Published: Sunday, April 25, 2010
IN OUR VIEW / STATE TAX STRUCTURE
Time to talk income tax
Timing is everything. When Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown mentioned the idea of an income tax toward the end of the legislative session, it was hooted down as the desperate political stunt it appeared be.
With that painful legislative session just behind us, but still fresh in our minds, and with even bigger budget issues looming next year, such tax talk is now welcome. As are all reasonable ideas for finding a consistent way to fund our state-mandated responsibilities — particularly fully paying for education.
To discuss an income tax is not to endorse it, but acknowledges the need for change in our tax structure.
Discussing the possibility of an income tax does not — in any way, shape or form — imply that mandates to reform state spending can be ignored. It’s not an either-or proposition. Real change producing a balanced budget will require cuts and different ways of doing things — such as privatizing the state liquor system and eliminating ferry-worker-type sweet deals for state employees.
But efficiencies alone aren’t enough to sustain the budget over time. Which is why it is important to listen when a group of wealthy people in the state — and not politicians grasping at legislative straws — say, “Tax us.”
Bill Gates Sr., who is leading the income tax charge with Initiative 1077, says it’s time for action.
Proponents operate on this premise: Our state tax code is unfair. Lower and middle-income families pay too much tax and the wealthy too little. The business and occupation tax hurts small businesses.
An income tax on the wealthiest 3 percent of state residents — individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $400,000 — would cut taxes for the majority of citizens and importantly, would eliminate the B&O tax for 80 percent of businesses and reduce it for another 10 percent, proponents say. The tax would raise $1 billion a year for education and health care.
Opponents say the initiative is more evidence of government’s insatiable appetite for taxes, and provides an excuse to not reform state spending.
Opponents also say if the initiative is approved, the Legislature will eventually (or immediately) amend it to tax middle-income earners and everyone else.
Since the proposal is coming from business leaders, and from the people who would actually be taxed, willingly, is it likely that “government’s insatiable appetite for taxes” is their motive?
It’s easy to say “no more taxes,” but without specific proposals for meaningful cuts and reform, the discussion goes dry pretty quickly. The proponents of I-1077 have given us something to truly debate. Let’s do just that.
With that painful legislative session just behind us, but still fresh in our minds, and with even bigger budget issues looming next year, such tax talk is now welcome. As are all reasonable ideas for finding a consistent way to fund our state-mandated responsibilities — particularly fully paying for education.
To discuss an income tax is not to endorse it, but acknowledges the need for change in our tax structure.
Discussing the possibility of an income tax does not — in any way, shape or form — imply that mandates to reform state spending can be ignored. It’s not an either-or proposition. Real change producing a balanced budget will require cuts and different ways of doing things — such as privatizing the state liquor system and eliminating ferry-worker-type sweet deals for state employees.
But efficiencies alone aren’t enough to sustain the budget over time. Which is why it is important to listen when a group of wealthy people in the state — and not politicians grasping at legislative straws — say, “Tax us.”
Bill Gates Sr., who is leading the income tax charge with Initiative 1077, says it’s time for action.
Proponents operate on this premise: Our state tax code is unfair. Lower and middle-income families pay too much tax and the wealthy too little. The business and occupation tax hurts small businesses.
An income tax on the wealthiest 3 percent of state residents — individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $400,000 — would cut taxes for the majority of citizens and importantly, would eliminate the B&O tax for 80 percent of businesses and reduce it for another 10 percent, proponents say. The tax would raise $1 billion a year for education and health care.
Opponents say the initiative is more evidence of government’s insatiable appetite for taxes, and provides an excuse to not reform state spending.
Opponents also say if the initiative is approved, the Legislature will eventually (or immediately) amend it to tax middle-income earners and everyone else.
Since the proposal is coming from business leaders, and from the people who would actually be taxed, willingly, is it likely that “government’s insatiable appetite for taxes” is their motive?
It’s easy to say “no more taxes,” but without specific proposals for meaningful cuts and reform, the discussion goes dry pretty quickly. The proponents of I-1077 have given us something to truly debate. Let’s do just that.
Comments
(