What do you all think of I-1098? (how much, homes)

[Inkpoe]

Originally Posted by CarlB328

The wealthy have driven the cost of living up too high for many Washingtonians (like me) so I have no pity for them paying 2% more. Did they ask for our input before they drove the cost of housing through the roof destroying many peoples lives? No, they did not.

The wealthy did no such thing... the high cost of housing is due to supply and demand.

[CarlB328]

The legislature would never repeal a source of tax revenue

They got rid of the tolls on the 520 bridge.

Of course they're bringing them back now.

[cdelena]

The WSJ sees this as a union inititive. They make sense.

"By taxing others, these unions want to insulate the governor and the legislature from having to make difficult choices about what the government should fund and what it might cut back."

McGurn: Washington State's Union Tax - WSJ.com

I am against all tax increases including this one and think we need less government at all levels in this country.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by cdelena

The WSJ sees this as a union inititive. They make sense.

Yeah, but that's as predictable as Mother Jones favoring it, so it means nothing. The WSJ, even before Murdoch, did little but blame 'liberals' and 'anti-business sentiment' for everything wrong, and praise everything the right wing wanted. It's even more so now. A source that is incapable of any stance but one isn't worth much.

[Fat Freddy]

Originally Posted by CarlB328

The wealthy have driven the cost of living up too high for many Washingtonians...

Originally Posted by Inkpoe

The wealthy did no such thing... the high cost of housing is due to supply and demand.

Who do you think controls the supply and demand?

[Ira500]

Originally Posted by Inkpoe

The wealthy did no such thing... the high cost of housing is due to supply and demand.

I'm going to have to have a rare disagreement with Inkpoe, who is usually right about everything.
The Seattle area has more vacant housing units per capita than many other places where unemployment is lower and salaries are just barely lower. Yet these other places have far lower housing costs. Why?
In other words, there are a ton of vacant houses in places like Bonney Lake and condos in Redmond and Issaquah and prices are still mostly 300,000 and up.
My theory:
It's the richer folks who set the tone for the whole market. The Seattle area has a lot of folks who make really good money working for Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, Real Networks, etc, and even though those folks aren't going to buy a 300,000 dollar house, their presence influences the market and makes everything in the vicinity more expensive.
I could be wrong. Maybe it's the trees and the water and the mountains?

[Inkpoe]

I have no trust in the government and believe the income tax is simply going to open the door to more frivolous spending even with all the wording that this initiative has. Our gov't already has a history of gutting the rules to suit their "needs". Why not go all the way and have everyone pay the income tax, lower the sales tax/BO taxes/property taxes? Why not tax on the dividends as well? I know that people do not want to go for this. I think we need to start at least taxing on dividends first.

Originally Posted by Ira500

My theory:
It's the richer folks who set the tone for the whole market. The Seattle area has a lot of folks who make really good money working for Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, Real Networks, etc, and even though those folks aren't going to buy a 300,000 dollar house, their presence influences the market and makes everything in the vicinity more expensive.

That there is the problem... those folks aren't going to be buying the 300K homes. Yes, those folks make good money working for MS, Boeing, Amazon, RN, et. c. -- but are they all the 1.2% of the population that's going to be taxed for it?

[Ira500]

Originally Posted by Inkpoe

I have no trust in the government and believe the income tax is simply going to open the door to more frivolous spending even with all the wording that this initiative has. Our gov't already has a history of gutting the rules to suit their "needs". Why not go all the way and have everyone pay the income tax, lower the sales tax/BO taxes/property taxes? Why not tax on the dividends as well? I know that people do not want to go for this. I think we need to start at least taxing on dividends first.



That there is the problem... those folks aren't going to be buying the 300K homes. Yes, those folks make good money working for MS, Boeing, Amazon, RN, et. c. -- but are they all the 1.2% of the population that's going to be taxed for it?

I wouldn't worry about 1098 passing. Sure, I'm voting for it, but my endorsement is like the kiss of death. It's so deeply ingrained in the consciousness of Washington voters to hate income taxes that it'll never pass, no matter how many newcomers have arrived in this state in recent years.....And dividends are taxed, at least for federal income tax.
Should there be a state income tax for dividend income only?

[Inkpoe]

Originally Posted by Ira500

.....And dividends are taxed, at least for federal income tax.
Should there be a state income tax for dividend income only?

I think for here, a state income tax for dividend income would be an easier pill to swallow. So if we have to have an income tax-- it should be that. People like Gates SR would be "doing" their part. 2 other state income tax-free but with tax on dividends are Tennessee and New Hampshire (not saying that they're better off with it). Perhaps we should take note of those states instead.

[geekie]

Originally Posted by j_k_k

... Nothing remains true to its original purpose. ....

Thus, the slippery slope argument is in play with this one. The legislature would never repeal a source of tax revenue, so this will only grow. And as inflation (which will return) lowers the dollar's purchasing power over time, people will grow into it while their standards of living remain the same or decline. The alternative minimum tax was one like this, and sure enough, before long the middle class had joined. Jack the sales tax up to 10% if you have to, but none of this income tax crap.

...or tax the so called "sins" like smoking, and/or legalize gambling in proper spots like NV did... But this state income tax as per I-1098, just like that: if 1098 passes, now suddenly the answer to the question "Does the state of WA sport state personal income tax?" flips from "No" to "Heck yeah!" details notwithstanding. To me this I-1098 feels like bait-and-switch schema designed to bait with seemingly harmless setup reinforced with emotionally charged lawn signs and billboards, then switch to the real big picture agenda as the time goes by and new opportunities arise...