Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

Our meetings on high-earners tax, liquor privatization

Post by Kim Bradford on Sep. 2, 2010 at 11:54 am with 11 Comments »
September 2, 2010 8:31 pm

TVW has posted the footage of the editorial board’s Tuesday meetings with supporters and opponents of initiatives 1098 (high-earners income tax), 1100 and 1105 (liquor privatization).

We consolidated our meeting on 1100 and 1105 since they concern the same subject; we wanted to be able to compare the two side-by-side. Even after an hour with the supporters, I’m still a bit confused about the extent to which they differ. We’ll be doing more research before we settle on which to support.

Leave a comment Comments → 11
  1. The supporters of 1098,will start out by calling it a tax on the High wage earners.Once the door is oppened,you will see how little you have to earn to be considered a high wage earner.Do not fall for this Wolf in Sheeps clothing!!!

  2. jimkingjr says:

    On which to support? I would hope before you support either you weigh the impact of the massive revenue cuts included in both. In this budgetary and economic climate, why transfer hundreds of millions of dollars to Costco and friends, and away from fire, police, and other basic services?

  3. nonstopjoe says:

    If 1098 passes, it won’t be long before “high earners” include all who have federal income tax liability.

  4. lovethemountains says:

    Yep, the camel’s nose under the tent. I am not thoroughly opposed to a state income tax PROVIDING it is a strongly written law with no loopholes for later increases and a repealing of the sales tax or VERY significant reduction and more exemptions from sales tax.

    The problem is, the above idea is a near impossibility with our legislators. They always seem to find a way.

  5. johnearl says:

    It is an odd argument posed by Mr. Guadnola that an increase in access to alcohol will increase the amount of mayhem and damage to society.

    It would follow then that Liquor Distributors and the WSLCB have already determined what the correct amount of damage to society is, and that amount is exactly equal to the status quo. Under this line of reasoning distributors would never advocate for increased liquor sales because of the assumed increase in mayhem (yet the “correct amount” of alcohol sold to the public has consistently crept higher over the last few years – how odd).

    The state has a legitimate interest in regulating alcohol, but it does not follow that the state’s interest is best served by acting as both the seller and the regulator. Without a doubt the state could effectively regulate alcohol sales without being the sole source provider.

    For me the bottom line is that monopolies (the State) and oligopolies (the distributors) are bad economic policy. While I don’t believe 1100 & 1105 are the best possible solutions, these initiatives are the direct result of the State’s intransigence on this issue.

  6. Sorry, jimkingjr. That should have been “which – if any – to support.” I really don’t know which way the board will go on any of these yet.

  7. scott0962 says:

    When the Federal income tax was introduced it was sold as a temporary measure that would affect only the wealthiest Americans.

    Now we’re asked to introduce a state income tax on the wealthiest Washingtonians.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where this will lead.

    What’s next, a county income tax on the wealthy?

  8. OldLefty says:

    When are people going to catch on that it takes money to run a government and that money is going to be “taxes”?

    I read this tax rants and am amused, thinking about the Tea Party signs declaring “keep the government’s hands off my Medicare”. The lack of comprehension is equal.

    If you think you’re being “taxed to death”, take a look at a statement from a medical provider. My insurance company was charged $500 for me to see the doctor for 10 minutes and get an injection of a drug that is so old it’s beyond public domain. Of course, this won’t click because when you’re in pain and you need that doctor’s services, you don’t go price shopping, much less complain about the price.

    My wife and I are empty nesters, close to retirement, and if I could control medical costs to be proportionate to my income in parallel to my tax payments, I do cartwheels down 6th Avenue during rush hour.

  9. OldLefty says:

    Just to illustrate – my property taxes, about $2,400 a year provide me 911 medical assistance when needed, police protection, fire protection, road services, someone to answer the phone when I call the county offices with a question, and a whole lot more.

    How would you like to purchase those services for cash in the private sector?

    “Pardon me, sir, but before I send an aid unit to your home, we’ll need your credit card number”.

    No, thanks. I’ll pay my taxes.

  10. Jonathan Carp says:

    What you’re doing, OldLefty, is engaging with a straw man. Opposing 1098 is not the same as opposing all taxes. You should consider actually attacking the arguments your ideological opponents are making, rather than those you wish they would make. I am fairly certain Washington has had police and fire departments for a hot minute or two without an income tax, so it’s unclear how exactly your tirade about trying to pay for private police or fire relates to 1098.

  11. scott0962 says:

    No matter how many small wine growers or firefighters the opponents of 1100 and 1105 trot before the cameras the fact remains that our state government was never intended to do things for us that we can do for ourselves. Dozens of states allow the sale of liquor by private stores without their citizens running amok on the roads and if our small wineries make a quality product they will find buyers without state assistance.

    As for the income tax on “high income earners”: allow this to fly and you will be amazed at how little it takes to be classified as a high income earner when the legislature is able to amend this initiative in two years. This is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to impose an income tax on top of our other taxes. Don’t be fooled by the sheep’s clothing, the wolf is at the door!

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0