[TheFuture3000]

Do you guys feel that the State of Washington will ever get a State income tax?

[MrVandelay]

:yuck: I hope not!

[Urbanpdx]

Remember, if you tax something you get less of it. Do Washingtonians want less income?

[Last Chance]

^Take our sales tax down to 0% from 8.8% and then maybe we can talk about an income tax.

If state sales taxes were to revert back to being non-deductible for Federal tax returns, then you would see a whole lot more interest in people wanting an income tax instead of a sales tax.

But, it's a lot easier to raise a sales tax for politicians than it is to get an income tax increase.

Probably will never happen.

[pdxman]

Don't do it Washington!!! Don't turn in to Oregon--you guys have a good system!

[MarkDaMan]

Remember, if you tax something you get less of it. Do Washingtonians want less income?

maybe if we tax the libertarians to the hilt, we will have less of them too?

An I-Tax in Washington, I doubt it. This country wont have serious tax reform discussion for probably another decade because right now having an I-tax is thought of as a new tax, even if other taxes lower in conjuction with an I-tax, and the taxpayer's responsibilities decreases...

[bgwah]

I would support if it meant getting rid of the sales tax.

You always here about "progressive" income taxes, where the rich are taxed at higher rates than the poor. But the sales tax essentially taxes the poor at higher rates than the rich, giving Washington a regressive tax.

[blackc5]

Hopefully not - it is probably a main reason WA population is growing (of course, some may not like that). A lot of Californians move here to avoid high CA state income taxes (some may not like that either ;) ), and being one of the few states w/o an income tax surely helps appeal to people considering relocating to the area.

I would like to see the Fair Tax (with some slight modifications perhaps) enacted for Federal myself. It has a lot of great things going for it:

- Greatly reduced tax compliance time and cost
- An overall progressive tax structure thanks to the tax credits to everyone to cover basic living expenses
- Greatly reduced potential for tax fraud/avoidance
- Great incentive to save & invest, ensuring a more stable future for most families, as well as providing increased capital to businesses for growth
- Significantly lower costs for business that would likely lead to an economic boom (money better spent on R&D, hiring, etc)
- Get full taxation out of the massive black market economy, since drug dealers and such would have to pay taxes when they buy their Escalades, etc.

[Urbanpdx]

What ever happened to equal treatment under the law? Why should one group of people pay a different percentage than another group? Why should those with higher incomes have fewer rights than those who do not? Should the penalty for a crime be different for different groups?

Progressive taxes are simply a redistribution of income scheme. Seem very Marxist to me.

[Chicago3rd]

Remember, if you tax something you get less of it. Do Washingtonians want less income?

I don't get this.

[Chicago3rd]

What ever happened to equal treatment under the law? Why should one group of people pay a different percentage than another group?

People who make less get larger percentage of their living wage taxed. Rich people don't. In other words...it cost a certain amount of money to keep a person alive. If a tax isn't progressive the weight of it is carried by the poor....not the rich. So progressive Tax does equal things out.

Why should those with higher incomes have fewer rights than those who do not?

Rich people do NOT have fewer rights. Show us factual evidence please.

Progressive taxes are simply a redistribution of income scheme. Seem very Marxist to me.

No, it isn't Marxist, but it is the Christian thing to do though...

[James Bond Agent 007]

Do you guys feel that the State of Washington will ever get a State income tax?
No, never! They've been talking about this for decades and it's never gotten anywhere, and it never will.

[PDXPaul]

It'll never happen. I'd support it, but it'll never happen.

[Black Box]

It's not going to happen.

[Urbanpdx]

People who make less get larger percentage of their living wage taxed. Rich people don't. In other words...it cost a certain amount of money to keep a person alive. If a tax isn't progressive the weight of it is carried by the poor....not the rich. So progressive Tax does equal things out.



Rich people do NOT have fewer rights. Show us factual evidence please.



No, it isn't Marxist, but it is the Christian thing to do though...




The wealthiest 1% of the taxpayers pay 34% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 96% of the total bill. This means that the least wealthy 50% pay almost nothing. In short, the income tax system soaks the rich. A 20% flat tax would tax someone making $50,000 a year $10,000 and someone who makes $100,000 per year would pay the same percentage on that first $50,000 or $10,000 PLUS an additional $10,000. They would be paying the same tax rate on the "living" portion of thier income whatever that means.

How is it "Christian" to want to confiscate the income earned by the wealthy and give it to people who have not earned it. I don't think we should make rules because of some religious dogma but to stick it to the the rich (which includes the most productive people in society) and force them to be servants of the poor is not in any religion I know of.

The inability or unwillingness of the non-productive to create wealth or income does not give them a moral claim upon those who do.

Marx's credo was: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Man has no right to exist for himself in this view; he is a servant of the state or society, to be disposed of as they see fit.

No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet, though the progressive income tax has been a step in that direction.

As Americans we have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,". It means that our life and property belong to us, not to the state or to society. It means that the government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights. It means that every individual, whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal.

[Vashon118]

The closest the state has come to having an income tax was back in the early 1930's.

http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5726

[bgwah]

What ever happened to equal treatment under the law? Why should one group of people pay a different percentage than another group? Why should those with higher incomes have fewer rights than those who do not? Should the penalty for a crime be different for different groups?

Progressive taxes are simply a redistribution of income scheme. Seem very Marxist to me.

But Washington has a regressive tax, how is that fair to the poor?

http://bgwah.com/salestax.jpg

I tried taking a picture of these graphs I have on a piece of paper. It may be hard to read, but as you can see Washington's poor pay a much higher percentage of their income towards taxes than the rich do. A flat income tax would be more fair than this.

The wealthiest 1% of the taxpayers pay 34% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 96% of the total bill. This means that the least wealthy 50% pay almost nothing. In short, the income tax system soaks the rich. A 20% flat tax would tax someone making $50,000 a year $10,000 and someone who makes $100,000 per year would pay the same percentage on that first $50,000 or $10,000 PLUS an additional $10,000. They would be paying the same tax rate on the "living" portion of thier income whatever that means.

How is it "Christian" to want to confiscate the income earned by the wealthy and give it to people who have not earned it. I don't think we should make rules because of some religious dogma but to stick it to the the rich (which includes the most productive people in society) and force them to be servants of the poor is not in any religion I know of.

The inability or unwillingness of the non-productive to create wealth or income does not give them a moral claim upon those who do.

Marx's credo was: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Man has no right to exist for himself in this view; he is a servant of the state or society, to be disposed of as they see fit.

No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet, though the progressive income tax has been a step in that direction.

As Americans we have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,". It means that our life and property belong to us, not to the state or to society. It means that the government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights. It means that every individual, whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal.

And being born rich means you earned it? Whatever.

[Urbanpdx]

The VAST majority of the wealthy EARNED it but that is beside the point. I do not believe it should be regressive either. However, the lowest income do use a lot of government services. I don't really understand how the lowest 20% spend such a large portion on sales taxes in Oregon unless that includes sin taxes.

[WonderlandPark]

Urban-get your facts straight, the poor use LESS federal government money than the rich. Been proven time and time again. Getting sick of this simplistic libertarian crap, myself.

[Chicago3rd]

The wealthiest 1% of the taxpayers pay 34% of all federal income taxes.

1st Question - What percentage of the national wealth do these 1% own?
2nd Question - What percentage of their income goes to taxes?

A 20% flat tax:

$50,000 a year $10,000
$100,000 per year would pay the same percentage on that first $50,000 or $10,000 PLUS an additional $10,000. They would be paying the same tax rate on the "living" portion of thier income whatever that means.

Funny....the family who just got by on $50,000 grand has $10,000 taken out of their "living" portion and now live on $40,000 grand and the family who makes $100,000 gets the same thing taken out of their living wages but then gets and extra $40,000 to cover their "living expenses". The $50,000 may lose something vital but the $100,000 family gets to lose a trip to Hawaii. Not very just or equal.

How is it "Christian" to want to confiscate the income earned by the wealthy

Well Jesus said to give Rome what is due Rome. That was a discussion about taxes and paying a government that was occupying their land. Also a Bible story in there about "everyone" needing to give back...the farmer instructed not to completely harvest their fields but leave some in their fields for the poor to gleam.

I NEVER see liberterians attacking rich people for getting all the corporate welfare they get...which is larger than social welfare. After you get ride of all corporate government subsides to companys and the rich come back to us and talk about the poor.

The inability or unwillingness of the non-productive to create wealth or income does not give them a moral claim upon those who do.

So people who don't earn a million dollars are not productive. They are lazy sinners. This comes from the same philosophy as the Bush lovers who believe that if something bad is happening to you you probably are being punished by God. That only the richeous are rich.



No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet, though the progressive income tax has been a step in that direction.

As Americans we have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,". It means that our life and property belong to us, not to the state or to society. It means that the government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights. It means that every individual, whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal.

This last quote....is pretty but not a legal document of this country.

If you knew much about US history you would know that we have always had programs and government assitance....in one form or another. Look up The Way We Weren't - Author Stephanie Coontz and read it.

[James Bond Agent 007]

OK this has gotten waaay off topic.

And also, TheFuture3000 annoys me because he starts these threads and asks these questions without ever coming back to discuss it or at least say, "Thank you for answering my question" (he's done the same thing in the California forum). So I'm closing it.