April 22, 2010
"It is the Holy Grail for progressives. They've wanted it for years. But the problem is that it's just a Pandora's Box. That once you give the state the power to be able to tax everyone based on income, they're going to tax everyone based on income."
Very well said.
From yesterday's press conference on Income Tax Initiative I-1077:
Bryan Johnson, KOMO TV asks: "Does anyone have to fear soon this (income tax threshold) will creep to above $150,000, and then above $100,000, and then everybody pays?"
Bill Gates Sr. responds: "Uh, the, the initiative provides that the rates and levels cannot be changed without a vote of the people. So there is that protection built in."
Essex Porter, KIRO TV follows up: "But could you expand on that, because initiatives can usually be changed after two years. And Initiative 960 was changed after two years and there was a vote of the people there."
Bill Gates Sr. responds: "Uh, that's right, that's a very astute question. And I don't know that anybody knows completely the answer for that. But for myself, I would be astonished if, given that specific provision in this specific tax statute, that the Legislature would undertake to make a change in it without complying with the language of the initiative and going to the people to get their permission."
Doesn't he read the papers? This year, the Legislature said they were facing an 'emergency' so decided they were no longer bound by Initiative 960's 2/3's vote requirement to raise taxes. When we pointed out that I-960 gave them a second option: go to the voters and get their permission to raise taxes, the Democrats responded: it's an emergency and we don't have time because we need the money immediately, and what if the voters said no, then where would we be?
Same thing'll happen with I-1077.
In the mid-90's, Olympia declared a sports stadium an 'emergency' and the supreme court upheld it -- ever since, the Legislature has learned that anything can be an emergency and so they are not bound by the law.
When the Legislature got around I-601, the Farm Burea sued them, claiming that they violated the law. The state's attorneys argued the Legislature has plenary power (definition: ple·na·ry - adjective 1. full; complete; entire; absolute; unqualified). The state supreme court agreed. I-1077 offers no protection from Olympia imposing higher taxes on everyone.
* I-1077's property tax cut is 4%, not 20%: The state's portion of the property tax is 20% of a property owner's property tax bill. Their initiative reduces the state's portion by 20%. So it's a 20% reduction of the 20% portion. That 4% (with Olympia empowered to raise it up again after two years).
* There's no such thing as dedicated revenue -- I-1077 is a blank check that the Legislature can, and will, spend on anything it wants. I-1077 supporters say its revenue will be "dedicated to education and health care." Olympia has proven that that's an impossibility. Olympia regularly raids dedicated accounts -- they've repeatedly transferred money from the capital budget (dedicated to government buildings), from the Puget Sound clean-up fund, even from pension funds (none of these 'dedicated' funds are constitutionally protected so legislators can raid them and transfer funds from them anytime they want). Another example really hits home for us: voters approved Initiative 900, creating dedicated funding to pay for State Auditor Brian Sonntag's performance audits -- but last year, the legislature took half the revenue in I-900's "dedicated account". In 2001, voters approved Initiative 773, increasing taxes on tobacco and dedicated the money to more slots on the Basic Health Plan. Two years later, Gov. Gary Locke declared an "emergency" and redirected the money.
* No reduction in the sales tax.
If I-1077 passes, politicians in Olympia will take it as a message from the voters: tax us more. We're taxed enough already. Olympia has proven time and again that it can't be trusted.
Go to our website to resurrect the 2/3's vote requirement for raising taxes with Initiative 1053.
Posted by Tim Eyman at April 22, 2010
08:53 PM | Email This
1. I keep telling you, use New Jersey as an example of why not to get a income tax, they didn't have one till around 1980, it was supposed to be to replace property taxes to fund schools, they even wrote the law so that apartment owners had to rebate a portion of their savings back to the tenants. Look how great that worked out for them.
2. First comment by Eyman?! You've got to be kidding. While I read your tea bagger/libertarian stuff now and then to see what's up on the right, I don
t need to read his totally idiotic analysis. I'm out here...
Gee, and everybody who complains about what THEORETICALLY could happen with any of Mr. Eyman's initiatives are called "Chicken Littles". Who's spinning out doom and gloom about initiatives now?
Also, where was your criticism of the Legislature overturning I-728? Oh yeah, the Legislature is ok as long as they overturn initiatives you don't like.
4. When you need idiotic analysis, feel free to look into a mirror, IdiotinFremont.
5. It's always a Phony Sell when Government tells the People that this new Tax will allow Tax savings in other areas. That may be but, the overall Tax take from the Taxpayers will be much more than any Tax reduction elsewhere. Plus, the reduction of Taxes elsewhere will, in time, be raised as well. This continuing feeding the Beast more and more just, makes the Beast grow larger and demand more of your substance and Liberty. No New Taxes and reduce the Size and Spending of Government should be the Battle Cry of the American Taxpayers.
prediction: Boeing, Microsoft, the Mariners, the Seahawks, Paul Allen, SEIU, WEA, AFSCME and many other groups are all going to pump million$ into this campaign. Why? Because - if state revenues go up, they can grab them for their own purposes. This repeatedly happens.
Boeing and Microsoft's purpose is simple: get taxpayers to give them tax breaks. Microsoft has no shame at moving the "location" of their economic activity to Nevada to avoid paying the B and O tax. We know Boeing's game. So they will want taxpayers to vote for an income tax because they can them go to Olympia and say "you got bucks, vote me a tax break or else you're anti-jobs."
And we know about SEIU. They give big donations, get people elected, then the people they got elected give them a contract raise, even when everyone else has declining income. Blame SEIU as much as anyone for the school cuts this year. But why should they care? Their income went up.
Bill Gates Sr. is one of those infernal leftist busybodies who thinks we have the moral duty to support anyone he deems deserves it. In his view the strong, the fit and the rich are inherently guilty and are beholden to their moral superiors the weak, the lame and the poor. What is behind this monstrous injustice? The morality of altruism:
"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes."
"Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,"
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61
Obviously Gates' initiative is a transparent ploy to get an income tax established in Washington by the repulsive method of appealing to envy of the rich. Gates and his ilk are betting that if this measure passes it will not be long before all of us who work for a living will be paying income tax. This is the holy grail of Washington leftists.
8. Does it not take a vote to actually change the constitution of this state before an income tax can be established, since that constitution actually says very clearly that there can be no state income tax?
I looked at I-1077 with some care. IT DOESN�T TAX CORPORATIONS, only individuals! How can we have a state income tax, that corporations are EXEMPT from paying? Would the people ever stand for eliminating the federal income tax for corporations, and only keeping the federal income tax for individuals?
Some people might argue � corporations have to pay the business and occupation tax. But so do individuals who are engaged in business. If a corporation owns a convenience store, they only have to pay the B & O tax. But if the same store is owned by an individual, they will pay the same B & O tax, plus a state income tax on any profits that they make.
So I see this as a political non-starter. Even if voters would support an income tax, they will never vote for a law that exempts corporations � including Microsoft, Boeing, and other wealthy corporations � from paying the tax at all.
Moreover, this would be one additional ground for the state supreme court to strike down the law. How can it possibly be constitutional under the state constitution (let alone the 14th amendment federal equal protection clause) to tax only individuals, and to completely exempt corporations (no matter how profitable they may be)?
I actually LIKE the idea of a state income tax. But not this one. Wonder how long it will take Tim Eyman to pick up on the complete corporate exemption from income tax?
What does that repulsive old ass-hat Gates Sr care about income taxes...
That ridiculous SOB already has one foot in the grave so he knows he won't have to pay...
This state needs an intellectual enema in Olympia. The current oligarchy in this state is running roughshod over the citizens who like the cattle they are, merely look up, maybe turn their head, and then mindlessly resume grazing in the pasure. No outrage, no emotion, merely robotical allegiance to getting screwed out of more of their hard earned money.
The new WA state slogan should be BOHICA!
12. Rumor has it that a new ground-swell is forming among the blue's in this state; a group with acronym of NTEA in response to the red's Tea Party'ers. That would be understandable. :)
"Rumor has it that a new ground-swell is forming among the blue's in this state; a group with acronym of NTEA in response to the red's Tea Party'ers. That would be understandable
Hmmm, I can't help but wonder if that crowd will look like this crowd of clueless parasites (a.k.a. Obama supporters)?
TobyinFremont: you're an idiot. First because you're a concern troll, second because you're resorting to mere ad hominem, and third because Eyman made a perfectly valid point. Anyone who believes what Gates said is a fool: the legislature just did precisely what he said he would be astonished if they did.
You can choose to ignore this fact, but Eyman made a logically excellent and unassailable point.
kb: You're misrepresenting the facts. There's a difference between someone saying "that's not in the initiative" and pointing out the fact that the legislature CAN and DOES change initiatives just two years after they are passed.
GS: the Constitution does not say there can be no income tax. It says there can be no NON-UNIFORM property tax, where "property" is very broadly defined to include anything -- tangible or intangible -- that is subject to ownership. Clearly, income falls into that definition, so any income tax must be UNIFORM: that is, all income must be subject to the same rate of taxation.
The Constitution and the Court have been very clear on this, and there's no serious room for debate. The arguments from the left are twofold: first, that the precedent that income is property is based on other precedents which are no longer operative. This is false: that precedent is based squarely on the clear text of the Constitution.
The other argument is that this is not a tax on income, but on the act of receiving" income. This is not only insulting to the intelligence on the face of it, but it contradicts what the initiative actually does, which is consider how much money you've already received in the year. It doesn't tax that simple act of receiving income, but cumulatively taxes you based on your total property -- income -- for the year.
If a leftist like Richard Pope is against it, you know it's pretty damned far left.
Ick. I'm loathed to find myself agreeing with Timmy on a point.
While I remain open to Gate's proposed initiative because our current system is broken and I haven't heard anything better or new from the legislature or Timmy....I don't find the answer Bill provided to help the initiative's case.
I hope the sponsors can come up with a better answer or guarantee.
actually LIKE the idea of a state income tax.
Posted by Richard Pope at
I bet YOU do. So Richard, how's that tax working out in Calif?
If the lib's think they have the money, they will spent it. (all of it)
17. Democrats/liberals have a goal...social justice. Everybody suffers equally.
18. Sure - let's tax the people who can most easily move out-of-state. Our state is already providing incentives for businesses to move to Idaho. Now let's add an incentive for "rich" people to move there. It will be great for Idaho, but not for Washington.
19. Yeah, what's the matter with them anyway...don't they REALIZE that ALL the answers reside of the Sound Politics blog. :)
20. Remember during one of the debates, Charlie Gibson asked Obama raising cap gains taxes, and how that might lead to *less* revenue to the treasury, and if he would still be for it in that case. And Obama said he would, because of "fairness". The Left does not care to generate more revenue. The only hate people they perceive as having something they don't.
Gary..the Laffer curve has two sides. Tax increases, up to a point, will RAISE revenue. If taxes are too high, then, and only then will they start to depress economic activity and lower revenue.
And, to answer your next question..yes, taxes are lower than they could be. Raising taxes at this point on the wealthy will not depress revenue. The top tax rate is ONLY 35%..and thats on family income over $373,000. During the Clinton economic boom, we had a top rate of 39.6% and nobody in their right mind would claim that this depressed investment and economic activity.
Besides, what happened to the Christian concept of the wealthy paying their share?
"For to whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" - Luke 12:48
California, New Jersey, New York, Michigan... all states with income taxes and sales taxes and property taxes.
How is that system helping prevent them from huge deficits? How would it prevent huge deficits for Washington?
Until government stops the spending sprees, no amount of taxation will ever be able to feed their "needs".
As for their "needs", if education was a priority, why are any taxes spent elsewhere before "fully funding" education? Why is education always "underfunded" if it is the priority, as I-1077 infers?
Lack of meaningful priorities, inability to cancel failing, or underperforming programs, unwillingness to just say no to increased spending on just about anything and everything - this is what causes deficits and the rollercoaster rides.
Government taxation capabilities should always be reined in and we should insist that they once again become "stewards" of the taxpayers money rather than rulers lording it over the serfs.
23. The top tax rate is ONLY 35%..and thats on family income over $373,000...
So the government is ONLY taking over 1/3 of your income. On $373,000, the government is only taking $130,550. And that's only income tax. Never mind all the other taxes one must pay.
There is something inherently offensive about someone having over a 1/3 of their income taken from them in taxes, regardless of how much they make.
Put up, or shut up time:
Here you go, boys and girls. Now, YOU get to balance the state budget.
Click on the right hand side:
"Budget Balancing Tool for Citizens"
Go for it! Slash and Burn!
Lets see how much you can save without raising taxes. Then, submit to your representative.
Proteus, the President said he favored a tax increase even if doing so resulted in less revenue.
Do you favor that policy?
Also, "Gary..the Laffer curve has two sides. Tax increases, up to a point, will RAISE revenue. If taxes are too high, then, and only then will they start to depress economic activity and lower revenue."
And you don't think economic activity isn't depressed now???
Wake up. All you have to do is look at other states to see how this won't fix anything. I say again, Proteus, if you give them an extra $1, they will spend $2. How do you solve that... by giving them yet another $1?
Oh, and Proteus, as to what to "slash and burn", the entire enterprise is going to crash all at once, and without warning due to the debt we are creating right now. It will be sudden, and it will be devastating.
Damn, I still can't get the numbers to work!
I tried real hard to think like a Tea Partier:
Reduced ALL state dept spending by 10%
5% across the board pay cut for all state employees
Killed teacher raises. Forced state workers to pay more for healthcare. Killed class size reduction funds. Elminated child, and low income coverage. Elminated ANY benefits for illegals or undcoumented aliens, or bilingual education. Capped tort claims. Reduced state donations to pension funds. Cut funding for higher education (nasty liberal college kids). Deported illegal aliens. And of course, raised NO taxes whatsoever.
And, I still can't get the budget to balance. Damn...
Perhaps you guys will have better luck? Good luck!
28. #27 And yet your solution is to create a new *before* even doing any of that.
29. Go ahead and give it a try Gary. Perhaps I'm not cutting deep enough? I got to within -$1.2bil by massively cutting, but anything beyond that will need some increases. Or perhaps I missed some areas?
Does "income" include money from the sale of one's house?
Does "income" include money from the sale of one's business?
Does "income" include money from Roth IRAs or bonds that are not taxed at the federal level?
If yes, what are the consequences of this? Most likely, it will lead to a lot of people accelerating the sale of their house before the tax takes effect, then taking up residency elsewhere.
Thanks Bill Gates Sr for doing something to chase my parents away. I really appreciate it. Every time my children ask why they don't see their grandpa and grandma, I'll blame you.
31. Go for it! Slash and Burn!
Lets see how much you can save without raising taxes.
Apparently Proteus doesn't understand that we didn't get in the red overnight. This has been a slow steady march to insolvency under the careful mismanagement of Christine Gregoire, the WA state legislature and the liberal mentality that exists within Olympia and beyond. I'm just hoping that intellectual enema arrives soon to the Capitol or we WILL be the next California. Throw the bums out in November 2010 and 2012 and we may just save this state and country.
32. Proteus, can you explain to us what California's budget problem is? Is it under-taxed state residents? Same question for NJ.
"Does "income" include money from the sale of one's house?" Nope. Unless the net is over the $500k federal exemption. Very unlikely
"Does "income" include money from Roth IRAs or bonds that are not taxed at the federal level?"
Nope. Will only impact Federal AGI. If its not part of your federal AGI, it won't be taxed.
"Does "income" include money from the sale of one's business?" I don't know. If you pay federal income taxes on that sale, then yes.
Where "elsewhere" are your folks going to move though? Only 5 states don't have income tax. Florida is nice though :-)
I understand just fine. The question is, how do we fix the problem? Here is your chance. Whoever is in power in November will have the same decisions to make..help 'em out!
And for the record? I voted for Rossi. Not based on ideology, or party, but because I believe Gregoire is incompetent, and can't "get things done". I voted for my state reps (Rodne and Pflug, both GOP) for the same reason. Competence. And, I voted for Obama over McPalin for the same reason. Wierd, eh?
Here's another question: Roth IRA conversions. If you convert in 2010, you have a choice of paying tax in 2010 (due April 15, 2011) or in 2011 and 2012 tax years (due April 2012 and 2013 respectively). How would this be handled under the "high earner" tax? There could be a lot of people who wind up getting hammered by this tax who don't think they are going to pay. The Roth IRA conversion limits went away in 2010, there's a special deal in 2010 for payment over 2 years of the tax if you want to, but people in future years can do their rollover and just pay the tax in the same year.
So this "high earner" tax could hit anyone who's trying to do a conversion from traditional IRA (eg, a 401K plan they have rolled over into an IRA, which is the common practice when you leave a company) to Roth IRA.
I wonder if Bill G Sr has thought this one through? I doubt it. He doesn't need to worry about his retirement. Neither do the groups that will be the prime backers of the bill: their pensions are all guaranteed by taxpayers.
35. Just found out about a gathering at the capital today coutesy of Tea Party Charlie at 1:15 P.M. today while our governor signs a huge tax package 800 Mill worth!Might want to mention this disaster with Gates Sr. too!
36. The only State Income Tax I would be in favor of is a Corporate and State Government type. Any large corporation that hires a certain amount of employees would pay and anyone under that amount are exempt. Since State Government cannot limit spending or want to cut expenses, they have no reason to, especially when the state government unions support their campaigns in time and dollars. Let's put this in the State Constitution and see how they like it, after all it's for the children.
37. And, I voted for Obama over McPalin for the same reason. Wierd, eh?
That is wierd. You voted for an inexperienced and incompetent (as we are finding out) first term U.S. senator over a very experienced and competent long time and respected Senator from AZ? And as belittling as you'd like to be towards Palin, she was an actual executive of the state of Alaska with actual responsibilites. I guess all of those years "community organizing" is the equivelent of those though,right?
I admire your independent thinking, up until that last part about Obama's competence.
38. Commentator - You bring up a good point, since Roth conversions are treated as income. I'd hope there was an exemption in this bill for it, if not, its a serious problem.
39. I guess with all of the campaign donations given to these tax and spend Democrat nannies in Olympia from the Starbuck's lobbyists and latte stand owners is why lattes aren't taxed in similar fashion, as candy and soft drinks. The same argument can be made on calories or they are not being necessary.
40. I'll happily support I-1077 - the moment Bill Sr. and his son reveal their federal income tax returns for the past 10 years. Let's see how these two "wealthy" individuals have contributed to the public coffees. In comparison to their wealth, I suspect they haven't given much - except to camouflage that wealth.
Tim, of course the legislature could change the initiative after 2 years. That's not a problem with the initiative; that's part of our constitution. But without the initiative, the legislature could institute a higher income tax now! The initiative actually provides more restrictions against a high income tax than we have now
, because now there are no restrictions, whereas the initiative would impose the greatest restrictions that are constitutionally possible. You wouldn't expect or want the initiative to go beyond that, would you?
Let's be honest. It's possible the legislature will someday increase (or decrease) the income tax. But it will be politically accountable for that. I know you fear that, once the camel's nose is under the tent, people will be too stupid to notice the camel coming closer. That's the same argument that wingnuts use against Obamacare (and used against Medicare). But I give people more credit than that. Maybe they'll see that an income tax makes our state better and will want to increase it. Or maybe they'll see that it's bad and want to decrease it. Why do you have so little confidence in our future judgment?
1. You are misquoting the Bible. The passage is indeed a call for those blessed by much, whether it in material goods or in ability or in strength or any other thing of value, to not squander it; however, nowhere can you find a call for Peter to force Paul to do so. In fact, the compelling of Paul does nothing for Paul's change of heart and thus is of zero value to Paul for he has not given of his free will, it does zero good for Peter because it was not Peter making a sacrifice, and it does zero good for the cause of Christ since no one can note the activity and credit it to Christ. Generally, it is understood that God is looking to change the person's heart, not to get their money. The kind of interpretation you ascribe to the Bible is a bludgeon to get people to render unto Ceasar and is a false doctrine.
I can make a safe assumption that you, and virtually every person in America, especially those on the left, have not come nearly close enough to achieving expectations with regards to what has been given them, for until they give up probably 90% of their wealth and comfort personally and have used it to care for those in foreign lands, they have no cause to stand and accuse in self-righteous furor.
2. The budget tool you link is a worthless gimmick designed to prove what the state wants to prove. Without real numbers of what the government is actually spending and the return on those expenditures, and the year over year change IN those expenditures with justifications for said increase, we have no idea where to intelligently make our cuts.
If, for example, some department grew by 50% from one year to the next, I might be more inclined to cut it by 30% while I may not cut another department that did not grow at all from one year to the next.
The fact is, the government has grown much faster than it should have, and those places where it has grown fastest might be the places where one should make the biggest cuts. And there is no reason there should not be any "pain" in the budgets. There is pain in mine since my spouse was laid off last year making both of us members of the unemployed. where is MY guaranteed COLA? Instead, the state wants me to give THEM more money so they can give increases to others who are already employed. (In this case I refer to certain sales taxes and not the proposed income tax.)
"That's the same argument that wingnuts use against Obamacare"
Did you see the news on that, Bruce? Turns out you're all suckers for believing them about costs.
44. Proteun=Proteus Sorry for the typo
45. The state also generously increased taxes on unemployed people to pay for state employees' raises. Isn't that special?
I've heard tell that there is about 15% that could be cut from the state budget off the top that would help balance the budget with no new taxes. This sounds reasonable to me and I don't see why the state can't do it.
There are several departments and programs that could be better run by private enterprise, including fisheries & hunting, transportation, liquor, social and health services, jails, colleges,etc. The state has become way too intrusive in all facets of our lives.
What I want from the state is K-12 education, decent highways, police protection and court services. Everything else is fluff and cotton candy and needs to be cut, privatized or eliminated.
47. Let's be honest. It's possible the legislature will someday increase (or decrease) the income tax.
...or we could just live in the world of reality where a state income tax currently doesn't exist in this state. So how does a non-existent state income tax get raised or lowered by the legislature, Bruce?
Let's keep it that way as has been upheld by the state constitution for the past 77 years. Giving a liberal more access to our money is like giving Marion Barry access to a supply of crack cocaine...we all understand they're both going to usurp the supply in short order. Time to send our current oligarchy in Olympia to rehab.
48. Bruce, how did California's budget get all out of whack? Are the income taxes there not high enough?
I don't remember people dying in the streets from lack of Government care back in 2006; how about just rolling the State budgets back to those levels? Were things so terrible in 2006 under Governor Gregoire and a Democrat controlled legislature? With Ron Sims running King County, and Greg Nickels controlling Seattle? No?
Then roll back the budget to 2006 levels. There - balanced (actually, a slight surplus). No tax increases required.
50. Dan, makes perfect sense *if* that's what the liberals cared about. They don't. They simply want to use the state to take property from people they consider evil for having something they don't.
INFLATION. At 3% inflation, in roughly 24 years you will be making double what you make now.
The state needs to do nothing, but just wait and the tax will be levied on most citizens.
52. Why don't we just eliminate billionaires like Bill Gates and his son, then redistribute what was their wealth to the State? I'm sure that would fund someone's pet project. Besides, didn't they make most of their money by screwing little people, charging too much for their services/goods? That is the Progressive way, isn't it? And then things will take off! Lets tax all the rich SOB's who make more the twice as much as the average person in the world.
Hey, if it gets too bad we can always move to Idaho and pursue the Caveman
lifestyle...didn't seem too bad for Mr Zimmerman; don't think he was 'bothered' by taxes.
54. Yeah, WA good point. Let's pass a law saying that any Washington resident must give up all assets more than $5 billion to the state. Bill Gates Sr should be all for it.
55. This may came as a total shock to existing political structure, wealth is earned by work not redistributed by politicians
56. Basically In this state the Democrats are following the lead of the Federal Government. Keep spending never cut and just demand more in taxes. There is no relief. They will continue to spend spend spend until there is no money left for them to steal/tax. As business leave the state and revenues drop they will demand more taxes from those who are left. Which starts the Michigan cycle in Washington State. We will slowly go down the drain as an area that is a good place to start a business.
You can not tax yourself to satisfy you desire to spend spend spend. And those who demand more and more taxes to start more and more government programs will tax themselves out of funding. They are fools to believe the lies they claim on how important every program is and can not be defunded. If there is no money why do you think you will survive
57. off topic
58. Gates Sr lies just like our stinking one-party state government. So stick it, Gates.
Rick@47, the legislature could pass an income tax bill today if it wanted to. It would be just as valid as I-1077, except that only an initiative can set a 2-year cap.
The question about whether it's constitutional is separate. I was addressing Eyman's concern that the legislature could raise it in 2 years. If it's unconstitutional, then of course Eyman needn't worry about it being raised by the legislature.
I'm reminded of this wonderful observation by PJ O'Rourke:
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
61. Bruce @ 59, Yes, the legislature could indeed pass an income tax, but it would need to hold up under scrutiny to the state constitution, which it hasn't all 7 times in 77 years the issue has come before the courts or outright rejected by the people. Obviously both have spoken, but the legislature, looking for any ever-increasing source of "new revenue" for their wasteful spending rarely appear to be listening. I'm tired of enabling these people, and that is just what instituting an income tax in this state would do- see California. The problem is not the revenue available, it's the reckless and wasteful expenditures they make in Olympia.
62. Rick- You are confusing the issue of Eyman's post and my comments -- the merits of I-1077 and the risk of the legislature later raising the tax rate -- with the issue of constitutionality -- and you are confusing both with the question of what is wise policy. Furthermore, you are wrong about an income tax failing constitutional scrutiny "7 times in 77 years". Eyman made some specific points so I tried to address them. You are just ranting because you don't like taxes. Have fun.
Bruce @ 62, I'm not confused at all and I'm also not wrong about the history of income tax
in this state. It's been struck down time and again by either the courts or the citizens. Facts are inconvenient things sometimes.
You're simply propping up two losing propositions in the hopes of swaying us into accepting one of two unacceptable scenarios that will both result in the taking of more of my/our hard earned monies. If you had a heroin addicted relative, would you continue to funnel monies to him/her in order to fund their habit? Think about it, would you actually take food off of your table in order to further enable an addict?
That's what is happening in Olympia and I'm done enabling these junkies
64. Gregoires approval rating on 4/16/2010 was 35%. I'm sure after signing 6 billion dollars worth of new tax hikes on the already struggling citizens of this state, they will drop to the point where she and many of her friends will find themselves unelectable in the coming elections.
65. @64 GS - you can count on Gregoire winning re-election by 57% in 2012. The people in this state are mentally disordered.
66. This is Pandora's Box. Once open, everything is gone. Taxed to the max on everyone. I resent being forced to hand over my hard earned money to the parasitic leeches too lazy to work. Life is hard, that's the way it is, deal with it and get over it.
67. Yes, Crusader, 57% seems about right. After all, King County Elections uses the Joe Stalin method of vote tabulation where "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes".
I somewhat doubt that this will make the ballot and if it did it would go down hard.
as someone who has collected my share of eyman init sigs, I can attest to the overwhelming distrust of Olympia and fear of an income tax. Even among those who hate Eyman and anything with an R attached.
I don't even think it's in the best interest of the pro-tax forces to put this on the ballot now. If it went down say 60-40, the income tax would be off the table for the next decade or so. Better for them to wait for some unforseen scenario that might make it more thinkable.
Thought I'd throw in this tidbit from the Washington State Constitution.
"The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership."
Sound to me like income is property in this state. I like to think that I own my income.
40 & 60--exactly--
saw Mr. G at seminar once; everyone was polite; but not that impressed; many of us never had a cadre of tax attorneys structure our taxes/wealth like his family;
dont get me wrong--it's legal & sensible; but dont start lecturing ME about MY "fair share" of taxes and the slow, but systematic taking of MY wealth & life's work at every turn, however small; it's "rich guilt" layered with "have some other schmuck pay." what's wrong with wealth? are we all to be noble but poor serfs?
funny--for such a capitalistic-oriented family to not know that taxing 200-400k levels will be the death of small businesses is interesting; or--maybe they DO know & dont care? how did microsoft start? in a garage? small business? how did most businesses start? do i hear that former Hotel Lady speaking about the "little people?"
just like our legislators in DC & healthcare, etc---when YOU use the same healthcare you impose on us, I'll buy in...same with taxes;
I used the "citizen's budget balancing tool" and got the deficit down to about $150 million without difficulty and without raising taxes.
However, that is no tool, its a propaganda piece. The first option for reducing the size of government is pure snide bullshit.
"Want to close over half of the $6 billion deficit with one swing? To get the job done, you would have to lop of a vast swath of state government. For instance, TRY eliminating all of these: UW, WWU, Dept of Health, State Patrol, Dept of Ecology, Dept of Vets, Dept of Nat Recources, Dept of Ag, Parks and Rec, State School for the Blind, Human Rights Commission, Children's Administration, Juvenile Rehab, Alc and Subst abuse, St Supr. Court, and the State House and Senate. GO AHEAD, TRY IT."
Who wrote that? Some nazi statist I think. The "State School for the Blind" and the State Supreme court or the State Patrol are equally important? Pure propaganda, plus it prevents citizens from choosing to eliminate the government spending that is the cause of the problem (not insufficent taxation). I would eliminate about a third of the listed agencies and we'd all be better off in the long run. And when you combine my previous cuts, we'd have about a $3 billion surplus.
So beat it, Socialist. This just proves what I've been saying all along; the state holds necessary government functions hostage to steal citizens' money to pay for unnecessary government activities that ensure corrupt legislators get reelected. They buy votes using my money to stay in power so they can steal more of my money.
72. It's part of the liberal "progressive" playbook to routinely equate fiscal priority for such things as public safety or EMT services with programs of highly dubious merit (such as in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, state liquor stores, drivers licenses and state ID cards for illegals, etc.). Liberals will always put public safety and EMT on the chopping block as a strawman distraction to help save their lousy social engineering programs and pork barrel pay offs to public sector unions.
As long as this state elects corrupt socialist trolls into office we will get out of control spending and taxation.
73. jimmie - who the fuck are you? Bill Gates Sr. is the MORAL AUTHORITY AND BIG SHOT. You are nothing. Bow down to your socialist masters.
My God... Is Tim Eyman doing this on purpose? He makes a post using a quote of his own for the title, links to the article and comments that his own soundbite is "very well said."
Ummm.. The main criticism of Tim Eyman (other than that he's a professional politician, a thief and that he lied to cover up his corruption) is that he has the biggest EGO in the state.
I almost think Tim is a liberal, a wolf in sheep's clothing, doing this on purpose to destroy the conservative movement in this state. The only way to defeat an Tim Eyman initiative is to make it about Tim Eyman. And Tim is MORE than eager to help our friends on the left do that.
Likewise, it follows that the best way to pass an unpopular liberal tax increase is by letting every voter know that Tim Eyman, professional lying egotist, is against it. Tim's on board with that strategy!!
75. 73--point taken;
however, i'd rather not bow down; even for a second; Olympia is like jail; bowing and leaving one's backside unattended is not advised; for taxes or anything else;
(other than that he's a professional politician, a thief and that he lied to cover up his corruption)
You know, I've never understood why this makes any difference to the fringe leftists among us.
This description suits the empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot in the White House to a "T," and nary peep one out of them over that.
Well, fringer's. here's a clue: I wouldn't even care if Eyman was a slimeball democrat. What matters to me is what's IN the initiatives. Anything else is irrelevant and has no impact on me. Put out a good idea out there, and I'll sign on. I'd even support a good idea from a totally corrupted lying cow like Patty Murray... but she has yet to have one.
A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from; a bad idea is a bad idea (Like this moronic, class warfare, save-our-asses effort at the polls by shilling a blatantly unconstitutional state income tax) no matter where it comes from.
So, this constant whining about Tim the person, designed entirely to deflect from Tim the initiative guru's efforts to make a difference, while warming the cockles of the neo-socialists hearts who want ALL of our money, avails AD and the rest of the fringers nothing.
You people bitch like cut cats because Eyman's efforts usually cut revenue. If he worked as hard on your side, the typically leftist double standard would come into play, and you'd spin, and lie, and exaggerate in your support of him as your ilk does in support of the left in power today.
At this point, all that crap has just become background noise. 1077 is a camel's-nose-under-the-tent-flap some and mirrors steaming pile that isn't designer to make taxes "fairer." It has one aim and one aim only: to increase the amount of money the leftists running our government can feel free to waste.
77. Crsuader is schizoid - on one post he poses as a conservative and on I-1077 he poses as a leftist, maybe after a few bong hits.
Take him with a grain of salt even when shown his conservative side - his discipline is pathetic and sadly lacking.
you can count on Gregoire winning re-election by 57% in 2012. The people in this state are mentally disordered.
Posted by Crusader
You are shrewdly straddling the fence.
Gregoire won't be running again in 2012. Point taken though that the people in Seattle and other urban enclaves in this state are mentally disordered. What you are saying is let the leftists have their way ? WTF ? One thing I like about the Tea Parties is that they are sick and tired of laying down for the Dems, one party rule and the GOP will remain pathetic until they get a backbone.
79. Doddering senile old man gates and his boy can write a check if they are so concerned. Like all rich liberals they want to tax everyone else but themselves.