i vote for taxes

[kristinachilds]

i know this has been an issue for a long time, but with the current california crisis, i felt compelled to put it out there another time.

WE HAVE TO PAY TAXES!!! especially us washingotonians who don't pay state income tax. we've voted taxes away time and time again, and it makes me wonder if the voting public understands how state budgets work.

tim eyman (http://www.horsesass.org/newsrelease.php?prdate=2003-03-27), though he is not the only anti-tax initiative advocate, pisses me off with his irresponsibility and selfishness. sales tax, property tax, luxury tax, we NEED these things. our economy is down, so we're not getting business tax like we were, and if a state income tax were to be implemented, those making already low wages would be crippled in take-home pay.

so all you washington voters, PLEASE! do some research if you want, but educate your voting aged friends. when anti-tax initiatives make it to the ballot, VOTE THEM DOWN! we already don't have enough money for schools, roads, and basic state/city maintenance. we cannot afford to be in a california crisis, and that's exactly where we're headed.

your concerned peer,

kristina

[Tecknowledgy]

Yeah, we do have to pay taxes, but how much and to what end? That is the question. I'm fine with paying taxes, but when someone tells you they're going to spend the money you give them on education and health care, and they spend it on prisons and police...that's where the line must be drawn. If someone takes money from you and throws it away, what are you going to do next time they ask you for money? I'd tell them "No".

[kristinachilds]

as a voter and constituent, you have power over where the money is spent. the problem is not enough people write menacing letters to mr. locke. if his over-spending and misuse of funds makes you angry, tell him. we have to vote him into his next term, so if enough people (and us youngin's are arguably the most powerful) get off our asses and give a shit, we can force them to fix this.

programs like education, health, and social services are being cut becuase our budgets are rising faster than our rate of growth. we need to vote in tax regulation, not less taxes.

[kristinachilds]

ah, i didn't know the "war" board became the "politics" board.

move, please

[ZupanGOD]

Taxation is a form of extortion, where a threat is offered, and unless the victim pays up, the threat will be followed through. For some reason, a lot of people seem to think that extortion is fine if the extorter (the tax man) works for the government.
The Moral Argument

Taxation is a form of initiation of force, which is immoral, destructive, and unacceptable whether perpetrated by an individual, mafia, or government. Specifically, taxation negates the concept of property rights by claiming that the government has first right to the income or money of its citizens. When every man's work is the property of the state, and he is allowed to keep only what the state feels appropriate, that is Communism which leads to poverty and death. It is the opposite of the view that man has a right to exist for his own sake, that his life is his moral standard.

Any political system that endorses taxation as moral makes the claim that man is a sacrificial animal, who is to be sacrificed in whatever manner the state deems necessary. It must be remembered that the ends to do not justify the means -- the means are part of the ends and affect those ends. If the role of government is confined properly to the protection of its citizens and nothing else, then the budget will be fairly small and can be financed through moral means.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Taxation.html

[kristinachilds]

BAH! are you serious? taxation is not a moral, and no one is making that claim. tax is a necissary source of revenue for government to run.

how do you suggest we pay for public schools, public health care, social services, environmental clean-ups, legislature, or roads without taxes? donation?

[Mike S]

Taxes Fine., Let them be on what we consume not what we earn.
Taxing our income does strike me as immoral.

Hey we can even start a kitschy new add campaign
"TAXES SHOULD BE FLAT - NOT CHESTS"

oink.

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
BAH! are you serious? taxation is not a moral, and no one is making that claim. tax is a necissary source of revenue for government to run.

how do you suggest we pay for public schools, public health care, social services, environmental clean-ups, legislature, or roads without taxes? donation?

Did you read into more of that link? There was something at the bottom that explains how the private sectors comes into play. And then of course you have the sales tax which can bring in revenue to the government but at the same time protects liberty.

Here's a quick find that I think may help explain.

http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1996/2-14-96/no.irs.html

[Cedwyn]

how do you suggest we pay for public schools, public health care, social services, environmental clean-ups, legislature, or roads

how about we get the fuck out of iraq? how bout our reps be held accountable for such funding shortages? how about they charge boeing, et al taxes? how about they make education and health care untouchable budgets? how about they legalize weed?

there are many things our government (both state and fed) could do to alleviate the budget crisis.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S
"TAXES SHOULD BE FLAT - NOT CHESTS"


Mike, even a flat tax while better than the current system still is at odds with liberty.

-Jason

[superkool]

right there jason.hey i shot off some anwser you asked me in a earlier thread about florida..did you read them?

[superkool]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
i know this has been an issue for a long time, but with the current california crisis, i felt compelled to put it out there another time.

WE HAVE TO PAY TAXES!!! especially us washingotonians who don't pay state income tax. we've voted taxes away time and time again, and it makes me wonder if the voting public understands how state budgets work.

tim eyman (http://www.horsesass.org/newsrelease.php?prdate=2003-03-27), though he is not the only anti-tax initiative advocate, pisses me off with his irresponsibility and selfishness. sales tax, property tax, luxury tax, we NEED these things. our economy is down, so we're not getting business tax like we were, and if a state income tax were to be implemented, those making already low wages would be crippled in take-home pay.

so all you washington voters, PLEASE! do some research if you want, but educate your voting aged friends. when anti-tax initiatives make it to the ballot, VOTE THEM DOWN! we already don't have enough money for schools, roads, and basic state/city maintenance. we cannot afford to be in a california crisis, and that's exactly where we're headed.

your concerned peer,

kristina

maybe you dont know?





Boom skips the lower middle class, but tax load falls heavily on them

Wednesday, April 5, 2000

By ROBERT GAVIN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT






Kursta and Christopher Moore, young parents of four, see prosperity all around them: luxury cars, upscale shops and grand homes.

But when they look at their household budget, all they see is trouble: $2,300 a month in expenses and $2,000 in take-home pay.


Kursta Moore does her Sunday shopping at Costco with all four kids in tow. Families like the Moores pay more than their fair share of taxes.Scott Eklund/P-I
They hear legislators in Olympia talking about tax relief. But they know their family won't benefit from the property tax proposals because they rent their Bellevue home.

I-695 didn't help much either. The sales tax alone on repairs to their aging minivan nearly consumed their license-tab savings.

Meanwhile, when they need clothes for their 6-year-old, diapers for their toddlers and formula for their 18-month-old baby, they pay one of the nation's highest sales taxes.

"We've done everything right," said Kursta Moore, 27. "But we don't see the prosperity. We don't get the tax cuts."




The Moores represent the lower middle class and working poor families on whom Washington's taxes fall most heavily, and for whom little relief is in sight. Left out by the economic boom, yet squeezed by the rising cost of living, they find themselves largely forgotten by lawmakers debating tax cuts, tax credits and other ways to give back some of the money pouring into state coffers.

These families bear the brunt of a tax system called the most regressive in the nation, one that taxes the poor at higher proportional rates than the rich.

Households such as those of the Moores, who earn about $30,000 a year, spend nearly twice as much of their income on state and local taxes as a family making $150,000 a year, according to the state Department of Revenue.

But for all the talk of reform coming from Olympia, precious little has been said about tax reform. Any suggestions of overhauling the state's patchwork system have been quickly dismissed by leaders of both parties.

Yet, some lawmakers say the state can't put off a debate on tax reform much longer. Washington has become ever more dependent on the sales tax with the elimination of the motor vehicle excise tax and expected property tax cuts. And this growing dependence, some lawmakers say, poses grave dangers to the state, which already collects about half its money from sales taxes.

First, sales taxes are volatile, and the slightest cooling of the economy -- as in the early 1990s -- could plunge the state into a deficit.

Second, Internet commerce, which makes it easy to buy out of state and avoid Washington taxes, could suck more than $1 billion each year from the state by 2005, according to some estimates.

"It is going to collapse," warned Rep. Brian Thomas, R-Renton, who proposed reforms that would slash existing sales and business taxes and impose personal and corporate income taxes.

"We have created such a cumbersome and idiotic system over the past 100 years," Thomas said. "And unless we can discuss it without having a knee-jerk reaction, we're going to have a huge, huge problem in the next 10 years."

The discussion, so far, has been short, but not so sweet.

Thomas' proposal was criticized harshly by his own party, while most Democrats laid low after it surfaced. Gov. Gary Locke, citing the repeated rejection of an income tax by Washington voters, said he flat out opposed it.

Instead, Locke has called for simplifying sales taxes as part of a nationwide effort to make them uniform across state lines and to solve collection problems posed by e-commerce.

"You simplify, and you make it easier for businesses to comply with," said Fred Kiga, director of the state Department of Revenue. "Having a simple tax system has the best chance of voluntary compliance."

Senate Minority Leader James West, R-Spokane, said most Republicans support only one kind of tax reform: one that cuts or eliminates current taxes while making state government spend less.

"When taxes are too high," West said, "they're regressive for everybody."


Taxes among most regressive

Washington is one of only seven states without a personal income tax, a tax considered progressive because it is based on people's ability to pay. The sales tax, however, is perhaps the most regressive because it makes no distinction between rich and poor.

Both have advantages and disadvantages, said Neil Bruce, an economics professor at the University of Washington.

Income taxes tend to be more stable and fair, but can discourage savings and investments.

Sales taxes can have the opposite effect. By taxing consumption, they can encourage the accumulation of capital and economic growth. But they also fall most heavily on those least able to pay.

Like the Moores.

Christopher Moore, the family's main breadwinner, works at a local paint store. His wife, who quit a bank job to care for their chronically ill baby, supplements the family income baby-sitting or cleaning houses.

They make just enough money to disqualify them from most subsidy programs, forcing them to rely on help from their church. They try to save, and they dream of a down payment for their own home. But with four kids and rent that eats up half their net income, it's nearly impossible to get ahead.

There's always something: clothes, diapers, over-the-counter medicines, car repairs. And for each of these somethings, they pay state and county sales taxes that add 8.6 percent to the cost.

"We've chosen to work," Kursta Moore said. "And the state reams you everywhere you look."

Washington relies more heavily on the sales tax than any other state, and its tax system is the most regressive in the nation, according to a 1996 study by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, two Washington, D.C., think tanks.

That study, completed before the I-695 tax cut, showed that the poorest 20 percent in Washington paid more than 17 percent of their income in state and local taxes. The richest 1 percent paid less than 4 percent of their income.

Critics of the system note that the poorest pay high sales taxes on necessities, but the wealthiest go untaxed on the capital gains realized in the economic boom.

Washington's wealthiest 6 percent accounted for nearly 80 percent of the capital gains reported in the state in 1997, according to the Internal Revenue Service.


Livestock semen is tax free

Some lawmakers say tax fairness can be achieved short of an income tax. Among the possibilities: exempting from the sales tax essentials such as clothes, while ending special-interest exemptions on goods such as livestock semen, manufacturing machinery and airplanes used in interstate commerce.

Many of these exemptions, approved over the past 150 years, aim to promote economic development and help Washington companies compete. Kriss Sjoblom, a Washington Research Council economist and tax policy expert, said states should think carefully before adopting tax policies aimed at redistributing wealth.

"Businesses and people are mobile," he said. "If there's a better tax climate in another state, they have the ability to move."

But Kursta Moore figures her family couldn't afford the cost of leaving Washington. On the other hand, she added, they can barely afford staying here.

The cost-of-living only seems to rise. The struggle to pay bills goes on month to month, the household budget deficit made up by gifts from her church, an extra house cleaning job or, maybe, a short-term grant from a social service agency.

Sometimes, she said, the prosperity that surrounds her family in the wealthy Eastside makes the struggle seem harder. But it could be worse.

"I'm so thankful I have a husband that works," she said. "If you're a single mom in this situation, you're dead."

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by superkool
right there jason.hey i shot off some anwser you asked me in a earlier thread about florida..did you read them?

Yeah I replied but nwtekno's server was busy and I lost everything. I'm going to come back to it.

Take care,
Jason

[Roddimus]

I like the idea of a consumption tax much better than an income tax.
Whether or not it should be a progressive tax is another debate.

[Ram]

I view the government as my servant who's willing to do certain tasks on my behalf. Tasks that I don't have the time/interest to do.

So I think all arguments about income taxes vs. sales taxes, etc. are all moot if you feel you are getting your money's worth. In America, I definitely feel I do. Heck, I think I'm getting a bargain. I get beautiful National Parks, pretty good roads, good public schools (I think the American public school system is one of the best in the world), and so on.
And I say this after paying significant portions of my income as taxes.

I also don't believe you should vote. If you don't like what your servant is doing, stop paying them, or reduce the payments, or pay someone else who'll take care of your needs.

I also don't think voters have any power. I've yet to see a single person in person not corrupted by it (and if they weren't, they'd not want the power :).

--Ram

P.S: That's a two-year old article. There was a recent one in the Seattle Times but I couldn't find it.

[Tasty]

if you haven't noticed we already pay taxes to fund our state and federal governments.

There is a tax for practically everything..... Hell, half my paycheck goes to pay for some type of tax or another. Then what I have left I spend on items, and guess what? There are still taxes that we are paying for said items/ services et al.......

What we should be doing is demand, or pay close attention to how our tax money is being spent, and holding our office holders accountable on it. I think that is more important than increasing our tax load.

[Cedwyn]

not to say i'm unsympathetic, but i'd imagine it was apparent at two children that they were pushing the financial envelope...

/me doesn't understand.

and before someone feels obligated to pipe up with "hey dumbass...the article said she quit her job!!", i would like to point out the following:

all the details indicate that her job was most likely entry-level of some sort, e.g. teller. i think they make between 8-10 an hour? help me out here.

the fact that she did work implies day-care costs. that ain't cheap.

anyhoo, she was obviously not bringing in heaps of cash, else they'd not be classified as "lower middle class."

[burnt]

I used to be one, until I got disgusted with all the red tape, quit, and got a REAL fucking job.....then I got laid off.

Kursta and Christopher Moore, young parents of four, see prosperity all around them: luxury cars, upscale shops and grand homes.

But when they look at their household budget, all they see is trouble: $2,300 a month in expenses and $2,000 in take-home pay.

They make just enough money to disqualify them from most subsidy programs, forcing them to rely on help from their church.

Critics of the system note that the poorest pay high sales taxes on necessities, but the wealthiest go untaxed on the capital gains realized in the economic boom.

Washington's wealthiest 6 percent accounted for nearly 80 percent of the capital gains reported in the state in 1997, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

I ran into similar problems trying to care for my son, after I got laid off. paying $620/month rent for a 2 bedroom apartment, $540/month for child support, and mad bills. and netting about $1360/month in unemployment benefits, so I was "making too much money" according to their little matrix-thingy. by about $60. according to the rude government worker who was too busy flipping through some other person's papers to make eye contact with me. after making me and the entire lobby wait for like 45 minutes. so she could take her "break". in the front lobby. with the only other worker in the office, who also wasn't talking to anybody in the lobby. so they could gossip about their ex-husbands.........yea, REAAAAAL fuckin professional there, ladies..........but I digress..........

old government offices are scared to think outside of the box, they're too frightened by their employees' unions to change, innovate, and/or replace lethargic employees with younger, more competitive, more focused employees.

it makes sense to me that, instead of focusing purely on monthly income, that actual fucking EXPENSES get assessed by assistance offices......

see, basically, I was told that since I had custody of my son less than 65% of the month, that my childcare expenses were significantly less than mom's......which is bullshit. the greatest expense is rent, period. the government office which dispenses cash & food assistance, presumes that since I have my kid less than 65% of the month, that I live in a 1-bedroom apartment. they consider this reasonable.

which is really ironic, because JUST across the hall at Children Services Division, they've got pamphlets and guidelines strongly suggesting that my kid have his own bedroom. which he does. but the Food Stamps office considered me "single", therefore, living in a single-bedroom apartment.

the woman I spoke with suggested that I trim back on my unemployment benefits by $60, in order to qualify for the bare minimum of $60/month in food stamps. fucking.............almost surreal, its so fucking illogical.
******************


rather than focus solely on income, these offices should be focusing on expenses. otherwise, even much-needed benefits like Cash Assistance and food stamps are really only helping to prolong a bad situation.

it would make sense to me, that persons in need of assistance (or persons in states with humongous sales taxes) would be reviewed on somewhat of a case-by-case basis. hell. the IRS does it, right?

if you make this much, you get taxed this much, and it fluctuates. with different brackets for different demographics (elderly, disadvantaged, married, single, # of dependents, etc.)

so just like in Oregon, different employees get different income with-holdings based on their lifestyle, in Washington it makes sense that if you're a brokeass, you should pay less sales taxes, and if you're a richy, you should pay more. they could put a little sales tax code on your driver's license or something.

**************
I really hope for a day, when someone gets enough shit together to create a solutions- and success-driven offerings of public assistance.

it seems to me, that too many overweight, lazy, bureaucratic government workers have become complacent, knowing that their union is strong enough to keep even the most incompetent of "veteran" state workers in their position for life, no matter how inept they are.

this is demonstrated every time Oregonians vote for someting contrary to the State Employees' way of life. the State Employees then protest on the Capital lawn, the Governor sweats, and the voter-approved initiative is overturned, deemed "unconstitutional".

so I really, really hope for the day, when someone realizes you can't vote inept State employees and administrators out of their position, and instead simply underbids them. offer the Governor (and his voting citizens) a more competitive, commercial alternative to the current stoid, legacy solutions. then fuck the constitution, the citizens can vote with their dollars, and everyone benefits from the competitive offerings of solutions available to them.

there shouldn't be one, singular Food Stamp office, if their policies are backwards. there shouldn't be one, singular Food Stamp office, if their employees have a vested interest in securing their positions by ensuring that they have the largest caseloads possible.

voting to change Public Employees' policies has been, on the whole, ineffective. perhaps, in order to turn this economy around and ensure fairness for all levels of income, its time to play a little hardball with the Public Employees, and develop a better, more competitive, more comprehensive, more success-focused Private agency???

ah, but isn't that what created Food Not Bombs? hell, next thing you know, I'll be sticking my bike in the middle of traffic, riding all slow, trying to seduce some lice-infested hippy. forget I said anything. competiting with government is bad, they see the "bigger picture".........with their lobby full of screaming kids clinging to Section 8 teen moms' legs, staring at income matrixes developed sometime around 1984. :rolleyes:

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by superkool
Boom skips the lower middle class, but tax load falls heavily on them

Wednesday, April 5, 2000

By ROBERT GAVIN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT

Kursta and Christopher Moore, young parents of four, see prosperity all around them: luxury cars, upscale shops and grand homes.

But when they look at their household budget, all they see is trouble: $2,300 a month in expenses and $2,000 in take-home pay.

Wow.. My girlfriend's parents had 5 kids living on under $1,500 before taxes and never took welfare or food stamps. Damn....

Kursta Moore does her Sunday shopping at Costco with all four kids in tow. Families like the Moores pay more than their fair share of taxes.Scott Eklund/P-I
They hear legislators in Olympia talking about tax relief. But they know their family won't benefit from the property tax proposals because they rent their Bellevue home.

Odd, the very reason why I rent is becuase I can't afford to pay property taxes.. A slight reduction doesn't mean squat if you can't pay for them in the first place. What's the levy rate in Washington's property taxes BTW?

I-695 didn't help much either. The sales tax alone on repairs to their aging minivan nearly consumed their license-tab savings.

Meanwhile, when they need clothes for their 6-year-old, diapers for their toddlers and formula for their 18-month-old baby, they pay one of the nation's highest sales taxes.

Wow, does Washington State's sales tax, tax food and baby items? Many states and their salex tax system excepts many things like foods, baby items, etc. I know they do here in Florida. Hmm.. here's Washington's salex tax info..

http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Pubs/ExciseTax/RetailSales_UseTax/RetailSales.pdf

It says those items are exempt.

"We've done everything right," said Kursta Moore, 27. "But we don't see the prosperity. We don't get the tax cuts."

A income tax cut is for those who pay income taxes. If your making $30,000 and yer not paying taxes how can you expect a cut? And with 4 kids they get a child credit, so basically your recieving more than a cut but a credit (welfare).

The Moores represent the lower middle class and working poor families on whom Washington's taxes fall most heavily, and for whom little relief is in sight. Left out by the economic boom, yet squeezed by the rising cost of living, they find themselves largely forgotten by lawmakers debating tax cuts, tax credits and other ways to give back some of the money pouring into state coffers.

These families bear the brunt of a tax system called the most regressive in the nation, one that taxes the poor at higher proportional rates than the rich.

Households such as those of the Moores, who earn about $30,000 a year, spend nearly twice as much of their income on state and local taxes as a family making $150,000 a year, according to the state Department of Revenue.

How is that possible? If your not buying allot of shit that always ends up with sales tax to pay how on earth can you pay more than someone who does?

But for all the talk of reform coming from Olympia, precious little has been said about tax reform. Any suggestions of overhauling the state's patchwork system have been quickly dismissed by leaders of both parties.

Yet, some lawmakers say the state can't put off a debate on tax reform much longer. Washington has become ever more dependent on the sales tax with the elimination of the motor vehicle excise tax and expected property tax cuts. And this growing dependence, some lawmakers say, poses grave dangers to the state, which already collects about half its money from sales taxes.

That's about the most accurate fact I've read in this article so far. Yes Washinton recieves about 50% of it's revenue from sales taxes.

First, sales taxes are volatile, and the slightest cooling of the economy -- as in the early 1990s -- could plunge the state into a deficit.

Sure they can be volatile, but that all depends on the state and how they balance the books. If they run the government like an Enron or Global Crossing than sure you could plunge into deficit very easily.

Second, Internet commerce, which makes it easy to buy out of state and avoid Washington taxes, could suck more than $1 billion each year from the state by 2005, according to some estimates.

According to Washington's Dept. of Revenue it suggests there is some kind of "internet tax" I dunno.

"It is going to collapse," warned Rep. Brian Thomas, R-Renton, who proposed reforms that would slash existing sales and business taxes and impose personal and corporate income taxes.

"We have created such a cumbersome and idiotic system over the past 100 years," Thomas said. "And unless we can discuss it without having a knee-jerk reaction, we're going to have a huge, huge problem in the next 10 years."

The discussion, so far, has been short, but not so sweet.

Thomas' proposal was criticized harshly by his own party, while most Democrats laid low after it surfaced. Gov. Gary Locke, citing the repeated rejection of an income tax by Washington voters, said he flat out opposed it.

Gary Locke is a Democrat? Go Gary!!

Instead, Locke has called for simplifying sales taxes as part of a nationwide effort to make them uniform across state lines and to solve collection problems posed by e-commerce.

Yikes!! Keep your shit to yourselves Gary.. :D

"You simplify, and you make it easier for businesses to comply with," said Fred Kiga, director of the state Department of Revenue. "Having a simple tax system has the best chance of voluntary compliance."

Senate Minority Leader James West, R-Spokane, said most Republicans support only one kind of tax reform: one that cuts or eliminates current taxes while making state government spend less.

"When taxes are too high," West said, "they're regressive for everybody."


Taxes among most regressive

Washington is one of only seven states without a personal income tax, a tax considered progressive because it is based on people's ability to pay. The sales tax, however, is perhaps the most regressive because it makes no distinction between rich and poor.

Sure it does, the rich buy all those luxuries which produce the revenue. The poor (like me) if they don't live outside their means spending money on things that get taxed like boats than we don't pay any taxes. Neat concept.

[ZupanGOD]

Both have advantages and disadvantages, said Neil Bruce, an economics professor at the University of Washington.

Income taxes tend to be more stable and fair, but can discourage savings and investments.

Their anything from fair, and is fundamentally flawed becuase it is at odds with liberty, and yes it also discourages savings and investment.

Sales taxes can have the opposite effect. By taxing consumption, they can encourage the accumulation of capital and economic growth. But they also fall most heavily on those least able to pay.

Like the Moores.

Unless the sales tax taxed everything that moves.. but it doesn't. It's voulentery.

Christopher Moore, the family's main breadwinner, works at a local paint store. His wife, who quit a bank job to care for their chronically ill baby, supplements the family income baby-sitting or cleaning houses.

They make just enough money to disqualify them from most subsidy programs, forcing them to rely on help from their church. They try to save, and they dream of a down payment for their own home. But with four kids and rent that eats up half their net income, it's nearly impossible to get ahead.

There's always something: clothes, diapers, over-the-counter medicines, car repairs. And for each of these somethings, they pay state and county sales taxes that add 8.6 percent to the cost.

Well than impose a damn income tax so the hidden tax and costs go into the price of everything instead. You know taxes are absorbed somehow, when you provide a service and the government comes in and imposes a new tax or even a increase tax out of thin air the money comes from somewhere and usually by increase costs of their product or service. That's econonmics.

"We've chosen to work," Kursta Moore said. "And the state reams you everywhere you look."

Washington relies more heavily on the sales tax than any other state, and its tax system is the most regressive in the nation, according to a 1996 study by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, two Washington, D.C., think tanks.

That study, completed before the I-695 tax cut, showed that the poorest 20 percent in Washington paid more than 17 percent of their income in state and local taxes. The richest 1 percent paid less than 4 percent of their income.

That's a great way to manipulate statistics. Of course it looks uneven if your going to factor the total of what you pay to your income. The smaller the income is the higher the percentage of income it will show eaten by the sales tax. Doesn't mean the rich pay less. The Moores would pay about $2700 in sales taxes if you go by these statistic and ignore what they actually buy, and going by those same statisics a rich person making 700,000 a year paid $14,000. While that person making 700,000 makes 23 times more than the mores they paid 5 times more in sales tax. This article seems to suggest we should live in a communist/socialist country . I know I know, the communist way.

"From each, according
to his ability; to each, according to his need." - Karl Marx

:p

Critics of the system note that the poorest pay high sales taxes on necessities, but the wealthiest go untaxed on the capital gains realized in the economic boom.

According to the states web site you guys don't pay sales tax on such nessessities. And Capital gains taxes are very much in effect, I don't know where they get this untaxed from, perhaps Washington state doesn't tax capital gains like other states do. Capital Gains taxes are not really a good thing BTW, but the feds sure do.

Washington's wealthiest 6 percent accounted for nearly 80 percent of the capital gains reported in the state in 1997, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Gates and crew is prolly part of that. ;)

Livestock semen is tax free

Ewww.. haha

Some lawmakers say tax fairness can be achieved short of an income tax. Among the possibilities: exempting from the sales tax essentials such as clothes, while ending special-interest exemptions on goods such as livestock semen, manufacturing machinery and airplanes used in interstate commerce.

Many of these exemptions, approved over the past 150 years, aim to promote economic development and help Washington companies compete. Kriss Sjoblom, a Washington Research Council economist and tax policy expert, said states should think carefully before adopting tax policies aimed at redistributing wealth.

"Businesses and people are mobile," he said. "If there's a better tax climate in another state, they have the ability to move."

Yea many states are realizing this the hard way.

But Kursta Moore figures her family couldn't afford the cost of leaving Washington. On the other hand, she added, they can barely afford staying here.

Interesting.. people in impoverished countries manage to do it. Who said life was supposed to be easy? ;)

The cost-of-living only seems to rise. The struggle to pay bills goes on month to month, the household budget deficit made up by gifts from her church, an extra house cleaning job or, maybe, a short-term grant from a social service agency.

Sometimes, she said, the prosperity that surrounds her family in the wealthy Eastside makes the struggle seem harder. But it could be worse.

"I'm so thankful I have a husband that works," she said. "If you're a single mom in this situation, you're dead."

First advice.. get out of the "wealthy eastside" and don't live outside of your means. I feel bad for the family, but I'm even more worried about puff pieces to push agenda's in local papers.. we had something similar here in our local paper trying to push the "living wage" agenda over here, interesting enough the paper was dumb enough to print the letters to the editor where the letters debunked the editorial staff's position on the issue. [lafs]

Ohh well.

-Jason

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Cedwyn


how about we get the fuck out of iraq? how bout our reps be held accountable for such funding shortages? how about they charge boeing, et al taxes? how about they make education and health care untouchable budgets? how about they legalize weed?

there are many things our government (both state and fed) could do to alleviate the budget crisis.

Hi Cedwyn.. thanks for the birthday spankin.. now I getta return the favor. ;)

Soooo where do I start whackin...

Get the fuck out of Iraq - Ok .. but before we do why don't you tell me what kind of value you put on human life? Or specifically Iraqi human life cuz obviously it aint as much as you value your creature comforts and your social programs. We pull out the ba'athist pull in the mass graves fill... that make you happy Cedwyn. what do consider acceptable Iraqi losses if we pull out. One.. two.. three hundred thousand... more? Still wanna pull out?

Reps held responsible .. sure. Its called voting.

Boeing - taxes. No prob .. In fact to make it fair lets cut all the tax loopholes so EVERY organization has to pay taxes. From Boeing on down to Planned Parenthood. How bout we make it that the ONLY institutions that don't pay taxes are small churches and charitable institutions. And if you are not paying taxes you aren't allowed to contribute in any way, shape or form to the political process.
Sound fair?


Education - health care. Tell ya what .. I'm down with making them untouchable - that means down or up in money spent. Maybe that way they'll be forced to run efficiently and the fat cat labor unions and bureaucrats get the axe. Cool with you?

Legalize weed. Absolutely.. unfortunately the first thing you're going to have to do is undo the social demonization of tobacco that many of the pro weed people ironically are into. See the same companies that had an idea they may someday package and sell weed have scrapped the idea. Why? You think the law suits on tobacco are bad.. Think about what the ones on weed would be. Oh .. and good luck starting a cannabis distribution company on your own.,.there isn't an insurance underwriter on the planet the will insure your business. See right now their taking it in the shorts from all the tobacco lawsuits as well.... how much do you think they're gonna wanna insure your cannabis cig selling biz - zero. and you got no one to blame but the "I know what's best for you" nanny state types that the whole tobacco thing blew up. Fucking ironic that many of these fools some how think they're gonna legalize pot .. they must be stoned.


Its absolutely rich that because of the "fuck the man and his corporations" attitude many people take they inadvertently wind up shooting themselves in the foot when it come issues they support.
Like it or not corporate, private, legal or underground our system is very intertwined and when you start hacking away at one end of it you most definitely do damage to the rest.


MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Roddimus
I like the idea of a consumption tax much better than an income tax.
Whether or not it should be a progressive tax is another debate.

Hey Rodd.

Wouldnt a consumption tax on its own be "progressive" in nature seeing as people with more money tend to spend more of it?

thoughts?

MS

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by superkool
Boom skips the lower middle class, but tax load falls heavily on them

Wednesday, April 5, 2000

By ROBERT GAVIN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT

<snip>you've missed my point completely. this article supports my view.

1. income taxes should be on a percentage scale. if you only make $20,000 a year, you should not be expected to pay the same amount as someone who makes $100,000/year.

but we don't have state income tax, so, as this article clearly states, we end up relying on sales tax and the like. this puts undue pressure on the poor and middle class, and puts us at risk. we need other sources of revenue, and we've voted down most of the luxery and property taxes that support that revenue. we are continuing to do so.

like gov. locke pointed out, we're not making the money we should from local businesses, either. there are a number of reasons for that.

we don't need more or less taxes (well, we definitely don't need LESS taxes) what we need is tax REFORM. we passes something like this in the early 90's which legislature completely threw out the window and got us into this mess. Colorado has a great tax structure, which has kept them safe from this bullshit while many other states struggle. it's called the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (or TABOR.)

we need to restructure our tax system, because we're headed deeper and deeper into the red.

(...and zupan is right, that's wing-nut puff piece if i've ever seen one.)

[Ram]

Yeah, but the person who makes $100,000/year did so out their own hard work, without any support from anyone else. It's all their own initiative and and the structure of society has nothing to do with it. Why should they subsidise some low wage worker for the same services they enjoy?

(I'm being facetious... I think most people have a false sense of entitlement without really contemplating their place in the universe.)

--Ram

Originally posted by kristinachilds
you've missed my point completely. this article supports my view.

1. income taxes should be on a percentage scale. if you only make $20,000 a year, you should not be expected to pay the same amount as someone who makes $100,000/year.

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
how about they charge boeing, et al taxes?boeing left us once because our business tax structure was fucked. yes, how 'bout we charge them more and get them to take their whole operation-and their jobs-elsewhere.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
boeing left us once because our business tax structure was fucked. yes, how 'bout we charge them more and get them to take their whole operation-and their jobs-elsewhere.

Little often forgotten history lesson - when Boeing bailed the first time Seattle was a "company town" so to speak - a single company town. And when Boeing bailed it forced people to go out and either find work else where or create it. There was - as a result of Boeing massive layoffs in the 70 - a wave of entrepreneurship that swept the region.

Not saying Boeing should bail - and I'm in fav or of the tax breaks - Cedwyn and the short sighted fail to see an investment for what it is and how - if done properly - that investment will pay off in long term tax revenues that will fund all her favorite deadbeat social programs.

Maybe not so much in Oregon where Ced currently rants - but I'm sure the tax money will flow here and the hand out crowd- as is their nature - will be trying to feed off as much of it as possible.

MS