Aerothorn on 4/11/2010 at 23:10
Washingtonians voted 2-to-1 against having an income tax (an income tax that only kicked in at $250,000+, mind you, and pushed primarily by Bill Gates Sr.) I'm not hugely surprised, but I still don't get how a theoretical liberal supports having the most regressive tax structure in the nation.
CCCToad on 4/11/2010 at 23:49
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
pushed primarily by Bill Gates Sr.) .
That should help lay to rest the idea that taxes for the "the rich" somehow harm the super rich.
edit: this quote should be a fun stick to poke into this hornet's nest.
Quote:
On a related note, in The New York Times today, one finds the spectacle of Evan Bayh -- who gave up his Senate seat to a Republican while he frolicks around in the millions of dollars his wife receives from the health care industry -- demanding massive entitlement cuts for the poor and freezes on the pay for government workers, while also blaming the Democratic loss on the alleged fact that "we were too deferential to our most zealous supporters." Is he referring there to the escalation in the war in Afghanistan, the massive increase in civilian-slaughtering drone attacks, the virtually wholesale embrace of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties architecture, the defense of Don't-Ask/Don't-Tell and DOMA, the multi-billion-dollar bailout of Wall Street, the failure to stem the tide of the foreclosure crisis, or the elimination of the public option? Apparently, the lesson Evan Bayh -- and most pundits -- took from last night's results, and which they want the Party to learn, is that if only Democrats had suppressed the enthusiasm of their base just a little more, they would have won.
Starrfall on 5/11/2010 at 01:21
Quote Posted by Starrfall
26 probably passed because 23 was running interference for it and "fewer fees" just sounds so gosh darn nice.
Incidentally, Prop. 26 is an attorney employment proposition if I ever saw one. I'm already anticipating writing a few "no, Prop 26 does not apply to your water bill" nastygrams in addition to the "no, your bankruptcy discharge does not mean you never have to pay your water bill again" nastygrams this year.
Fafhrd on 5/11/2010 at 05:12
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Washingtonians voted 2-to-1 against having an income tax (an income tax that only kicked in at $250,000+, mind you, and pushed primarily by Bill Gates Sr.) I'm not hugely surprised, but I still don't get how a theoretical liberal supports having the most regressive tax structure in the nation.
I keep reading this over and over, and I still can't figure out what the hell you mean. How is supporting an income tax
not liberal? Especially if the primary supporter of that tax stands to be one of the most heavily taxed? Or do you mean that the
anti-income tax campaign was pushed primarily by Bill Gates?
Pardoner on 5/11/2010 at 07:24
Initiative 1098 was meant to create an income tax in Washington (backed by Bill Gates Sr.). I think Aerothorn is wondering how Washington's conception of itself as liberal matches up with voting the initiative down.
As an answer, I have no fucking idea. Apparently it failed in every county (which is supremely weird, and makes me wonder how aggressively the initiative was pushed). I haven't really heard a convincing explanation yet, but I'm out of the state right now.
SD on 5/11/2010 at 15:33
Quote Posted by Pardoner
Initiative 1098 was meant to create an income tax in Washington (backed by Bill Gates Sr.). I think Aerothorn is wondering how Washington's conception of itself as liberal matches up with voting the initiative down.
As an answer, I have no fucking idea. Apparently it failed in every county (which is supremely weird, and makes me wonder how aggressively the initiative was pushed). I haven't really heard a convincing explanation yet, but I'm out of the state right now.
Isn't the issue that once you establish the principle of income tax, even if you only intend it to apply to the very wealthy, the state can subsequently amend it to apply more widely?
There is also the problem that the wealthy are rather good at exploiting loopholes and avoiding income taxes. If extra funding is needed and it was up to me, I would expand estate tax/inheritance tax, that tends to be more difficult to avoid.
Rug Burn Junky on 5/11/2010 at 16:44
Not really, you can skip several generations of taxes with good estate planning, which is why trusts & estates was always my favorite class in law school - it's like a big, fun real life logic game to see what you can do with a given set of circumstances.
Pardoner on 5/11/2010 at 19:46
The slippery slope argument was made by the opposition to the initiative. But given how controversial just establishing any income tax was, I find it completely implausible that the legislature has been desperately in wait for the chance to create an income tax on the middle- and working class.
Washington had three tax initiatives on the ballot (one of which was the passage of California-style gridlock). Each was voted up or down in the same 2:1 ratio, but against taxes in each case. Most analyses have suggested either that voters were sending a strong anti-tax statement to Olympia, or that an anti-tax constituency came out of the woodwork, but I still haven't seen a comprehensive argument. It seems like progressives were out-organized.
CCCToad on 7/11/2010 at 19:02
Quote Posted by AR Master
babbys first political discourse thread
I count one spelling error and several grammatical errors in that post, and one person being an asshole about stupi grammar mistakes.
Quick question sirs, that both myself and everyone I've asked is too ignorant to answer: why would racist tea partiers, who are known for hating black people, elect Allen West?
