Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Washington is one of the few states without an income tax. Powerful people in my state of Washington including Bill Gates Sr. want to put an income tax referendum on the November ballot.
I know Connecticut passed an income tax about 20 years ago. Are people in your state generally satisfied with it or do they think it was a mistake? Do you think it would be a good idea for Washington to pass such a law?
Washington is one of the few states without an income tax. Powerful people in my state of Washington including Bill Gates Sr. want to put an income tax referendum on the November ballot.
I know Connecticut passed an income tax about 20 years ago. Are people in your state generally satisfied with it or do they think it was a mistake? Do you think it would be a good idea for Washington to pass such a law?
You must be joking.
Higher taxes lead only to more spending, and continuing fiscal problems. The rancid politicians in our state have twice increased the income tax, and we still face huge deficits because they increased spending so much.
Giving them another income source is like giving another drug supplier to an addict.
And don't fall for the "we'll cut other taxes if we pass this one" line. It will never happen. Politicians are evil to the core.
I'll disagree with Dazzleman, and even though I only have experienced the income tax era I've done a lot of research into this. But the trade off in Connecticut was odd: they replaced tolls, high sales tax, the country's highest capital tax rates, and an erratic income stream with a stable income stream, lower sales tax (among the lowest in the country now of states that have it), low expenditures in relation to GSP, offsetting the cost of Public Labour with pensions, among the lowest capital tax rates in the nation (of states that have it), low effective corporate tax, and no tolls. The big positive was that revenue for the state would be easier to predict and bond against thus getting better rates, the big negative was that it did cut more into the "everyday" folks than promised and property taxes went through the roof in many municipalities to make up in the shortfall of State funds.
Lowell Weicker (the independent Governor that pushed it through) was hung in effigy at the capitol. People were pissed, and some still are.
In terms of raw numbers, nothing really changed just sources were diversified and more people feel the Income tax. Spending stayed fairly consistent, and unlike what Dazzleman portrayed there were many years of operational surpluses that went into the State's "Rainyday Fund."
To your question: is it a good idea for Washington? Well, that depends. Factors like how they arrange the tax brackets, how much graft there is in the State, how the State funds local government (Connecticut does not have counties, and thus no county taxes), and what are they replacing the income tax in lieu of. If it's just an addition I'd say stay away, but if it is a way to make the tax code more fair then maybe it's a good idea. Personally I think Connecticut can do much better than how they have it.
I'll disagree with Dazzleman, and even though I only have experienced the income tax era I've done a lot of research into this. But the trade off in Connecticut was odd: they replaced tolls, high sales tax, the country's highest capital tax rates, and an erratic income stream with a stable income stream, lower sales tax (among the lowest in the country now of states that have it), low expenditures in relation to GSP, offsetting the cost of Public Labour with pensions, among the lowest capital tax rates in the nation (of states that have it), low effective corporate tax, and no tolls. The big positive was that revenue for the state would be easier to predict and bond against thus getting better rates, the big negative was that it did cut more into the "everyday" folks than promised and property taxes went through the roof in many municipalities to make up in the shortfall of State funds.
Lowell Weicker (the independent Governor that pushed it through) was hung in effigy at the capitol. People were pissed, and some still are.
In terms of raw numbers, nothing really changed just sources were diversified and more people feel the Income tax. Spending stayed fairly consistent, and unlike what Dazzleman portrayed there were many years of operational surpluses that went into the State's "Rainyday Fund."
To your question: is it a good idea for Washington? Well, that depends. Factors like how they arrange the tax brackets, how much graft there is in the State, how the State funds local government (Connecticut does not have counties, and thus no county taxes), and what are they replacing the income tax in lieu of. If it's just an addition I'd say stay away, but if it is a way to make the tax code more fair then maybe it's a good idea. Personally I think Connecticut can do much better than how they have it.
~Cheers
You must not read the news much.
State spending has been increasing at 3x the rate of inflation for some time now. This is what happens when you give the politicians a steady source of income. I'd rather have them worried about unsteady income sources; that might restrain their spending.
And I find it interesting that the states with the worst fiscal problems in this recession have consistently been high-tax states like Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and California.
I'll disagree with Dazzleman, and even though I only have experienced the income tax era I've done a lot of research into this. But the trade off in Connecticut was odd: they replaced tolls, high sales tax, the country's highest capital tax rates, and an erratic income stream with a stable income stream, lower sales tax (among the lowest in the country now of states that have it), low expenditures in relation to GSP, offsetting the cost of Public Labour with pensions, among the lowest capital tax rates in the nation (of states that have it), low effective corporate tax, and no tolls. The big positive was that revenue for the state would be easier to predict and bond against thus getting better rates, the big negative was that it did cut more into the "everyday" folks than promised and property taxes went through the roof in many municipalities to make up in the shortfall of State funds.
Lowell Weicker (the independent Governor that pushed it through) was hung in effigy at the capitol. People were pissed, and some still are.
In terms of raw numbers, nothing really changed just sources were diversified and more people feel the Income tax. Spending stayed fairly consistent, and unlike what Dazzleman portrayed there were many years of operational surpluses that went into the State's "Rainyday Fund."
There a few things in your dissertation that are not accurate. The tolls were replaced with a gas tax. Something that has far and away hurt the people of CT. Many use our roads without ever stopping for fuel and those of us on local roads still pay into the DOT general fund even though we are not using their roads. It's given us the one of the highest fuel costs in the nation.
That rainy day fund is like putting $100 in the cookie jar and ingnoring the $10,000 credit card bill on the desk and saying "see we have a surpluss". That 10K credit card would be unfunded liabilities in our state pension fund and that's going land with a thump heard around the world.
In the end, to answer your quesion...any new tax is bad the way current business is conducted. Government is a parasite, consums and produces nothing.
Have a look at how our state budget has increased WAY beyond inflation, poplulation or anything else that could justify it.
1989 was the end of the road...we have never been the same and have HUGE unfunded liabilities we can't pay. Yet we have ALL THESE taxes in place that were supposed to "fix it" and all they have done is expand government with the "new money". We have a lot of money in this state, but I'm not sure or for how long they can keep going to "daddy warbuck" and saying "more please".
For instance: Just got my new Direct TV bill. Hmmm, was supposed to be $49.00 yet it's $59.00? Ohh, look at that. 10 dollars in taxes. So 20% of my DTV bill is taxes. Hmmm.
Now they realize we are getting taxed coming, going and sideways so they are finding revenue raisers such as increased license fees and park fees. Like doubling them. What use to cost $4 for a day at the park, is now $13 in some places.
Oh yea, and about those tolls they took away and put a gas tax on instead? Yea, well now that we have "forgotten" about the gas tax, they are talking adding tolls again - on TOP of the gas tax. Fantastic.
So good luck with adding a sales tax, all you are doing is feeding the beast that has an endless appetite.
There a few things in your dissertation that are not accurate. The tolls were replaced with a gas tax. Something that has far and away hurt the people of CT. Many use our roads without ever stopping for fuel and those of us on local roads still pay into the DOT general fund even though we are not using their roads. It's given us the one of the highest fuel costs in the nation.
That rainy day fund is like putting $100 in the cookie jar and ingnoring the $10,000 credit card bill on the desk and saying "see we have a surpluss". That 10K credit card would be unfunded liabilities in our state pension fund and that's going land with a thump heard around the world.
In the end, to answer your quesion...any new tax is bad the way current business is conducted. Government is a parasite, consums and produces nothing.
Have a look at how our state budget has increased WAY beyond inflation, poplulation or anything else that could justify it.
1989 was the end of the road...we have never been the same and have HUGE unfunded liabilities we can pay. Yet we have ALL THESE taxes in place that were supposed to "fix it" and all they have done is expand government with the "new money". We have a lot of money in this state, but I'm not sure or for how long they can keep going to "daddy warbuck" and saying "more please".
For instance: Just got my new Direct TV bill. Hmmm, was supposed to be $49.00 yet it's $59.00? Ohh, look at that. 10 dollars in taxes. So 20% of my DTV bill is taxes. Hmmm.
Now they realize we are getting taxed coming, going and sideways so they are finding revenue raisers such as increased license fees and park fees. Like doubling them. What use to cost $4 for a day at the park, is now $13 in some places.
Oh yea, and about those tolls they took away and put a gas tax on instead? Yea, well now that we have "forgotten" about the gas tax, they are talking adding tolls again - on TOP of the gas tax. Fantastic.
So good luck with adding a sales tax, all you are doing is feeding the beast that has an endless appetite.
I couldn't agree with you more.
And I'm sure you've noticed that the 'problems' that all this spending is meant to addressed are never solved, or even ameliorated. All the spending does is create demand for more of it.
It just amazes me that more people don't see this. We're supposedly such a high IQ state, and always reminding ourselves of that, yet people can't figure out something that's so basic, right in front of them.
State spending has been increasing at 3x the rate of inflation for some time now. This is what happens when you give the politicians a steady source of income. I'd rather have them worried about unsteady income sources; that might restrain their spending.
And I find it interesting that the states with the worst fiscal problems in this recession have consistently been high-tax states like Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and California.
I do read the news quite a bit, but I also read academic studies. All I could find specifically about spending in relation to inflation (which wouldn't even matter at all anyway, because there was significant price inflation and wage stagnation for nearly 6 years) was this site:
which shows many years of being well under inflation, and a few years being slightly above. There was no 9% increase year to year that I found.
And for other states, many have much higher sales tax, higher corporate tax, more federal help (Connecticut is among the lowest to get funds back), county taxes, and excise taxes. You see it has high-tax states with problems, I see low-tax states that overly rely on the federal government getting it way too easy.
You haven't addressed the central question, which is why higher taxes seem to lead invariably to greater fiscal problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
