Prop 1098 destroyed!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
44
91
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?

Top 3 to 5 percent.
 

mcmilljb

Platinum Member
May 17, 2005
2,144
2
81
Argo: Are unions big in Washington? I was looking for information about Prop 1098 and seems the Service Employees International Union and the Washington Federation of State Employees are the two major driving forces behind this prop along with Bill Gates Sr. Also I am curious why you voted against it.
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
Argo: Are unions big in Washington? I was looking for information about Prop 1098 and seems the Service Employees International Union and the Washington Federation of State Employees are the two major driving forces behind this prop along with Bill Gates Sr. Also I am curious why you voted against it.

Unions are not super big here. The biggest one is probably Boeing.

I'm against it for several reasons:

* I believe it's unfair to *only* tax the top 5 percent. I do not believe some should pay - while others should come off scot-free. For me - this is the biggest reason.
* I have 0 trust that state government will use that money wisely. WA is known for ridiculously stupid and wasteful projects. In my 5+ years here, I've already witnessed several super-wasteful ones.
* I fully believe that the rates will both increase and/or include more resident over the years.
* The prop unjustly penalizes single earners. If you're married, the threshold increases to 400k.
 

brainhulk

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2007
9,376
454
126
ahhh the redistribution of wealth. DIE commie bastards! lol jk

but hell no 200k is rich. its just enough to live comfortably.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
$200K is rich? sure its a decent income and more than i make but i would not call a annual income of $200K rich.

200k is easily a million dollar house and a couple Ferraris in the garage, unless you're throwing money away on stupid shit.
 

KillerCharlie

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,691
68
91
I really wasn't sure how to vote on 1098. The state does need more stable income and I have no problem taxing people/households that make more than 200k/400k.

The reality is that I just can't trust the politicians to keep it that way. Eventually they'll push that limit down, and they'll just blow the money on stupid stuff, then ask for more.
 
Last edited:

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Unions are not super big here. The biggest one is probably Boeing.

I'm against it for several reasons:

* I believe it's unfair to *only* tax the top 5 percent. I do not believe some should pay - while others should come off scot-free. For me - this is the biggest reason.
* I have 0 trust that state government will use that money wisely. WA is known for ridiculously stupid and wasteful projects. In my 5+ years here, I've already witnessed several super-wasteful ones.
* I fully believe that the rates will both increase and/or include more resident over the years.
* The prop unjustly penalizes single earners. If you're married, the threshold increases to 400k.

I essentially agree with this. I will never forgive WA and King County politicians for the amount of time, energy, and money they wasted on the fucking monorail extension. How much money was wasted??? And on a project that was completely unnecessary and did absolutely nothing to solve the congestion issues that the Puget Sound region faces.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
200k is easily a million dollar house and a couple Ferraris in the garage, unless you're throwing money away on stupid shit.

Maybe in the rural South East but on the West Coast and the North East it isn't rich, just well off.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Maybe in the rural South East but on the West Coast and the North East it isn't rich, just well off.

Well off? You're just playing semantics games. Is there any state in any part of the country where $200K isn't in the top 5% of incomes? I'll go ahead and say I define rich as in the top 10% of incomes, and I don't know of a state where $200K isn't rich, by that definition.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
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.

QFT. Wasn't the original federal income tax sold on the lie that it would only apply to the rich, and never be more than 10% on anyone? Now that's one of the lower rates!! Passing this prop would be like letting a burglar into your home with the promise that he'll only steal two or three cheap things that you won't miss anyway.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Everyone in MA pays a 5.9% income tax.

We also had a ballot initiative to lower our sales tax from 6.25% down to 3%, it lost. This state is so full of fail.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Once you establish a revenue stream for a group of people that can and will spend that revenue solely for purposes of staying in a position of authority you are screwed. Getting any governmental body to give up a revenue stream is damn near impossible as far as I can tell.

If I remember correctly the Kingdome financing bonds are still being paid off (and will be for a while) even though the Kingdome has now been demolished for a decade. Jurisdictions find themselves in a never-ending cycle of raising taxes to pay for past excesses and current desires.

I would rather live with B&O and SUTX in WA than even flirt with the idea of an income tax, because neither of the former are going away nor will the rates decrease, but we can be assured that once an income tax is imposed it will slowly be extended to all Washingtonians above the poverty level. I'd rather we cut some of the fat, sell some of the monorail properties, etc., because we pay enough in tax as it is in this state.
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
I feel like there's quite a bit of folks in this thread who have a twisted idea of what washington state is. Let's start by saying:

In WA (king country specifically) a lot of people make 200k+ (think Microsoft + Amazon). 200k here is not even in somebody's wildest dreams close to a million dollar house and or a ferrari. It's more like a 2 bedroom condo plus a BMW. Very comfortable life - but by no means excessive.

Secondly, this state is full of fail when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Just google Monorail, Light Rail Tunnel, Bremerton Ferry terminal for some examples.

Lastly, a lack of income tax is one of the very few things that attracts high tech people to Seattle. Let me go on the record to say that most people don't come to Seattle because of its nice weather or good looking girls. I personally, was choosing between very similar offers in CA and WA, and I chose WA because CA had 10% income tax. And even then it was a close call.
 
Last edited:

simpletron

Member
Oct 31, 2008
189
14
81
Well off? You're just playing semantics games. Is there any state in any part of the country where $200K isn't in the top 5% of incomes? I'll go ahead and say I define rich as in the top 10% of incomes, and I don't know of a state where $200K isn't rich, by that definition.

% of household making 200K or more
District of Columbia - 8.44
Connecticut - 7.98
New Jersey - 7.47
Maryland - 6.85
Massachusetts - 6.22
California - 6.21
Virginia - 5.66
New York - 5.62

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html
690 - Household Income--Distribution by Income Level and State: 2007

for reference, washington - 3.98
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
% of household making 200K or more
District of Columbia - 8.44
Connecticut - 7.98
New Jersey - 7.47
Maryland - 6.85
Massachusetts - 6.22
California - 6.21
Virginia - 5.66
New York - 5.62

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html
690 - Household Income--Distribution by Income Level and State: 2007

for reference, washington - 3.98

Judging by this it's clear why California is going bankrupt - it's simply too far from D.C. to support its lifestyle.
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
Watch this 60 Minutes segment on the issue, then comment.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/28/60minutes/main6999906.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

As it notes, a couple making $500,000 a year would pay $5,000 under this tax.

It's terrible that this did not pass, and one more indication that voters are terribly irresponsible and will drive our economy into disaster.

So $5k is chum change for you? But I guess it's pretty easy to throw other people's money around.