Explain this thought process, please.

[saywhatkid]

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

True. Similar things are happening all over.

Which is better: having smooth roads and paying more taxes; or having crappy roads and using those saved tax dollars for front end alignments? Depends on who you ask. If you ask the guy that drives 50 miles a day, he might want smooth roads. If you ask the people that ride the bus, or own auto repair shops, they might not want to fix those roads.

 

[deafskeptic]

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

I know. Despite the fact I tend to be fairly idealistic, I also have a strong sense of reality.

I've seen people suggest charities for those on welfare. Ok, so we throw those off welfare and let the charities take care of them - never mind the fact some are on it because of health or mental issues. Are they prepared to deal with the needs of those on welfare? Do they have enough resources to help them or more importatly, are they willing to help others in a dignifted way? I've heard tales about SA that makes me think I don't want to deal with them if I were in need of help.

 

[TXgolfer]

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

Welcome to life.

Why should the rich be required to pay for people to enjoy stuff????

 

[naisho]

I think there bigger reasons at bay for why WA is able to sustain free income tax.

Look at it from a sociological perspective. The population of WA is on par with that of Arizona, both are within 6 million. Arizona's income tax rests at 2.x-4.x%. Yet as a desert state, I'd imagine AZ needs more resource management than WA does; pure logic without any backing in this statement. Examples like the interstate freeway, water preservation and conservation and such. WA probably doesn't need much of that due to the plethora of natural resources.

Look at surrounding states with a low income tax rate (say ~5% or under) and you can discern that ones with smaller populations AND with a few or no major metropolitan areas (Seattle, Las Vegas, or Wyoming State, etc) like Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota they generally have low population, low or nonexistent tax rate.

Although, we have to take into account WA does have some kind of taxable earnings on businesses however, so it's not exactly scoot free. But that probably really applies to Seattle and Spokane, but Spokane is like, only a half of seattle.

My thinking is that population size, attractions (depending on what), federal uses within the state (highways, bridges, etc), city life all play a role in this.

 

[Jiro]

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.

true altruism? nah no such thing... even Church asks for $$$

What I meant is that if we do not have a financial burden especially keeping up to pay taxes... we are more likely to help out than if we're financially restricted.

 

[Jiro]

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

we've already sacrificed plenty more.... by paying more. It's time the government starts sacrificing theirs... like benefits and spending.

 

[saywhatkid]

I think there bigger reasons at bay for why WA is able to sustain free income tax.

Look at it from a sociological perspective. The population of WA is on par with that of Arizona, both are within 6 million. Arizona's income tax rests at 2.x-4.x%. Yet as a desert state, I'd imagine AZ needs more resource management than WA does; pure logic without any backing in this statement. Examples like the interstate freeway, water preservation and conservation and such. WA probably doesn't need much of that due to the plethora of natural resources.

Look at surrounding states with a low income tax rate (say ~5% or under) and you can discern that ones with smaller populations AND with a few or no major metropolitan areas (Seattle, Las Vegas, or Wyoming State, etc) like Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota they generally have low population, low or nonexistent tax rate.

Although, we have to take into account WA does have some kind of taxable earnings on businesses however, so it's not exactly scoot free. But that probably really applies to Seattle and Spokane, but Spokane is like, only a half of seattle.

My thinking is that population size, attractions (depending on what), federal uses within the state (highways, bridges, etc), city life all play a role in this.

Interesting points. Washington has water issues in the eastern half, but nothing like Arizona. Arizona has more land that is pretty unusable for agriculture. Arizona is a larger land mass, and I believe they have a much larger area set aside as reservation for Native Americans. Washington is also a pretty important location for all the goods made in China; they have shipyards and trucking from those shipyards, filled with these items made in China. I figure they probably have their tax buckets next to those ocean vessels that are looking to drop freight there.

 

[Jiro]

True. Similar things are happening all over.

Which is better: having smooth roads and paying more taxes; or having crappy roads and using those saved tax dollars for front end alignments? Depends on who you ask. If you ask the guy that drives 50 miles a day, he might want smooth roads. If you ask the people that ride the bus, or own auto repair shops, they might not want to fix those roads.

our highways are funded by donations. We post a big sign "Thank you for funding highway.." whatever with a name below. Donald Trump has donated for NYC's West Side Highway few months ago.

now about road construction... I fail to understand why do we frequently need a road construction every few months in here when other highway in different state is well-built and more durable. It seems that the officials have opted for cheapest construction to keep paying to certain contractors. It is obviously economical and beneficial for state in long run to opt for more expensive, durable road construction but.....

The Sopranos State indeed....

 

[saywhatkid]

our highways are funded by donations. We post a big sign "Thank you for funding highway.." whatever with a name below. Donald Trump has donated for NYC's West Side Highway few months ago.

now about road construction... I fail to understand why do we frequently need a road construction every few months in here when other highway in different state is well-built and more durable. It seems that the officials have opted for cheapest construction to keep paying to certain contractors. It is obviously economical and beneficial for state in long run to opt for more expensive, durable road construction but.....

The Sopranos State indeed....

Well, it seems that the eastern states have much worse roads. I could speculate as to why. It might be due to how old the cities are, and the roads were build long ago. Then, when they go to rebuild, they follow the old paths from previous roads. A lot of the population in midwest and west came after the Interstate system was built. When cities are built now, the engineering is more geared toward modern road workings. On the east coast, they would need to plow the whole thing up and start over to equal the same results.

 

[TXgolfer]

True. Similar things are happening all over.

Which is better: having smooth roads and paying more taxes; or having crappy roads and using those saved tax dollars for front end alignments? Depends on who you ask. If you ask the guy that drives 50 miles a day, he might want smooth roads. If you ask the people that ride the bus, or own auto repair shops, they might not want to fix those roads.

Sounds like a great reason for an increase in gas tax, tire tax or tolls rather than a tax on income. IMO. Have people that use the roads pay for the roads. Hard to get more fair than that

 

[saywhatkid]

Sounds like a great reason for an increase in gas tax, tire tax or tolls rather than a tax on income. IMO. Have people that use the roads pay for the roads. Hard to get more fair than that

Sounds great. Problem is people fighting any increases at all. They (Minnesota) tried a nickle tax increase on gasoline a few years ago. It was shot down. A couple of years later, the bridge collapsed. Could an extra nickle a gallon saved those people? Probably not, but I would have liked to reverse the tape and see. Having to remove debris and rebuild that bridge cost a whole lot of nickles.

 

[Glenn]

Propaganda by the anti-tax crowd.

 

[TXgolfer]

Sounds great. Problem is people fighting any increases at all. They (Minnesota) tried a nickle tax increase on gasoline a few years ago. It was shot down. A couple of years later, the bridge collapsed. Could an extra nickle a gallon saved those people? Probably not, but I would have liked to reverse the tape and see. Having to remove debris and rebuild that bridge cost a whole lot of nickles.

Agreed....that doesn't make much sense. I am all for fair taxes..

 

[netrox]

I don't get it either.

If you don't have money to maintain and build public roads, schools, etc, then you will get deeper in debt and the whole infrastructure suffers significantly.

The rich should ALWAYS pay MORE taxes than the middle to low income classes. People who insist that we should impose a flat rate is not actually being fair to the middle/low income classes. Progressive tax is what's truly fair, even for the rich.

 

[Jiro]

I don't get it either.

If you don't have money to maintain and build public roads, schools, etc, then you will get deeper in debt and the whole infrastructure suffers significantly.

The rich should ALWAYS pay MORE taxes than the middle to low income classes. People who insist that we should impose a flat rate is not actually being fair to the middle/low income classes. Progressive tax is what's truly fair, even for the rich.

On most houses, 2 doors are enough. What government is doing right now is building 10 more doors and then make us pay for it even though we're already paying for outrageous tolls to enter.

 

[Reba]

Stealing is wrong. And the wealthy do it continuously when it comes to paying their fair share of tax.

Where did you get this "fact?"

Do you mean wealthy people continuously cheat on their taxes and other people do not?

Why are you so resentful of wealthy people?

Why do we keep voting in policies and politicians that allow it to continue?

Speak for yourself. I don't vote for them. I vote for Fair Tax supporters.

Why do we keep letting them steal from us?

You tell me. Why do you keep letting people steal from you?

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.

Someone else has already figured it out.

Americans For Fair Taxation:

 

[Reba]

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

What would prevent them from raising those other taxes back up again later?

What would prevent them from increasing spending with the new revenue?

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?

Lowering the cut off for income that would be taxed.

Increasing spending.

The dreaded "loopholes" would be attached.

The consequences are taxpayers lose more control over their own money.

 

[Foxrac]

Fair Tax? Yes. Income tax is NOT fair.


First of all, how did they get into debt? Unwise planning and budgeting? Fraud and abuse? I don't know the Washington situation. You tell me.

How do other states without income taxes get by?


They do pay taxes. What makes you think that wealthy people don't pay taxes?


In addition to the state income tax that I pay (and would like to abolish), I pay Federal income tax (which goes into the pot that pays for interstate highways and bridges), gas tax (which pays for state roads and bridges), city and county income taxes, sales tax, property tax, communication services tax, personal property tax, and business licenses and fees (which are really taxes by another name).

Income tax is fair to me if it is in bracket.

For Fair Tax, they aren't fair without prebates and exemption.

 

[Reba]

I'm a firm believer in Civil Service. It's unfortunate that majority of us are kind, giving people....

Yes, I know many Civil Servants who have gone the extra mile for the people they serve. When I was in the Navy I worked with many of them.

There are good and bad apples in every kind of work.

 

[Reba]

Income tax is fair to me if it is in bracket.

For Fair Tax, they aren't fair without prebates and exemption.

It does include prebates.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Frequently Asked Questions Answers