Do you support Kshama Sawant's head tax proposal? (Seattle, Bellevue: city hall, house)

[Blindtom]

It seems like they want to make things less desirable for business, and more desirable for the homeless.

[wahoyaho]

Yes, only so that businesses will set up shop elsewhere and not in Seattle proper

[Yeledaf]

Progressives and buyer’s remorse. A match made in heaven.

[homesinseattle]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Progressives and buyer’s remorse. A match made in heaven.

Yeledaf, I didn't vote for Sawant. Guess I'm a moderate progressive, believe in strange things like taking care of the environment, fair tax brackets and access to healthcare for our citizens. I think you mistake the word "progressive" for "socialist", which is what Sawant is.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by homesinseattle

Yeledaf, I didn't vote for Sawant. Guess I'm a moderate progressive, believe in strange things like taking care of the environment, fair tax brackets and access to healthcare for our citizens.

And I didn't vote for O'Brien. I'm a Left Libertarian, not a Left Authoritarian. A Nietzschean, not a Marxist. I believe in a Meritocratic society, because it grows a bigger pie, but acknowledge that rewards are not thereby necessarily equitably shared, something that is worsened by corruption, which is present in any society and works against the achievement of merit and excellence. That we reward winners shouldn't also mean we punish losers.

I see nothing wrong with forming a democratic consensus that the well-rewarded should be taxed more to ensure that teachers, for instance, are paid at least a living wage, healthcare is affordable to all, students aren't drowned in debt, the environment is stewarded, rather than despoiled, discrimination is suppressed, and the poor and disabled are properly cared for. A dog-eat-dog, losers-be-damned society is one in which few would want to live.

[noah]

If you take the widely reported number that we spend $200M a year on the homeless today which is already the highest per capita anywhere in the country, then add in the 75M from this tax your looking at a nearly 40% increase in homeless funds for a city that already leads the nation in spending per capita.

Makes you wonder if perhaps funding isn't the problem or the answer. I am sure funds go to these things but I hear very little mention of drug addiction in relation to the homeless problem and how to address that.

[tommy64]

I would support it if I thought it would help, but it's just more money into a black hole.

Sawant seems to be selling this plan as an us-vs-them against Amazon, which is really shallow and a lightweight approach.

And what will 'affordable' housing do for homeless people, a large number of whom make the lifestyle a career and never had housing to begin with?

If the vote passes I wouldn't be shocked if there was rioting in the streets. The issue seems to have really heated up.

[RotseCherut]

Punish the rich! Feed the homeless, they are dying of hunger on the streets!! OY VEY!!!!

Let the Seattle revolution against the evil capitalists begin!

Originally Posted by Karl Marx

Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!

Uncle Joe would be so proud of her..

[rjshae]

Solving the homeless problem is going to require a more integrated, holistic approach rather than just taxing the wealthy businesses. You don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater by making Seattle too business-unfriendly. They need somebody full-time focused on dealing with the problem, address issues of traffic congestion and housing density, do a better job of coping with the drug crisis, and make businesses part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

[wutitiz]

I made a bad error in post #1 regarding whether the tax is regressive (lower income pays a higher tax pct) or progressive (rich pay a higher pct).


It occurred to me too late that the Seattle Times story says that the tax is capped at $500 per year (I assume per employee). That being the case, this tax is going to be horribly regressive (lower income pays higher rate).


At $0.26/hr, virtually all full time employees will pay the full $500. But due to the $500 cap, the guy running a vacuum cleaner for $15/hr pays the same $500 as the corporate general counsel making $500,000/yr. The cleaner then pays an effective rate of 1.6%, while the corp. lawyer pays a rate of 0.1%.


So this is yet another proposal from the WA liberal left to tax the working poor and middle class rather than the rich.