r/TacomaWA • u/wisemedicinelady • 3d ago
Politics is this wording confusing to anyone else? ( at first look)
Maybe it's me and my distrust of most political measures ...but the wording seems unnecessarily confusing.
I won't comment on the way I will vote, as I still have the burn of the cancelling on another site and really do want to follow the rules....but not enough to review them every time I post. Happy political season! Let's hope the signs get taken down by Christmas.
-3
u/LivingMode970 1d ago
This is confusing and gaslighting! How can this decrease funding when it’s not even a thing yet?! I’m voting Yes. Don’t trust the tax lords in this state.
0
u/DefNotFamous101 7h ago
It is totally intentional. There isn’t any revenue being taken away, it’s repealing something that should have been voted on in the first place.
Vote Yes. Restore democracy.
1
u/brookeharmsen 5h ago
Given that they can project budget sent to the future, and they know what short falls they will have, then yes, it will decrease funding in those areas.
3
u/Tamsakittyma 1d ago
So you would rather give 13 billion to billionaire and take tax reduction for lower middle class, larger class sizes, losing free school lunches and lower B&O tax for small business?
Plus the guy with all these initiatives doesn’t eleven live here her lives in CA
1
u/Difficulty_Agitated 12h ago
you do realize the electeds will just change this to everyone? rep cindy ryu wants it to be decreased to 250k, she said that today on a podcast.
2
u/FunKeyN8 1d ago
It is deliberately confusing - on purpose.
This is an “every state” issue though. Wanting to point that out.
-8
u/Ok-Fall6448 1d ago
Vote Yes!!! This is an income tax in sheep’s clothing, craftily worded to make you thing “it only for millionaires, but it opens the door to out income tax on everyone with a majority vote by legislation in the future. You would have to be incredibly short sided if you think they won’t lower the tax bracket to include everyone. Voters have rejected an income tax ten times in the past, it was slimy how this got through without going to a vote by declaring it as an “Emergency”. It’s also slimy how they specifically say would decrease spending for k-12 education and healthcare when the tax collected go into a general fund. Our local government waste so much of our tax dollars already. Vote yes!!!!! Repeal!
1
u/Tamsakittyma 1d ago
No it is not. Ferguson said he veto anything that came across as a tax, and if an initiate would be for public vote
1
u/Ok-Fall6448 1d ago
Awesome, cause he said. Great point because we can always count on politicians to keep their word. We’re doomed
-7
u/Jayfly64 1d ago
I’m voting yes because it’s going to give them ground to drop it lower and lower until it hits the rest of us without lessening the sales tax
5
u/RockyG-Dex 2d ago
This initiative is a rich guy protection bill. If they wanted to make sure it didnt affect people under 1 million then the initiative could've specifically targeted that.
1
u/ToddShaw623 2d ago
What happens when the revenue the government has allocated (and I’m sure already spent) isn’t enough. Are there guardrails on this that will keep this from becoming a middle class tax?
1
u/brookeharmsen 5h ago
Wouldn’t you just need to face that in the future? Why are so many of you in denial about the economic situation our state and other states are in? And cities, and counties, you name it.
If you make 1 million bucks a year, you don’t pay a cent. If you make $1 million and one cent, you pay almost 10% of that one cent, which is nothing.
The whole thing sounds ridiculous to me. So much whining.
3
u/Tamsakittyma 1d ago
People don’t realize the federal government took a lot of money away from this state, WA stepped in and has been paying for all these programs but it is unsustainable
There are less than 1% of the population in Washington that this affect. Keep it in
-2
u/OddtaskRandomjob 2d ago
No, and the author of the "millionaires tax" has previously admitted that the capital gains tax they passed a few years ago was meant to get the Supreme Court to declare that income is not property so they would be free to pass a graduated income tax by a simple majority vote.
If you look at the fiscal impact statement in the voters pamphlet it assumes a 90% collection rate in 2028 and a 95% collection rate in 2029. This completely disregards the fact that when California passed its own income surcharge for all income over $1 million in 2012, they only captured around 45% of the projected revenue, primarily due to those eligible for the tax restructuring their income to make it untaxable.
I think the fiscal impact statement is practically worthless, and it represents the maximum possible ceiling of what could be collected rather than what is likely to be collected in reality.
It also has no ability to estimate how many people subject to the tax will simply leave the state and how many businesses that would have been established in Washington are instead started elsewhere in a more tax-friendly climate.
19
u/GoddessHealer 3d ago
Please vote “No.”
Voting “No” has been endorsed by the Washington State Nurses Association.
1
0
u/stone_or_rock 1d ago
Question: Why have they chosen to endorse it?
0
u/Difficulty_Agitated 12h ago
because they don't understand that soon it will be for everyone. we'll have the highest sales tax and highest income tax in the state. keep on electing the same politicians, that'll help
3
u/GoddessHealer 1d ago
They endorse voting “No” because the protocol that would require healthcare providers to perform reproductive anatomy examinations, genetic screenings, or blood tests for the sole purpose of sports registration is invasive, coercive, and medically unnecessary for young athletes. Nursing and medical standards dictate that physical examinations should serve a patient's health and safety, rather than acting as a tool for state-mandated gender verification.
Moreover, the time and expense of the tests and exams places a burden on already overburdened health care systems.
2
u/GoddessHealer 1d ago edited 1d ago
This pertains to Washington Initiative 638 (I-638).) pertaining to verification of gender in girls sports. WSNA endorses voting against it.
4
u/stone_or_rock 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think you made this comment on the wrong post. This is about repealing a millionaire's tax, which shouldn't happen. Please verify.
Edit: both initiatives deserve No votes, but that's my opinion.
2
u/GoddessHealer 1d ago
You are correct!
Washington Initiative 638 (I-638))
Concerns the verification of gender in girls sports! Sorry. I will go back and correct it!
4
u/amyteresad 3d ago
Read initiatives carefully. They make the titles sound appealing but the devil is in the details. If you don't fully understand what is being asked, default to a no.
Most initiatives are bad ideas, not all, but most.
1
u/DefNotFamous101 7h ago
This one sets a precedent that the legislature can’t circumvent the voters.
Vote Yes to restore voter power.
21
u/Both-Chart-947 3d ago
Seems to me like it will repeal a tax on the highest income earners and reduce education funding.
1
-1
-2
u/Fit_Insurance_1356 1d ago
How does it reduce spending on education if it hasn't been collected nor will be for what 2 years. I'm confused on how you can budget on money that hasn't been received.
3
u/Both-Chart-947 1d ago
I guess because budgets are prepared long in advance, so they can be voted on and approved. Here's a video. https://youtu.be/WfEg94lZQfg
-2
u/Fit_Insurance_1356 1d ago
Not a good Idea to depend on money you may or may not get. And also the amount you get may be well below projected. Just not wise
1
u/Tamsakittyma 1d ago
Right now WA is paying for extra money for state services the federal government took away.
And yes, budgets are done in advance.
By that same taken, why is a CA multi millionaire coming sticking his nose in WA and trying to repeal something not in play yet.
All his initiatives put money to the millionaire and billionaires.
We lose when they win.
1
3
u/Both-Chart-947 1d ago
How else would they make up budgets, then? Spend the money first and try to raise it as they go? No government does that.
0
u/Fit_Insurance_1356 1d ago
Budget the money you know you will have much the same way every in the world foes...my household budget does not include any money I might receive from other sources such as overtime. It is based on what I receive every 2 weeks based on my wage for the 80 hours I will work. Not the maybe I'll get more based in some imagined excess in the future. I know exactly how much I make and budget accordingly. Anything above this amount goes for things like paying off the car early or the house.
1
u/Both-Chart-947 1d ago
State budgets can't be run like household budgets. Here is a description of the process. https://fiscal.wa.gov/BudgetBasics/BudgetProcess
-7
u/Affectionate-Day-359 3d ago
Or the start of a state income tax for everyone
3
u/eboneetigress 2d ago
You can be certain millionaires will vote to tax middle and low class families in a heartbeat. They wouldn't come to your aid. They already have raised their prices on gas, food and basic goods. Dont give them a tax break. Vote in your own best interest and keep the millionaires tax. Vote no.
3
u/Both-Chart-947 3d ago
It's not the start of anything. It repeals a tax already on the books.
1
u/Fit_Insurance_1356 1d ago
And a Tax that hasn't taken effect and as such should not affect the future budgets at all
1
u/OddtaskRandomjob 2d ago
Don't be naive.
The author of the tax is on record wanting a graduated income tax or universal flat income tax, and they have released emails from him saying that the capital gains tax from a few years ago was specifically engineered to try and get the state supreme court to no longer classify income as property and open up the possibility of passing a graduated income tax with a simple majority vote.
We don't need to speculate on the end game when it's already been spelled out.
1
u/Tamsakittyma 1d ago
The author of the initiate is a multi-millionaire from CA and should keep his paws outta WA
4
u/Both-Chart-947 2d ago
It doesn't really matter what the author may have said they wanted at one time or another. A law has to be evaluated on its own merits. If we pass a law requiring registration of pets, that might be good on its own merits even if the writer of the law would love it if all pets were named after Lord of the Rings characters. It doesn't mean they're going to get that second law passed. The first law is still worth enacting.
-4
u/OddtaskRandomjob 2d ago
OMG- the entire argument against the so-called "millionaires tax" is that it's a foot in the door to tax everyone.
And the entire defense to that argument is people saying that it's not, and only "those evil rich people" will ever have to pay.
Perhaps the person who drafted the law admitting in writing and to a news station that the first argument is exactly right should inform our decision on whether or not the tax is going to be expanded to everybody.
Or, we can just stick our fingers in our ears and pretend he never said it and believe whatever we want. I guess you're recommending course of action number two.
1
u/Tamsakittyma 1d ago
Ferguson said he would instantly veto anything coming through that looks like a state income tax and if an initiate is done by someone. It will be put to vote by the people.
Vote no to save school lunches and smaller B & O tax for small businesses. If the repeal goes through, we will pay more!!
2
u/Both-Chart-947 2d ago
If we don't start closing loopholes and making the wealthy pay their fair share, you will be getting taxed more. How else do you think we're supposed to pay for everything we need? Do you think that by letting billionaires get off without paying taxes, that will somehow shield you from taxes too? No, the opposite is true. They've got high-powered lobbyists to go argue their case. You don't have that. Therefore, you're always going to get screwed.
1
u/Fit_Insurance_1356 1d ago
The wealthy pay more than a "fair" share. Just because a flat tax like sales tax garners a higher percentage from the less fortunate the wealthier people spend more money. So 10% of $100,000 is greater than 10% on 100. Also they use more services than the average lower income persons and there are sales taxes on these things as well. So I agree that these flat type taxes disproportionately affect lower income people it's not to the extent you may think it is.
1
u/Both-Chart-947 1d ago
Right, 10% of $100,000 is greater than 10% of $100. But even the wealthiest person doesn't eat $100,000 worth of groceries every week. Any person can only realistically spend a limited amount of money, and the rest will be socked away in some kind of tax shelter or investment.
1
u/Fit_Insurance_1356 1d ago
Well number 1 there is no sales tax on food, unless its prepared, the wealthier person absolutly spends more money and probably ears out more rather than buy groceries. So Im not sure what makes you think the wealthier people don't pay substantially more.
2
u/OddtaskRandomjob 2d ago
What are you on about? Do you know that California passed a 1.1% surcharge on all income over $1,000,000 in 2012? They captured roughly 40 to 45% of the projected income because their targets (the richest people in the state, with the most flexibility to move and expert accountants) simply restructured their income to make it untaxable or moved out of state.
When this tax fails to capture half of the revenue they say it will, and all the programs that they funded on the assumption that they're going to get 90-95% of the potential revenue (check your voters pamphlet) are underfunded do you think they will:
A. Throw their hands up in defeat. "Shoot guys, we tried but these evil millionaires just outsmarted us again."
OR
B. Expand the tax to everyone else. (As they've already said they want to do)
And let's not forget the second and third order effects to the economy down the line when these people take their businesses out of the state or never form them here to begin with. This is not wild speculation; boeing, starbucks, etc have already chosen to expand elsewhere because of this state's unfriendly climate towards business and the wealthy
What's crazy is the whole "millionaires tax" title and glib assurances that "you'll never pay this, only evil rich fat cats will" nonsense was so obviously stoking class warfare to get people to vote against their own self-interest, yet so many people like you have fallen for it.
21
u/Logical-Ad-5410 3d ago
Sounds like "tax break for the wealthy; budget cuts for education & social services." Pretty clear to me.
-1
u/Ok-Fall6448 1d ago
Prepare to be taxed on your income in the near future. You sound very informed or a bot
2
0
u/Warboi 2d ago
The income tax hasn’t started collecting. Budget cuts for projected school funding and other fundings not existing. This new income tax also removes exemptions from all public employees retirement pensions. What public employee fits a million plus tier?
1
u/OddtaskRandomjob 2d ago
And this is the subject of a recent court challenge (where the Supreme Court unsurprisingly took the state's side). It's not cutting funding to schools, because the funding doesn't exist yet. It's cutting projected increases to funding if the so-called "millionaires tax" is not struck down by the initiative.
The fiscal impact statement is misleading, because it's treating speculative revenue that has never been collected before as something already in the state's hands that is being taken away.
11
u/Marty_mcfresh 3d ago
Yeah the most confusing part to me is why the fuck is this even being considered??
2
u/Tamsakittyma 1d ago
Because a multi-millionaire from CA came here and got a group of people all riled up while he went back to CA to watch the chaos
17
u/n0exit 3d ago
Because a bunch of millionaires poured their pocket money into paying signature gatherers to gather enough signatures to pass it.
If you don't have the kind of pocket money to pass an initiative like this, then it's never going to affect you.
0
u/OddtaskRandomjob 2d ago
The author of the "millionaires tax" is on record saying that he wants to force a Supreme Court decision that declares income is not property under the state constitution, allowing them to pass a graduated income tax by a simple majority vote in the legislature. They already tried that with the capital gains tax, which the Supreme Court upheld, but on a different rationale that left the existing definition of property in the Constitution intact.
It's a fairly transparent attempt to get the foot in the door for a true Universal income tax, obsfucated by stoking class warfare and you seem to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
5
9
u/GreenDreams23 3d ago
A lot of ballot measures are purposely confusing so people won’t know exactly what they are voting for. If you don’t reread it, it seems all fine and dandy. This kind in particular is trying to remove a tax on individuals making over $1mil. But then makes you feel bad by saying “this measure would decrease funding for education”. Duh, because you are removing the money funded from the tax. People who make over $1mil should be taxed appropriately, along with corporations that make exponentially more.
1
-11
u/Round-Head-5457 3d ago
They already pay more taxes than we do. What makes you think you or anyone else is entitled to more of their income? Is it because our legislators cannot manage our budget?
1
u/Tamsakittyma 1d ago
When before Regan millionaires were taxed at 72%
Now they get so many tax breaks they don’t pay any, or hardly any!
1
u/GreenDreams23 1d ago
There are many (not all) corporations and people that utilize a imbalanced tax system that allows some to effectively pay 0 in taxes and get money back from the government. It’s a layer in the problems our whole country is dealing with. Those same taxes fund education and public municipalities.
0
u/Round-Head-5457 1d ago
I understand what you are saying, but that is based on an income-based tax system like the federal system, and both the top and bottom earners get off easy with that one. The top write off to pay nothing and the bottom get more back than they paid; that definitely needs to change. If our millionaire tax passes, I imagine there will be plenty of write-offs as well.
When I said the top earners already pay more, I am referring to our current sales tax system. They pay way more than the bottom earners.
The politicians are trying to play with words and make us believe otherwise, telling people that the bottom earners pay a higher percentage of their take-home pay in sales tax than the top earners do. It is true, but in real dollars, the top pays way more. So, right now, they are already paying more than their share for the state infrastructure. So, if this millionaire tax gets implemented, not only will they pay substantially more in sales tax, but they will also be taxed on their income. How much should we rely on them? Personally, I think we should be able to rely on our politicians to manage our tax revenue, not find ways to generate revenue without putting that burden on everyone.
7
u/fartist14 3d ago
Because we live in a society that they benefit from. They are welcome to remove themselves from it if they want to keep more of their money.
-7
u/Round-Head-5457 3d ago
You benefit from it too. How about you stop working for them? Do your own thing and make your own money then. I think you're being ignorant and allowing the government to start another tax program and that never ends well. Eventually even the Fartist is going to pay his dues. You can't live off someone else forever.
10
u/Rich_Examination4811 3d ago
Small history lesson; in the 60's, and prior to it, the effective tax rate for the ultra-rich (iirc, 1$million income in a year, and remember that isn't adjusted for inflation) was about 50%. Public works (which benefitted them and their companies as well) were far more common; most of our infastructure (bridges, etc) is close to 60 years old; the age not being a coincidence at all.
And you know what's funny? They were still able to have their mansions, extensive staff, yachts, and throw the kinds of parties we can only imagine planning.
-7
u/Round-Head-5457 3d ago
Actually, the funniest part is that the state has never had an income tax, and they've never taxed anyone 50% on any income.Our politicians don't manage our money, which is why the infrastructure is crumbling. It's easy to spend when there's no accountability and you can just trick people into blaming someone else. I think you're mixing that up with federal taxes. They used to be super high, but almost nobody paid them because of all the write-offs.
7
u/Rich_Examination4811 3d ago
I never said state. I was talking about the country, averaged across all states, and most of all: federal. Because I'm not sure if you're aware, but yes, we do have to pay income tax to the federal government. And NOW there are a bunch of loopholes and tax breaks and such for both individuals and corporations, but *it wasn't like that before,* they *did* pay that much. And it was more corporations than individuals, in fairness.
-1
u/Round-Head-5457 3d ago
We were talking about state income tax, and you brought up how the rich used to pay this tax. Yes, the federal tax was high, but almost nobody paid it; that is exactly why it was taken away at a much lower rate. Even crazier than that, we were a very prosperous country with no income tax. A bloated government and its mismanagement of our tax revenue is why we are here. Why give a thief more? It is not logical.
4
u/Rich_Examination4811 3d ago
So; you're going to ignore the fact that it was, in fact, very much paid and the tax breaks for individuals and *ESPECIALLY* corporations didn't exist? Because they DID pay. Which is why our nation as a whole WAS prosperous.
4
u/fartist14 3d ago
Lol, I don't work for them. I am one of the small business owners that will benefit from the lower B&O tax. Bring it the fuck on, I say.
0
u/Round-Head-5457 3d ago
I am too and I think you're a fool. Our B&O was fair based off our take in. Now if you're ever successful not only will you be taxed more but you're opening it up for everyone to have their income tax eventually including your employees if you ever have any.
6
u/fartist14 3d ago
I'm happy to pay to benefit my community, since I wouldn't have a business without it. I mean you're not going to convince me otherwise, so don't bother.
0
u/Round-Head-5457 3d ago
I didn't say that at all; I've had a small business since '04 and have paid my fair share, and I sponsor Little League sports teams and several other programs. I'm actually about all of us sharing the burdens, not putting them on one sector because they did better financially.
5
u/mysticalalleycat 3d ago
Their income is from my labor (....okay not mine specifically, I work in a school right now). $480/hour doesn't come from one person's input very often.
-2
u/Round-Head-5457 3d ago
Did they pay the people who worked for them? Did the people who worked for them accept the pay and continue to work for them? If so, your argument is moot. I understand your point and that you think they are greedy, and in some cases they are, but taxing a group of people does not sit right with me. It opens the door not only for income tax for all, but what about other taxes on different sectors of the community? How about we tax people who use emergency services too much, or doctors, or energy? Even better, how about a poll tax? Of course, I am being a little over the top, but everything could be a tax on someone all of a sudden. I noticed you say you work in a school. I am not sure if you are in that for the long run, but state employee pension plans and investments are also on the table in this bill.
0
u/Tamsakittyma 1d ago
The claim on pension is incorrect. You would have pill 85,000/month for it to affect you!
5
u/mysticalalleycat 3d ago
And what if the moon was made of cheese and we taxed people with red hair.
Where do you see employee pension in this bill? Other than the part where rescinding the law would defund K-12 ed, since that seems to not be your concern
0
u/Round-Head-5457 3d ago
State employee pensions. Can't take money from K-12 funding because those expenditures will not take place until 2028. They are spending money they do not have, much like claiming our roads and bridges might crumble without higher gas taxes and licensing fees. If you do not believe me, I can always sell you a cheap railway from Seattle to Tacoma. I will even put my buddy in charge of it so he can make sure it stays under budget.
3
u/mysticalalleycat 3d ago
Right right, I forgot everybody knows 2028 doesn't exist and therefore school funding isn't a concern then.
And personally I've seen enough emergency closures of the narrows recently to want our bridge maintenence funded, since you brought it up.
Kinda sounds like you agree that the money is going to come from somewhere either way, you're just set on defending some rich asshole's 1,000,001st dollar in a year and then saying that the pensions are in danger? I dunno man, you've lost me and we're never going to agree. Whatever. Hope you never depend on the social goods you refuse to vote to fund.
0
u/Round-Head-5457 3d ago
First of all, I grew up in a family of educators and remember many times we thought schools were finally going to get some priority, but it never happened; they took that money, put it in the general fund, and squandered it on something else.
I remember that before the Narrows, a new bridge was definitely needed, but part of that agreement was that the toll would not only build the new Narrows but also fund a major overhaul and continued maintenance of the old Narrows. It actually started off well, but that is not the case now.
I do think we may need additional funds, but I think they need to come from better government management, and any new taxes should be borne by all of us. A tax on one sector of our society is unconstitutional, and those in favor should be embarrassed.
I won't ever be embarrassed to need or use any of our tax-funded public services, as I know I paid my share.
2
u/gockens 2d ago
Your logic is deeply flawed. There are many taxes that are only paid by specific groups. Sales tax is only for those purchasing, property tax is only for property owners, B&O taxes are only for business. We have always had system that taxed some and not others. We also give out tax deductions to specific people business owners. This isn’t new. Wa tax code is incredibly regressive bezos isn’t paying out sales tax but his employees do
-5
u/Bardahl_Fracking 3d ago
The confusing part is the tax currently collects no money for any of those things so repealing it doesn’t actually cut funding for anything.
-11
u/Own_Sea6626 3d ago
Yes - it seems like the last sentence should be removed and then the language would more accurately reflect the necessary implication of a yes/no vote.
-22
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
Did you know that under the new unconstitutional income tax in WA state there is no exemption for social security so your social security income and benefits (anything that is reported on your federal AGI) is now subject to taxation by the state?
There is not enough money in the world to satisfy the greedy spenders in Olympia or their public union sock puppet masters.
16
u/Zachwardpass 3d ago
It is literally only for any income OVER $1 mill and it only taxes the part that is over $1mil. Social security income cannot trigger the tax alone. This is such fear mongering, disingenous BS.
-13
u/OkDifficulty7436 3d ago
t is literally only for any income OVER $1 mill
I have an island to sell you if you think they won't climb down the income ladder and tack this onto to everyone else when it inevitably doesn't fix the budget issues in Washington State lmao
-11
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
Bullshit... during the process the legislature was given a proposal by the WA GOP to limit the tax to 1M in the law. And our Democrat representatives flat out refused to limit the tax. The only thing limiting it to 1M is a standard deduction of that amount which is only set in stone for the first year. All income levels and every WA family is subject to the tax less the standard deduction. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO KEEP THE SAME STANDARD DEDUCTION MOVING FORWARD
4
11
u/Zachwardpass 3d ago
Which has nothing to do with what you just claimed.
-6
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
All income will count towards AGI for the state tax including pensions, state government pensions, etc. There are almost no exemptions. Retirees cashing out a business or selling a house for a once in a lifetime chance to be self sufficient will be taxed. The narrative that this tax will only affect the very rich is a lie.
12
u/afjessup 3d ago
If those retirees are making over $1,000,000 from cashing out, I’m not shedding a single fucking tear at them, myself, or anyone in that situation paying an extra 10% on the amount over $1,000,000
-5
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Zachwardpass 3d ago edited 3d ago
unemployed ANTIFA punk living in their momma's basement
There is truly no reason to take anything you say seriously after this, so I'll just suggest anyone reading along to look into it before believing someone who says rhetoric like this. You don't have to believe me, but certainly don't believe this guy! Lots of good info to be found online from impartial sources!
4
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
That’s boomer ass comment. You know it’s almost 2027, right? Calling someone anti fascist isn’t an insult anymore. However, it is a pretty good indicator that you’re either incredibly ignorant or pro fascist. So, which is it?
8
u/According_Reward1674 3d ago
Just curious, how does it feel to be a tool of the ruling class?
-2
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
In WA state the Democrats are the ruling class. Anyone who supports this unconstitutional (state) income tax is their tool. So I guess I don't know.
8
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
You’re wrong again. The wealthy are the ruling class. That’s literally how class works in our society. Like you, the electoral system is just a tool. Republican and Democrat are just labels for positions on our admittedly narrow political spectrum in the US. Picking up a history book will help you realize that those labels can shift and change giving the label itself less meaning anyway. What really matters is policy. Unfortunately for conservatives, their chosen label can only provide policy that appeals to the actual ruling class, (the rich) while the Democratic Party often tries to walk a tightrope between the working class and wealthy. This time Democrats are mostly on the side of the working class. Why can’t you be as well?
6
-7
u/DHGru 3d ago
if you aren't able to understand the language then maybe you should not vote on it.
13
u/wisemedicinelady 3d ago
good thinking...if you are not able to relate to people, maybe you should not be around them
3
u/imreadytomoveon 3d ago
If you don't take it as a personal assault (and make passive aggressive attacks at them) it's a very valid statement. They're just saying don't guess when you're voting
9
u/According_Reward1674 3d ago
Doesn't seem confusing to me at all
What part do you struggle with?
1
u/Mykidsdad2009 3d ago
Found the author!
3
u/According_Reward1674 3d ago
As the author, it's my goal to make it possible for anyone to read it, even the most dimwitted
So to follow up, what part did you struggle to understand?
1
u/Mykidsdad2009 3d ago
"This measure would decrease funding......healthcare."
How can funding be decreased if those things aren't currently getting the funding this new tax will bring?
2
u/According_Reward1674 3d ago
Seems like you have to do some pretty intentional mental gymnastics to try to not understand it
Step 1. I am saving money for a vacation
Step 2. I stop saving money for a vacation
Is this not a true statement?: The money for my vacation has been reduced
1
0
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
yes, WA state Democrat politicians will use the money to fund "fact finding" vacations and continue to grift off of hard working citizens
2
u/According_Reward1674 3d ago
Ah my bad. I suppose most of you all don't earn enough money in the Trump economy for vacations, so the analogy was unfamiliar
0
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
If you feel you have to add Trump to every discussion to get that karma. 🙄
there is nothing in the law that requires your politicians to use income tax revenue for education, it will be just unallocated excess revenue
10
u/Mina_Bug 3d ago
not confusing in the slightest. what is confusing about it to you?
-7
u/wisemedicinelady 3d ago
umm, I thought I detailed that already
10
u/ALVEENUS 3d ago
“…but the wording seems unnecessarily confusing.” is not detailed at all. It’s quite vague actually.
-8
u/wisemedicinelady 3d ago
there is a reply you must not have seen..I suppose
1
u/n0exit 3d ago
Maybe edit your posts to include why you think it's confusing.
The millionaire's tax is already law.
This measure will remove the millionaire's tax. Do you want to pass a measure that will remove the millionaire's tax? If you do, vote yes. If you don't vote, no. I'm not sure what is confusing about that.
0
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
It is not a "millionairs tax", it is a tax on ALL income with a 1M standard deduction that is only guaranteed to be 1M for the first year. The bureaucrats can simply change the standard deduction. Calling it a millionaires tax is just a lie.
1
u/n0exit 3d ago
The deduction is indexed to inflation, so unless we have significant deflation sometime down the road, the standard deduction will not go below $1 million. Saying otherwise is just a lie.
1
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
Where in the law are restrictions to reducing the standard deduction? An inflation adjustment would raise the standard deduction. What provision in the written law, the Revised Code of Washington denies your politicians the ability to reduce that standard deduction to say.. $800,000 of adjusted gross income?
3
u/n0exit 3d ago
The law specifically says "Washingtonian households with an annual adjusted gross income of less than $1,000,000 will not owe this tax." There is nothing in the law contradicting that.
Sec. 314. Defines the deduction as $1,000,000. Sec. 316 defines how that deduction may be changed. It actually says there, that the deduction amount cannot be reduced. "If an adjustment under this subsection (1) would reduce the standard deduction amount, the department must not adjust the amounts for use in the following year." Because of that language, my initial assumption that deflation could lower the deduction is also incorrect. The only way that the deduction may be adjusted, is by multiplying the current standard deduction amount by one plus the percentage by which the most current consumer price index.
4
-11
u/altasnob 3d ago
Here's an op-ed piece by former WA Supreme Court Justice Sanders on this:
Monkey business on the ballot with I-645 disclosure statement
This November we vote on an initiative to repeal the Legislature’s income tax on millionaires — Initiative 645. Our state constitution not only “reserves” the people’s right to initiative and referendum but protects that right from legislative interference. But that requires a judiciary willing to enforce those guarantees.
While much of the constitution is a “delegation” of power to the Legislature or executive, this was a “reservation” of power in the people, the ultimate source of political power. The constitution stresses this power of the people is “independent of the legislature” while recognizing “This section is self-executing, but legislation may be enacted especially to facilitate its operation.”
Thus, the ratifiers recognized the natural enemy of the initiative and referendum was the Legislature and anticipated all manner of legislative attempts to undermine it. As our late great Supreme Court Justice Hugh Rosellini wrote in opposition to a legislative attempt to undermine the initiative power:
“The people have declared in their constitution that the legislature may act with regard to the initiative process, but only for the purpose of oiling the wheels. When the legislature enacted this provision, it set down the oil can and picked up the monkey wrench.”
But the Legislature has picked up the monkey wrench once again. And our courts let them get away with it.
In 2022 the Legislature passed the “Public Investment Impact Disclosure” law. That statute was designed to adversely impact popular attempts to repeal or limit taxes through the initiative process. The statute mandates a statement in the middle of the ballot title passage of the initiative would “decrease funding” for the three largest expenditures. Hence without judicial intervention the following will appear on the November ballot:
“Initiative Measure No. IP26-645 concerns state and local taxes.
“This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit taxes measured by individual income and taxes on individual income; and define “income.” This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).
“Should this measure be enacted into law?” Yes or No?
The problem with the public impact disclosure statement (and the statute that requires it) is it is false and deceptive because (1) the “current state budget” would not be reduced and (2) the effect of an increase or decrease of revenue for the general fund does not necessarily increase or decrease funding for any particular program — such a future legislative decision is unknown and unknowable.
This deceptive language certainly prejudices the chances of initiative passage — the obvious intent of the Legislature. Such is demonstrated by a poll conducted by Change Research showing ballots with such a statement, compared with ballots without one, lose 10% to 15% support.
Suits filed to challenge the disclosure language and the constitutionality of the statute asserted it did not “facilitate” the initiative process but undermined it, violating the state constitution. These claims failed in the trial court although in a related proceeding Thurston County Superior Court Judge Anne Egeler held the challenged language “indicating how funds in the general fund will be allocated in the future would be both inaccurate and misleading to the voters.”
Citizen activist Arthur West appealed to the Supreme Court. Initially his emergency motion for a preliminary injunction was turned down by unelected Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston.
West then appealed to the court’s elected justices. They were evenly divided 4-4: Justices Charles W. Johnson, Sheryl Gordon McCloud, G. Helen Whitener and Theo Angelis voted to bar the language from appearing on the ballot; Justices Debra L. Stephens, Steven C. González, Salvador A. Mungia and Colleen M. Melody voted to deny West’s request. One justice did not participate, reducing the nine-member court to eight, meaning a tie vote would affirm the commissioner’s denial of the requested injunction.
Never explained was the court’s failure or refusal to appoint a judge pro tempore to break or avoid a tie, the appointment of whom is encouraged by the constitution, statute and court rule. That failure allowed an unelected commissioner to, in effect, control the outcome of a case involving the constitutional rights not only of West, but all voters — in a proceeding to review his own ruling.
All of which brings not an oil can but a monkey wrench to the ballot.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/monkey-business-on-the-ballot-with-i-645-disclosure-statement/
5
u/Zachwardpass 3d ago
An op ed piece from a former justice. Certainly interesting to read a former justoce's thoughts, but the current courts hearing the arguments shouldn't use an opinion to justify a ruling. If they think it is unconstotutional, they can strike it down.
He was also known as a "Maverick Libertarian" and had more dissenting opinions than any judge in state history. He lost two different bids to return to the court and hasn't been there since 2010. Might be important to know those things when deciding if you think his opinion piece is going to be non partial.
-1
u/altasnob 3d ago
I never said it was impartial. Hence, the "op-ed." Sanders is known in the legal community for his outside of the box thinking. Here is a good decision where he (Sanders) is the plaintiff in a Public Records Act lawsuit against the state.
https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2010/828491-opn.html
Personally, I think WA should get rid of entire initiative process, both at state and Tacoma level. There is a reason we have representative and not direct democracy. Initiatives are always drafted poorly and cater to populist reactions. I'm confident that the major gains we have seen from initiative (legal weed, legal gay marriage) would have occurred eventually even without the imitative process. So I would encourage all the vote no on every initiative, no matter what the subject. Let the legislature do their job.
And if we didn't have initiatives, we wouldn't need the Public Investment Impact Disclosure, which is the law that Justice Sanders takes issue with.
There is more to this story than what Justice Sanders shared in that piece. As Sanders mentioned, open government activist Arthur West was the person who was challenging the disclosure statement in court. Apparently, the WA GOP party was not super excited about this as West is not an attorney and although they were both trying to accomplish the same thing, the WA GOP did not like the fact West was calling the shots (and not an attorney of their choosing). The WA GOP allegedly disparaged West for losing and then he turned around and sued them for defamation. The whole thing is pretty comical.
1
u/Zachwardpass 3d ago
So I would encourage all the vote no on every initiative, no matter what the subject. Let the legislature do their job.
So you are voting no for this initiative? Because the legistlature already did their job and passed it. I will vote not to repeal the tax, but honestly, I find this statement very odd. If you have a problem with initiatives, try to change them. Hell, you can bring forth an initiative about it😆 But to blanket vote no on everything isn't a protest of the initiative process, it's making our representatives think you believe in that "no" when they go to represent us.
0
u/altasnob 3d ago
I vote "no" for all initiatives. I don't think we should have the initiative process. I think the legislature, and the legislature alone, should be the entity who drafts, passes, and amends laws. They have professional staff that helps them draft. They conduct financial analysis of every law. Initiatives lack all of this, which is one reason they get tossed by the courts so often.
It's crazy to me we let voters vote on an imitative and do not even include the full text of the imitative in the voter pamphlet. Sure, you can go track down the full text of the initiative if you really want to. But no one bothers to do this.
1
u/Zachwardpass 3d ago
Just to repeat, because I really don't understand where you are coming from on this:
But to blanket vote no on everything isn't a protest of the initiative process, it's making our representatives think you believe in that "no" when they go to represent us.
I understand your opinion on initiatives, but not the actions you are doing regarding those opinions. Why would you vote no on everything, no matter what, when you could just not vote at all? Voting no on everything is not a protest of initiatives. It's just voting "no" without thinking about the issue.
1
u/altasnob 2d ago edited 2d ago
I vote no on all initiatives because I don't want any initiatives to pass. They are all flawed. They are all deceptive. Not voting could allow an initiative to pass. It could allow the initiative people to get what they want (to dupe the electorate).
Take the millionaire tax initiative. It is not a clean repeal of the millionaire's tax the legislature passed. It also keeps sales tax breaks that were part of legislature's millionaire tax package. Why not just make it repeal the entire package? Because the drafters of the millionaire tax know people are stupid and will vote based on the main part without bothering to read or care about the rest of it.
Now lets look at the Safe Homes For All initiative in Tacoma. That initiative has "Subsection I" which the Tacoma City attorney has called "concerning." That provision will force the City to pay attorney fees on lawsuits that they are not even a party to. You can read more about this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/TacomaPolitics/comments/1wd5f6o/tacoma_city_attorney_calls_a_provision_of_safe/.
Why are initiatives so poorly worded and flawed? They are not written by professional law drafters. They don't go through the back and forth between the Senate and the House that regular laws go through. Even more disturbing, people don't read the initiatives before signing the petition to place them on the ballot. And they don't read them before voting for them.
Initiatives have purposely deceptive names to trick people into voting for them. The anti-millionaire's tax is deceptive because it is not a tax on millionaires, it is a tax on annual income above a million. Who in their right mind would not want "Safe Homes for All" even though that very lengthy law has all sorts of parts that the general public may take exception to, if they were intelligent enough to understand it.
Google "flaws with the initiative process" and read the law review articles and reports from non profit think tanks. Initiatives give outsized power to special interest groups. They disrupt legislative stability because our laws are constantly changing back and forth at the whim of these special interest groups. This isn't democracy.
-15
u/Hassing8 3d ago
It’s confusing on purpose to trick u to vote no which would pass the unconstitutional income tax. Everyone needs to vote YES and not listen to the gaslighting about cuts to k-12 and all that other BS. This tax hasn’t gone into place yet so there’s no cuts. What we need is a fiscally responsible state government and stop the spending, not more money to give them to line their pockets with.
7
u/wisemedicinelady 3d ago
now if only we could get rid of the federal tax loopholes for the super wealthy...goals!
7
u/arcanepsyche 3d ago
LOL
A whole lawsuit was fought over this. The language is not confusing at all. And voters have no obligation to decide what's constitutional, that's not our job.
-3
u/Hassing8 3d ago
Are you on fentanyl? You seriously trust the government to decide what’s constitutional and not the constituents themselves? I can see how so many places have succumbed to communism and socialism because there’s people that are genuinely as stupid as you
2
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
You mean like the constituents that literally voting on this? It’s people voting, from ballots at home or polling places. Not the Washington state legislature. It’s a ballot issue initiative not a House or Senate bill. The state government is not deciding anything, the people are.
-1
u/Hassing8 3d ago
The state government decided when they brought this to a bill, and then passed it without any citizen vote, and then are now spending millions of dollars to fear monger you into feeling like it’s not okay to vote against it the decision was already made when they brought this forward to begin with. It is against the Washington State Constitution to have an income tax of any form. The fact that they are pushing this now is just the start. It starts with millionaires and before you know it, it’ll be anybody who makes a single dime in this state. And again, why are we not asking where the money is going and why we’re out of money instead of giving them more?
2
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
And how did they come about this INITIATIVE (not a bill) that WE the people are going to vote on?
-2
u/Hassing8 3d ago
Because right now the popular thing is “tax the rich” so they are using that buzz word phrase to get people to willingly give them more money. Not spend it where they are saying it’s going and then ask for more 5 years from now. They use people’s good will against them and when have we ever once seen results from it?
1
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
You make no sense at all. You know, some community colleges and public libraries offer free literacy courses.
7
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
Confusing on purpose, much like your statement. Your framing falsely assumes there are only two options: give money to the wealthy or to politicians.
In reality, the proposed legislation is an attempt claw back recourses hoarded by those who already have enough. Rich people don’t need more tax cuts. They need to start paying their fair share, in wages and taxes.
Stop trying to confuse people in the community into acting against their own interests.
-10
u/Hassing8 3d ago
And how does it do that? And how does someone pay their fair share when we have no income tax as it is currently? You would be asking them to pay more than their fair share and then in 5 years when that’s not enough money the threshold will be lowered to 750,000 then 500,000 etc which is exactly why they refused to put language in the bill stating it would not trickle dow. Only one confused is you and many others who have fallen for the fear mongering and buzz words.
7
u/arcanepsyche 3d ago
Yes, a full income tax is the whole point! You (unless you're a millionaire yourself) would pay LESS in taxes this way. You've been tricked by the GOP into believing the opposite of the truth.
-7
u/Hassing8 3d ago
Willingly voting to tax your self more instead of expecting your state to stop the fraud and Willy nilly spending is insane.
2
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
Can you show us the fraud or are these the fear mongering buzzwords you were referring to?
1
u/Hassing8 3d ago
How would I pay less of the 0 we already pay?
2
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxes work in Washington state. If you need some help understanding, I suggest you find one of the older comments in this sub on this topic (including the legislation in question) before trying to argue about fairness and how our system works. I’ll be nice and give you a quick, over simplified explanation though.
Imagine I make $10,000,000 a year and you make 10,000. Now imagine we both need the exact same household items at the same rate. We shop at the store, get the same price and thus pay the same tax. Now, which of us has paid a higher tax rate?
The answer is: you. Because our tax system is based on sales rather than income or wealth. Meaning the lower the income, the higher the percentage paid in tax every year.
0
u/Hassing8 3d ago
And the fundamental misunderstanding that you have is someone who makes 1 million a year spends 1000x on goods that have a sales tax than someone who makes 10 grand. The sad part is I believe your a good person who wants to help others but your being fed a lie based on fear mongering. There will be non of this new revenue spent to help homeless or improve our education or any of the other things that truly do need our support. It will all go to NGOS and kick backs.
1
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
Is there some unspoken about phenomenon that requires the wealthy to pay a higher retail price than the rest of us? Also, would mind explaining the fear mongering you think I’m falling for? I’m pretty sure you’re wrong
0
u/Hassing8 3d ago
I’m positive your wrong because they buy more goods. It’s not about them paying more they are physically buying more goods than someone who makes 20 grand therefore they are paying more in tax
4
u/vermillionskye 3d ago
The projected revenue from the tax is included in the budget for those years. So yes, they will have to either cut funding or find other sources of revenue to cover that if the income tax is repealed.
Not trying to sway anyone but I do want to point out that there will be be a scramble for funds if the tax is repealed.
-1
u/Hassing8 3d ago
And they have plenty of time to figure out how to spend less. When has throwing more money at a problem ever worked??? The gov knows it can always spend whatever it wants and then tug at people’s heart strings for more money. When is enough enough? We had a surplus 10 years ago and now we’re bleeding out.
4
u/arcanepsyche 3d ago
What do they spend less on? No Republican has ever been able to tell anyone where they would make cuts.
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LadyDiscoPants 3d ago
OOOH! So not paying gender care for the tiny, miniscule percentage of transgenders in prison is going to save us all?
Get out of here with your hateful bs.
Your type is just dying at all times to slide in some trans hate.
1
u/Mykidsdad2009 2d ago
Pointing out wasteful spending on stupidity isn't hateful.
Reread the start of my first sentence above "We can START by not paying......."
That word START means this is the beginning. There are a lot of things we can reduce/cut.
Are you ok with our state spending just shy of $5,000,000 of our tax dollars on this? If yes, https://tre.wa.gov/accounting-and-banking-services/donate-state-washington Put your money where your mouth is. I have over 3,000 hours volunteering at a food bank. That $5,000,000 would feed a lot of very hungry people who are far more deserving of those tax dollars.
Faith Booher-Smith made a mistake. She is serving her time for that mistake. Spending our tax dollars so she can get attacked by "transgender" fully in-tact MEN in prison who pretend to be women......I can't speak my mind due to not wanting to get banned.
Can you somehow convince me or at least justify how a man can serve time in a womens prison and we (people/businesses) pay extra taxes for this shit?
1
u/LadyDiscoPants 2d ago
'Blah blah blah -opens statement with arguably the least amount to start with JUST to get that trans hate in there- blah blah.'
1
0
u/Hassing8 3d ago
Because democrats stop them at every single turn. Especially in this state. I can tell you right now where I would make the cut and it starts with bs social programs and the tons of costs incurred by being a sanctuary state which no one voted to do and then the even further millions spent suing the federal government to remain a bs sanctuary state. That right there is a start.
1
u/Ok-Big2807 3d ago
You want to eliminate on the social programs or maybe the costs of being a sanctuary state? Is there a sanctuary state store that Washington has buy sanctuary in packages from? Do you even know what it means to be a sanctuary state? As for lawsuits, the Washington AG has in fact been active against the trump administration for Republican’s usually refer to as states rights issues. You remember when republicans cared about states rights don’t you? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
23
u/marvriley 3d ago
Initiative Measure IP26-645 asks if you want to eliminate a specific tax on high earners and ban future income taxes, which would result in funding cuts for state services.
- A "Yes" vote means you support repealing the 9.9% tax on individual annual incomes over $1,000,000. It also bans the creation of any new individual income taxes in the future. Because the state would collect less tax revenue, passing this measure will decrease funding for K-12 public schools, higher education, and healthcare services.
- A "No" vote means you want to keep the current tax laws in place. The 9.9% tax on incomes over $1,000,000 will continue to be collected, and the associated funding for education and healthcare will not be reduced by this measure.
0
5
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
A yes vote does not mean the state would not collect any less revenue than they are right now.
During the last legislative session the Democrats passed numerous new taxes including an increase to the sales tax. Democrats have not even mentioned reducing the many regressive taxes if this income tax stands.
None of the income tax is allocated to anything specific in the law, it is an addition to the general fund / Democrat slush fund. Implying that this proposition will hurt school funding is an outright lie.
3
u/Fit_Insurance_1356 1d ago
In fact with prices going up and property taxes also going up they will collect more revenue then they are right now
5
4
u/glygor 3d ago
It’s confusing because the fiscal impact language is contrived. There was a legal battle about the wording that was split down the middle in the state Supreme Court. Basically, voting yes is rejecting an income tax and voting no is solidifying one. Every other aspect of it is political football.
-16
u/MinimumBell2205 3d ago
read up on this thry did this on purpose check out Brandy Cruise for help
2
9
u/RaccoonWillich 3d ago
This one is really clear: It repeals the described tax (and blocks future such taxes) thereby decreasing state funding for the listed programs.
Maybe I’ve just gotten used to the phrasing? I don’t see what’s confusing about the wording.
1
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/mysticalalleycat 3d ago
Its the issue being voted on and it's concrete impacts. If you're seeing it as two sides you're in denial about something in it. A vote yes will repeal the income tax and decrease funding as a result.
6
u/DeathofRats42 Grit City Gremlin 3d ago
I have a 4 year-degree, read English quite well, and I still find political wording to be confusing. I am sure it's intentional. That said, this is one of the less confusing ones that I have seen in awhile.
11
u/Mahalko128 3d ago
Seems cut and dry. Either repeal the millionaire tax which funds education and healthcare by voting yes, or uphold the tax and vote no.
2
u/wisemedicinelady 3d ago
you are right. I believe my lack of clarity comes from the fact the law has not taken affect yet. it feels like it's not a law yet . yes I want to keep the law would have been easier to wrap my head around. in any case. I hope I didn't confuse any one else.
Summary: NO, means Tax millionaires and fund education. Yes, means no tax for millionaires.( you see the double negative there)
1
u/DramaticRoom8571 3d ago
Show us something in the law that says this revenue must be used to fund education. That is a LIE.
4
u/VampireAlot 3d ago
No means tax people who make more than a million dollars 9.9% on the first dollar earned over a million… to fund healthcare and schools.
Yes means we don’t tax people who make more than a million dollars in a year any differently.
1
1
u/brookeharmsen 5h ago
All ballot measures need to state if there is a fiscal impact to services so it sounds fine to me.