HappyPuppy
Lifer
- Apr 5, 2001
- 16,997
- 2
- 71
By: HappyPuppy?
One of these things is not like the other! :hmm:
Of course, you just have to approach life as I do.
By: HappyPuppy?
One of these things is not like the other! :hmm:
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?
Of course, you just have to approach life as I do.
I'm not as bitter as you.
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.
$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.
Everything I've seen says 6.5% statewide...plus lots of local additions. (I know Spokane, where I grew up, is over 8%)
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.
Of course I do. I just thought I would drop in to enlighten you retards. Do you object to my presence?
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.
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.
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
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.
