Explain this thought process, please.

[saywhatkid]

I can understand the queasy feeling. I can understand skepticism. When one is skeptical, one seeks knowledge to confirm or deny.

And the cost of providing insurance never went away, either. Just because it continues to be an issue doesn't explain voting against something that would be in your best interest just to "protect" the 2% that doesn't need protecting.

It would appear to be the result of strong campaigning by tax foes. People against taxes are much more organized than those in favor. Think gun control. When a group of dedicated people work together, they become stronger that a larger group of people without direction.

 

[Reba]

I don't know Reba. Why?

The answer is, there is no reason to create yet another unfair income tax.

I agree, on the fairness of the income tax.

So why would Washington voters want to create yet another unfair tax?

But the fact of the matter is, it is our system currently, and it is the financial means by which our country and our state functions. We will not do away with it.

It was created where before there was none; it can be done away with the same way.

All we can do is make it as proportionately as fair as possible.

That's like saying stealing is wrong but we can make it proportionately fair.

Letting the 2% get by with paying less tax proportionately than 98% of the population is hardly fair.

That's why the system should be abolished, not played with.

Decisions such as this are paid for by the 98%...in other words, by you and me.

Let's do away with it then.

Why would the Washington voters want to be dragged into the mire? All they have to do is look around at other states that have income taxes, and be glad they aren't included.

 

[jillio]

lol conservative and liberal? they're all same to me - crooks! .... except those who wants to abolish tax

Agreed. Both have their faults. It is not the politicians I am seeking to understand. Their motivation is obvious. I'm seeking to understand the motivation of the voters, and what reasoning they are using to satisfy their motivations.

But the point is, this should not de-escalate into an argument. Like most of the political threads do. Just honestly state what you think.

 

[jillio]

The answer is, there is no reason to create yet another unfair income tax.


So why would Washington voters want to create yet another unfair tax?


It was created where before there was none; it can be done away with the same way.


That's like saying stealing is wrong but we can make it proportionately fair.


That's why the system should be abolished, not played with.


Let's do away with it then.

Why would the Washington voters want to be dragged into the mire? All they have to do is look around at other states that have income taxes, and be glad they aren't included.

Stealing is wrong. And the wealthy do it continuously when it comes to paying their fair share of tax. Why do we keep voting in policies and politicians that allow it to continue? Why do we keep letting them steal from us?

As for the rest...it belongs to another thread.

Okay, let's do away with it. Simple solution, right? Tell me how we should go about doing that, and what the consequences will be once it is done.

 

[saywhatkid]

Here is how it appeared on the ballot:

Initiative Measure No. 1098 concerns establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes.

This measure would tax “adjusted gross income” above $200,000 (individuals) and $400,000 (joint-filers), reduce state property tax levies, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any increased revenues to education and health.


Should this measure be enacted into law?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

 

[jillio]

Here is how it appeared on the ballot:

Initiative Measure No. 1098 concerns establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes.

This measure would tax “adjusted gross income” above $200,000 (individuals) and $400,000 (joint-filers), reduce state property tax levies, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any increased revenues to education and health.


Should this measure be enacted into law?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Thanks for locating that, Kid.

 

[saywhatkid]

After looking at the actual wording, I am puzzled. Why would they want to enact this new tax, then lower other taxes, all in the effort to reduce a projected debt? I can see why 65% voted against. It looks suspiciously like a "foot in the door" type of thing.

 

[Jiro]

I'm a firm believer in Civil Service. It's unfortunate that majority of us are kind, giving people... but our lives are driven by money which force us to cut corners and to reduce our offer to help others.

Income Tax is detrimental to our well-beings and our altruisms.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

"kind, giving people"?

Only if there's something in it for them.

 

[deafskeptic]

I hope this thread stays constructive as we discuss taxes.

FWIW, I have mixed feelings about taxes. Ideally, I would not want to pay taxes at all. I don't think anyone wants to pay them. I've read up on some stuff on how taxes are coercion but very little practical stuff on alternative to taxes.

The second question here is what do the taxes pay for? Are there alternatives to what the taxes covered? How will the expenses that we incur be paid for? Are we willing to give up programs that the taxes covered? What are we willing to fund or live without?

 

[TXgolfer]

Agreed. Both have their faults. It is not the politicians I am seeking to understand. Their motivation is obvious. I'm seeking to understand the motivation of the voters, and what reasoning they are using to satisfy their motivations.

But the point is, this should not de-escalate into an argument. Like most of the political threads do. Just honestly state what you think.

Then why do you post an argument to what each poster thinks????

 

[Jiro]

"kind, giving people"?

Only if there's something in it for them.

right now - charity programs or certain other donations only because of it's tax-exempted.

sad.

 

[TXgolfer]

After looking at the actual wording, I am puzzled. Why would they want to enact this new tax, then lower other taxes, all in the effort to reduce a projected debt? I can see why 65% voted against. It looks suspiciously like a "foot in the door" type of thing.

Thx for posting the ballot

No kidding..... a complete "foot in the door" scenario

 

[jillio]

After looking at the actual wording, I am puzzled. Why would they want to enact this new tax, then lower other taxes, all in the effort to reduce a projected debt? I can see why 65% voted against. It looks suspiciously like a "foot in the door" type of thing.

Because the other taxes lowered would have been less than the taxes set up as state income tax.

But that is beside the point. If it is a "foot in the door" what is going to happen next? What are the consequences? If one is afraid of the "foot in the door" they are afraid of the consequences. What consequences would have come?

 

[jillio]

Then why do you post an argument to what each poster thinks????

I am not posting an argument. I am posting an alternative view to get to the real answer behind the posts. It's called making you think.

 

[jillio]

It would appear to be the result of strong campaigning by tax foes. People against taxes are much more organized than those in favor. Think gun control. When a group of dedicated people work together, they become stronger that a larger group of people without direction.

I'll agree with that! Fear and power are much stronger than thought and reason. The Repub party figured that out a long time ago: hence many of their campaign strategies. The Dems need to understand that fact as well.

 

[jillio]

I hope this thread stays constructive as we discuss taxes.

FWIW, I have mixed feelings about taxes. Ideally, I would not want to pay taxes at all. I don't think anyone wants to pay them. I've read up on some stuff on how taxes are coercion but very little practical stuff on alternative to taxes.

The second question here is what do the taxes pay for? Are there alternatives to what the taxes covered? How will the expenses that we incur be paid for? Are we willing to give up programs that the taxes covered? What are we willing to fund or live without?

No one wants taxes, but no one wants to sacrifice anything, either.

 

[saywhatkid]

Because the other taxes lowered would have been less than the taxes set up as state income tax.

But that is beside the point. If it is a "foot in the door" what is going to happen next? What are the consequences? If one is afraid of the "foot in the door" they are afraid of the consequences. What consequences would have come?

Well, I love the state. Mild climate, at least the western area. Lot of rain, but lot of green. Not sure I would move there, regardless of the tax structure. Somebody somewhere is paying for all the stuff going on there. They have lasted this long.

 

[jillio]

right now - charity programs or certain other donations only because of it's tax-exempted.

sad.

I have said before that there is no true altruism. I believe there were a couple that took offense at that. I still maintain that it is true.

 

[jillio]

Well, I love the state. Mild climate, at least the western area. Lot of rain, but lot of green. Not sure I would move there, regardless of the tax structure. Somebody somewhere is paying for all the stuff going on there. They have lasted this long.

But now they are seriously in debt, and people are going to have to sacrifice some of the things they enjoy.