"And virtually no one trusts the legislature. That said, what's a skeptical citizen to do?"

Finally, after all of the set-up, the question we must start to answer in November. Remove those who have been in power and made the decisions that have helped to put us in this situation.

Besides the questions at the end of this excellent article, there are many other questions voters should be asking as well. I sent these questions to the 1077 campaign in May, and then to the 1098 campaign in August. I have not received a response. Here are the questions:

1. Wwhat is the difference in assumptions between what the governor’s office just came out with for projections, using 2006 IRS data, and what your campaign has been asserting?

2. Do you have historical data showing how much this would have actually collected during the past 10 years?

3. What assumptions are you making in future years about income from the stock market, income from options or IPOs, and other big drivers of income?

4. If your assumptions and projections are wrong, then what happens? Is the amount of money you promise locked in stone, and something else will have to be cut in order to make up the difference? Or would the rate go up? Or would the promises made simply not be kept?

5. Is the Governor’s estimate that it will cost $39MM to administer the tax a good estimate?

6. How much do you think people will change their behavior and timing of income as a result of both the federal tax increases that are projected and also the enactment of a state tax?

==
I think the legislature is in a very tough position. There is a very real chance passing this would actually put them in an even more difficult decision, because there will likely be significant unmet expectations by voters of "education funding is going to go up" when in reality there may not be much available by the time the tax cuts are enacted.

An income tax might be a better way to finance state and local government, but only if it is applied equally to everyone, and only if the sales and property taxes are completely eliminated in the process. Otherwise, an income tax is just one more tax to be incremented up in following legislative sessions. I don't think that the voters of this state are such suckers that they would trust the legislature to keep all these tax rates stable after 1098 passed.

Gates deserves a medal for his work on this.

The big names opposing this represent the state's past.

Gates is focused on the state's future.

Looks like he might win.

Do you mean like the big names of the tax paying public Jan? People who can see into Gate's "Future" as implemented by the current political majority?

Will Gates encourage his son to shun all of the tax breaks given to his business by the State of Washington and bring back all of his operating units incorporated in Nevada and other Non-Washington taxable locations? Actions speak louder than words.

This article is more like ad space purchased by the Defeat 1098 campaign than anything resembling journalism.

But I've got to hand it to you Dan, you've done a very nice job giving room for the anti-1098 talking points here. In the first page alone, you've got 10 paragraphs written about opposition to quoting opponents of 1098, and 1 from supporters, and the pattern continues throughout your op-ed.

You've also managed to conflate I-1098 with public sector pensions -- even though the two have nothing to do with each other -- and you've totally ignored the business and property tax cuts included in the measure.

In sum: Zero credibility, and zero contribution to thoughtful debate on the issue at hand.

This is a fairly ambitious article, but it provides too much partially-digested information and may confuse more than it clarifies. Certainly, the question of whether to oppose 1098 is a simple one for two sets of people: those who don't trust government to ever do anything right and those among the wealthy who are unburdened by any sense of social responsibility. For all those who don't like taxes but are at least dimly aware that there is some causal connection between public revenues and quality schools and roads without potholes, it's a tougher question.

My view is that overall 1098 is clearly a step in the right direction. It creates a more rational and equitable balance among revenue sources and lifts the oppressive weight of the B&O; tax from small businesses that are struggling just to break even. That alone is sufficient to merit its support.

I'm annoyed that Chasan gave credence to the most flimsy of opposition arguments -- that you shouldn't pass 1098 because it could be changed in the future by the legislature. First, this argument can be made against any legislative proposal; its inevitable conclusion is that no legislation of any kind should ever be passed and the republican form of government should be abandoned. Second, as Chasan himself points out, the current legislature is terrified of going anywhere near the income tax question. So the idea that this may be an impending risk is contradicted by the article itself.

This article is not one of Chasan's better efforts. Usually he is not only thorough but also displays the courage to follow his analysis to its logical conclusion. But he's rather obviously pulling his punches here; these are dismal times indeed.

When it was enacted in 1913, the federal income tax had a maximum rate of 7% on incomes over $500,000. That's more than $11 million in 2010 dollars. Now that was a tax on only the rich.

Why am I against a state tax? Look at the 97 year history of the federal income tax. Consider the alternative minimum tax that, when passed in 1969, was intended to tax a handful of millionaires who collected muni interest and paid no taxes. Now it affects millions of affluent but by no means rich people. More locally, was the "temporary" sales tax increase circa 1982 ever repealed? So I think it is reasonable to be skeptical about the actions of government.

What I don't get is if Gates really wanted to help the state, why doesn't he donate his wealth to the general fund? Nothing prevents him, does it. That may inspire others to do the same. It also wouldn't have the compulsory aspects of a tax.

Thoughts on a few comments above:

--income tax is probably a lot less stable than property tax, or even than sales tax, when applied to everyone. Just look at Oregon, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York etc. Without stability, the legislature is in an even more difficult situation when it comes to planning.

--There's a mention of "big names" opposing the measure. Actually one of the very odd things about the campaign for is how there are lots of group endorsements, but hardly any individual ones. Maybe there's going to be big release in the next few weeks, but time is getting short.

I hope some people from the campaign will answer the questions raised above, preferably identifying themselves as campaign workers.

The proponents of I-1098 just made a $300,000 media buy and are now bombarding us with TV commercials telling us this is a property tax reduction measure. Nowhere in the advertising does it state this is an income tax measure. If we can't trust the proponents — which include a significant number of our Democratic state legislators — to tell us the truth about what I-1098 truly is, why would we think we can trust them not to change it include all income earners once it's in place?

I-1098 provides tax relief to middle class families and small businesses by cutting the state portion of the property tax 20% and eliminating the B&O; tax for 80% of small businesses. It provides much needed funds for education of our kids and health care.

Your article is heavy on repeating statements from those opposed. It does little to present an accurate picture to voters of our tax situation.

For example how about including the analysis taken from the Tax Foundation. It notes that we rank 35th lowest in their latest report in terms of state and local tax burden. Yet our income per capita is 8th highest.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf

And how about the post by the Seattle PI.com Strange Bedfellows:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/185560.asp
on the report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Nov 2009
http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

"People earning less than $20,000 annually pay 17.3 percent of family income toward sales and excise taxes and property taxes, the report said. People making between $99,000 and $198,000 each year pay 7.6 percent toward their tax bill. Meanwhill, people in the top 1 percent of earners - those making more than $537,000 a year - pay just 2.9 percent, the report said."

Information like this would help put an income tax in perspective. The state is projecting another 3 billion dollar deficit next year. We are not overtaxed compared to other states yet we have the most regressive tax system in the country.

Requiring those that are making the most money to pay their fair share to support the state that helped make their income possible only make sense. Without a quality education system we will not be producing an educated workforce for the future. We must support and invest in our children and their education and health care.

I am not wealthy. I do not make over $200,000 a year. Yet I am apprehensive about this. I see this as the government refusing to acknowledge that there is a budget deficit and grasping at straws on how to continue to spend, rather than doing the belt tightening that is neccessary in this type of economy. I also do not trust any policitian, Democrat or Republican. I would never trust the state to not change this measure in the future to be able to tax people like me that make far less that the $200,000 mentioned. The state currently has no problem with the regressive sales tax that is in place. Why should I ever trust this same state government to not allow a regressive income tax?

The Washington State Legislature has acknowledged a budget problem and is hardly grasping at straws. I urge anyone thinking so to consider some of the things we have lost with cutting $4 billion in the last budget. It's projected we'll have another $3 billion shortfall next year.

State funding for childhood vaccinations has ended.
Tuition at state colleges has gone up 30% in 2 years.
40 thousand state residents have lost basic health coverage.
Adult day care is gone for 2000 seniors and disabled.
Funds to reduce class sizes as mandated by a state initiative voters passed has decreased 70%.
State agencies have cut staff and budgets.

Income taxes are not regressive. They are based on the fact that you have income. Unlike sales taxes or property taxes, you pay nothing if you have no income. And under I-1098, only if you make more than $200,000 as an individual and $400,000 as a couple would you pay. And you only pay a tax on the amount over $200,000 or $400,000. The state has projected that this only affects 1.2% of the state's wealthiest. The rest of us will see reduced taxes if we own a home or small business. And we will see increased funding for education and health care.

I urge you to Vote Yes on I-1098.

Steve Zemke of the King County Democrat Central Committee. Steve, I ask that you give all of us the answer to a couple questions. How much is enough in cummulative taxes for individuals or families making $25,000, $50,000, $100,000 and $200,000 a year. You can express it in a percentage if you wish. What quality of services can be expected for that percentage?

You say we are not over taxed and that sending more to Government is best because they can spend it more efficiently for the greater good. Nothing is stopping the Democrat majority in this state from doing it now. How much are you sending in? Everyone that agrees with Steve's postions needs to write a check to the Department of Revenue at the State, County and City levels in the approriate amounts. Why would you vote to impose a tax on others that you are not willing to pay yourself? Are the programs and services provided by government only "worth it" If you get other people to subsidize it?

I think that any tax should apply equally to everyone. The same percentage. The wealthy will pay more this way. But it is patently unfair to tax some citizens and not others. That is not how America works and it is a bad precedent.

In addition, I am opposed to this tax. The state government must trim its budget dramatically. We need fiscal discipline in this state. You can't just keep on asking for more money.

If we only had an income tax, we'd be in a similar situation to Oregon. My proposal, which will probably never happen, is this: (1) income taxes, which are more sensitive to voters, would fund all state functions, which primarily are used by residents; (2) sales taxes, which are conveniently obscure to most taxpayers, would become all voter-approved, to fund all county and local functions...under present circumstances, this would be things like the stadiums and Metro Transit, which tourists tend to use as well as the locals. With a sales tax in King County becoming 3.0% (3.5% on food), 1.7% in Vancouver, and 1.6% in Spokane (if I read the tax tables right), tourism as well as in-state spending would be encouraged (vs. driving over the border to Idaho, where their sales tax rate is 6.0%, or to Oregon, 0%, or certain sales over the Internet). This initiative uses the dual appeals of health care and education - which get more money without any accountability - as well as "soaking the rich," i.e. somebody else, to propel it to victory. This type of appeal worked in Oregon, so I wouldn't be surprised if it worked in this state, but it doesn't do anything about the expense side of the ledger.

Say you had a methamphetamine user next door who has run out of meth. What's he gonna do? He's gotta feed his addiction! So, you and your neighbors agree to let him break into the expensive house down the block to get money for his drug. What do you think is going to happen when 1) the person with the expensive home moves? or 2) the tweeker finally cleans him out?

It is better to help the addict fight their addiction than enabling him to continue it.

The state has a spending problem. Giving them more money isn't going to solve it.

This initiative is an end run around the state constitution prohibiting an income tax. That's why I'm going to oppose it. If the state is going to amend the constitution they should do it openly.

Next complaint it won't collect as much money as the proponents are saying, because they are using income numbers from the pre-depression economy. Which means next year either the property taxes go back up, or the people who pay come down. Guess which is the likely thing to happen first and then second?

Next complaint the state hasn't done all it can to be fiscally responsible like establishing a state bank. That way it could be earning interest on the tax money that it has collected and leverage it's deposits the way a bank can, and borrow money from the Fed at near zero interest rates like BofA does. Boy would that make the local bond traders mad, no more, or at least fewer bonds sold to finance projects like Light Rail! Instead take out a loan. If you want to see this in action, go look at North Dakota.

Next any provision for an income tax has to be revenue neutral. Ie. The state can decide how much tax to collect, but it's a number not a rate. Then the various rates can be adjusted to meet that number. If one part collects too much, either it would pass into the rainy day fund, or be refunded the next year.

Next, income on trusts would be taxed. This is where the rich hide their wealth Gate included. They draw salary by being on the board, but the fund generates interest (wealth) without being taxed. The rest of us pay tax whenever our wealth increases. Oh yeah, in a bad year we get to write it down but with the current rules it takes years to offset losses like we just had.

To Cameron - Obviously everyone is not paying the same now. If you take everyone's taxes and look at what percentage of their income they are paying in taxes it varies as the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy noted from
"People earning less than $20,000 annually pay 17.3 percent of family income toward sales and excise taxes and property taxes, the report said. People making between $99,000 and $198,000 each year pay 7.6 percent toward their tax bill. Meanwhill, people in the top 1 percent of earners - those making more than $537,000 a year - pay just 2.9 percent, the report said." They labeled our tax system as the most regressive in the country - meaning people with less income pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than people on the upper income levels.

The Tax Foundation noted that the percentage of state and local taxes paid is actually fairly equual between the states. "The 50 state-local tax burdens are mostly very close to each other. This is logical because state and local governments fund similar activities: public education, transportation, prison systems, health programs, etc, often under the
same federal mandates."

The percentages vary from 11.8% in New Jersey to 6.4% in Alaska ( which gets natural resources dollars like oil) Washington State came in at 8.9% which is below the national average of 9.7%. This gives our state a ranking of 35th lowest in the country in terms of state and local tax burden (with 1 being the highest.

Look at the state budget - money goes for health care like Medicaid, public schools and colleges, roads, prisons, and lots of other services people use. None of this is free - I-1098 provides tax relief for middle and lower income earners and imposes a tax only on adjusted gross income over $200,00 for individuals and $400,000 for couples. Only about 1.3% of people with income fall in this catagory in Washington State.

Let's put some facts on the table.

Not only can they change it to any amount in 2 years to ANY income level, they can also increase it to any amount -- it's highly unlikely that it will stay at the 5% or 9% rate. The sky is the limit!!!!!

Oregon just released their revenue and they received 50% less than they expected from their new tax on the wealthy. Oregon has a significantly higher unemployment rate than WA HMMMMM.

The pro-side keeps comparing the new income tax to OR but they don't have a sales tax. It's not apples to apples at all.

Almost every economic expert says that the most volatile tax you can rely on is an income tax. Olympia would be more screwed up than ever if this passes. They can't balance it now. Just imagine how they would react when they think they are going to be spending all this money that doesn't come in!

The sales tax that everyone talks about isn't going away with this initiative. 1098 taxes are on top everything else. Currently, if you live in Seattle, you pay 9.55% tax which is the 3rd highest sales tax in the nation. We;re even higher than Manhatten

We go from 0-60 overnight as a state -- we will be #5 in the highest income on the highest level in the country.

We will be the ONLY state in the US that taxes a selected group.

WA state has the HIGHEST estate tax rate in the nation at 19%! This just changed in 2006. Wealthy seniors are already changing their residence because of this tax. Do we want even more to leave if 1098 passes?

Finally, this is bad policy. It's a special interest initiative to fund the unions pure and simple. We can't afford the unions now and this will just embolden them even more.

The states with no state income tax have the lowest unemployment rates in the country. HMMMMMM WA is doing well compared to OR and CA and a lot of states. However, if this passes in the middle of a recession, you can bet jobs will leave the state. Do the words Boeing and Dreamliner in SC mean anything to you?

The real grassroots campaign that is for the people is 1098. They had close to 400 individual contributors last week. The pro side had twenty with SEIU dumping another $200,000 in and a Gates crony at another $200,000. This is all on the web as they have to report it by law.

But, don't take my word, do your own research. I did!

the educated citizen

Mr. Zemke, I believe you are picking your numbers selectively. The ITEP study you quote notes that the "total" tax rate in WA is 12.7% for people making $20k per annum. The 17.3% you quote is for people making LESS than $20K and that percentage does puzzle me (if you spend all your income on food and rent you pay no sales tax, right? I have to question how these figures are arrived at). If you make $20k and pay taxes at the rate ITEP has calculated then you pay about $2500 per year in taxes. If you make $537K, using their statistics then you will be paying about $29,500. That may not meet your idea of a progressive rate but it sounds more reasonable than the figures you choose to emphasize.

I thought I asked you a a very simple question Steve, let's try again. How much as a cummulative percentage of total income should a Washington State Taxpayer earning $25,000, $50,000. $100,000 and $200,000 a year expect to pay in your perfect, fully taxed world?

It's not that hard, just put a percentage number on what you think it will take to fully fund government services in the State of Washington, surely you must know, you are absolutely certain that we are under taxed now. Also, please tell us approximately how much you are sending to Government beyond what you are legally obligated to do. How much were the check to the State County and City? Simple enough?

Cameron - I answered your question - we are paying below the national average and many could certainly pay more if it were done fairly. Education is underfunded in our state. We don't gain anything without investing in the future.
And what I donate to others is not relevant to the discussion at hand. But people like Bill Gates show us what some can do to help others.

Cameron - I answered your question - we are paying below the national average and many could certainly pay more if it were done fairly. Education is underfunded in our state. We don't gain anything without investing in the future.
And what I donate to others is not relevant to the discussion at hand. But people like Bill Gates show us what some can do to help others.

Not sure why people only compare WA to OR. Probably a better state for comparison is California. They have one of the highest state income tax rates in the country and look at the shape they're in. On the other hand, Texas has no income tax and its financial condition is among the best.

Texas state schools are well respected, they have services for the indigent, people aren't starving in the street that I'm aware of. They may be making better fiscal and political economy choices there than on the left coast. Too bad Washingtonians don't expand their horizons more than next door for making comparisons and taking lessons.

I am very interested in the answer to the question Cameron asks. To rephrase it slightly, what IS fair? How do we know when we have a perfect system? Because unless we know what we are aiming for, people who are raising concerns about how this is just "the start" have every reason to keep raising that concern. Why is taxing income above $200K "fair" but not income about $180K? Or why is it "fair" to tax Adjusted Gross Income above $200K instead of net income, after deducting charitable contributions and other exemptions? If a person earns $250K, but gives $50K to the UW to lower their AGI, is this "unfair"?

==
Texas has a lot of oil money. What works there would not necessarily work here.

===
Oregon, California and other states with a high tax rate on high earners show that if you want to forecast tax revenues, you have to forecast the stock market. That is hard to do in the best of circumstances when there are not a lot of changing conditions, and in the next few years we are definitely going to have a lot of changes for dividend taxes, capital gains, estate and other taxes that directly impact the income of "high earners."

Maybe this difficulty is why my questions about how the numbers were calculated have been ignored.

sjenner,

The reason they will not commit to a percentage or ( this much is enough) is because they do not want to commit to controlling costs. Their ability to consume tax revenues will always outstrip our ability to pay.

Reasonable taxes are a part of being an organized, civil society, but after the system decides to wonder beyond POG ( Priorities Of Government) in scope, you will have the taxpayers start to push back against unreasonable spending.

As someone who makes over 250,000 what makes you think I'm going willingly pay this new income tax? I'm going to have my tax lawyers and accountants look for every loophole they can find so I don't have to pay it. Guess what so are a lot of other wealthy folks. I love how Bill Gates Sr. and the rest of the yes crowd just assume we'll bend over and give out money over to the state. Not me and not a lot of my wealthy friends.

Dear Dan,

Please do tell us how you could write all those words and not mention the B&O; tax relief proposed by the initiative. Did you not read it?

"As someone who makes over 250,000 what makes you think I'm going willingly pay this new income tax?"

Non sequitur, nose bleed. To be consistent, you must feel that way about ANY tax, you poor galt-guy you. You buy your yacht in Oregon? Your groceries in Idaho? Tell lies to the IRS? Demand your customers and/or clients pay you in cash? You're a real piece of work.

So you're telling me that if you make $300,000 (just to pick a number), file jointly, and paid $5,000 in property taxes last year that you will spend, what? 40 hours of your accountant's time (@ $150/hr.)to evade this tax when the measure will SAVE you $233?

You're either dumber than a box of rocks or a liar. I go with liar.

"They (California) have one of the highest state income tax rates in the country and look at the shape they're in."

Yes. Look and behold the long term idiocy of the Jarvis property tax straight jacket Californians inflicted on themselves back in the late 70's. Pretty awesome, isn't it?

Yes. Look and behold the long term (26 years)idiocy of the Washington State Democrat Administrations and the tax and spend straight jacket Washington State voters have inflicted on themselves since the late 80's. Pretty awesome, isn't it?

Everybody who lives in the state should pay taxes. Because we all use state services, some more then others, it shouldn't matter what their economic station is life is, they should pay. One way to for that to happen is through the sales tax. It's simple and doesn't require an additional group of state drones contributing to indoor pollution, and let's face it an income tax is a method of legally robbing people who are successful to reward losers. Well I want the loser to shoulder some of the burden of state government, they seem to be largest group receiving state aid.

If the Democrats had managed state tax money correctly to begin with we wouldn't be having this discussion. The biggest problem facing the citizens in this state are the Democratic legislators who can't manage money. We have revenue, they just refuse to do their job.