r/SeattleWA • u/ryleg • 11h ago
Government Yes, the ‘millionaires tax’ is a ‘Trojan horse’
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/yes-the-millionaires-tax-is-a-trojan-horse-except-its-no-secret/Archive: https://archive.ph/rEzmp
42
u/WAgunner 11h ago
From the article: [A good guide on this subject is Rep. Larry Springer, D-Kirkland. He’s no backbencher; he’s been the deputy majority leader of the state House of Representatives for the past 12 years. So he’s in the room, as they say. He also voted yes on the millionaires tax. He was asked earlier this year why the public should believe that the tax would stay confined to the rich. His blunt answer: “You shouldn’t.”]
So anyone that believes this tax won't eventually apply to them because they aren't rich is delusional.
→ More replies (1)-4
u/1_useless_POS 5h ago
Why not repeal it when they try to lower it? Why do it now when it only affects 21k households who make over $1,000,000 per year? What is the rush?
8
u/TBurnerRU 3h ago
The point isn't the law itself, the point is to get a new ruling from the Supreme Court so that they can then implement a true income tax. Sales tax will remain high and keep going up. That's progressive taxation.
0
u/somniferousquif 5h ago
Because those 21k households include the people bankrolling all these top 1% (commenter) astroturfers, duh.
3
4
•
u/azurensis Beacon Hill 1h ago
Because repealing it is much harder than not letting it pass in the first place.
•
u/1_useless_POS 1h ago
But it already passed. And lowering the threshold would itself require changing the law: RCW 1.90.100 specifically prohibits a personal income tax unless this tax retains at least a $1M household deduction. Why repeal a tax affecting ~0.6% of filers today because lawmakers might pass a different law someday? If they actually try to lower it, fight that law then.
-1
u/WAgunner 5h ago
"Why fight them now? They have only put (group in don't like) in camps, they haven't come after me yet!"
3
u/disparateassociation 5h ago
Well unlike your ridiculous hyperbole, you still have the ability to vote in the future and aren't being killed or deported.
3
u/WAgunner 5h ago
Well our state leaders want to put people who own the most common guns im the country in jail, so yeah, no.
-2
41
u/PooterSnooter283 11h ago
Even as a far leftist I can see this. Why vote down the Republican amendment that would prevent it from being lowered.
27
u/ClubInternational372 10h ago
Oh, good I'm not going completely crazy. I also lean pretty hard left and I'm just dumbfounded that so many people cant see the writing on the wall with this one.
27
u/PooterSnooter283 10h ago
Right I'm all for taxing billionaires or millionaires a fair share but to vote down the only thing that would prevent it from getting to the working class is a big red flag
→ More replies (1)20
u/QuakinOats 10h ago
There's two factors at play here:
1 - A shockingly large percentage of the population doesn't have the brain power to think past step 1 and into the future about how a legislative change could end up impacting them.
2 - A not so shockingly large group of people just hate that people earn more than they do, and due to envy and jealousy look forward to and get excited about penalizing them.
In this case 1 and 2 are often the same person/group of people.
5
u/ElectionWeak4415 5h ago
#2 can be found all over the tipping reddits. Pocketwatching is the root of many arguments. "why should they make $XX"? To which I respond... "Why not? Do it if you want to make that"
1
u/Theta-Maximus 2h ago
Pocketwatching. Nice description. It's incredibly sad how many people would respond to the simple truth in your admonition by saying "it's not possible" then give you 100 excuses why. Many of which would have to do with vague identity alignments, and imagined obstacles that they can't quite fully articulate and definitely can't show substantive evidence of. But all of which would have at their roots, the victim mentality that's been hammered into so many, via the soft bigotry of low expectations. It is stunning and depressing to listen to GenZ talk about all the things they think they can't do and can't accomplish, the worst of them are often the ones with the longest list of life advantages, including a college degree. The most coddled and privileged generation in human existence believes it is the most burdened, discriminated against, disadvantaged and oppressed. Truly sad.
8
u/ClubInternational372 9h ago
Dude... you just can't help yourself can you?
Like honestly a couple people identify as left leaning on this sub of all subs, agree with a republican stance on this legislation, and all you can muster is to essentially call us stupid and vindictive based on whatever propaganda nonsense you consume? But yeah, we're the divisive ones.
4
u/hypnoticlife 5h ago
Person you’re responding to didn’t even mention their party affiliation. I voted Democrat down the line and voted to repeal this tax. It’s too high, needs to be more like 500k, and they won’t promise to not lower onto working families. The governor and legislature could change and change their minds. This bill opens the door to taxing everyone and when it happens we will see a wave against democrats and it will hurt other causes. All around I find this tax plan to be bad and untransparent and a bad strategy.
I agree people are stupid as just thinking through this or listening to the words of the backers of the bill makes it very clear it will be lowered later as low as 250. It’s why we have Donald Trump. People don’t pay attention to the details or what the people they are voting for are actually doing.
0
u/ClubInternational372 5h ago
Quaker is well known to be on the right, you can tell by the 1% badge.
How'd you get a ballot before anyone else? They aren't being mailed out until Friday.
-4
u/QuakinOats 9h ago
How did I call you stupid and vindictive and where did I say this is a left or right issue?
I was agreeing with you.
2
u/Jbrahms4 5h ago
Group one you literally called stupid, and then you say
In this case 1 and 2 are often the same person/group of people.
So yeah, you just called all those people stupid...
1
u/QuakinOats 5h ago
Yes, the people in group 1, however the people in group 1 have nothing to do with being left or right.... and I didn't do anything to call a person who doesn't agree with the legislation "stupid"
3
u/Jbrahms4 5h ago
Bro we all know what you meant. You can stop blowing the dog whistle.
→ More replies (6)1
u/Theta-Maximus 2h ago
Before the era of social media, there were always the bitter, jealous malcontents in society, but they were a small minority. Now the buttons have been punched so hard that as you say, a shockingly large group of people just hate that anyone earns more than they do." And worse, don't feel the slightest bit badly about empowering the government to use its power to simply go confiscate it from them.
Unfortunately, most of these people lack the ability to see where that leads.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/PooterSnooter283 9h ago
No one is penalizing them. They are making enough that they can afford it. We had the largest middle class in America history when unions were strong and the ruling elites paid their taxes. Sorry you can't buy the yatch.
6
u/flamehead2k1 5h ago
We had the largest middle class in history when the rest of the developed world was bombed to shit and all needed to buy from the US to rebuild
Unions had great leverage in this environment as there was little international competition. Capital was also less mobile and therefore easier to tax.
The tools that worked in the postwar period aren't going to work the same way today
2
u/PooterSnooter283 5h ago
And since the war on unions and relaxed tax laws were passed the middle class has shrunk. It's all correlated
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (1)2
u/BrightAd306 6h ago
It’s exactly like MAGA republicans with immigration. They don’t care if the policy hurts the economy. They just want the “right” people getting punished.
I’m fine with an income tax, if voted on by the people and the state constitution amended by the people. As long as other taxes that are regressive are lowered. This doesn’t help the poor at all. It’s just designed to punish “bad” rich people.
4
u/mylicon 4h ago
You have an excellent point. We’ve moved from a litigious society to a punitive one. I could support an income tax if it reversed other regressive taxes and hit the wealthy harder.
1
u/lumberjack_jeff 2h ago
Does the fact that the proceeds will be spent to give 450k working class washingtonians a tax refund qualify?
-5
u/emteedub 5h ago
Billionaires are unethical, they should not exist, this allegedly capitalist system is totally fucked. time to shore up the gap or we can change the entire system
3
u/QuakinOats 4h ago edited 4h ago
I think you just dislike people with more money than yourself.
I fail to see how an indie developer who made one of the most popular games on the planet that provides countless hours of safe family friendly entertainment to hundreds of millions of people and distributed the game digitally is inherently "unethical" and "should not exist."
Also this tax isn't really going to impact billionaires in WA State, it really will just impact really successful small business owners, doctors, lawyers, plumbers, septic folks, electricians, farmers, etc.
At least until it gets lowered and hits everyone else.
2
u/BrightAd306 4h ago
Fine. This isn’t taxing billionaires. Like I said, people like you are just happy to see others punished. Even if it hurts the economy. Even if it does nothing to correct our regressive tax structure.
This taxes doctors and dentists. Not venture capitalists.
They’ll use it to expand their friends’ email jobs. Not to fix our roads and schools. It’s just about power.
1
u/firtreefirtree 4h ago
And it will hit tech, which so many people in Seattle love to hate on, but seem to be quite happy to have around to tax. And those folks will just use deferred income to lower their income below the threshold in their peak years (tech pay is peaky and heavily dependent in stock valuations at vest time). And the tax will generate far less than promised because, surprise, the number of people earning over 1 million just dropped.
3
u/dman_21 5h ago
I would do you one better. Link the threshold to inflation.
2
u/AbbreviationsPlus998 5h ago
Last time I read it, it was. To be reassessed up with inflation every two years. Did that part get changed since July?
1
u/lumberjack_jeff 2h ago
Because when 450,000 working class people get a partial rebate of the sales taxes they paid throughout the year, people will realize that critics of the tax were crying wolf.
1
u/aiwenthere 5h ago
You can't write a law that prevents the law from being changed. Such laws are unconstitutional in the United States-- you won't find any example of that anywhere. It's called anti-entrenchment.
A future legislature always has just as much power to change the law as the legislature that put it into effect.
FWIW, The $1M deduction (and inflation adjustment) is coded in the law. The only thing that can change it is by an amendment to the law. That's about as good as it gets as far as guarantees go.
-1
u/PooterSnooter283 5h ago
It wasn't a law t it's an amendment to the law.
6
u/aiwenthere 5h ago
Amending the law still makes it a law. What do you think an amendment is? It was an amendment to include a clause... FOR THE LAW.
→ More replies (2)1
u/PickleCart 5h ago
nevertheless, taxing millionaires is objectively good
we can all band together and fight it when they lower it to 100k or something. But throwing out the tax on the rich is stupid
3
u/Fit-Temperature-2156 3h ago
I view it as objectively bad. Growing government and shifting more and more of the economy from work and a growing GDP to handouts is objectively bad.
6
u/ClubInternational372 5h ago
Yeah, ya know that assumes they won't lower the threshold in the same manner they were trying to push the tax through in the first place.
Need I remind you we voted in favor of $30 tabs... TWICE... and that never happened.
1
u/MaintainThePeace 4h ago
Need I remind you we voted in favor of $30 tabs... TWICE... and that never happened.
And we got the $30 tabs, what we didn't get was the indiscriminate removal of hundreds of local and regional voter taxes and fees that people outside of those local and regional areas didn't know they were voting for.
3
u/PooterSnooter283 5h ago
I never said it wasn't. I just don't trust the government. Theyve pulled back voter backed initiatives before.
1
u/ClimateWren2 4h ago
YOU are your government still in a democracy.
2
u/PooterSnooter283 3h ago
This is a sham of a democracy. Representative democracy is a joke. The only form of real democracy is direct democracy. We live in a corporate bought facade we like to call democracy.
1
u/ClimateWren2 3h ago
Only because Bots and MAGA decided to make it a sham? Weren't you just celebrating 250 years of it a few weeks ago...and now we are back to raiding the building and tearing it down for the profiteering of a few? You account is 3M old.
We can overturn Citizens United. Authoritianism is gonna be WAY worse Mr. Bothside...as we are finding out.
1
u/PooterSnooter283 3h ago
WTF are you talking about. Some bold assumptions. I fucking hate America. This place sucks and so does everyone who lives here. A country full of delusional morons. Democrats and Republicans both paved the way for authoritarianism. You have Stockholm syndrome
1
u/ClimateWren2 3h ago
Both side bot...does both side bit again!
Repetition is the psychology button for getting people to remember the phase, in this case to feel disenfranchised... probably trying to lower voting turnout. What are you talking about? If you are American...go tear down your own nation, we are all full up here.
1
1
u/Theta-Maximus 2h ago
Ah yes, if someone else is more successful and has a bigger bank account, let's go mug 'em and take their shit from 'em! Mindset of a real winner.
1
u/DeliciousRelease 5h ago
No it isn’t “objectively good” and we will not all wait until it hits 100k “or something” to fight it
1
u/ClimateWren2 4h ago
It's another poorly written Heywood initiative for one...they aren't actually looking to implement long term solutions, he is just protecting his own wealthy on the public debt dime.
0
u/sheliqua 5h ago
Because that amendment wouldn’t actually prevent it from being lowered.
Literally any law can be changed in the future. That’s how lawmaking works. So that amendment was literally “hey we know the law already has a threshold but can you waste time saying again it has the same threshold?”.
But the fact that the legislature moved along with the actual law as written means they can now claim voting down a redundant amendment designed to distract voters is a conspiracy.
The tax is on annual income over one million dollars—that means multimillionaires continuing to rake in a million plus a year. The tax is only 9.9% on the amount above a million. Chipping in 10K for someone making $1.1 million per year is not a hardship.
The million dollar exemption is tied to inflation so that number will go up as written in this law—the opposite of what some are trying to claim.
-2
u/MaintainThePeace 6h ago
Forth time...
Because there wasn't a republican amendment that would have prevented it from being lowered, that offered any more security then the current clause in the law.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=1.90.100
Care to reply this time or will you continue to ignore?
→ More replies (2)5
u/PooterSnooter283 5h ago
Again
Yes, Washington state Democrats voted down Republican-led amendments during debates on Senate Bill 6346 that sought to permanently lock or restrict the income tax threshold to individuals and households making over $1 million. • The Vote: In both the state Senate (such as rejecting Amendment 696) and during marathon debates in the House, Democratic majorities voted down GOP-backed amendments designed to permanently codify the $1 million threshold into law. • Republican Argument: Republican lawmakers argued that rejecting the amendments left the door open for future legislatures to lower the threshold and expand the personal income tax to middle- and lower-income families.
Every link I find on this says the same thing. have a read
→ More replies (1)0
7
u/Tr4nsc3nd3nt 4h ago
One of the attractive draws of WA state relative to other states is that it doesn't have an income tax. Now we want to have sales tax AND income tax. The spending is out of control in this state. If you want more tax dollars why not investigate the rampant fraud? Services (such as police) in this state have only gotten worse over the last 25 years while taxes have gone up out of control.
→ More replies (4)
5
26
u/mephistoA 11h ago
Of course it is. Why anybody would vote for more taxes, rather than cut spending is beyond me.
-14
u/FelixFelicis23 11h ago
In case you need an ambulance or your house catches on fire or you use a road or a bridge? I promise you use things that taxes pay for.
26
u/mephistoA 10h ago
Yes and I already pay plenty of taxes
You know you get billed for ambulances right?
5
u/MaintainThePeace 6h ago
On that topic, there's also an cost difference when using a private ambulance (AMR) vs using a public ambulance (Fire Department).
2
16
u/Livid_Restaurant7848 10h ago edited 10h ago
In case a cop murders someone and the government gets sued.
In case out of touch ivory tower pogues need funding for their pet projects.
In case corrupt politicans need to line their pockets.
In case unhoused drug addicts from different states need enabling.
Plenty of other states have ambulances and roads and schools. And lower spending.
The problem isn't the spending. Its the spending on fucking bullshit.
2
7
u/LoseAnotherMill 6h ago
Damn, I didn't realize we don't have ambulances or firefighters or roads or bridges in Washington. I guess I am glad this new tax exists so we can finally get those services.
1
→ More replies (6)2
→ More replies (12)-3
u/disparateassociation 5h ago
We live in a society
10
u/mephistoA 5h ago
That’s not a well reasoned position. We can live in a society with lower taxes and less government spending.
10
u/Economy_Move_6054 5h ago
What do they need the additional tax revenue for? What kick ass services are we gonna get?
19
u/jk_throway 5h ago
None at all. This is not even going to plug the hole from money they are already spending. That's why they are framing the tax as an emergency.
→ More replies (4)2
u/ClimateWren2 4h ago
Schools. Power in your Grid. Levees. Roads.
...you a one man road asphalting school teacher power planet man?
6
u/Economy_Move_6054 3h ago
I think you're being naive. We will be paying for consultants to write climate equity reports and farming homeless people.
2
2
u/Blor-Utar 5h ago
I mean, state employees like social workers at Harborview have been getting denied cost of living raises for the past couple years and the state has been trying to reduce amount of healthcare cost-sharing due to how bad the deficits are. So there are definitely worthwhile places for fresh funds to go…
10
u/bangzilla 5h ago
and let’s not forget the need to audit the funds that go to the Hobo Industrial Complex grifters. in fact, rather than putting their hand in our pockets again why not do the job they are elected to do and balance the budget — I’m sure they manage that for their own households, why would they want to do anything different for the state?
→ More replies (4)2
u/One-Sprinkles-7111 3h ago
Try again. I know you are not telling complete story. Why because I know people who work thier an they are among the highest paid in the state. So try again
1
9
5h ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)2
u/Infamous-Rooster9277 4h ago
Median income, even in Seattle, isn't even at $150k. It's gone up by something like 2k per year for the last 20 years.
At that rate, median income will hit $1 million in 440 years.
This is not going to effect even a small fraction of people living here. Can we at least make serious arguments?
2
2
2
•
u/SwimmingSwordfish637 1h ago
I 100% agree with the column.
People should only vote to keep the millionaire’s tax if they personally want to also be taxed. Once they have permission to tax any income, they will eventually tax everyone’s income.
Also, there is no guarantee they will cut sales tax or property tax as an offset to an expansion of this income tax.
4
u/FamousMortimer23 11h ago
Why are “so many” of the words in these “articles” in unnecessary quotations “all the time”?
4
5
u/fwilsonator 4h ago
It is since they will not enact into law that the floor stays at a million, adjusted for inflation. Leaving a trap door open to lower it in the future.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Turbulent-Media7281 11h ago
That picture has is all.
- Taxpayer made posters.
- Deceptive slogans.
- Democrat socialist.
- Using underage children to hold signs that the kids didn't make and don't understand.
You can't hate them enough.
5
0
u/Temporary_Key_1790 6h ago
Underage children? What does that mean in this context? Is there an age limit for holding a sign, or is alcohol being served?
-2
u/Turbulent-Media7281 6h ago
Just how many ballots do you get for 7 year-olds at your rehab center?
1
2
u/_vVv_tTt_voVv_oo_ 5h ago
I want them to lower the threshold because
1) makes it more obviously an income tax, thus it can be struck down
2) makes more voters upset and likely to repeal it
3) we're not, for some reason, giving people who earn 900k per year a pass on what is a high income earner tax.
3
3
u/ElectionWeak4415 5h ago
Unless the threshold being lowered is a matter that must be brought to public vote, the millionaire tax should not exist. I'm less concerned with someone else being forced to pay an income tax on a 7 figure income than waking up one day to the Washington legislature deciding that now $100k should be the new limit and unilaterally imposing it. And from what I can see, the WA government can't really be trusted with the public's money as is... Why do we want to give them more of it? Haven't their buddies in the NGOs been enriched enough?
2
0
u/No-Software-4784 11h ago
Just curious, how many of you make over $300,000 a year? Even if it were lowered to that, does it affect you? Would you rather continue to be the 49th most regressively taxed state?
7
3
u/Due_Future3097 Puyallup 10h ago
Small business owners can easily have years where they lose money hand over fist and then make that kind of money the next year.
But you don’t get credit from WA State in down years with this tax.
1
u/ChaseballBat Sasquatch 4h ago
Small business owners most certainly do not make over a million in profit.
-1
u/No-Software-4784 10h ago
Small business owners do not pay the ‘Millionaires Tax’ — unless they are taking a personal SALARY of over 1M.
Business earnings do not count as they stay within the business and businesses aren’t taxed with it. It is specifically a personal income tax on income OVER $1M
I am sorry, but I am damn near positive no one complaining about it in this thread will ever pay it.
2
u/Elephantparrot Banned from /r/Seattle 10h ago edited 10h ago
How many LLCs are you a partner in?
I can tell you about my experience very well since I finished my 2025 taxes yesterday due to the late arriving K1 I get from one of my LLCs. It's a minor real estate business that owns a property and has cash in various other investments. No distributions whatsoever are made on an annual basis all the money "stays within the business". And guess what? My allocated portion of the income the LLC earns shows up on my K1 and ends up in my federal AGI. If you need more clarity:
Under Washington State’s newly enacted "Millionaire Tax" (Senate Bill 6346), income allocated to individuals on Schedules K-1 from pass-through entities (such as S corporations and partnerships) is explicitly included in the tax base.
So, no offense but your statement above is completely full of shit and shows an enormous lack of knowledge on how business income is allocated.
3
1
1
u/NoJuggernauters 2h ago
You retard. Small business income goes straight through to the owner's income tax. So those small mom and pop places will have to raise their prices.
Stupid people like you shouldn't have the ability to vote if you can't get basic economic understanding under your belt.
1
u/JSlngal69 Blaine 10h ago
$300k household is a fairly mid-level couple making $150k each, or split other ways
likely in prime age for buying a house and/or retirement building
1
u/PercentageRadiant623 8h ago
“Fairly mid level couple” bro… wut? $300k is by no definition “mid-level”
3
u/JSlngal69 Blaine 8h ago
i stand corrected. $110 is median household. guess all my friends are richy rich but they certainly don't live like it
•
u/PercentageRadiant623 1h ago
You’re friends are $190k over “mid-level”. Nearly $200k annually richer than mid-level. Say that out loud and realize how ridiculous you sound
1
u/ClimateWren2 4h ago
- Excise Tax
** I would LOVE a nonregressive fair income tax. Maybe then creep billioniares couldn't single handedly buy out our democracy and ballots cobstantly.
1
1
u/seaguy11 Belltown 2h ago
You can’t say that for certain. Even if it is it’s fairer than our current regressive tax system.
1
1
•
u/No-Software-4784 1h ago
So, to clarify, your ‘minor real estate business’ — owns a property, and receives income — enough that it allocates 1M to you?
‘No distributions are made on an annual basis’ — but they are made at some point?
And this has you worried that between your K1 and personal income that you will be over 1M in personal income?
That’s….not a small business?
0
u/TheItinerantSkeptic Banned from /r/Seattle 5h ago
While I'm broadly opposed to income taxes of any kind (it's my money, generated by my labor, at a rate agreed upon by my employer and I, and I'm not responsible by default for anyone else in the state), if we HAVE to have a progressive income tax, I'd be less opposed to it if I thought other taxes would go down.
But the cynic (realist?) in me says in Washington, they won't. The state is perpetually revenue-hungry because it wants funding for "socially responsible" safety nets. It wants big government because the population density of Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma overrides the rest of the state's voters and that population believes government should be taking care of us instead of treating us like responsible adults who work to take care of ourselves, and for those who can't, if they can't access voluntary charity, well, they learn their choices have consequences.
So if I-645 doesn't make it out of the gate next month, then down the line when a "millionaire's tax" inevitably hits the point of "every household making over $100k a year" (which is practically every dual-income household or single tech worker household), they'll implement the income tax AND keep gas, sales, property, sugary drink, and climate-based taxes at whatever levels they'll be at when that switchover happens (and that same cynic/realist in me tells me those rates will all be higher, at that point, than they are now).
Always remember, as far as people like Jamie Pedersen are concerned, their money is their money, and YOUR money is their money too... and when they're asked why we should trust that we'll get good services for that appropriation, they'll say, "Just trust me, bro."
1
u/lumberjack_jeff 2h ago
A main thing the legislature is spending the proceeds on is an expansion of the working families tax credit; essentially a rebate of the sales taxes that were collected from 450,000 working class people throughout the year.
0
u/LadyHoneyBunz 11h ago
People who support “yes”, whats your plan to fix the regressive tax system of WA. Btw “spending less” doesnt change the regressive nature and also, what millions will you cut to result in lower taxed? How will those cuts not take away from low income and middle class people?
10
u/Turbulent-Media7281 10h ago edited 10h ago
to fix the regressive tax system of WA
It is not broken. It's a false narrative to pretend it is a failed tax system. The entire regressive/progressive argument is a tool used to implement more taxes on everyone.
What progressive state tax system do you see being superior to WA? Once you've picked your state find out what a $30K earner in WA and in your utopia state pays in state and local taxes. Why is WA currently less, and why do you want low income WA citizens to pay more tax?
4
u/BarRepresentative670 10h ago
My brain hurts reading this. At least google what progressive/regressive taxes mean and understand it before commenting.
1
u/LadyHoneyBunz 10h ago
The fact that WA has a regressive tax system is not up for debate. Its agreed upon by the right and left. If you deny that simple fact, then theres nothing to discuss.
2
u/argusmanargus 10h ago
% of income is only part of the picture. Where the tax is generated and how it’s spent also matters too.
Income tax = your work
Property tax = your wealth
Sales tax = your consumption (food usually not taxed or taxed less)Government also talks about dedicated taxes, such as for schools or kids. Yet often they dont treat taxes like that.
1
u/LadyHoneyBunz 10h ago
I think that’s absolutely true. Addressing Washington’s regressive tax system is not the silver bullet to fat, fixing all of our revenue and spending related woes. But it still must be addressed
1
u/argusmanargus 9h ago
Deciding to pay out of the "work" bucket to make the "consumption" bucket cheaper is fine. Taxes are good and just and I don't care what anyone says. But I have doubts this Income tax will fix or even improve much (though I hope it will). It's also annoying and intrusive to pay income tax, and it will never ever get reversed once instituted. It would be vastly better to have this as an Amendment with the exact changes and rates fixed.
1
u/LadyHoneyBunz 9h ago
I think this is the first step. I think we can advocate for progress without suggesting any changes will all end up bad. Otherwise how do we ever improve anything?
→ More replies (3)1
u/Turbulent-Media7281 10h ago
I'll play. WA is regressive.
What progressive state tax system are you advocating that WA more closely becomes? What's the goal tax system look like? You can't just throw out "progressive"... that just a fucking word. What state is the choice state for state and local taxes?
After you have chosen the best state in your mind find out how much they tax low income earners compared to current WA.
1
u/LadyHoneyBunz 10h ago
Well first I think you are understanding what it means when we say a tax system is “regressive”. Economists use “regressive” meaning their tax systems actively worsen income inequality rather than elevating it. This measured by the percentage of wealth paid in taxes paid by people of different economic classes. When we say WA has a regressive tax system it means wealthy paying a far lower share of their income in taxes than low-and middle-income families. Before the capital gains tax and working families tax credit, WA was the very worse, now we are second worst behind Florida.
This happens because without an income tax, WA uses sales taxes and property taxes to fund it states- these impact working people far more than wealthy ones.
Minnesota, Vermont, NY, CA have far more fair tax systems. This is not an endorsement of the amount of taxes these states impose, but of their distribution across income class and the burden it imposes.
Sources:
https://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/how-fairness-state-tax-codes-affects-public-education
→ More replies (10)1
u/DramaticRoom8571 6h ago
My "plan" doesn't matter, what is important is that WA Democrats have zero interest in reducing the regressive taxes in this state. They increased sales tax during the most recent legislative session and raised gas tax previously. Absolutely no WA Democrats in office have said that they will reduce any tax or fee no matter how much the income tax brings in.
And they refused to earmark the revenues, nearly all of the income tax collected will go into the general fund.
→ More replies (1)0
u/BarRepresentative670 10h ago
A tax on millionaires would go a long way in making the state a more progressive tax state.
Those tax revenues can then go back into things like childcare, tax relief for working families, and small-business tax cuts.
Oh wait! So this plan is fixing the regressive tax plan!
→ More replies (1)0
u/SEA_tide Cascadian 10h ago
The difference lies in changing how one spends their money rather than how much money is spent. Washington's taxes aren't really that regressive compared to other states if you don't drink alcohol, especially hard liquor, or smoke/vape. They are even less regressive if you don't live within the Sound Transit area and either don't drive a car or only drive a fuel efficient conventionally fueled car short distances. Bonus points if you cook your own food and don't buy a bunch of stuff you don't actually need. Costco sells higher quality meat than a lot of steakhouses serve and at a fraction of the price, which means that you can actually spend a lot of money and have a very high end lifestyle, but pay a lot less in taxes.
It's already well known that a significant portion of fuel purchases in Snohomish, Pierce, and Skagit Counties are exempt from the Climate Commitment Act and only pay 25% net of state gas taxes to the State as a result of the Federal Government's treaty with the Yakama Nation and individual tax treaties between the Tribes on behalf of their members selling the fuel. The result? Roads are now better on the reservations and county maintained roads are still very well maintained compared to those in King County. Maybe the solution is actually giving the state less money and keeping the tax money local, if the tax needs to be collected at all
2
u/LadyHoneyBunz 10h ago
Your argument seems to a lot on cherry, picking an ideal consumer rather than looking at the data for what it is. I don’t think you can just say “well it’s not that bad if you do YXZ”
→ More replies (6)
-1
u/sam_42_42 11h ago edited 11h ago
OMG This fucking author, picks one side, leaves the other side out of the argument. So fucking biased. Have integrity man, you are supposed to write the news.
Quoting the article: "Springer is right. The tax is just on millionaires for the time being. But it only really makes sense as a beginning to changing the tax system, not the end. If there was a Trojan horse, he has split it wide open.
So what voters need to decide is: Are you OK with kick-starting that change process, as he was? Or is it better to stick with what we’ve got."
What the author leaves out:
"Gov. Bob Ferguson on May 27 vowed to never lower the $1 million threshold on Washington’s controversial new income tax on high earners."
Click here: https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article315911584.html
Some Democrats have said they want to lower the threshold. Of course some have, but some are not the majority.
7
7
u/JonathanConley 10h ago
He also vowed not to increase taxes and to reel in spending — right before passing a huge tax increase package. He also promised to follow the state Constitution and to not abuse his power, but routinely does so to serve his interests, and is a notoriously vindictive person.
At some point, you have to realize you're being played.
The Democrats have largely purged their ranks and are solely occupied by the "Progressives."
2
u/dewhacker 5h ago
my dawg a "vow" from a politician (either side) is worth less than $0. Also is he going to be Governor forever?
-2
u/routinnox Hell 9h ago edited 5h ago
I would support an income tax only if everyone was getting taxed at the same rate, not just a certain segment of the population. Equality means no one gets exempt. Until then I will not support this tax that only advances populist rhetoric
edit: did this post go on r/all or are a lot of trolls from the other sub brigading here again?
5
u/BananasAreSilly 6h ago
Having 5% of your income go to taxes for a billionaire means nothing to them, but 5% of income to someone who is barely scraping by might mean the difference between making rent and being homeless.
The entire idea of a flat tax is absolutely ridiculous and fundamentally unequal in its outcome. It was a horrible idea when Steve Forbes used it as his presidential campaign platform, and it still is today.
3
u/nwprogressivefans 5h ago
To any of the super wealthy even 50 percent would mean nothing to them.
They don't want to goto flat tax, they love the complex system of loopholes they have but we can't use.
→ More replies (2)-5
u/routinnox Hell 6h ago
That’s why no income taxes make the most sense, our system works and we don’t need to change it. Thanks for understanding my point.
4
u/yikes_42069 5h ago
How does your point reconcile with us being the second most regressive state in the country for taxes? Formerly most regressive
3
→ More replies (4)1
2
1
1
u/AristotleanBiology 6h ago
Yeah not a flat tax is a regressive tax.
Let’s talk about lowering other taxes commensurate with the increase from a come tax. Only then would I begin to consider income taxes.
-1
u/emteedub 5h ago
What part of 2nd most regressive tax system in the entire United States doesn't make sense to you? Bottom is already taxed ununiformly greater than the top. This is shoring up the gap
-4
u/disparateassociation 5h ago
Ah wonderful time for everyone who doesn't make this much in a decade to complain about taxes on people with 1 million in income in a year
11
u/joeshmoebies 4h ago
Every thread has this bullshit take. "You aren't getting kicked in the nuts. Why are you complaining about the 'Kick people in the nuts bill'"?
Because: 1) I am philosophically opposed to the government kicking people in the nuts 2) There is no guarantee that I will never get kicked in the nuts 3) We have a constitution that says the government can't kick people in the nuts
But no, each thread the "you're not a millionaire so who cares?" comments come. And each thread we have to reiterate the same things.
→ More replies (5)4
u/noseclams25 Magnolia 5h ago
Do you honestly think the goal is to park this at 1m?
0
u/disparateassociation 5h ago
I think changing it would then require future legislation but yeah I don't really care about it being dropped to even 250k
5
u/TBurnerRU 3h ago
Then you're going to love what comes next lol
1
-6
-6
u/aiwenthere 5h ago edited 4h ago
That's literally the law.
And any attempt to change it requires legislation and has political consequences.Do people really not understand how this works?
EDIT: Seems people really don't understand how this works. Keep proving my point.
6
u/WookieeWarlock 4h ago
Are you aware that a income tax is currently against our state constitution and they are wanting to pass this anyways?
→ More replies (1)•
1
-7
u/Fair-Doughnut3000 Magnolia 11h ago
Tax the rich
7
u/ClubInternational372 10h ago
I whole heartedly agree. But this ain't it. This is a foot in the door, I give it less than 10 years and everyone in the state will be paying both income and sales tax...
To effectively tax the rich it needs to be done at a federal level, like it used to be before Citizens United and Reaganomics. Give these corps incentive to invest in infrastructure and their workforce instead of hoarding money like they are.
8
u/Stock_Schedule_1981 11h ago
Nice slogan. It’ll be a shame when the leopards eat your face.
6
u/Fair-Doughnut3000 Magnolia 11h ago
What I really want is a reduction in my property tax burden. Just got done paying 15k for the year. The only way for this to happen is comprehensive tax reform.
1
u/SpacemanLost 8h ago
A distinction many miss is that if you are paying more income tax than last year, that should mean you had more income to tax (baring tax code changes of course)
Our property taxes have just about tripled since 2017 (2.9x), but our household income this year is actually less than we made in 2017 thanks to layoffs and wage compression - something that a lot of the area's upper middle class households have experienced. And that's in raw, non inflation adjusted dollars, and no meaningful changes to the property.
With no real correlation between how a family is doing economically and their property tax burden, the ability to afford to stay in one's home, even if paid off, is subject to a lot of external forces and whims with few protection mechanisms, and seems quite disconnected from local economic realities (like: Seattle economy tanks -> lots of people laid off -> commercial buildings go empty -> office building values plummet -> property taxes jacked up on homes to ensure city can still spend like drunk sailor and not have to cut back)
1
u/Turbulent-Media7281 10h ago
What I really want is a reduction in my property tax burden. Just got done paying 15k for the year.
You sound greedy.
Quarterly FIT estimate... 32K. But I'm told my taxes are regressive by shills on reddit so this doesn't count. You don't know tax burden if your largest tax isn't FIT.
1
u/Fluid-Tone-9680 7h ago
15K property tax means you are sitting on 1.5 million dollar property. You are the rich you are talking about, you should be taxed more than you are taxed right now.
1
u/Fair-Doughnut3000 Magnolia 7h ago
If I lived on the east side, I would be sitting on a 3 million dollar property
→ More replies (2)3
3
u/WAgunner 11h ago
[A good guide on this subject is Rep. Larry Springer, D-Kirkland. He’s no backbencher; he’s been the deputy majority leader of the state House of Representatives for the past 12 years. So he’s in the room, as they say. He also voted yes on the millionaires tax. He was asked earlier this year why the public should believe that the tax would stay confined to the rich. His blunt answer: “You shouldn’t.”]
1
1
1
-8
u/danno_v 11h ago
Westneat shilling for oligarchs. What a surprise.
5
0
u/SeattleGeek Banned from /r/Seattle 10h ago
I was looking to see if this was Danny Westneat before giving them the click.
-4
u/User_1965_ 11h ago
It’s crazy how scared the million dollar earners are to pay taxes. Get a grip
8
u/Both-Counter4075 10h ago
Not a millionaire, would be OK paying my fair share. BUT, I do NOT trust the state to keep the tax only at the millionaire level. Will you be willing to pay my taxes then since you are for this?
-3
0
0
0
u/BillTowne 2h ago
I have an idea. If you want the current tax but not one with a lower cutoff, then vote for this one and against any with a lower cutoff.
96
u/Stock_Schedule_1981 11h ago
Just because the tax’s authors have said they want an income tax and other Dem candidates have been on record saying they want to lower the threshold of the tax to middle class income levels, doesn’t mean they want to do the things they say they want to do.
Isn’t that the latest argument?