Last week, I was a guest on Dave Ross' Seattle radio show on KIRO where we discussed Gates' new income tax initiative -- here's a few excerpts:
Eyman: "The Pandora's Box isn't just this proposal. It's a message from the voters, by voting for something like this, we're saying "You guys don't have a spending problem, you have a revenue problem, here's a bunch more money." And they're going to interpret that as "now we don't have to reform ourselves, we don't have to prioritize." I think Bill Gates Sr. is being extremely selfish ... he can afford any tax system. But what about those people on the bubble who are going to end of being jacked up with higher taxes (because of his initiative). He's only thinking of himself ... what we're going to end up getting in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years is higher taxes on everybody, people who can't afford the higher tax burden. Liberalism is a fantastic program if you can afford it. But there's normal people who can't afford all the things you guys wanna have."
Ross: "The thing I noticed yesterday is that the liberals that would be affected by it were for it. ... I do feel a kind of liberal guilt for them to get the chance."
Eyman: "Don't feel guilty ... you're probably spending your money, giving a bunch of your money back to the economy. You have no reason to feel guilty. Chances are Libby (his producer) wouldn't have a job unless you have a job. I mean there are a lot of people who are benefitting from you making money. And I don't think you should feel guilty for it. If you want to give the government more money, feel free. You can give 'em extra money and I'm sure they'd be happy to take it. But when you start imposing taxes on everybody else to relieve your guilt, I think you're only thinking of yourself and you're not thinking of everyone else."
Ross: "That's true and I do feel better now. So you'd be OK if we cut my income taxes and institute a flat tax and got rid of progressive taxation altogether?"
Eyman: "I think that a flat tax would be better than the current federal system we have now. But once again, you always have to look at combined local, state, federal: we're all getting the crap kicked out of us when it comes to taxes. I don't think they should be raising taxes in the middle of a recession. I don't want it on the working class, I don't want it on high earners. I think they shouldn't be raising taxes right now."
During this year's legislative session, Democrat politicians in Olympia and the 'Public Interest Groups' (PIGS) that support them imposed $800 million in higher taxes -- but that was just their 'opening bid.' Now they're pushing for a BILLION DOLLARS MORE with this income tax initiative. And even that won't be enough. No matter how much we give them, they always want more. Our tax initiatives are the only thing that have effectively restrained government's ability to take as much as it wants.
I-960's 2/3's vote requirement for raising taxes, approved by voters in 2007, completely protected us from tax hikes (there wasn't a single tax increase in 2008 and 2009 despite $9 billion deficits). I-1053 will provide this same complete protection for taxpayers in 2011 and 2012.
Go to our website and help us get I-1053 on the ballot.
If I-1077 passes, my family will probably save at least $2000/yr. Will any of your initiatives do that for me, Tim?
Posted by: scottd on April 28, 2010 09:22 AM"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please" ~ Mark Twain
They go strictly on emotion, fear, rage. Mainly of "the other".
Sounds strangely like the leftists that came unhinged at the tea party movement? The left caterwauled, ranted and compared them to klan rallies and nazis? You've got a real disconnect with reality going on there, Doug. But then, this is Seattle, so you speak of an echo chamber that you're fully ensconced in.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 28, 2010 10:16 AMVery typical of the left...attempt to shift the focus by accusing others of the very behaviour that they themselves are engaging in. Pathetic.
Posted by: Jack on April 28, 2010 10:27 AMThe projection is strong with this one.
Posted by: jimg on April 28, 2010 10:37 AMSo how's that (echo chamber) working out in NY and Calif.
Other than broke. If dem's can spend it they will, if it's not enough, tax even more!
Do you think I should vote to reduce that percentage?
Posted by: scottd on April 28, 2010 11:04 AMI will tell you that voting for the income tax will ultimately mean that your tax burden will increase, regardless of what they are telling you now. Because you're not a sucker, right?
Posted by: Gary on April 28, 2010 11:10 AMUnder what circumstances should I not vote to reduce my taxes?
$2k/year -- sounds like an easy decision to me.
Posted by: scottd on April 28, 2010 11:14 AMNow the government employs many with undeserved private sector pay, pensions, and a benefit package that no private company could afford. And the government does not provide for general services anymore, while continually finding new ways to waste money. Examples are homeowners that now must pay for sidewalk repairs, and crumbing potholes in many streets. Meanwhile, there are fancy new fleets of "Code Enforcement" vehicles, each with an overpaid government employee, who's primary job is to go out and find anyone building or doing anything that can be punished, fined, and a source of new revenue.
The beast is out of control. All incumbents, should be voted out of office, regardless of party. And the only people elected should be those who pledge short, service oriented terms, that are focused only on fiscal responsibility.
Arguments about Gay Marriages and Abortions don't matter. Our government is rapidly collapsing under a permanent entitlement culture and massive debt. Job one is returning the government to fiscal sanity.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 28, 2010 11:22 AMI really can't get my head around that kind of helplessness mentality. Is there nothing you can do for yourselves?
Posted by: Gary on April 28, 2010 11:34 AMThe fact that the promoters of this destructive initiative claim that it will net $1 Billion - thats a Billion taken out of the free-market economy and the jobs along with it.
Again from scottd: According to the Tax Foundation, in 2008 per capita state and local taxes in Washington amounted to 8.9% of per capita income. That was below the national average of 9.7% and ranked Washington 35th among the 50 states in terms of per capita state and local tax burden.
Actually, the Tax Foundation report states that 'State and Local Tax Burden Per Capita, FY 2008' for Washington is 15th of 50. scottd got the first two Tables mixed up.
Other selected Washington 'Hall of Shame' rankings:
State Business Tax Climate Index, 2010 overall 9th, not bad,but let's make that worse with an income tax! Sales Tax Index is the worst of all states
Tax Freedom Day by State, 2009 April 16th, 6th worst
State Tax Collections Per Capita, 2008 16th worst
State and Local Revenues Per Capita, 2007 17th worst
State Individual Income Tax Rates No ranking, yet
State General Sales and Use Tax Rates 9th worst
State General Sales Tax Collections Per Capita*, 2008 We're Number Two! Yea!!
Combined State & Local Sales Tax Rates We're Number Three!
State and Local General and Selective Sales Tax Collections Per Capita*, 2007 Again, we're Number Two! Yea!!
State Gasoline Tax Rates 6th worst
State Spirits Excise Tax Rates We're Number One! Yea!!
State and Local Debt Per Capita 6th worst
Here's what I wrote @4, with a little added highlighting to make it easier for you:
According to the Tax Foundation, in 2008 per capita state and local taxes in Washington amounted to 8.9% of per capita income. That was below the national average of 9.7% and ranked Washington 35th among the 50 states in terms of per capita state and local tax burden.
This references Table 2 of the document you linked. Other states may have lower per capita tax burdens, but their incomes are lower, too. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the higher income, even if my taxes are slightly higher.
Posted by: scottd on April 28, 2010 02:44 PMHere's a hint, though: Don't pay attention to yadda. His comprehension skills are limited.
Posted by: scottd on April 28, 2010 02:48 PM
Really glad to get into this forum
It's what I am looking for.
Hope to know more member here.
Organ donation has become a vital way to save lives around the world, but a vast shortage of donors continues to mean people are losing their lives while on waiting lists.
But there is a unique proposal that could change all that.
New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky nearly lost his daughter, Willie, at 4 years old when she needed a kidney transplant, and again 10 years later when her second kidney failed.
"We have 10,000 New Yorkers on the list today waiting for organs. We import half the organs we transplant. It is an unacceptable failed system," Brodsky said.
To fix that, Brodsky introduced a new bill in Albany that would enroll all New Yorkers as an organ donor, unless they actually opt out of organ donation. It would be the first law of its kind in the United States.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 28, 2010 05:36 PMWorking people rely on income...they have to work and if they stop working, they become poor.
We shouldn't tax income.
Assets can be taxed when they reach a certain level.
This is not an "income tax on the rich" its an asset tax cut on the Super Wealthy.
"Now, what we're doing -- I want to be clear, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. (Laughter.) But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or you're providing a good service. We don't want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy."
Who is this clown to decide when I've earned enough income to support my lifestyle? Just another pompous blowhole liberal that thinks their ideals of what makes America great should be forced upon others.
Liberalism is less about ideology and more about the thing they cherish most: CONTROL
Posted by: Rick D. on April 28, 2010 06:42 PMThe tax that the state is proposing to reduce is only about 30% of the total property tax that you pay. In other words, if you pay $10,000 a year in property tax, about $3000 of that is to the state. The proposal is to reduce that amount by 20% which in this example would be about $600.
So to get that $2000 figure, he either has a very expensive home or doesn't understand the proposal.
Posted by: Ken on April 28, 2010 06:47 PMGo read the text of I-1077. Let me know if you see any other taxes that will be rebated in addition to property taxes.
Posted by: scottd on April 28, 2010 06:51 PMClueless hardly begins to explain Olympia let alone Washington D.C.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 28, 2010 08:17 PMMethinks the lady doth protest too much.Posted by: MikeBoyScout on April 28, 2010 10:24 PM
"No matter how much we give them, they always want more."
Posted by: Tim on April 28, 2010 11:30 PMSome of the highlights of his myspace page:
About me:
I'm a 34 yo guy who lives on Capitol Hill in Seattle...I am a socialist and a literary theorist and critic...I'm a member of the International Socialist Organization and take an active interest and actively participate in my community.
Heroes:
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Bob Dylan, Johnny
Nothing like having the true face of the Democrat/Socialist party of America finally emerge from the shadows and show itself. I admire he's able to actually come clean with his philosophy no matter how misguided it is. Something his fellow ideological travelers refuse to do publicly.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 29, 2010 05:42 AMOf course, the puzzling thing is that it likely affects NOBODY on this board. So..why do conservatives consistantly vote and follow policies against their own economic interests?
This is a tax on the top 2%. I doubt anyone here is in that catagory. The rest of us will benefit from slightly lower property taxes. That same top 2% currently pay far less of their overall income in taxes, because they aren't nearly as affected by the sales tax.
Simple, basic, common sense.
Posted by: Proteus on April 29, 2010 06:06 AM"I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
Who the hell is he?
Voting to tax very few people for services we all use is repulsive by the way.
This is a tax on the top 2%.
Which makes it illegal under the WA state constitution as determined time and again by the states high court.
SECTION 1 TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.
Income is property they've determined, so this thing won't pass muster if the WSSS adheres to the state constitution IF it does pass and is challenged.
This tax is NOT about taxing Super Rich Guys.
It's not even about taxing Rich Guys.
Because it is on earned income, it is about taxing folks who want to be rich!
Do some more research on this Tim and do not fall into this phoney assumption Gates Sr. & his pinheaded, starry-eyed groupies like Ross believe merely on the surface.
The Leftist attorneys like Gates are so disingenuous. He has made a fortune helping folks "tax plan" using loopholes in existing laws to minimize taxes. Trusts are a favorite instrument. Now he has written an Initiative that blatantly helps the super-rich he represents.
The Pinheads from Seattle always whine about paying taxes according to your "ability to pay".
How in the hell is Gates Jr. paying little or nothing fair????????????
You know, it really isn't so much about "facts", but rather principles. True conservatives, Tea Partiers and libertarians, all see lower taxation as a catalyst of gaining more freedom and shrinking government. If their funding dries up, they will eventually have to cut spending and shrink.
Past experience shows that a percentage tax, like our sales tax, slowly creeps up every year. Why would an income tax be any different. The income tax proposal is rigged to pass by looking like a nice reduction in taxes for the middle and lower classes. The income tax only has to be approved once. And once that hurdle is clear, the politicians will be able to raise rates with little opposition.
I wouldn't mind dropping all of our other taxes in favor of an income tax if the income tax were like a levy or bond measure that had to get re-approved every couple of years.
Posted by: blindman on April 29, 2010 12:09 PMI'm just saying.
Posted by: John Gault on April 29, 2010 04:56 PMNo...its about taxing folks who ARE rich. Big difference.
"So, would you oppose this if it taxed your income, and not just on the top 2%?"
I wouldn't be happy about it...I have to worry about paying the bills. The definition of "rich" is someone who doesn't have to concern themselves with making ends meet every month. $400k/year puts you safely in the that catagory.
Wow. What an airtight argument. Wish I'd thought of it.
Posted by: Bastiat Fan on May 4, 2010 01:09 PM