowed from taxable income the following standard deductions. ...").
However, there is no severability clause: so if that's the case and Section 504 is found to be unconstitutional, the whole thing would get thrown out. That is made explicit in Section 1202. That's the only good news here. Perhaps they changed the severability clause from last year's version because of exactly this criticism: that it would end up as a tax on everyone if the standard deductions were found unconstitutional, which is likely, if the Court follows longstanding precedent.
As a refresher, our State Constitution, in Article VII, Section 1, says, "All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax. ..." And our Court has consistently ruled that money is property (having found this because, I presume, it is obviously true). So without overturning many decades of precedent and finding that money is not property, the only way to make this fly would be to rule that different levels of income are property, which would be even more twisted than finding that money isn't property.
Or they could just completely take leave of their senses and find that a standard deduction that is, by the words of the people who authored it, explicitly designed to target specific taxpayers (thus violating the spirit and letter of the Constitution), is nevertheless "uniform" because "the tax is on everyone, but it just exempts certain amounts for everyone."
UPDATE: linked to from the EFF site is this amazing video, where Senator Margarita Prentice (D-11) threatens to clear the room because someone who spoke out against the bill got four seconds of applause. So they don't release the proposed text of the bill before the hearing, and try to kick the public out of the hearing when they come to oppose it:
You might want to look at the other testimony, too: the Evergreen State College students, and other socialists, greedily testifying that the government should take from other people by force to line their own pockets, is entertaining and sad.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 05, 2010 10:31 AM | Email ThisThe federal income tax only applied to the extraordinarily wealthy when it was first created. Now we have about 100,000 pages of tax law that applies to just about everybody, and it can cost a few hundred each year just to fill out the paperwork.
The federal income tax only applied to the extraordinarily wealthy when it was first created. Now we have about 100,000 pages of tax law that applies to just about everybody, and it can cost a few hundred each year just to fill out the paperwork.
The federal income tax only applied to the extraordinarily wealthy when it was first created. Now we have about 100,000 pages of tax law that applies to just about everybody, and it can cost a few hundred each year just to fill out the paperwork.