• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Prop 1098 destroyed!

A

Argo

Lifer
A proposition to institute 5% income tax on rich people (people making over $200,000) in the state of washington got destroyed. Big. 65% against.

I've never been more proud of my fellow washingtonians.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warshington's always been proud of not having an income tax...but with sales tax revenues steadily declining, I'm not surprised to see them try an income tax. I actually expected this one to do pretty well since MOST folks in the state wouldn't be affected by it.
 
Ah, the mantra of Reagan, still alive and well, still destroying the economy where it treads.

good for regression!
:thumbsup:
 
Argo said:
A proposition to institute 5% income tax on rich people (people making over $200,000) in the state of washington got destroyed. Big. 65% against.

I've never been more proud of my fellow washingtonians.
Click to expand...

Congrats. 🙂

Now, they just need to be motivated to spend it in the US.
 
BoomerD said:
Warshington's always been proud of not having an income tax...but with sales tax revenues steadily declining, I'm not surprised to see them try an income tax. I actually expected this one to do pretty well since MOST folks in the state wouldn't be affected by it.
Click to expand...

I think they voted against it because they saw a slippery slope. Once you had a income tax on the rich, what would stop them from expanding it to not so rich people?
 
Last edited:
mcmilljb said:
I think they voted against it because they a saw a slippery slope. Once you had a income tax on the rich, what would stop them from expanding it to not so rich people?
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what all opponents focused in on
 
mcmilljb said:
I think they voted against it because they a saw a slippery slope. Once you had a income tax on the rich, what would stop them from expanding it to not so rich people?
Click to expand...

True dat, but do you REALLY think the average voter can think that far into the future? Hell, most of them can't remember what they had for breakfast...
 
BoomerD said:
True dat, but do you REALLY think the average voter can think that far into the future? Hell, most of them can't remember what they had for breakfast...
Click to expand...

Problem is - there was already precedent in WA. We passed sales tax and then it got increased over the years. Also - 200k isn't that high in WA. I know it may look high if you live in southern states, but remember WA has a lot of high-tech jobs.
 
Argo said:
Problem is - there was already precedent in WA. We passed sales tax and then it got increased over the years. Also - 200k isn't that high in WA. I know it may look high if you live in southern states, but remember WA has a lot of high-tech jobs.
Click to expand...

heh-heh...yeah, I'm definitely in a southern state...Kahleeforneeya...(but NORTHERN Kahleeforneeya.) 😛

I grew up in Eastern Warshington...IIRC, when we moved back in 64, sales tax was at 4%. Isn't statewide sales tax at something like 6.5%? (yeah, local sales taxes may raise it by another couple of percent.)
We're at 8.25% in my county here now.
 
Those of us with longer memories can recall how every time the WA economy heads back into the upward part of the cycle, the politicians say "it's time to spend again."

Google is failing me, but Gregoire used almost those exact words a bit before the real estate bubble burst.

You have to be very trusting to think the income tax will stop with "the rich" -- California shows us the politicians will spend high sales and income taxes to the point of bankruptcy. Give politicians money, they'll spend it all and more, regardless of party.
 
Last edited:
BoomerD said:
heh-heh...yeah, I'm definitely in a southern state...Kahleeforneeya...(but NORTHERN Kahleeforneeya.) 😛

I grew up in Eastern Warshington...IIRC, when we moved back in 64, sales tax was at 4%. Isn't statewide sales tax at something like 6.5%? (yeah, local sales taxes may raise it by another couple of percent.)
We're at 8.25% in my county here now.
Click to expand...

I believe it's 8+% statewide and 9% in Seattle.
 
$200K is rich? sure its a decent income and more than i make but i would not call a annual income of $200K rich.
 
OutHouse said:
$200K is rich? sure its a decent income and more than i make but i would not call a annual income of $200K rich.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? What would you consider "rich" then?

200k/year is most certainly, by just about anyone's imagination, "rich".

Unless you make over 200k a year. How many people do that? The top 5%? lol.
 
Eli said:
Are you kidding? What would you consider "rich" then?

200k/year is most certainly, by just about anyone's imagination, "rich".

Unless you make over 200k a year. How many people do that? The top 5%? lol.
Click to expand...

Let's ask it this way - what do *YOU* consider rich? Just put a check next to one that applies:

* Anybody who makes more than you?
* People making above some magic threshold?
* People who can afford things that go behind bare necessities (like a vacation or a nice car)?
* People in the upper 5% of the income band?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top