Comments on: Rep. Carlyle’s update from Olympia

By: Goof Off

Goof Off — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 04:37:46 +0000

Dude, give it up. Pot will be legalized before Gregoire signs onto an income tax.

" a larger percentage of the income of low-income people"

Well, call it a 'user fee'. The wealthy don't drain as many services.

By: nwcitizen

nwcitizen — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 04:26:25 +0000

The 1% income tax that was proposed is more acurately described as a proportional tax or flat tax.

Proportional tax = Income tax that takes the same percentage of all incomes, whether large or small.

The majority (51%) of our state's tax system is dependent on the regressive sales tax.

The lowest 20 percent of Washington's income earners pay 17 percent of their income. The second 20 percent, those earning $30,000 to $45,000, pay about 13 percent.

By contrast, the top 15 percent (those over $90,000) pay just 7 percent, and the top one percent of income earners, pay just 3 percent.

Regressive tax = A tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people.

By: Asa Martin

Asa Martin — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:29:54 +0000

Reuven, thank you for taking the time to post. I've been impressed with your willingness to interact with voters (and even comment on comments). I appreciate it. As for the budget, I understand the tough decisions you have to make. However, I am strongly against an income tax on just high income earners. I view this as very unfair, and I am not saying this because I would have to pay. I don't make close that the proposed limit but I just don't agree with the idea of only some having to pay for government services. I think a more even approach can be found to raise the necessary money. Although I agree the sales tax has its problems and I do think we're reaching a “tipping point” as you say with the rate, there has got to be a better way than taxing only some people. Thank you for what you do, and for your consideration.

By: BallardDINK

BallardDINK — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:46:34 +0000

Please don't implement *any* sort of income tax, on high or low earners. "Those earning more than $250,000 a year" already pay higher taxes via property tax on their expensive homes and sales tax on their expensive cars and goods. Washington should encourage wealthy people to stay in this state because wealthy people create jobs (one of the reasons Bezos founded Amazon in WA is because WA doesn't have income tax). Driving entrepreneurs to Texas, Nevada, or other income tax-less states would be a foolish mistake.

So: instead of punishing high-earners, try reducing expenses. Cut wasteful bureaucracy. Streamline government workforces (lay off or fire the worst government employees). Trim unnecessary services.

If you're looking for more revenue, increase taxes for use of government-provided services. Tolls are terrific; those who use the roads the most will pay the most. Same goes for schools: those who use the public school system the most should pay the most. Follow the model of the "sin taxes": taxes on booze and cigarettes, to help pay for the public's health care bill from booze and cigarette use.

By: Mondoman

Mondoman — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:27:00 +0000

I don't agree with Reuven on some policies, but I *strongly* applaud his efforts to communicate with us, here on this blog (in the middle of the rushed last days of the session, even!) and otherwise. From his many responses here, it's obvious he's actually read and considered our comments. That's much, much more effort than our other 2 state legislators (or Reuven's predecessor) have made. Bravo!

By: Bark more, Wag Less

Bark more, Wag Less — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:48:14 +0000

"Let's all give Reuven a break tonight"

Never, ever give a politician a break. No way, no how.

Besides, I'm just complimenting him on being a GOOD politician. Really good.

By: chopper_74

chopper_74 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:22:24 +0000

Hear, hear, thank you.

By: Charlie Bear

Charlie Bear — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:58:45 +0000

Let's all give Reuven a break tonight. He's gone above and beyond the call of duty here. He's smart enough to be making three times the income he gets paid for being a legislator. Here's the 2009 salary for a WA state Legislator, $42,106.

By: etta

etta — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:47:04 +0000

It would fly in our district.

By: GregD

GregD — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:27:08 +0000

Of course all of this is academic as the date has passed when they could even introduce the legislation for this year.

By: GregD

GregD — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:23:15 +0000

Fuzzbeans,

any income tax would have to go in front of the people as an amendment to the constitution to be legal.

I would only support an income tax that removed the sales tax and was progressive across all income levels. I am not rich but taxing any group just because their numbers are too small and their position in society is envied by others is fundamentally wrong.

By: chopper_74

chopper_74 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:10:27 +0000

I'd be on board, if only they could be trusted to let it go away, but they don't do that.
They also would quickly look to lower the threshold, say, to just under 40k…
There's no intention to cut or remove any current tax either…or 'folks will die'.
We spend a lot on junk, and we save nothing, no one can function that way.

By: chopper_74

chopper_74 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:01:51 +0000

public art could go away for awhile…imho.
especially because it tends to look horrid…

By: The Norwegian

The Norwegian — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:24:18 +0000

Why is it democrats want to spend everybody elses money, then call that “compassion”? Fact is the “rich' ARE paying enough. And when government is done fleecing them where do some feel more money will come from? Wouldn't be the middle class would it? Can we actually bring down the wage payer by bringing up the wage earner? Can we tax ourselves into prosperity? Has any society? Will that pipeline open up in the guilt ridden liberals front room when the “rich” get gouged? Does a business really pay taxes, or is it their customers? Born/raised here it makes me ill to see some of these posts here with all the guilt. Why not simply just send in your own check tomorrow and leave me alone? Time for government going without that Big-Mac. Since when is communism “progressive”? Rueven, I am not alone, but pretty near. Nice inclusive neighborhood, Ballard. Zero Republicans on any local ballot ever, but soooo tolerant/diverse.

By: Bark more Wag less

Bark more Wag less — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:53:18 +0000

FYI the 0.3% sales tax increase failed today. No way an income tax will fly.

By: Bark more Wag less

Bark more Wag less — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:46:02 +0000

A direct voice? Cuz ol' Reuven knows actually voting in an income tax will be political suicide. So giving it to us to vote it down – and it will be voted down, most voters aren't as dumb as Seattlistas – is a fine dodge on his part. He can pretend he's for it, knowing it won't happen. That way the wacky left will be appease ( useful idiots that they are) and us moderates won't crucify him.

Thanks Reuven!

By: etta

etta — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:28:39 +0000

Reuven, you wrote:

"There also are two stop-gap tax proposals being discussed to mitigate the worst effects of the unprecedented slashing of $9B from state programs: 1) a temporary 0.3 percent increase in the sales tax and 2) a 1% income tax for those earning more than $250,000 per year. Either would require voter approval, so don’t worry that you wouldn’t have a direct voice! "

I ask, why do we need a direct voice when we've elected you as our representative? I voted for you because you supported reducing reliance on sales taxes and making our tax system less regressive. Why spend so much money on yet another 1 issue election so those of us who have ALREADY VOTED FOR A REPRESENTATIVE can circumvent that to have a "direct voice"? Are you saying that the legislature, which should be debating these issues and doing the homework and then taking a position, is superfluous?

By: Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:51:50 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrUn1-eyOCI is the speech on YouTube.

By: Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:38:58 +0000

I was really proud to vote for 'everything but marriage' this year.

By: Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:37:52 +0000

I do support a more progressive tax structure for our state, and one that is much more small business friendly (ie change the B&O tax from gross receipts to some sort of net). I do feel, however, that we should have low sales, low property, low personal income, low corporate earnings. I think we lose our way when we are dependent upon one or two major, regressive sources of taxes and don't have a broader structure that doesn't penalize any one group.

I think our sales tax has hit the 'tipping point' and I do not support raising it beyond the current level.

By: Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:34:24 +0000

Yes, it would be deductable from federal taxes.

By: Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:33:39 +0000

Your comments and observations are right on target. I think your legal analysis is accurate. We could do a flat rate tax across the board but progressive elements would need to be done on the 'back end' such as deductions, rebates, etc. by income. Constitutionally we can't treat people differently as you note.

By: Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:30:20 +0000

It's less about any one program area and more about structures. The state has 110,000 employees and any organization that large has room to improve how the operation is run. in state gov't, my concern is that there is so little incentive to reform or reorganize along more thoughtful delivery models and structures. We can do much, much better. That doesn't mean there is $9B that can be trimmed without hurting people, it just means that we need to embrace some structural improvements. in technology areas alone, I know we could save about $300 million if I had that proverbial magic wand.

By: Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:26:45 +0000

I've been impressed with Cindi Holmstrom, director of the department of revenue, who has modernized her computer systems and reduced costs dramatically. Steve Hill of Health Care Authority is very, very sharp as well. I've been really disappointed in DSHS…they are a tough crowd in terms of willingness to modernize. The Department of Information Services (runs technology for the state) is a total and omplete mess. There are a lot of really good mid level folks who I've see as leaders and who embrace systems change. Like all organizations, there are the good/bad and ugly.

By: Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:23:10 +0000

I support an imcome tax if it comes with a reduction in the regressive sales tax.

By: Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:21:49 +0000

Yes, I fought tooth and nail against this amendment. It doesn't even define “Seattle area” or “property owners”. The immediate goal was to ensure it was property owners in the immediate area of the tunnel (developers, condo owners, etc.) and not regular property taxpayers, but it's all up in the air. I doubt it's even legal actually. Hopefully we won't find out. Reuven.

By: phil on qa

phil on qa — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:39:29 +0000

Another YES for a 1% income tax for those earning more than $250,000 per year.

By: Goof Off Inc.

Goof Off Inc. — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:18:26 +0000

Of course you support it Rose, you spend your whole day goofing off here rather than working hard.

By: fuzzbeans

fuzzbeans — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:57:04 +0000

I'm sick of the argument that an income tax can't pass because of the sales tax. The creation of the income tax should be effected in an omnibus bill that decreases the state's portion of the sales tax ALONG with revision of the property tax rules. Here's my suggestion for that: fix property taxes when someone buys a house and only re-assess if the house changes owners through sale or inheritance (sorry kids).

My big fear is that any tax INITIATIVE on the November ballot will bring out the right-wing nuts in great numbers and many of them will also support repeal of the Domestic Partnership expansion (a likely initiative).

My family is looking forward to the enactment of the "everything but marriage" bill while we wait for full fairness and the recognition of our Canadian marriage.

By: Sweet Rose

Sweet Rose — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:43:21 +0000

I absolutely support an income tax, for the wealthy now and eventually for everyone with a VERY progressive scale. Oh I can hear the screaming now of this being class warfare. : ) The well off had no problem with that as long as they were winning.