Well 1098 appears to going to make the ballot in the fall. This should be a thing to watch as proponents present it as tax the rich & feed the poor. Opponents will say oh yeah rich now but our legislature will use it to get all of us sooner or later.

Well both are probably right. This link is to a wire service article about it. http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/3874-income_tax_seems_assured_a_vote_this_fall.htm

Read the article and understand why our tax system makes it so damn difficult for venture money ( people who have money to invest ) to create jobs. It is the S status corporations that I find most interesting and how the tax laws require income to be reported.

As the song said........... Tax the rich, feed the poor, till their are no rich anymore.................... song didn't say what the hell we do then.................... move to Mexico I guess.

Rivrgy, I haven't read the initiative, so I don't know if this is coverec or not, but let me say this.....State income tax has been approved before, but was thrown out due to what is known as, "the uniformity clause" in Washington State's constitution.
I don't know if this intiative addresses that issue, but if it doesn't, I doubt it will fly......approved by the voters or not.
I'm pretty sure that a Constitutional amendment is required.....which should be interesting considering Eyeman's intiative requiring a 2/3 majority to increase taxes........

How ya doin, Sandy?
Just what part are you referring to there, Genius?
Watch it, now.
I know your health might be a little shakey, and we couldn't have your lovely personality endangered.
Lay it on me.

KK he may not be able to read but has a point. Did not think to get the link but that was the conversation and some blogs.

Boiled the arguments ended up being as Slabby put forward on one side. BS called by the other BUT that provision and court decision is there. Proponents seem to feel the make up of the present state supreme court would allow it to be implemented ( basically striking down the old decision ).

My thoughts................... two years out then Belize so don't care but it will make good entertainment if it passes and the money and attorneys pile in.

Here's a little C/P for you.....

I had to go find it because, you know, I might not be right....

In 1932, following passage of the only income tax initiative to be approved by state voters, the
Washington Supreme Court declared that for purposes of taxation, income is defined as a class of
property. Article IV of the Washington Constitution states that all taxes shall be uniform upon the
same class of property. Therefore, any income tax proposal either would have to be consistent with
the Constitution’s uniformity restrictions, or would likely require a constitutional amendment in order to
be implemented.

There is a chance that today's legislature may over rule the concept of income being property...but they haven't yet, Mr. BMI.

Yup, went back and found that attorney's blog and he was right with you. So it seems to be a fight on two levels. First the voters, then the courts as to if the present one will over ride the past court.

If the legislature tried to change definitions then more legal challenges and posturing. Hell this thing could provide years of entertainment.

Well lunch over back to the yard to get done as going to get a running start at the Patron tonight!

Everyone have a good 4th and stay safe. Well reasonably so, no need to get carried away!

If an income tax in WA goes into effect, would sales tax be done away with?

Didn't think so.

If income tax goes into effect ,will property tax go away ?
NO

Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzrUqAtUcpU

Personally I'd like to see a tax system that addresses longevity. In other words, the longer you stay in your home, the lower the tax rate. Transfers a more appropriate burden onto those who move or speculate.....addresses those who live by the old "a house is not a home" thing.

Sales tax is a BAD tax as it is toughest on those who can afford it least, and IMO should be done away with completely and immediately.

As far as I'm concerned, our present system makes the underlying statement, "We'll tax you into the poor house and then put you on a program when you can no longer keep up."

And where are the politicians addressing these problems? No doubt in the back pocket of those who are least affected.

SH,

You are describing Oregons system in regards to income and sales tax. It doesnt take much to qualify for the income tax.

CA has both. They all spend too much.

Sales tax takes consumption, income tax taxes wealth creation. Income tax doesn't hurt the rich most, it hurts the middle class most.

The rich generally don't have "income" or a paycheck. They have huge offshore accounts, tax shelters and income tax free municipal bonds. But they pay sales taxes when they buy yachts, pearl necklaces, mercedes, fur coats and eating out.

The poor guy with a beater car, buying food at the grocery store and spending most of his income on rent, doesn't pay hardly any sales tax.

Who here can name ONE single person or company that went bankrupt because they were "overtaxed"?

Just one...

Actually, that's a complete steaming heap of crap.

Sales Tax systems are the most retrograde of all.

An 8% sales tax taxes all people roughly the same, it's just a much heavier burden for the lowest income levels to cover that expense on a week to week basis. For example, if you make $2000/mo you pay $80 in tax on your monthly purchases, it's going to be a 4% monthly rake, but if you make $8000/mo the same expense would be 1% of your monthly income.

Simple math. You failed. Welcome to the darkside.

Ya gotta see the show... it's a dynamo!

"You will also not be allowed to fail without someone pointing it out."

New sig line for you, Sweetie?





How does "ego-maniac with an inferiority complex" fit, Mr. Opportunist?
Look in the mirror at your pathetic self and see how it fits.

(not a chance, right?)

So Laffin'

While I can't name a company, simply because I don't care to research the complexities, there are numerous....no, make that one Hell of a lot of Senior Exemptions to the tax burderns of this State.....and the list is growing. Senior Exemptions are not only a factor of age, they are all about income. And for everyone on an exemption, you and I pay their share. I'm not judging whether or not that is or is not a good idea, just stating the facts.

Senior, and any other, Exemptions are all about "not being able to keep up"....hence the "put you on a program" I mentioned earlier.

On a side note let me say that it is my considered opinion that no one should be allowed to vote on a tax that they are exempt from. In a State where the senior population is booming, and so are the exemptions, the vote can/could/has been skewed by folks who have no dog in the fight.

Just can't help yourself, can you, KK?
Now it's the unfortunates on the short bus?
You are a piece of work.

I have written three tongue and cheek initiatives this year. Inspite of the humor, each has a serious message. The most publicized was my Initiative 1069 to change the state seal to a tapeworm dressed in a three piece suit attached to the rectum of the tax payer. Around the vignette the words "Committed to Sucking the Lifeblood Out of Each and Every Tax Payer.

My second initiative addresses the personal income tax and is a rebutt to Bill Gates Sr Initiative 1098. Please get the word out to as many people as possible.

I wrote a tongue and cheek initiative that is a serious rebuttal to Initiative 1098. Ask yourself four questions:


1. 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.

I really like your idea of taxing campaign contributions. Maybe you ought to get that initiative going for the next cycle. Who but the politicians and the interests who own them will object?

Sg