Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
 [Register]
Seattle area Seattle and King County Suburbs
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-11-2016, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Independent Republic of Ballard
8,065 posts, read 8,325,306 times
Reputation: 6223

Advertisements

Based on entirely sophistic arguments.

Quote:
In the 2007 fiscal year, King County contributed just over $6 billion to the state's tax coffers, according to the state. That year it received $3.5 billion from the general fund, for an expenses to revenue ratio of 0.59. The five counties which fared the worst in terms of getting tax money back compared to monies put in were: San Juan (0.41), King, Skagit (0.75), Jefferson (0.82) and Island (0.81).

The five counties getting the biggest bang out of their tax bucks were Whitman County, which paid $52.3 million in state taxes in 2007 but got $252 million back, for a ratio of 4.82. Whitman, in the southeastern part of the state, is home to Washington State University. Next is Thurston County, home to the state capital, with an expenses to revenue ratio of 3.17, then Lincoln County (2.54), Ferry (2.40) and Garfield (2.25). Lincoln, Ferry and Garfield are all small counties in Eastern Washington.

No county in Eastern Washington pays more in state general fund taxes than it receives back in expenditures. In the more populous western part of the state, seven counties contribute more than they get in return (Island, Jefferson, King San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish and Whatcom).
King Co. pays for the rest of the state - is that fair? - seattlepi.com

Transportation funding is a red herring. King County has been receiving approximately $1 in spending for taxes spent, due to mega-projects such as the 520 floating bridge and the 99 Tunnel.

Quote:
"Pre-existing" funding refers to transportation funding sources in place before the per-gallon gas tax increases of 2003 (5 cents) and 2005 (9.5 cents). Prior to those tax hikes, King County was only getting 88 cents back in transportation expenditures for every dollar in taxes residents contributed. Garfield County in Eastern Washington was getting a whopping $8.44 in investments for every dollar in taxes.

After the 2003 transportation tax package was approved, the King County figure moved to 99 cents in investments for every buck in taxes contributed to projects funded by the nickel-a-gallon gas-tax hike. What upsets some is that King County is indeed faring better than most other counties when it comes to projected investments following the 2005 gas tax increase. In that funding package, King County will receive $1.32 in investments for every dollar county residents pay in taxes.

Only four other counties -- Lewis, Pacific, Jefferson and Kittitas -- will do better. Which counties are getting the least amount in investments? San Juan (2 cents in investments per dollar in taxes), and Franklin and Asotin (5 cents in investments per dollar). However, backers of the 2005 gas-tax increase point out that the money raised was specifically designed to go to big projects like the viaduct and replacing the 520 bridge across Lake Washington.
Such spending is entirely justified, in that it is largely driven by population growth:

Quote:
Population growth continues to be concentrated in large metropolitan counties. Seventy-eight percent of the growth occurred in the state’s five largest counties: King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane and Clark, respectively. King County accounted for the largest share of state growth this year, with 43 percent, followed by Snohomish and Pierce at 12 percent each. The state’s 18 nonmetropolitan counties accounted for less than 5 percent of population growth.
The East Sound basin, with 67% of state-wide population growth, is the economic engine for the whole state. Spending on the state highway system (including WSF) benefits the whole state. Note that residents in sparsely populated counties drive more miles per capita, and fuel consumed in farming activities also boosts the per capita contribution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2016, 03:50 PM
 
8,812 posts, read 6,770,503 times
Reputation: 8572
Outside this thread (and maybe talk radio), I'm pretty sure most people get that Seattle subsidizes the rural areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 04:33 PM
509
 
6,323 posts, read 6,999,048 times
Reputation: 9444
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
Outside this thread (and maybe talk radio), I'm pretty sure most people get that Seattle subsidizes the rural areas.
Right...don't let the facts stand in the way of your beliefs!!

Here are the "official" links on both studies. You can put the data by county and transportation district into a spreadsheet and do the calculations like I did.

OFM | State Expenditures and Revenues by County

Or you can read the blog you cited.

However, I REALLY encourage you to read the original document and apply some critical thinking skills to it.

For example, did you know that the state of Washington spends more money on state employees in Olympia to administer the welfare program in Adams County....than the welfare recepients receive in Adams County??

Lots of great info there if your willing to plow through the data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 04:46 PM
 
Location: WA Desert, Seattle native
9,398 posts, read 8,806,519 times
Reputation: 8807
Let's split up a State that is the hottest housing market in the country. Ridiculous beyond belief.

The 9 States With the Hottest Housing Markets
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 05:47 PM
 
8,812 posts, read 6,770,503 times
Reputation: 8572
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
Right...don't let the facts stand in the way of your beliefs!!

Here are the "official" links on both studies. You can put the data by county and transportation district into a spreadsheet and do the calculations like I did.

OFM | State Expenditures and Revenues by County

Or you can read the blog you cited.

However, I REALLY encourage you to read the original document and apply some critical thinking skills to it.

For example, did you know that the state of Washington spends more money on state employees in Olympia to administer the welfare program in Adams County....than the welfare recepients receive in Adams County??

Lots of great info there if your willing to plow through the data.

You mean like King County paying in $6.9 billion in 2014 and getting back less than $4.5 billion? That's from OFM. Kind of ruins your theory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 06:49 PM
 
Location: WA Desert, Seattle native
9,398 posts, read 8,806,519 times
Reputation: 8807
Again, Eastern WA needs Western WA. And Western WA need Eastern WA. No divorce proceedings here.

And I will offer this: If Eastern WA secedes from WA, (unlikely), IMO it will quickly turn into an economicaly challenged state with only agriculture to lean back on. Such a terrible idea on all counts. The authors of this are completely out of touch and should back off from this effort, and soon, as it does nothing for future economic growth of the region.

Last edited by pnwguy2; 12-11-2016 at 07:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2016, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Independent Republic of Ballard
8,065 posts, read 8,325,306 times
Reputation: 6223
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
Right...don't let the facts stand in the way of your beliefs!!

Here are the "official" links on both studies. You can put the data by county and transportation district into a spreadsheet and do the calculations like I did.

OFM | State Expenditures and Revenues by County

Or you can read the blog you cited.

However, I REALLY encourage you to read the original document and apply some critical thinking skills to it.

For example, did you know that the state of Washington spends more money on state employees in Olympia to administer the welfare program in Adams County....than the welfare recepients receive in Adams County??

Lots of great info there if your willing to plow through the data.
The link you provided shows three tables, which allocate expenditures according to three methods: 1) where benefits are received, 2) where expenditures occur, and 3) an average of the first two.

According to Method 1:

King County: Gets $4.46B (27.25% of the state total) in expenditures; gives $6.90B (42.09%) in tax revenues.

Spokane County: Gets $1.23B (7.53%) in expenditures; gives $.97B (5.95%) in tax revenues.

According to Method 2:

King County: Gets $3.11B (18.97%) in expenditures; gives $6.90B (42.09%) in tax revenues.

Spokane County: Gets $1.16B (7.07%) in expenditures; gives $.97B (5.95%) in tax revenues.

According to Method 3:

King County: Gets $3.79B (23.11%) in expenditures; gives $6.90B (42.09%) in tax revenues.

Spokane County: Gets $1.20B (7.30%) in expenditures; gives $.97B (5.95%) in tax revenues.

According to all three methods, King County is subsidizing Spokane County by a large margin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2016, 02:25 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,668,264 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
The link you provided shows three tables, which allocate expenditures according to three methods: 1) where benefits are received, 2) where expenditures occur, and 3) an average of the first two.

According to Method 1:

King County: Gets $4.46B (27.25% of the state total) in expenditures; gives $6.90B (42.09%) in tax revenues.

Spokane County: Gets $1.23B (7.53%) in expenditures; gives $.97B (5.95%) in tax revenues.

According to Method 2:

King County: Gets $3.11B (18.97%) in expenditures; gives $6.90B (42.09%) in tax revenues.

Spokane County: Gets $1.16B (7.07%) in expenditures; gives $.97B (5.95%) in tax revenues.

According to Method 3:

King County: Gets $3.79B (23.11%) in expenditures; gives $6.90B (42.09%) in tax revenues.

Spokane County: Gets $1.20B (7.30%) in expenditures; gives $.97B (5.95%) in tax revenues.

According to all three methods, King County is subsidizing Spokane County by a large margin.
Thank you. Perfectly stated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 02:19 PM
509
 
6,323 posts, read 6,999,048 times
Reputation: 9444
Yes, King County generates surplus funds to the state government.

What does that have to do with the split between eastern and western Washington??

Pierce and Clark counties are welfare counties just like Spokane. Snohomish was a push in 2013 and with the Boeing tax breaks is probably a welfare county in 2016.

When you add up ALL the state spending including the transportation taxes and spending it is a push. Less than one percent difference between eastern Washington and western Washington. AND that includes KING county.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2016, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Metro Seattle Area - Born and Raised
4,856 posts, read 2,019,926 times
Reputation: 8573
IMHO, the only way to resolve the "Wet-Sider's" power over the "Dry-Siders regarding issues within the State is to come up with an "electoral college" system within each of the counties, giving them semi-equal power on issues involving the State. Yes, we "Wet-Siders" have the numbers when it comes to voting on issues effecting the entire State and let's be honest, our views are very different than those on the dry side. I personally don't think it's fair that most, if not all of the power, is on the wet side of the State.

With that said, I'm not taking a liberal verse conservative stance since that doesn't serve any good for anybody... Simply look at the state that our country is now in... An "us" verse "them" status and both sides are equally guilty of allowing this to happen... Period.

I wouldn't support splitting the State into West Washington and East Washington... To me that's pretty stupid and not cost effective at all. Several other States want to split into two halves like Colorado and California... California also being very different in which they want to become their own country... Good luck on that one ever happening!! The answer to all our problems is being honest with ourselves and coming up with real solutions, not fantasies, to make things work again.

The sad thing is that this will never happen since common sense isn't too common anymore and now we, as a people, will have to learn things the hard way... IMHO.

...I just hope that I'm seriously wrong on this issue!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:11 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top