4 ms·
The article also conflates the tax increase with the cost of the plan, which are two entirely separate things. Whether the government immediately raises taxes e
by danjayh 10y ago
The article also conflates the tax increase with the cost of the plan, which are two entirely separate things. Whether the government immediately raises taxes enough to cover the whole tab or does it at some later point doesn't really matter -- the people will eventually pay (this is also the case for our massive federal debt). In this case, Seattle is covering under a third of the cost with their up-front tax increase, so for the article to suggest that the tax increase should be the number that folks consider is disingenuous at best.
- Hydraulix989 10y agoOne of the pluses of living in Seattle instead of the Bay Area is the significantly lower taxes (especially given that Washington has no state income tax); this could be a trend in the wrong direction. I'd really hate to see Seattle become the next Bay Area (except without the nice weather to justify the higher costs of living).
- techsupporter 10y ago> this could be a trend in the wrong direction Some, like myself, argue that Puget Sound's taxes (and those in Seattle, specifically) are too low to both pay for the infrastructure we have and that which we need. Our property tax rate inside Seattle is in the bottom half of the country and our sales tax is relied upon too heavily and fluctuates too much to be used for funding things that need a long-term stable tax source. I'm perfectly willing to pay taxes on transit, schools, roads, water-and-wastewater, social services, and even a municipal fiber optic network. Voters usually agree with me since almost all of these levies have been put to a public vote and are approved in, generally, at least 2:1 margins.
- Hydraulix989 10y agoI still remember how miffed everyone was about the toll bridge...