I don't understand why a boomer can't also be a sticker. Is the point of this theory that the people who drive business expansion are mostly out-of-towners who pillage and plunder like vikings and leave the "stickers" to clean up the mess? I see precious few examples of that in real life. The vast majority of people who have built up businesses in Washington are Washingtonians. What have the carpetbaggers given us except a lot of frowzy "gated communities" on once productive farm or once pristine forest land? It looks like they're intending to stick around a while.

I watched the Gates/Gorton debate last night on TVW. Mr. Gates' arguments were embarrassingly naive (and, to provide an ironicly humorous sidelight, his Powerpoint presentation proved quite balky). His stand could be summed up as "I'm rich and I don't mind paying higher taxes, so why should you?" He was convinced that a Legislature that he styled as "timid" would never dare raise the rates or extend the tax to the middle class. Timid?! The Legislature that regularly sweeps aside citizen initiatives? I found it impossible to believe that such a man, incapable of mounting a convincing argument for a cause he's lent his name and money to, could make a living as a lawyer. Apparently he's a "paper partner" in his firm. The argument put forward by his team mate (whose name escapes me at the moment) boiled down to, "If income taxes are so bad, why do people live in California?" Not a very impressive show by the proponents.

I sat in on a debate with Matt McIlwain, Slade Gorton, Marilyn Watkins and Bill Gates, Sr. the weekend before last. The same arguments were made.

Matt McIlwain as a partner in Madrona Ventures argued that an income tax would affect the ability to attract talent for start-ups. This argument falls on its face when one looks at where innovation occurs today and why it occurs. Silicon Valley, New York City, Boston-Route 128, and even Raleigh-Durham are centers of innovation and yet the tax rate does not seem to affect these centers of innovation.

Then what is the reason? Author Richard Florida argues in "Who's your city? How the creative economy is making where to live the most" that 40 mega-cities in the world account for 2/3s of the world's GDP. We are fortunate to live in one of those mega-cities which he calls "Cascadia". It stretches from southern Oregon to Seattle and then north to Vancouver.

According to Florida, the key to innovation is an open culture which attracts the "creative class". Here is a summary from wikipedia:
"Prof. Florida's theory asserts that metropolitan regions with high concentrations of high-tech workers, artists, musicians, lesbians and gay men, and a group he describes as "high bohemians", correlate with a higher level of economic development. Florida posits the theory that the creative class fosters an open, dynamic, personal and professional environment. This environment, in turn, attracts more creative people, as well as businesses and capital."

In other words, it is the cultural investments that we make in theater, universities, music, etc. that attract the innovative thinkers. So McIlwaine has it all backwards. He assumes that it is the capitalist that creates the start-up business. In reality, it is the creative that creates the ideas which in turn attracts the capitalist. The venture capitalist needs ideas first and foremost.

So perhaps we should thank Jimi Hendrix, Bruce Lee, Pearl Jam, ACT Theater, the Solstice Parade, the Pride Parade, Bumbershoot and the Gold Cup hydro racers for creating an interesting place to live which draws the creative class to Seattle.

If you look at other mega-cities, a healthy research-based university lies at the heart. We absolutely cannot expect to remain as a center of innovation without adequately funding the University of Washington and other centers of higher education. I say that we need to take the long-term view and pass I-1098 to ensure that we can continue to excel in ideas and creation of wealth.

Whenever issues of taxation or business regulation come to the fore of public discussion, there are always warnings about driving away investors and entrepreneurs. These warnings have a self-serving purpose--to persuade politicians and the public to reject policies that are harmful to business interests--and quite often they are exaggerated for the sake of making a convincing argument. When such taxes or regulations pass, the effect on business and investment is almost always much less than was claimed during the campaign or debate. I would be curious to know if Mr. McIlwain has evidence to support his claims, or if he is merely making a statement of ideology.

On the subject of mobility, those of us born in the 1980s prefer a mobile lifestyle more than our parents did. The image of the stable career and suburban home decked out with nice things is falling away, and in its place is arising an experience oriented vision. It is more common than before to make substantial career changes, to move across the country, and change jobs. There is also growing popularity of such programs as Teach For America and the Peace Corps. You'll notice this trend in marketing, which nowadays deemphasizes traditional methods such as product as status symbol and emphasizes the experiences of a product. This trend is also imposed by economic reality; job security is over, and versatility has become a more important skill for survival.

I would also like to make a point that is only tangentially related to the article at hand, and that is of the Hollywood stereotype of the socially dysfunctional computer nerd. It's been around for a long time, and movie makers love to trot it out. The Social Network story is particular appealing due to the inherent irony of the designer of the network being socially awkward. The only problem is that the image has little basis in reality.

Why does a "right wing" piece (dbreneman) rate an "Ediitor's Pick" and the "left wing" piece (Pythagoras) does not?

I think Robinson's real point is that the content of the I-1098 debate points to a deeper cultural malaise. And he's right. In a sense, the archaic struggle between the social forces of community and place and the individualistic forces of egotism and greed has subtly tipped too far toward the latter. Now suddenly all sorts of formerly latent conflicts are boiling to the surface, and our imbalanced minds seem incapable of thinking clearly and rationally about them.

America is, of course, intrinsically the world's most nomadic culture, and westerners the most compulsive nomads: "Oops, there's the ocean. I guess we have to stop here for awhile." Moving on is, among other things, a way to escape facing up to the consequences of past mistakes and to start anew, but eventually you run out of pristine plains and forests to despoil.

There is also a self-serving cultural blindness at work here. We seem to think we can use things up without replacing them -- that there is (or should be) a free and inexhaustible supply of everything we want. (All we need to do is identify the traitorous miscreants who are standing in the way of our unfettered enjoyment and get rid of them!) We imagine that we can drown ourselves in thoughts of sex and violence, but by labeling it as "entertainment" it somehow won't have a lasting effect on our minds. We delude ourselves into believing that we can spend most of our waking hours desiring materials objects and sensory thrills, but we can effortlessly and conveniently neutralize this narcissistic preoccupation by merely spending an hour a week in some church snoozing through a sermon. The list goes on.

When the follow who is the nominal topic of the church sermon said that it was impossible to simultaneously worship God and money, at bottom he was just offering a description of the mind. Multitasking blather notwithstanding, the human mind can only entertain a single idea at any given moment. So if we spend all (or nearly all) of our time pursuing greedy thoughts, that's who we ultimately become. It's simple arithmetic. The proverbial chickens are coming home to roost.

I'm not a right-winger, busterg. But I oppose any income tax unless it is part of a comprehensive tax reform package. Just adding one more tax is not reform.

Speaking to what "Pythagoras" said, I think there's a lot to Richard Florida's theory; in fact I'd go so far as to say it's rather obvious. As an example, there were creative people before the Renaissance, but they weren't able to accomplish much until a creative atmosphere surrounded them. Capitalism isn't all about bankers and stock brokers throwing money at each other. It is, as Werner Sombart posited, "creative destruction." Old ways perpetually being superseded by better, more efficient (or occasionally even more superficially alluring) products, systems and processes. A creative culture is essential to foster such innovations, but money is necessary to put them into production. When you try to divide society, and create a class of scoundrels for political advantage (whether they be the rich, immigrants, minorities, gays or people who drive cars), you balkanize the creative community and stifle innovation and progress. Everybody needs to be part of the team, or wealth will become simply hereditary and creativity will be futile.

My apologies, dbreneman, for expressiing guilt by association solely because you took the position favored by those on the right.

Hi,
I was going through your site crosscut.com and found some quite interesting articles on Tax with lots of information. I would be highly obliged if you allow me to do relevant informative guests post in your site.

I'll feel myself very lucky to be your guest writer and produce informative and sticky content for your site. I am a financial writer and my articles have been published in many reputed social websites. If you want to see some of my published articles I would be glad to send over the links to you.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks and Regards,
Amy Lewis
lewisamy3@gmail.com