The last three income tax proposals were referendums that would have amended the state constitution to allow an income tax. They also included lowered sales, property, and Business and Occupation (B&O) taxes. All three went down to defeat by double-digit margins.
The latest run at a state income tax, I-1098, is an initiative. It promises to reduce state property and B&O taxes and raise about a billion new dollars for education and healthcare in exchange for an income tax on the wealthy. It still requires a vote of the people to enact but lacks any constitutional protections so in two years the Legislature could amend it anyway they want. Conventional wisdom says it will meet the same fate at the polls as previous attempts to impose an income tax in Washington. But these are different times. The economy is in a grand funk and more people than ever receive some benefit from government. At least one poll shows people evenly divided on the issue. Oregon voters recently approved an increase in that state's income tax partly because it affected only the rich.
Should it pass, the pressure on the Legislature to lower the initiative's tax threshold ($200,000 for singles, $400,000 for married) to ensnare more and more citizens will be irresistible especially when the Democrats are in power. And what is to prevent the Legislature from using the billion new dollars to supplant existing funding and going on their merry way spending just like they always have? Even if the billion dollars is additive to education and healthcare, will those dollars actually improve anything or will they just end up in bureaucracy and higher labor costs? If an income tax is such a panacea for cash strapped states, why are so many of them with sales, property and income tax in financial trouble? No income tax is a competitive advantage for Washington. Why give it up? Will an income tax drive wealthy people out of the state? The late Tom Stewart moved his company, Food Services of America, to Arizona in 2006 in part because Arizona has no inheritance tax. Will there be unintended consequences?
Taxes are a necessity but they need to be fair, reasonable and predictable so individuals and businesses can plan accordingly. They also need to be low in order to limit government expansion and leave more money for private investment and individual use. I'd consider a tax reform proposal if: 1. It was revenue neutral. 2. Income, sales and property tax rates and application bases were in the state constitution and linked so the Legislature could not play leapfrog i.e. raise income tax this year, then sales tax next year etc. 3. Any changes in rates or bases required voter approval. 4.The income tax was flat rate. 5. The B&O tax was banned.
I-1098 fails to meet any of these conditions.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that it will not get enough. Most people seem like they know this. It would make life simpler if it does not get the required number of signatures. I would not count on the WSSC shooting down this bill in the courts because of their left-wing ideology.
Posted by: KDS on July 1, 2010 09:42 PMI know I'll be voting for it. Lowering my taxes is one attraction -- but watching pudge's legal analysis go down in flames will be icing on the cake.
Posted by: scottd on July 1, 2010 09:47 PMSelf-evidently false. If you loved the rule of law and not the rule of man, you would -- knowing established precedent clearly says I-1098 is unconstitutional -- default to that judgment unless you had compelling evidence to the contrary. You have no such evidence.
I guess all those real lawyers who have argued cases that ended up overturning established precedent were just wasting their time because courts are never wrong.
We'll see how this one turns out.
Posted by: scottd on July 1, 2010 11:08 PMThat has nothing to do with the point I made.
The point I made is that you should support the precedent unless you have a REASON -- grounded in the law -- to not do so.
I just made a separate post on this topic. If you have an actual legal argument to make -- why the Constitution has been wrongly interpreted, for example -- feel free to make it. But as you have offered no reason for anyone to think the precedent is wrong, and the analysis I provide shows Gates' own reason is complete nonsense ... why should anyone believe you HAVE a reason?
It is the safe assumption that you simply WANT an income tax, and that you have no other reason for believing the precedent should, or will, be overturned. That is -- as I said earlier -- you hate the rule of law.
Prove me wrong: provide your reasons.
pudge @13: I did not ask you to prove me wrong.
You truly have a gift for argument.
Posted by: scottd on July 2, 2010 12:21 AMWow. I'm convinced, now.
I'm just sorry that the children weren't here to hear that display of authentic frontier gibberish.
(/Blazing Saddles)
/sarc
Posted by: FT on July 2, 2010 01:07 AMThese progressives keep touting "Tax the Rich". There comes a point when there are no more rich because you've taxed them out of existence. What are they going to do then?
You only need to look across the water to the EU to see how this ends.
Posted by: Vince on July 2, 2010 05:50 AMSeriously, take a law class at an accredited school.
You simply DO NOT CARE.
Because you hate the rule of law.
Is that what you call it when you look like an idiot?
Posted by: scottd on July 2, 2010 06:49 AMYou can scream it with CAPS, but it does not make it so. There are a slew of legal reasons why the decision of Culliton v. Chase would not be applicable to I-1098.
"You simply DO NOT CARE."
Once again, you simply don't have any idea what you are talking about, and as a 2nd rate propagandist refuse to look into the matter when information is in plain sight.
Funny thing about you arguing points of law with William Gates is that Gates has a law degree and a 45 year old highly successful law firm.
pudge, you love to spout-off about the law all the time, but you have neither the education nor the experience that Gates has, and what's more you don't have the courage nor the candle power to acquire the education.
When it comes to legal commentary you really should stop signing yourself as pudge and start signing yourself as putz.
Any chance your moniker alludes to you being a pole smoking troll? :-D
Hey, what is the public site where you post your financial records?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 2, 2010 08:54 AMNo. It's what I use when I am pointing out that you were committing the equivocation fallacy. You see, you said, "I don't have to prove you wrong. Real lawyers are going to do that for me." But when I said "prove me wrong," I was referring to the fact that you were not basing what you said on any legal reasons. "Real lawyers" could not prove me wrong in that: they could provide legal reasons, but they could not demonstrate that YOU had any legal reasons.
So when I said "prove me wrong [that you have no reasons]" and then later responded to you with "I did not ask you to prove me wrong [that I-1098 is unconstitutional]," it was equivocation to accuse me of contradicting myself.
Am I going too fast for you?
So again I reiterate: you have no legal reasons for believing I-1098 is not unconstitutional. You support it anyway, because you hate the rule of law.
MikeBS: There are a slew of legal reasons why the decision of Culliton v. Chase would not be applicable to I-1098.
No one has provided any. Not even Gates. His argument has been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be complete crap.
Funny thing about you arguing points of law with William Gates is that Gates has a law degree and a 45 year old highly successful law firm.
Argumentum ad hominem fallacy. In logic, we focus on the arguments, not who is making them. In this case, it's been proven Gates is wrong. Nothing about his biography can make up for that fact.
It is entirely telling that no one who says there's legal arguments in favor of I-1098 can provide any such arguments, and instead resort to personal attacks.
If YOU looked into the matter -- such as reading my separate post, or reading Culliton -- you would know that Gates' analysis is completely wrong. I specifically linked to that exact analysis and demonstrated how misrepresentative it is of the actual decision.
Of course, since you're a liar and an abusive troll, you can't comment directly on my post without your comments being removed. But it's funny that you accuse me of refusing to look into the matter because I didn't look at this thing in "plain sight," when I explicitly picked that very analysis apart.
Democrats are like the teen girl who has been given a credit but never taught lessons in fiscal and personal responsibility. She'll run it up to the limit, and come back time and time again to her Dad crying for him to pay off the card. Each time with a promise that this time will be the last, and that she will spend wisely in the future. Except that this time, Dad is bankrupt.
The only thing to do is vote no on 1098 to deprive Democrats of their future failure.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 2, 2010 09:11 AMI read your silly post, but as you can't stand to have me show you up repeatedly you delete my comments on your posts.
Let's do it again here.
@24 on July 2, 2010 08:55 AM you said
"No one has provided any [legal reasons why the decision of Culliton v. Chase would not be applicable to I-1098] . Not even Gates. His argument has been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be complete crap."
So, you tell us Gates provided no reason, yet the reason Gates provided is not only wrong despite having never been offered, but is wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.
Are you just a 2nd rate propagandist with delusions of grandeur, or just a delusional psychotic?
Sorry that I did not respond to the position you took at July 01, 2010 10:10 PM in responding to your contradictory comment on July 2, 2010 06:44 AM.
Which is it now? Has there been a legal argument for I-1098 being constitutional or is the non-existent argument a piece of crap beyond a reasonable doubt?
Also, "Bill Gates, Sr. is going to waste a massive amount of taxpayer dollars putting up a blatantly unconstitutional initiative," -
How is he going to do that? Exactly how many dollars is he wasting? How does that compare with the dollars wasted by your buddy Eyman over the years on initiatives that were thrown out?
bye putz. Maybe you applied to law school and got rejected? repeatedly? :-D
If you are so damn cocksure the initiative is unconstitutional let's see you file to get the initiative stricken from the ballot and we'll see if you can actually prove in a court of law the bullshit you claim.
Here's something provable beyond a reasonable doubt, you won't.... cuz you are a putz.
Unless of course you are a liar. You can just admit you were boasting back on April 7th, trying to make yourself out to be some sort of powerful rich lawyer who would be sending additional funds to the DOR with the swipe of pen in 2010. Your continued whining defense of your obvious lie has become a real insight into your lack of character and veracity.
Posted by: Smokie on July 2, 2010 10:26 AMCorrect. He tried, but he failed. A cursory look at Culliton proves it's a lie. He had no reason. He PRETENDS to have a reason, but he does not.
your contradictory comment
I made none.
Also, "Bill Gates, Sr. is going to waste a massive amount of taxpayer dollars putting up a blatantly unconstitutional initiative," -
How is he going to do that?
By ... putting up a blatantly unconstitutional initiative. How is that hard to understand?
Exactly how many dollars is he wasting?
I don't know, but you could ask Sam Reed how much money it costs from beginning to end for him to run an initiative on the ballot, and then ask Rob McKenna how much it costs us for an initiative to be successfully challenged in Court.
How does that compare with the dollars wasted by your buddy Eyman over the years on initiatives that were thrown out?
From what I can tell, Eyman twice had initiatives thrown out for containing two subjects, and once more -- because of the two subjects problem -- had a third thrown out (since the Court changed the law, which thus -- in the stupid opinion of Mary Roberts -- meant the people didn't know what they were voting for).
You could say he wasted money and time during the learning process, because he twice tried to put two subjects in one initiative. Sure. Many on the right have said that. That last happened 10 years ago.
If you are so damn cocksure the initiative is unconstitutional let's see you file to get the initiative stricken from the ballot
Maybe we will. That's undecided. It's a tough call to make, since the time is short and there's not enough time, probably, for a full hearing of the case before the deadline, so you have to rely on a preliminary injunction, and, frankly, I would not really be in favor of such an injunction against the initiative, since I'd think a court should err on the side of allowing the people to weigh in and then let it go to court, rather than keeping it from the people and then going to court. There's no real difference from the court perspective, but the potential damage to the voters -- should the Court find in the initiative's favor -- is greater than the potential damage to the taxpayers who foot the bill for the vote.
Of course, the very low probability of the Supreme Court finding in favor of I-1098 factors into it ... I'd have to study a lot more on injunctions against initiatives before I came to a final conclusion. But generally I'd find in favor of an initiative, even one so blatantly violative of precedent as this one.
Of course, there is little chance I-1098 will pass anyway, so we have to consider cost/benefit of bothering to kill it in court. But we absolutely will sue to have it overturned should it pass.
I note for the record that you repeatedly make the idiotic error that being certain it is unconstitutional is equivalent to being certain that it will be found unconstitutional by the Court.
and we'll see if you can actually prove in a court of law the bullshit you claim.
Shrug. Whether we can prove it in court is beside the point I am making, which is that Gates is clearly wrong. If you would like to address that point, feel free. But I am sure you can't even try; I mean, come on, you didn't even realize that the analysis link you gave to me, I'd already shot down. You and scottd can't even understand the arguments, let alone engage in arguments about the arguments, which is why you repeatedly refuse to do so.
putz,
Whether you can prove any thing in court is precisely the point of law. You can't prove your point about law in a court of law because your point is nothing more than your silly unsupported opinion, no matter how often you use CAPS or attempt to ignore the process of law with your passe shrugs.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 2, 2010 12:10 PMDONT TAKE THE BAIT VOTE NO ON 1098!
DONT TAKE THE BAIT VOTE NO ON 1098!
DONT TAKE THE BAIT VOTE NO ON 1098!
DONT TAKE THE BAIT * VOTE NO ON 1098!
DONT TAKE THE BAIT * VOTE NO ON 1098!
DONT TAKE THE BAIT * VOTE NO ON 1098!
"You and scottd can't even understand the arguments, let alone engage in arguments about the arguments, which is why you repeatedly refuse to do so."
scottd can speak for himself, but I-1098 is constitutional unless and until a court of law rules otherwise.
You argue that it is not, but you are beyond a reasonable doubt too cowardly to pursue your claim in the manner prescribed by the constitution to argue your point where it matters - in a court of law.
You are, of course, a liar. Right at the top of Sound Politics right now is a well-supported analysis heavily quoting from, and linking to, both Culliton itself, and Spitzer's analysis that you linked to above.
To call it unsupported is to put your fingers in your ears and yell NYAH NYAH NYAH ... which is about all we can expect from you. You're incapable of much else.
I-1098 is constitutional unless and until a court of law rules otherwise.
First, I really hope you're not a lawyer. You've said this before but it's nonsense. It literally cannot be backed up by any logic of any kind. Constitutional means, obviously, that something does not violate the Constitution. Your definition of "constitutional" requires us to believe that the Constitution itself changes -- not merely its interpretation, but itself -- in a matter of moments, whenever the Court changes its interpretation of the Constitution. It's idiocy.
Courts do not define constitutionality any more than they write the Constitution: they merely give their opinions about them. Whether we abide by those opinions is up to us, and usually -- but not always -- we accept that we are bound by their opinions, even if they are wrong.
Second, more importantly, you're wrong even in your own lame definition of constitutionality: it is unconstitutional if what the initiative DOES is unconstitutional, even if the law itself has never been challenged. By your standard here, an initiative that said liberals are now the property of conservatives, and are worth 3/5 of a conservative for the purposes of representation, would be constitutional until a court rules otherwise. That's STUPID.
And in fact, what I-1098 does has already been ruled unconstitutional, so you have it backward: it is unconstitutional until the Court overturns its many precedents that say I-1098 is unconstitutional.
Unless you have an argument that existing precedents against a nonuniform income tax do not apply to I-1098, you have no argument at all.
you are beyond a reasonable doubt too cowardly to pursue your claim in the manner prescribed by the constitution to argue your point where it matters - in a court of law.
Shrug. You're, as usual, a liar. I've already said we absolutely will challenge this in court if it somehow passes.
You silly git.
"Constitutional means, obviously, that something does not violate the Constitution."
Where, pray tell, would we find out if something violates the constitution?
(a) In a court of law
(b) On a (un)Sound Politics blog post
(c) At a a Constitution and Policy Workshop led by Mathew Manweller
You can really hope I'm not a lawyer all you like, but you will never get in to an accredited law school let alone obtain a degree in law, putz. The best you'll do is get a certificate of participation from non-lawyer & WA state employee, Manweller.
:-D
That question makes no sense. How do you find out if touching a stove burns your hand? How do you find out if a recipe tastes better with cheese? How do you find out if it's better to use a 4-3 or 3-4 defense? How do you gain ANY knowledge?
You are suffering under the notion that "constitutional" means "what the Court says." As soon as you realize it means "what the Constitution says," you will immediately recognize the answer is "read the Constitution." It's not hard to understand. It might be hard to DO -- which is why you refuse to try -- but it's not hard to understand.
... you will never ...
Unless you have an argument that existing precedents against a nonuniform income tax do not apply to I-1098, you have no argument at all.
I don't need to realize anything putz.
And you can claim in bold or CAPS anything you like, and ignore things with shrugs, but it does not change the facts.
Speaking of reading and understanding the constitution, lawyers do that. You know, the folks that take and pass a bar exam and who are officers of the court.
You know who is a licensed officer of the WA court in this debate about the constitutionality of I-1098? William Gates.
You know who has not passed a WA bar exam and never will? You putz. You are blatantly unqualified to opine on the law.
ps. The words where and how don't mean the same thing. :-D
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)
You know who is a licensed officer of the WA court in this debate about the constitutionality of I-1098? William Gates.
Unless you have an argument that existing precedents against a nonuniform income tax do not apply to I-1098, you have no argument at all.
You are blatantly unqualified to opine on the law.
False: I am a voter.
False. You are a putz and what you say is unconstitutional.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 2, 2010 01:47 PMIs this true? or false?
Any measure initiated by the people or referred to the people as herein provided shall take effect and become THE LAW if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon:
If the above is true, and if I-1098 is approved, is it the law?
Give us your careful putzy reading.
:-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 2, 2010 02:20 PMUntil it is overturned, yes. Obviously. How could it possibly be any other way?
U.S. v. Sprague is in no way relevant nor applicable to I-1098.
I never implied it was. It was, however, relevant to your false claim that we need to look to lawyers to understand the Constitution.
A history of the income tax in Washington state
"Until it is overturned, yes. Obviously. How could it possibly be any other way?"
Gee, you should go talk to the putz who has been arguing "Unless you ... you have no argument at all." because it seems like you now agree that those who claim I-1098 is unconstitutional shall actually need to submit and prove their argument before a court of law, which is quite different than needing to refute something which has yet to exist.
"It was, however, relevant to your false claim that we need to look to lawyers to understand the Constitution."
No, I did not claim "we" need to, I assert you do not understand law and you, putz, are blatantly unqualified to opine on the law.
Nevertheless, you thought by randomly citing a phrase in Roberts' opinion in the unrelated federal court case, U.S. v. Sprague, this somehow bolsters your legal cred? Who are you trying to imitate, Foghorn Leghorn?
I look forward to reading and hearing about how you, Sir Putz, help craft the filing to overturn I-1098 with random case cites if it passes.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 2, 2010 06:58 PMOne should be mindful that I-69 and I-1098, while similar, are not the same, and that Culliton v. Chase which went against I-69 was a narrow 5-4 decision made 78 years ago on the very thin reed of a rather dubious syllogism.
If I-1098 passes it shall surely be challenged.
But even the Reitz post over at EFF you cited acknowledges that "the case law guiding the Supreme Court in Culliton has since been overturned." and Reitz fails to identify why this specific initiative should be found contradictory to the state constitution.
In fact, Reitz posits "any new proposals would have to clear the exceedingly-high hurdles of constitutional review" without ever identifying what the hurdle is beyond Culliton v. Chase which he acknowledges sits primarily on overturned case law.
If you are interested in the topic I suggest you read Justice Blake's dissent in Culliton v. Chase which missed by a single vote in carrying the day in 1932 and no longer suffers the impediment of incorrect and subsequently overturned prevailing case law of that day.
It is hard to tell which is more pathetic; your silly irrelevant trolling or your attempt to justify it with idiotic remarks about egos writing oral agreements.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 2, 2010 08:29 PM
I never implied anything different.
which is quite different than needing to refute something which has yet to exist
I never said anyone would need to refute something that doesn't exist.
I assert you do not understand law
Assert all you like, but until you can demonstrate it -- by providing, say, a single example? -- no one cares. This is, of course, the main point: you are completely incapable of actually arguing against my evidence, so much so that you haven't even attempted it.
Culliton v. Chase which ... was a narrow 5-4 decision made 78 years ago on the very thin reed of a rather dubious syllogism.
Its age is irrelevant, especially since it's been upheld many times since then.
And please, feel free to explain what is "dubious" in the decision. Go ahead, we're all waiting. As usual, you won't even try to make an argument.
But even the Reitz post over at EFF you cited acknowledges that "the case law guiding the Supreme Court in Culliton has since been overturned."
False. First, that was in an entirely different post than what I cited; second, and more importantly, Reitz was explaining Spitzer's argument, not asserting it. On the contrary, Reitz adamantly opposes the notion that the case law referred to did guide the Court in Culliton. That was his whole point, and the point of my separate post: that Culliton was -- clearly -- guided by the text of the newly amended Constitution. Over and over this is made perfectly clear in the decision.
Reitz fails to identify why this specific initiative should be found contradictory to the state constitution.
He hasn't written, that I know of, on this specific initiative. But the argument is simple -- even for you -- to understand. As Reitz points out, the Constitution says that a. income is property, and b. property tax must be uniform. Since I-1098 implements a nonuniform income tax, it is therefore unconstitutional. It's pretty simple.
I suggest you read Justice Blake's dissent ...
This is now the second time in this very discussion that you've falsely accused me of needing to read something, when you've demonstrated a startling lack of ability to do so yourself. First you told me to read an analysis I not only already read, but I analyzed in detail, in my separate post; now you're telling me to read a dissent I already read, while completely misrepresenting Reitz, and saying he "failed" to specifically respond to an initiative in a post he wrote a year prior to its existence.
Anyway, the dissent is just that: a dissent, which has no legal standing, unlike the majority opinion, which is guided by the Constitution itself, and has been consistently upheld through the years.
"Assert all you like, but until you can demonstrate it -- by providing, say, a single example? -- no one cares"
You care.
You come over here and argue with me, yet you delete my relevant comments from your post.
I did provide an example over on your post, and you delete it.
"False. First, that was in an entirely different post than what I cited;" ..."now you're telling me to read a dissent I already read,"
See, this is why you are a putz.
I wasn't talking to or responding to you. You claim to be able to read and understand the constitution, and you can't even figure out that I addressed my comment at 48 to @45 Vince on July 2, 2010 06:28 PM,.
At least Smokie is pathetically funny in his attempts, you are just a putz.
I have no idea if they are relevant. Comments by you are removed. Period. I don't read them first to see if they are relevant. I've told you this before, but, as usual, you are either too ignorant to get it, or you're just lying. I am not going to read any more of this comment, or any other comment you have in this discussion.
This discussion here, where you continually lie and misrepresent, and argue everything except for the actual point, is precisely why your comments are removed (well, that and the fact that when I started removing your comments, you reposted them over, and over, and over, as belligerently as you could). I was -- because I am an optimist -- hoping you'd present an actual point. I give up that hope now.
For most people, my bans are temporary. But because you are exceptionally obtuse and a particularly nasty asshole, yours is permanent. I doubt you'll find many people who find fault with me for that.
I don't know if Reitz point that out, but I do know that nowhere in the Washington State constitution does it say "income is property".
You keep saying the Washington State constitution says "income is property", but it doesn't.
Prove me wrong putz. Show us where in Washington State constitution it says "income is property".
Know what? You can't and you won't because the Washington State constitution does not say "income is property" and never has.
Does the stupid burn as it comes out putz?
:-D
Now be a good putz and go over and delete all of my comments on your post showing you up... again.
:-D
"yours [ban] is permanent."
As if it matters to me or my ability to comment on your posts.
That's something else you are incapable of understanding about reasoning and decisions, and why you're prone to quickly and without cause accuse others of lying, being full of it, and ultimately running and hiding like a child when challenged on your silly nonsensical assertions.
Just give it up Mikeboyscout, you lose, you lie and you are a lying liberal progressive lawyer who is too cheap to keep his word. I pity your clients if you even have any.
Posted by: Smokie on July 3, 2010 08:44 AMEven European Nations realize the error in their ways and are cutting back on spending. Sorry, leftwingnut progresssives, you've been punked !
Posted by: KDS on July 3, 2010 08:44 AM"32. @29 Michele on April 7, 2010 09:30 PM,
Yes, I'll be sending at least an additional $25,000 to the WA Department of Revenue in 2010.
I'm sorry, did you have a point?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on April 8, 2010 07:12 AM"
Aren't written records of your own words a hoot Mikeboyscout? Pay up or shut up.
Pudge, this may be pessimistic, but I doubt most voters have the time or even the patience to read our state constitution, let alone understand it.
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
-Madison
I think the law of today meets both of Madison's criteria for being of "little avail" to most voters. We don't have the time to invest in becoming experts in the law in the same way we cannot all become MDs to solve our health problems.
That's why, as I think Mike Boy Scout correctly points out, we need lawyers in suits to fight these convoluted questions out before lawyers in robes. And if we don't like the result, we can change the law. Thomas Sowell just wrote a good column about the different roles of the citizenry and the legal system in shaping the law as relates to the recent SCOTUS gun ban ruling.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell062910.php3
Your analysis is convincing to me, but I'm a laymen. Ultimately, if the initiative passes, letting the best lawyers and legal arguments both sides can muster have at one another in court will be the most valid test of the initiative's constitutionality. Not a perfect test, but the most valid men have devised.
And if it doesn't come out our way, we can try to persuade our fellow Washingtonians to change the the law or vote with our feet by moving away (a decision I understand Shanghai Dan already made).
SO, my point here, is that instead of applying your energy to convincing the liberal readers of SP that 1098 is unconstitutional, we should shift to trying to persuade Mike Boy Scout (and others) that an income tax, that higher taxes and larger government expenditures are a really bad idea for our freedom and prosperity.
Posted by: Carlton on July 3, 2010 10:13 AM
They believe it will benefit their own greed and their political ideology and that is why they support I-1098.
Posted by: KDS on July 3, 2010 10:25 AM"Why not just cut to the chase and say that MBS and others who know the arguments for and against and support this initiative don't care about freedom and prosperity ?"
If it matters the reason not to is that it is not true. But I expect that absent other arguments on the merits of I-1098 this is the way it shall go.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 3, 2010 11:10 AMThat's fine, but beside my point. MikeBS was saying that I am wrong and Bill Gates is right because he went to law school and passed the bar, and I did not. My quote was only pointing out the fact that his claim was stupid, not that everyone has the opportunity to understand all the issues.
That's why, as I think Mike Boy Scout correctly points out, we need lawyers in suits to fight these convoluted questions out before lawyers in robes.
No, his point was not that. His point was that someone who isn't a "lawyer" has no valid opinion (especially if it disagrees with his own). Of course this must be fought by lawyers in front of the Court, if it passes in November: there's no other way to have it thrown out. But that is distinct from anyone -- including lay persons -- discussing the issue accurately and intelligently.
instead of applying your energy to convincing the liberal readers of SP that 1098 is unconstitutional
I am making no such efforts. Literally. I am not trying to convince any of them of anything.
we should shift to trying to persuade Mike Boy Scout (and others) that an income tax, that higher taxes and larger government expenditures are a really bad idea for our freedom and prosperity.
That's not possible, but knock yourself out.
It is rare that I vote for any initiative, but I shall vote in favor of I-1098.
I don't know if the initiative shall pass judicial muster if it passes, but if it passes with a significant majority there is a better chance the legislature will do its work and address the issue of our tax structure.
Washington's B&O tax is ridiculous. Property taxes are too high. Cutting spending is an interesting idea in the abstract, but often fails to materialize when it comes to the details, regardless of which of our 2 parties hold sway in our government. One need only look at the budget Rossi wrote in 2004.
I-1098 is well written to address the current problem of escalating property taxes and to in some small way reduce the stupidity of the B&O tax. Most Washingtonians would benefit from I-1098 if it passes. Some wealthier Washingtonians, like the Gates', would pay more than they do now.
I am not convinced in the least by all the dire predictions opponents of I-1098 have made. And as a household that shall be impacted (in our good years), I have no intent to abandon WA if the change comes to pass.
I'm sorry I do not agree with your generalization about higher taxes and larger government expenditures being a really bad idea for our freedom and prosperity. While there are circumstances where this is true, there are others where it is not (i.e. higher tobacco tax, spending more for servicing our veterans).
Good government is hard and efficient government harder. Those of us who benefit the most financially carry a larger financial burden than those who do not in maintaining and improving the state and its people which help make us successful.
Have a very happy Independence Day!
"Literally. I am not trying to convince any of them of anything."
No, literally you are misrepresenting known and knowable facts and impugning those who differ with you in an attempt to convince others.
Am I wrong? Your post "Bill Gates Sr. is Full of It" is an ad hominem headline that goes right in to a factually incorrect statement about our state constitution.
Par for the putz course.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 3, 2010 11:39 AM1. Why would Bill Gates Sr. sponsor an initiative that would tax the rich?
2. Does it have anything to do with the fact the legislature is preparing to give Microsoft a $100 million tax break and amnesty for $1 BILLION in tax evasion?
3. After two years do you believe that the legislature would change the law to tax everyone?
4. After reading section 1. below, do you believe our state is any different than Connecticut?
Panhandling and Pick Pocket Tax For State Legislatures In Lieu of a State Income Tax
An act relating to education and fiscal reform; adding a new section to Chapter 82.04 by creating a 40% tax that will be applied to all monies received from the panhandling efforts, otherwise know as campaign contributions, that are from special interest groups. In addition, a 20% tax on all Democratic legislatures that voted to suspend Initiative 960 and increase taxes or pick the pockets of Washington State tax payers in order to pay for promises made while they were panhandling on the campaign trail. The 20% tax will be applied to all wages, salaries and other compensations received directly or indirectly from their elected office. The panhandling tax will also be used to offset or recoup tax dollars lost from Indian Casino revenues.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Part I
Policies and Purpose
Sec. 1. Whereas Initiative 960 was approved by the voters to prevent the following:
In 1991, Connecticut was facing a revenue shortfall of about $2.7 Billion. Using that crisis, Connecticut's governor pushed hard for a state income tax. After a long stalemate with the General Assembly, the bill eventually passed. At the signing ceremony, Governor Lowell Weicker sounded optimistic. "When I sign this budget, Connecticut will be closing the book on its past and it'll be facing toward the future."
Now, 17 years later, we have a pretty good idea of what that future looks like: The income tax that was passed to close a $2.7 Billion deficit has been raised several times and now brings in over $7.5 billion a year. Add in the $350 million a year that the state currently receives from Indian Casinos, and Connecticut now collects nearly $8 billion more in revenue than it did in 1991.
Despite all of those extra billions, Connecticut is still facing massive deficits $1.2 Billion this year and another $6 to $8 Billion over the next two years. How could this happen? In Connecticut's case, out-of-control spending was the culprit. In 1991, when the so-called crisis was happening, the state's total spending was about $7.6 billion. In 2008, the total spending was $18.8 billion, an increase of 147 percent. To be fair, the $7.6 billion in 1991 dollars would translate to $11.4 billion today, but that still means the brainiacs in Hartford are spending 65% more than they were in 1991.
The point is that government knows how to get bigger. Try as they might to slim down, the natural order of things will always take over and ensure they grow larger than anyone thought possible. The only way to stop that, or at least slow it down, is by taking away their source of food: money and power. For this very reason the voters of Washington State passed Initiative 960 in an attempt to remove the tapeworm that is attached to the lower intestine of the taxpayers.
SEC. 2 Whereas, the Democratic controlled legislature failed to implement budget cuts, curb spending, eliminate wasteful spending and continued to spend tax dollars in order to provide favors to special interest groups, with a deficit in the next biennium that is projected to be as high as $8 billion dollars. In spite of this over $150 million dollars was identified as pork barrel spending by the Washington Policy Center’s Citizens Against Government Waste.
This serves as evidence that there was never any serious attention given to reduction in expenditures and that the legislature is committed to picking the pockets of the Washington State Tax payers while continuing to pan handle large sums of money from special interest groups.
Examples on Panhandling include:
1. Washington taxpayers are being asked to pay more than $2.5 million for a community Inviting House, Longhouse and Museum, which would primarily benefit the Suquamish Indian tribe. Yet, the tribe’s leaders are hardly short of money. They operate the nearby highly-profitable, and tax-exempt, Clearwater Casino Resort. $1.5 million for decorative lights on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge
2. $ 442,000 ”SAyWA” advertising campaign
3. $142,000 for Animal Massage practitioners.
4. $66,000 for Christmas Tree Inspections
5. $44,687 for Medicaid Checks for Services to Dead People
6. $31,723 Payments for paying WA State Ferry Employees to Ride the Ferry after Work
7. $254,694 Pension Payments to Dead People
8. $19,050 For Sole-Source Contract to Review Governor’s Communication Operation which appears to be another quid pro quo scenario since the principal owners of the firm gave a total of $2,922 in campaign donations to the governor. This contract comes on top of an earlier contract of $12,000 to another consultant to review the Governor’s communications operations and relations with the press.
Examples of Pick Pocketing include:
1. B&O tax increase on service businesses.
2. Limit on preferential B&O rate for manufacture of certain agriculture products.
3. Suspension of sales tax emption for livestock nutrient equipment and facilities.
4. Cigarette and tobacco tax increase. A tax of $1 per pack of cigarettes has been added.
5. Tax increase on carbonated beverages. Soda and such are taxed at 2 cents per 12 ounces. The bottler is exempt from the tax on the first $10 million sold. Tax is in effect from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2013.
6. Sales tax on candy and gum. Candy and gum are subject to sales tax effective June 1, 2010.
7. Temporary sales tax on bottled water. From June 1, 2010, to June 20, 2013, sales tax applies to bottled water.
8. Beer excise tax. The excise tax on beer is increased from 26 cents to 76 cents per gallon. Microbreweries are exempt on the first 60,000 gallons sold.
Part II
Conclusion
Washington State Laws that apply to monopolies are focused on issues related to trade and commerce. If we purchase bottled water, gum, soda pop, candy and beer, we pay tax. The tax is on our sales receipt and the more we purchase the more tax we pay. Many business, particularly in southern Washington suffer from the fact that Oregon does not possess a sales tax and many residents cross the border to purchase products to avoid paying our nationally high sales tax.
On the business side of the equation, since 2008 six countries have announced plans to cut their corporate tax rates: Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, South Africa, Spain and Taiwan. In an interview in the Korea Times, Choi Kyung-hwan, a member of the new Administration's Presidential Transition Committee, said, "The corporate income tax reduction is not a matter of choice, but a matter of life and death for Korea in an increasingly globalized business environment.''
In a refrain that is equally applicable to the U.S., Choi went on to say, "Hong Kong and Singapore, which impose significantly lower corporate taxes than Korea, have further slashed taxes recently to draw more foreign investors. Also, France currently levies a 34.4 percent corporate income tax but plans to reduce the tax to as low as 20 percent. Unless Korea cuts corporate taxes, we will not be able to win over multinational firms."3 Note: Washington State is at 39.2%
The point is that taxes are directly related to trade and commerce. As a result, the monopoly laws that apply to trade and commerce are applicable in regards to the actions of Governor Gregoire and the Democratic majority in the Washington State legislature in regards to suspending I-960 and passing laws to increase taxes that directly impact trade and commerce. We contend that the actions of Governor Gregoire and the Democratic legislators vote to suspend I-960 to be a violation of the following RCW’s
RCW 19.86.020 Unfair competition, practices, declared unlawful. Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
RCW 19.86.040 Monopolies and attempted monopolies declared unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.
RCW 19.86.093 Civil action — Unfair or deceptive act or practice — Claim elements. In a private action in which an unfair or deceptive act or practice is alleged under RCW 19.86.020, a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious to the public interest because it: (3)(a) Injured other persons; (b) had the capacity to injure other persons; or (c) has the capacity to injure other persons.
By conspiring to create a monopoly, we contend that Governor Gregoire in conjunction with the Democratic members of the Washington State Legislature, violated RCW 19.86.020, RCW 19.86.040, RCW 19.86.093 and caused financial injury to the citizens of Washington State.
One specific example is that the Business and Occupation Tax know to be the most repressive tax in Washington State history. On July of 2005, Governor Gregoire stated during a meeting with the Clark County High-Tech Council that she was looking for ways to reform the B&O tax to make it less onerous on business and four years later in February of 2009, in a speech to the Association of Washington Business, Governor Gregoire stated that she would like to overhaul the business and occupation tax, calling the tax, "ill-conceived" and harmful to small businesses.
By creating a monopoly to illegally suspend Initiative 960, the Democratic Party was able to pass a number tax increases. One in particular was to raise the B&O taxes by 20% on service industries which Governor Gregoire repeatedly admitted was harmful to small business. This clearly violates RCW 19.86.093 (3)(a)(b)(c).
Unfortunately, collusion and violation of monopoly laws for which individuals in the private sector are prosecuted are conducted as standard operating procedures in Olympia. As a result, it is time to tax the tapeworm that is attached to the lower intestine of the tax payers.
"Good government is hard and efficient government harder. Those of us who benefit the most financially carry a larger financial burden than those who do not in maintaining and improving the state and its people which help make us successful."
You said you would send in the $25,000 and you have not, so much for carrying your share of the "burden". This is just more lies from the Lying Liberal Progressive Lawyer also known as Mikeboyscout. See #58 above for the quote from the Lying Liberal Progressive Lawyer.
Posted by: Smokie on July 3, 2010 01:22 PMI think you have a mancrush. :-p
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 3, 2010 03:59 PMDon't worry Mikey, I don't think many people trusted your in the first place since you sit around in a boyscout outfit trying to entice clients into believing you are competent and elementary school children into your car.
Posted by: Smokie on July 3, 2010 04:20 PMIf it matters the reason not to is that it is not true. But I expect that absent other arguments on the merits of I-1098 this is the way it shall go.
Posted by MikeBoyScout at July 3, 2010 11:10 AM
Nice obfuscation. I stand by my comment above. Your words have not and will not prove otherwise as long as you maintain your inflexible and irresponsible position. Let old man Gates campaign to his heart's desire.
Posted by: KDS on July 3, 2010 05:19 PMBTW - remember that MBS does not care about reason or critical thinking. I say that because as KDS mentions he will not. If you do not believe in his dogma, then you are worth nothing and thus your reasoned opinions are to be discarded without even thinking about them. Facts and evidence be damned!
Posted by: Dengle on July 3, 2010 11:06 PMGood column and I agree with restricting internet unless it is essential for work purposes.....though it's a nice benefit to use....so I guess the "time allowance" system is best. When is your lunch and any "breaks" you are allowed through your dictated contract.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/03/great-news-tsa-to-block-controversial-opinion-websites-to-employees/
Posted by: Dengle on July 3, 2010 11:21 PMTry saying to yourself: I, (your name here), don't care about freedom and prosperity."
At the very least, most people care about their own freedom and prosperity, even if some of their other beliefs may have unanticipated or unacknowledged consequences that reduce freedom and prosperity.
Pudge @62: "My quote was only pointing out the fact that his claim was stupid, not that everyone has the opportunity to understand all the issues."
Understood. Mike disagrees with your analysis because, to him, Gates knows better than you do. You have marshaled some persuasive facts here and in your other post. Best guess? Mike could have just told you he does not know if the initiative shall pass judicial muster if it passes but he has had much more fun provoking you instead.
"I am making no such efforts. Literally. I am not trying to convince any of them of anything."
My bad. I misunderstood. Thanks for informing us though.
"That's not possible, but knock yourself out."
Haha! Gotta try I guess. We do disagree but we can agree and should at least be open to being persuaded too.
Mike Boy Scout @ 63
"Washington's B&O tax is ridiculous. Property taxes are too high."
I do not like property or B&O taxes either, but before I would be open to an income tax, they would both have to go. Now that the legislature has perverted these taxes, how do we know they won't screw up the income tax too? How do we know they wont re-screw up the B&O and property taxes even after they have an income tax too?
"Cutting spending is an interesting idea in the abstract, but often fails to materialize when it comes to the details, regardless of which of our 2 parties hold sway in our government. One need only look at the budget Rossi wrote in 2004."
Well, my understanding is that Clinton reduced spending in the 90s. And, thus far, Gov. Chris Christy is reducing spending in New Jersey. If we only look at one or two isolated examples, we are going to have a blind spot. I would not support indiscriminately cutting everything, but for having priorities and funding them first.
"Some wealthier Washingtonians, like the Gates', would pay more than they do now."
Now, I do not know what this means (haha, true layman), but I am told the Gate's of the world hold most of their wealth in unrealized capital gains. More generally, it seems to me that if we try to tax income on the wealthy, they will do what is in their power to avoid the penalty. I believe Maryland tried a millionaire tax out and they had significantly fewer millionaires residing in their state as a result and collecting less revenue from those who remained.
"I'm sorry I do not agree with your generalization about higher taxes and larger government expenditures being a really bad idea for our freedom and prosperity. While there are circumstances where this is true, there are others where it is not (i.e. higher tobacco tax, spending more for servicing our veterans)."
Haha, no need to apologize! Wow, do I ever have experience at the VA. And workers compensation!!! GAAAA! It is really frustrating Mike. My wife has free VA care for life and workers comp. If they were not free, she would not use them. That the majority of vets dont use the VA is indicative of its poor comparison to other alternatives. My PPO is way better and costs less than half what is spent per vet served by the VA each year (~$12,500). I remember Milton Friedman saying that there are two ways to subsidize something: you can either subsidize the producer or the consumer. Well, with VA care, we are definitely subsidizing the producer and the results really make me wonder about trying something different. AM I EVEN ON TOPIC ANYMORE?
"Good government is hard and efficient government harder."
Absolutely! Good business is hard too. That is why so many fail. But it takes much more for a government to fail financially because it is not subject to the same feedback as businesses. So inefficiency can survive and even thrive sometimes.
"Those of us who benefit the most financially carry a larger financial burden than those who do not in maintaining and improving the state and its people which help make us successful."
At first I'm inclined to agree, but on the other hand it seems like political inequality: taxing some more because they make more. I am not persuaded that, because more people paid you more, you therefore must pay a higher percentage of what they paid you in order to fund the State operations we all benefit from. You are not getting disproportionate benefits from state services, but from more customers deciding to compensate you for your trade.
"Have a very happy Independence Day!"
You too Mike! Down the British!
Posted by: Carlton on July 3, 2010 11:55 PM
Yes, he uses that common logical fallacy often.
Haha! Gotta try I guess. We do disagree but we can agree and should at least be open to being persuaded too.
Of course. That's one of the reasons why MikeBS is as annoying as he is, such that he is banned from my posts: because he is incapable of even recognizing the existence of any facts that don't support his view. If you disagree with him, that is reason enough to disregard what you say.
Well, my understanding is that Clinton reduced spending in the 90s. And, thus far, Gov. Chris Christy is reducing spending in New Jersey.
And Rossi's budget in 2004 cut spending, too.