WA Senate leader suggests income tax referendum

adlers4ever said on April 25, 2010 at 11:25 AM

I don't think a state income tax is the answer. I agree that cutting spending should be the first focus. I have wondered for many years why we do not have a B & O tax on RENTAL INCOME. I would love to see King 5 ask this question of our state politicians. I believe this would generate a large amount of money and target an untapped market that makes huge profits in this type of business.

mikeossur said on April 25, 2010 at 10:14 AM

@captainj You make a good point. Now the state has another tax method, there is nothing stopping them from running those other taxes right back up in a few years. Keep in mind that the bill reduces state level reductions not city or county which add to both property and sales tax. It does require a vote of the public (once the bill is made law) to change the state income tax but it would not be the first time that the public has been duped into making a change or the state senate has not gone in and fiddled with a bill.

mikeossur said on April 25, 2010 at 10:06 AM

I agree with the sentiment that this bill opens up Pandora's box . However, it does require a vote of the people to change the income tax to tax those who earn less. This does not mean that the bill could not be changed by a vote of the state senate or voters could not be duped into extending the income range. 20% off your state taxes sounds good until you realize that this does not include city or county. We have two of the most successful corporations in America, Microsoft and Boeing. So...why is the state broke? Microsoft manufactures software here but does their transaction in another state...avoiding the Washington state tax. This sounds like great move by MS but what it means is that we who live in this state end up paying the difference - while MS enjoys all the benefits of our state resources and special deals they gain with their lobbyist in Olympia.

meriana said on March 8, 2010 at 6:09 AM

State Income tax for those making over a certain amount?? It wouldn't be long before EVERYONE had to pay this tax...and then our lawmakers would most likely vote themselves a raise. We are on pension and social security and raising two g.kids...trust me...it gets pretty tight by the end of the month. Higher taxes and a state income tax just means less money for neccessary things like food and less money with which to pay our property taxes. If they lower some taxes and institute a state income tax, well it may sound like a good idea but in the long run, the taxes they may lower won't stay lower for long. Instead of instituting more taxes, maybe they should be looking at how and where the funds they get are spent and just maybe they should stop looking at the residents of this state like a piggy bank.

1fedupguy said on March 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM

I don't think that what I vote for will matter. As one person has pointed out already, and if it doesn't go their way they just do it anyway! I am really beginning to dislike the politicians of this state and country. I don't think any of them know what exactly poor means! I can not afford to feed my family, now that is poor. I really am thinking of moving from this state and trying to find a place that I can at least have a chance of surviving.

captainj said on March 6, 2010 at 2:45 PM

I can understand the feeling of the majority of those who make less than 200k opting for the high earners tax. It is a slick move to also offer the reduction in sales tax at the same time too. Don't be fooled though. Once that foot is in the door on income tax, it will only be a matter of time before everyone is paying tax. That 200k threshold will creep lower and lower every year. And the sales tax? I bet in five years it is right back where it is now. Everybody these days is pinching pennies, adjusting budgets, belt-tightening, whatever you want to call it. Review the entire budget and see where money can be saved not how to get more money from the residents.

simplerandom said on March 5, 2010 at 11:12 PM

this is such a horrible idea. first, does she really think that decreasing the cost of a pair of socks from 1.00 to .99 is really going to matter? on the other hand, disouraging people to earn graduate degrees, start small businesses, or invest in underdeveloped neighborhoods - this is the way to help out the state of washington? come on. this is grandstanding. even worse, this is a pure and simple con. trying to convince the majority that they will save money (don't read the fine print about how much) so that the 'rich' will 'pay' because their hard work and desire and risk-taking is just unfair? dumb, ignorant, lazy, useless - these are my thoughts for this issue.

calcan2 said on March 5, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Where does this end? I pay more than 40% of my wages to some sort of State or Federal taxes. My State and Federal government threaten me with jail if I don't pay taxes, and if I work and try to better myself, I get rewarded by giving more of my hard earned money to them. Stop the madness!! Please vote all these fools out of office next election cycle, and vote for those who will cut the government fat.

luckyal said on March 5, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Great idea that has finally found a sponsor. Too bad that Gregoire didn't lead off with this idea to solve our budget woes, but now that it has arrived we should embrace it. Our neighborhood has had homes owned for years by wealthy people who use the house as their 'full time residence' in order to evade other states income taxes. Then they stay in the house 3 months a year. Time to have the wealthy pay their fair share.

jamey said on March 5, 2010 at 11:43 AM

If you take from the "rich" and give to the "poor", then the "rich" will just move away. Who do you take from then? We have devolved that concept in to take from the responsible and give to irresponsible. Problem is our government is more concerned with redistribution of the wealth rather than protection of its citizens and support of infastructure.

pixelater said on March 5, 2010 at 11:13 AM

jackwong, California and New York are doing good? as in they are doing good things or maybe you mean they are doing well, like their economy is doing well (NOT). I'd like to know what your definition of bad is? California is taking care of so many illegal aliens and welfare cases that they were handing out IOU's for their bills. I'm glad we are not doing that **good** yet, but give the democrats time, we'll get there.

jackwong said on March 5, 2010 at 10:56 AM

It's about time they put a tax on the rich. This will definitely help the state close the budget gap. Washington State is one of the least taxed states. Our property taxes are low and no state income tax. We need to update our laws to be like the world-class cities in California and New York. They both have state income tax and seem to be doing very good.

graham said on March 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM

They can stick a income tax & they know where they can put it this state has gone tax happy & it's time to move from a place i've spent all of my life

blankingout said on March 5, 2010 at 9:11 AM

I am not going to attack parties, because I think both political parties are worthless... I am just going to say, when my income was cut due to sales, I took charge on where my money was going... Now if I was a swindler, I would have just built in frivolous fees to inflate the cost... kinda like charging income tax, or making new revenue laws to send the W"SS"P after you for texting instead of just not buying that Margaritavile blender.

scott_bellevue said on March 5, 2010 at 7:42 AM

Does this mean Washington wants to add a high income tax to its already high property tax? This is one reason I left California, and I'll be more than happy to move again. No more taxes. We already pay enough and receive too little. Already we have no health care, and if you are unfortunate enough to have the fire department or ambulance come to your house, they give you a bill. So what are we paying for? I don't get it. But I do get that government needs to be reigned in.

phaedrus said on March 5, 2010 at 7:33 AM

Finally someone in the legislature is seriously thinking about moving this state from a regressive tax system to a a progressive one. It's about time. The current system overburdens the working class and the poor. Contrary to what seems to be the predominant opinion on this subject, increasing the tax on the wealthiest does not decrease the motivation to become wealthy. However, reducing the tax on the wealthiest only concentrates more wealth in fewer hands which increases the burden on everyone else. The objectivist arguments (most of which seem to be right out of Ayn Rand's books) are pure junk philosophy based on some utopian novels that have little or no resemblance to reality. It is good to see that at least some of our senators have their thinking well grounded in reality. We need this income tax, it is a fairer way to tax.

noskills said on March 5, 2010 at 7:22 AM

I think you are all right we should let the people who lost their jobs starve to death. And for those of you who say you've never used any of the social programs I say you are lying to yourself. Did you go to a Public school or public university? Did you take out Federal Student Loans? Do you drive on the freeway? If anyone of you were to lose your job I bet you wouldn't be so opposed to unemployment. I too agree that we need manage the budget better but crapping on the less fortunate of our state is not the way. As the economy improves Id like to see us cut the number of state jobs. I think its somewhere like 30% of the people employed are employed by the state. It might not be that high but the state employs way to many people.

rebaldave said on March 5, 2010 at 2:34 AM

to jgarrett I two things to say no more taxes and if want info on where to cut cost I will repeat something that has been stated several times but you are like the government and not listening!! Cut the unemployment the longer you hand out the money the less the incentive to go find work. Cut the size of government and government jobs and cut their retirement. Cut the so called entitlement money flowing out of state budget faster than they can collect it. I don't know how much planner that can be put!! And no more taxes and they don't represent me and the other over taxed workers of this state!!! Now go do something with that info!!!

javajoe said on March 4, 2010 at 7:53 PM

I'm now convinced, they're complete idiots.

jgarrett said on March 4, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Here is idea for all of us right wing conservatives and left wing nut jobs. Lets just do away with all the legislators, all government, all services (education, welfare, police, fire, ems, etc.) and thus all taxes and become an anarchy state. This way we ensure that only those of us who have tightened our belts and controled our budgets will survive and propser. On a serious note I am tired of hearing everyone talk about no more taxes, no more taxes, no more taxes. Instead of saying no more taxes why don't you suggest where they should cut. Instead of saying they don't represent us then tell them how you want to be represented.

bazwest said on March 4, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Great comments on here, I can virtually go down the list and add my ditto, ditto, ditto to all of it. We have got to vote in some fiscal conservatives. I don't know about you, but I have to get up early in the morning and several times a week I work till late in the evening just to earn my paycheck. I don't rely on government entitlement programs and never have. Even with my detailed personal/family budget it takes a long time to save for the things I want. Olympia doesn't save, they take. The Olympia democrats don't have a budget, they have a spending plan! Gregoire added over 1200 new state jobs last year at a cost of $53 million dollars as the rest of the state continued it's slide into a deep recession. If you looked at how the state spends our tax dollars you would have to conclude that we are in an economic boom! Guess what folks?! We are in a recession, but the democrats in Olympia have missed the memo. Lets send them a singing telegram in November!

rainydave said on March 4, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Tax the rich. Sounds familiar.

rustyrob said on March 4, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Look, what they either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge is the fact that tax revenues are down because we ( the middle class ) cannot afford to spend like we did 2 years ago. So the tax revenue they would have seen from our spending is gone. The problem with their proposal for an income tax is that we already cannot afford to spend the money we have. So they now are going to take our money directly from our pay check before we can make the decision to spend or not. What this will amount to is even less tax revenue from sales and excise taxes, because we will have even less to spend which also means that businesses will suffer from a decrease in sales which in turn means less jobs. I think they are all abunch of disconnected idiots that need to be voted out of office. It's obvious they just don't get it. And I don't beleive for one minute that the proposed income tax will only apply to the rich for very long if at all.

telman said on March 4, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Lisa Brown is just another left wing spender. Tax the rich yea sure.

detour said on March 4, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Vote them out!!!

skok_cush said on March 4, 2010 at 5:11 PM

No. We have ALready learned Tax laws/limits/Controls are pointless with the Gregoire etc crowd. PINK slips for congress. . . .State cogress as well.

fellowtraveller said on March 4, 2010 at 4:51 PM

The House majority does not have a consensus yet on a revenue package, despite the passage of 3191 out of committee early this week (the supposedly noble tax package on candy, cigars, etc., which actually contains a good many other "zingers" too arcane to interest the media, apparently). There are too many House Democrats at risk of being unelected already to make an income tax proposal fly on that side of the rotunda. As noted before, full implementation of an income tax would require the Fall vote and then Dept. of Revenue implementation in 2011, meaning it could not produce the desired revenue much before filing in 2012. You (we) would be stuck with the sales tax increase in the meantime. Any ultimate "reduction" in the state portion would be too attractive to revenue hungry cities, counties, transit districts to not be reinstituted, albeit for them (and possibly requiring a local vote). When will tax beneficiaries -- who count the same as tax-payers -- outnumber taxpayers?

tacwilster said on March 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Who is Lisa Brown and lets all voter her out!!

pixelater said on March 4, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Strive for mediocrity. I don't know anyone who would like to earn $200 thousand.----Where is the incentive for some one to work hard get ahead and better themselves and their families? The day this happens will most likely be the day I decide to close my business, layoff 40 great individuals, sell off my equipment and retire out of state.---- I am tired of supporting jackwong and all of his left wing liberal buddies, and their illegal alien friend. Calling an illegal alien an unregistered immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist.

watatoe said on March 4, 2010 at 3:29 PM

I am not rich by any measure (making less than $35,000 a year), but I think this is where legislators create "hate" by starting class warfares! And I can see this stupidity appealing to all the "have-nots" who live via entitlements and would vote yes because the money in their pockets is not their own. I think taxing people just because they have more than I do is wrong, and I look at it as more of a "penalty tax"! To the legislators who feel this is a "fair" thing to do, let us all know your names so we know who to sweep out of office! After all, don't you represent ALL the people? Or do you represent some and penalize others? Here's a better idea.....how about you "spending-us-into-debt" legislators actually balance the state's checkbook like the rest of us have to do! If we have to suck it up during these hard economic times, then you should too! Don't come looking to make a law to siphon off someone else's wealth to pay for your folly!

grandpa36 said on March 4, 2010 at 3:26 PM

NO NO NO Look at other states with both sales tax and income tax. One year they raise one then next year they raise the other and kkrunch said before long you will be paying income tax just for working or even retired.

thenomadicone said on March 4, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Yeah, this is how it starts. The federal income tax initially targeted those with the top 5% income of the nation. Look where it is now. That's what happens when the "looters" find out that there aren't nearly as many "rich" people as they thought! What few middle class folks there are left in WA had better start looking for another place to live.

kkrunch said on March 4, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Oh yes. I trust the state to only tax the rich. How long before rich is anyone with a job. You need to control spending, not find revenue in other peoples pockets.