Washington state is about more than taxes, profits, and coddling a monied "creative class."

Yeah. We're about taxes, deficits and coddling a welfare class.

The thing the pro tax side just cannot get through their heads is that the issue is taxes squandered, not taxes collected. If the taxes paid by hardworking people in Washington went into an efficient, high tech, system run by a lean well managed government that provided services instead of absurdly lavish careers and benefits to public servants and huge waste, there would be far less resistance.

"taxes squandered"

Is mis-information. Most of the state money collected by taxes is turned right around and spent on infrastructure like roads, schools, welfare & health care for the poor.

A small percentage, and it's still big dollars, is mis-spent. Think the Citrus class of ferries we bought that were forever breaking down, and expensive to fix. Guys like Glenn Beck and Rush L. like to focus on these sort of mis-spent things and rant and rail and get all upset about government "waste" but really that's not the big place that taxes get spent. Those guys are entertainment, they don't let facts get in the way of a good show.

Government is not as efficient as private enterprise at spending money, but part of the in-efficiency is that we have to hire folks to watch how the money is spent. A private corporation doesn't watch itself over contracts that it awards. The corporate board is supposed to oversee the general expenses but they don't micro manage which company the employees buy pencils for. Since government is spending our money we want all expenses to be fair. So that means oversight which is money not spent on actually doing anything. Oh well. It's the nature of an open government, get used to it.

If you want to be mad about government waste, look at the big numbers and ask why... Things like Medicare Plan D, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And ask what am I getting for my money. Why can't large purchases of drugs by the government have lower prices?

On Texas, The "Tex-mex" food is way better than here. But that's not enough of a reason to move there.

The BBQ.. well I still like the local stuff at "Hole in the Wall" and "Cave man" better than the stuff that got pawned off as BBQ on me in Texas.

Knute has it wrong. The real loss will be at the margin, and will happen over time.

Example - if you have a choice to start a business in the Spokane Valley or Coeur d'Alene, if 1098 passes it will be a no-brainer. It will be CDA. Idaho has no B&O; and much lower state income tax.

I moved from Northern California to the Seattle area about 12 years ago. There were multiple factors weighing each way. Worse weather, lower taxes, equally bad traffic, etc. Had the 1098 tax been in effect, I would not have moved. I employ approx 75 people in King County. Those jobs would not exist had I not moved. Multiply that many times, over many years, and you can see the effect on the state's economy.

Beaky: Okay, you've proven you can blow hot air. But can you lift the balloon?

Where is $2 billion a year (that's the amount I-1098 will dedicate to education and health care) of "waste" and "lavish salaries"? What or who - specifically - should be cut from the budget, and how much money would it save? Prisons? Roads? Schools? Senior services?

You sound very sure of yourself, but I'll bet that for all your overheated rhetoric, you can't back it up. In fact, I'm so sure you can't find $2 billion a year in savings, I'll even help you get started looking for it. Here's a link to the Citizen's Guide to the Washington Budget, which details state revenues and the expenditures: http://bit.ly/aYI4bR.

Happy hunting!

To start with, Rick Perry the Governor of Texas is a real basic Republican with the social philosophy: “I got mine, screw you.”

But, to address BlueLight and beaky; Yes there is much waste in our state government. But, much of it is demanded by the citizens of our state. A few examples:

1) We have arms that flip out on school busses to keep children from getting run over by the school bus, all due to one child getting run over by a school bus. I think that is a waste of money. However, the people of this state disagree with me because they forced a law through legislature to do this.
2) We have extra staff at all schools to verify attendance because a girl skipped school one day, got raped and murdered. We could be spending that money on an additional teacher instead of an attendance monitor. I think that is a waste of money. Again, the population of this state disagrees with me because they forced through legislation to have this service.
3) We have tremendous overhead in supervision in many state agencies because we find one person in the agency doing something wrong, and we demand that there be oversight. Oversight costs money.
4) My parents lived for many years on Camano Island they knew that there was no viable fire department to assist them, they accepted that. Now, those that live there demand a viable fire department and complain about how expensive it is compared to previous years.

The point I am making if you cannot figure it out, we, as a group are responsible for our state waste. I have only offered four here. Everytime I get in a discussion with people about this, the examples if they have any, are costs that we, as a state have demanded.

If you have complaints about our taxes in Washington and their usage, move to Texas and as Knute said and I repeat a little more bluntly “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass!”

Can anyone direct me to an article that offers an alternative to the current tax structure in Washington?

It is very hard for me to imagine a fair tax system that does not include a state income tax. My pipe dream is that such a tax should be established by a legislature that also reduces and puts a cap on sales taxes and other taxes that disproportionately hurt middle and lower-income families. Like I said, pipe dream.

What I would love to read is an article that addressed two sides of this issue: a description of an ideal alternative to the current tax structure, and a description of what might be politically possible.

Does anyone know if such an article has been published?

Our state government could, likely, find a sustainable financial footing if it were to opt out of co-administering a bunch of federal programs. I am talking about the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, etc. State co-management of these programs is optional for state taxpayers (I wonder how many people know this...). The ESA, for example, is administered by two federal agencies: NOAA and USFWS. These agencies allow states to opt in to co-administration. State's that choose to do so, build their own bureaucracies but the federal funding can cover no more than 75% of the costs. So, at least, 25% comes from state coffers. Over time, these optional activities have grown massive programs within state (and local!) government. With the budget being what it is, maybe it is time that the taxpayers of Washington State opt out of these arrangements; tell the feds to administer their own programs and free up state money for activities currently starving (and maybe a higher priority for taxpayers).

Lindy, this probably isn't what you're looking for, but here's a summary of Ron Sims's income-tax plan from last decade, when he was running for governor. http://www.itepnet.org/pdf/wa0804.pdf

It would have repealed the B&O; entirely, repealed the state portion of the sales tax, exempt the first $100,000 of homes' values from the property tax (though increasing the rate on the rest, so that property taxes overall wouldn't go down), and tax incomes at rates ranging from 4% to 10% beginning at $15,000 for singles, $30,000 for couples, with a $10,000 exemption per dependent. According to ITEP this would have had the effect of reducing taxes for everyone except those making $134,000 and over.

Politically, of course, this was a non-starter.

BlueLight, you are obfuscating the real issue here, tax rate inequity. How about this alternative--a flat rate income tax. This used to be the darling of the tea partiers.

Eliminate all sales and property tax and replace it with a flat rate income tax of 5% (or whatever is roughly review neutral). Ironically, this Libertarian dream is more egalitarian than our current tax structure.

It's not obfuscation, Andy. Any tax reform should go hand-in-hand with a critical look at the totality of government spending. Any attempt to revise one side of the equation (income) will fail.

Thanks, Benjamin. I'll let you know if I find others.

Kudos in advance to any writer willing to take this on as a project.

Knute's theme is reminiscent of the taunt to socialists back in the 60s, "..if you like socialism so well, why don't you move to Sweden or (in extreme cases) to Russia?". That was a poor argument then and so is Knute's argument now. What works for Texas will probably not work for Washington but I think we have to admit it works pretty well for Texas.

Many of these "commment" arguements are terrific. Allow me to make a ridiculous anecdotal arguement as well... Russel Investments moved from Tacoma to Seattle because it was better for their bottom line? Yeah right.

These arguments that companies would leave Washington or never start up in Washington, purely because of more favorable taxation in other states, doesn't take into account either the complexity of business or the unique culture of our state. And for those that disregard both, Skip presents a terrific solution... MOVE! Or better yet, don't move here to begin with.

"tax rate inequity"

How come I only see rich guys pushing this? Why should billionaires pay the same rate as poor people? A progressive rate which rises as your income rises has always seemed fair to me. Obviously at some rate there is no incentive to work harder but the current high tax rates appear to be well below that threshold.

Why is this fair? The government via taxes creates an environment where people can get rich and keep their money. Part of that is hard work, and part is luck. If you have more, you can afford to pay more. Look at it this way. How much better is your life if you have 10 billion vs 6 billion. What better brand of clothing, food, house etc can you buy? But if you are barely making ends meet, have a couple of kids, we give you a break and let you off from paying any tax or nearly any.

For what it is worth, my previous post was not advocating a flat tax, it was just a rhetorical device. I propose we go back to the golden age of America, when the top bracket was 90%

Keith, the difference is that Knute is not arguing that point--the no-1098 people are. It is variant on the Atlas Shrugged theme of "I'll take my ball and go home". Knute is (quite rightly) saying, "go ahead and shrug".

For Starters I am an owner in both a Grocery Store in Seattle( employs 50+) and a Financial Services business in Bellevue ( employs 5). There appears to be an elitist attitude towards business owners and quote " the rich" which is defined by 250/400k income. Its a classic example of bite the hand that feeds you. Articles of this nature do nothing but expedite the exodus of the business community out of this state to others, the same people such as I who employ, pay health care benefits, 401-K matches & provide a service to the community. The mere notion of if you dont like it "get the hell the out" is the same reason why California( for all its idealistic values) is bankrupt and business left to Oregon & Washington State over the last 20yrs. Also a nice case study for the bleeding heart pro 1098 liberals is to take a look at Texas vs. California ( both similiar in populations & both border states with diverse ethnicities). But then again the Utopian dream of equality for all is just within reach if 1098 passes right??? Oh until the legislature goes thru the next recession and threatens to cut key social services and extends the tax to everyone. Believe me its easy to spend other peoples money on taxes/services.. I know I was 21 once... The problem is we arent in college anymore..

Fairness? How is it fair if one person pays 5% of their income and someone who earns less than $400K (married) pays absolutely nothing! That ain't fair in my book.

Once again we have the makers and the takers. Not a good way to run a country or a state.

"pays absolutely nothing"

Except all the current taxes that don't go away. No one is getting a free ride in this state. It's been one of the things I like about the state, it's hard to avoid all the hidden taxes. Even street people pay tax on the liquor & cigarettes they buy. Regular people pay when they have a phone, (cell or land line.), register and buy a car, rent or pay property tax, eat out in Seattle, rent a car or hotel or take a cab.

What I have liked is that savers are rewarded. Most of these taxes get folks who spend a lot. If you are frugal you'll pay less. But nothing, hahahaha! Just try, it's nearly impossible.

Texas has lower taxes- and they do that the old fashioned way- BY BORROWING THE MONEY.

Current projections have Texas $20 to $25 Billion in the hole in the next couple of years, because they have been cutting taxes, while not cutting spending.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=521130

I guess if you just say all the right things about taxes, your actual financial situation just magically goes away?

If companies move to Texas now, they should expect that $20 Billion dollars is gonna come from somewhere- and if it isnt in the form of higher taxes, its gonna be in reduced services, and cuts to education.
Texas already is number 51, behind all the other states and DC, in high school graduation rates, and right down there at the bottom in most other educational matrixes.

So, I guess, if you dont need employees who can read, start packing...

Rick Perry:
Mr. Move to Texas for low taxes, sent Amazon a bill for 269 million dollars the other day. If they don’t pay he will seize assets in Irvine Texas. Yup, Texas is extremely business friendly as long as you don’t or can’t read….

The more appropriate pioneering city to compare with Seattle is Portland rather than San Francisco. To say "Pioneers divided between those who went to the land of milk, honey and gold (California), and those who chose the land of the apple and the pine (Washington)" doesn't ring true.

The pioneering divide was between Oregon and Washington. Oregonians dedicated land and livelihoods to sustainable agriculture, forest products and fisheries. Wannabee wealthy Washingtonians were and still are dedicated to rank exploitation of natural and human resources for commercial markets. Think filling clam beds for rail yards with Denny Regrade soil. Think Ballard Locks and the Montlake Cut. Think industrial development of the Duwamish. Think I-5. Think Hammering Man.

The destructive exploitation of Seattle area geography, waterways and ecosystems now includes high costs for restoration and infrastructure maintenance; a collectable bill from those who profited but planned to leave for other states or recluse themselves in exclusive surburbs when the bill came due.

The fantastic book, Sons of the Profits, explains much about Seattle.

http://www.amazon.com/Sons-Profits-business-Business-1851-1901/dp/0914890069

I would bet that if you could get an honest audit of corporations (Boeings anyone?) you would see as much wast percentage wise as you do in the state budget. Maybe not people ripping it off like they do in Medicare but still wasted money. Other then that Texas I am a full blown Washitonian and like my low level life stile and the outdoor activities within an hour from my porch. Take the greed heads to your 100 degree heat and high humidity. Be practice for hell for them.

The previous commenter who thinks Oregon has done everything better than Washington overstates things. Yes, some things are better, notably containment of sprawl, but some things are far worse. Take a good look at a map of Oregon and you will find far less "dark green" of National Parks and Wilderness areas. Look closer, at maps of Oregon's National Forests, and you will see that they are spaghetti bowls of roads. Roads everywhere, far fewer blank spots than in Washington, and very little real wild country. Granted, topography has played a part in preserving Washington's roadless areas, but most survive because people wanted them that way. If there is a place that has done a better job of protecting wild country I'd like to hear about it.

As for Texas, I hope Perry's letter succeeds in luring people there. There is virtually no public land there, it is flat, hot, dusty and ugly, just the kind of place his target audience should head for right away.

How did JB Scott do that photo? It looks like time-lapse from a helicopter (but can't be because the FAA might get a bit unhinged about flying over Belltown).

If it is Photoshop I'll accept it as great art. If it is a photo...JB is brilliant. Can I buy a copy?

The Grouse

Washington vs Oregon,

The real tragedy for Washington State is that we sold most of the tide lands. Yet if you own them, you pay no tax on them because they are "unbuildable". Nice gift eh?

Washington and Massachusetts are the only two states to have done this. Everywhere else this land has been owned by the people since the days of the Roman Empire.

GaryP, you rock! I think Crosscut should give you your own column.

So stark was the pioneering divide that led agricultural livelihoods to Oregon and commercial exploitation north of the Columbia River, business leaders figured they needed separate state mechanisms to make the exploitation legal. Thus North Oregon Territory was renamed Washington, a proud name also exploited.

If I-1098 passes it will most likely end up in court:

"In 1932, 60 percent of Washington State voters approved a state income tax. Within less than a year, the measure was struck down as unconstitutional by the state supreme court."

FROM: A Penny for the Governor, a Dollar for Uncle Sam
Income Taxation in Washington
Phil Roberts, 2003, UW Press

http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/ROBPEN.html

As one who has lived both in Washington and Texas, I am wondering why you think that citizens of Texas are so different than residents of WA? I found the people of Texas to be warm, openhearted individuals that don't all crave to be tycoons.

I see no reason to pass I-1098 to feed the tax and spend machine in Olympia. I have worked both for WA state government and some of the largest corporations. I can tell you from experience that WA state workers have no idea what a work ethic is. I am sure the state can be run more efficiently on a smaller budget.

smallbizbellevue:
Presumably, your businesses are serving a market, that of people needing to buy groceries and pay for "financial services" (whatever those are). So even if you take your marbles and "go home" to Texas, the markets for these products will still be there. Well, at least for groceries. I'm not sure about the"financial services" thing. And if that involves selling derivatives of poohtocks that were previously bundled into flukamucks to evade the marginal tax rate on micklemacks, its probably a good thing if they aren't sold in Washington.
Anyway, if the market is still there, presumably a new business will come into existence to serve it or an existing business will "innovate" and expand. These business will then employ the people that you previously employed. If you're not a good enough capitalist to serve that market, then so be it. There will certainly be someone in Washington who is. Isn't that the "magic of the marketplace?" Or do you believe that you created these markets? If you do, I think you're wrong, at least about the groceries.

I lived in Texas for five years. Let me tell you what's wrong with Texas. There are Texans there.

The 1098 is a big by Insiders...for Insiders.

It masks a huge asset tax giveaway under faux populism.

It's not just a tax on the Productive Classes -- it's a tax on the Newcomer.

Washington State -- because of the Prop 13-ish covenants, is unable to fairly asset and tax properties according to "Best Use". That means, large estates can pay proportionally little tax compared to an average King County homeowner.

Almost no one is talking about the grossly unfair Property Taxes because the hucksters have put your eye on the income tax ball.

No blogs are running an in depth analysis of the unfair property taxes.

No one is even responding to the charges that 1098 is an Asset Tax cut for the Insiders.

And of course, when you use logic and make a valid point, the Washing-TON-ian crybaby response is the thing about the "doorknob".

Washingtonians -- you demand premium Government services but you don't want to pay your property taxes. Here's a solution to you 1098 supporters -- and it involves a whole lot of doorknobs.

I hope you enjoyed that koolaid jabailo-you drank an awful lot of it.