5 ms·

I’m in Wilsonville, moved from Seattle (but I grew up in Portland). One thing that WA has over OR is no income tax. I’d gladly have sales tax again to not pay

I’m in Wilsonville, moved from Seattle (but I grew up in Portland). One thing that WA has over OR is no income tax. I’d gladly have sales tax again to not pay the income tax.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
We’ll see how long Washington can maintain its income-tax free environment [1]. 1. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-council-to-vote-today-on-income-tax-on-the-wealthy/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-c...
- victor9000 9y ago
  Except this law violates various state laws, as well as the state constitution, so it will be struck down upon judicial review.
  - boomlinde 9y ago
    Those facts are not an exception to "we'll see"
  - barsonme 9y ago
    > as well as the state constitution Given the current makeup of the state supreme court, it's a coin flip.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  > “Whoever goes against this is openly causing suffering,” she said. This quote really stands out to me. Is this demonization of opposing viewpoints a new thing, or am I just noticing it more in the last two years?
  - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
    >Is this demonization of opposing viewpoints a new thing, or am I just noticing it more in the last two years? I think it's more in recent years. Especially in the US where things are highly polarized and every issue seems to have a "Republican" take and a "Democratic" take. So points of view on specific situations are taken to reflect much more about a person's overall position than they actually do. And we have more echo chambers reinforcing our conviction about being right in the first place. Finally I think there is also something legitimate about connecting viewpoints to consequences and evidence where possible, and discussing higher level concepts with the low level consequences in peoples' lives, in order to understand the tradeoffs that each point of view entails. I do think certain viewpoints are tightly linked to certain outcomes, and it wouldn't be demonizing to say "If you are for policy X you are accepting the likely effects Y and Z".
  - jmcqk6 9y ago
    I think that this is probably a logical extension of the underlying logic. Sales taxes are inherently harder on people with less money than people with more money. That's demonstrable just based on simple math. Any argument for sales taxes over income taxes that doesn't recognize that fundamental mathematical truth is not being intellectually honest (or doesn't know the topic very well).
    - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
      The problem is that no one is naive enough to believe they'll somehow lower any existing taxes (either sales or property) with the introduction of an income tax. They'll keep them all, and try and introduce some new program that helps a specific demographic. From what I see, this usually ends up with money moving between pockets with a bureaucracy taking its cut along the way. I try not to be overly political, but I can't stand the idea of a strong, central planning government. Let's see a balanced, itemized budget. Even in the article they're just spitballing ideas with what they could do it an extra $140m.
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      It doesn't seem like it logically follows to me. The government having more money is often a good thing, but it has to be weighed against the damage government programs can do and the costs to the people of higher taxation. It's debatable, and people like the woman in the article want to short-circuit the debate by calling the other side the devil.

I’m in Wilsonville, moved from Seattle (but I grew up in Portland). One thing that WA has over OR is no income tax. I’d gladly have sales tax again to not pay the income tax.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago

We’ll see how long Washington can maintain its income-tax free environment [1]. 1. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-council-to-vote-today-on-income-tax-on-the-wealthy/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-c...

victor9000 9y ago
Except this law violates various state laws, as well as the state constitution, so it will be struck down upon judicial review.
- boomlinde 9y ago
  Those facts are not an exception to "we'll see"
- barsonme 9y ago
  > as well as the state constitution Given the current makeup of the state supreme court, it's a coin flip.
Simon_says 9y ago
> “Whoever goes against this is openly causing suffering,” she said. This quote really stands out to me. Is this demonization of opposing viewpoints a new thing, or am I just noticing it more in the last two years?
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  >Is this demonization of opposing viewpoints a new thing, or am I just noticing it more in the last two years? I think it's more in recent years. Especially in the US where things are highly polarized and every issue seems to have a "Republican" take and a "Democratic" take. So points of view on specific situations are taken to reflect much more about a person's overall position than they actually do. And we have more echo chambers reinforcing our conviction about being right in the first place. Finally I think there is also something legitimate about connecting viewpoints to consequences and evidence where possible, and discussing higher level concepts with the low level consequences in peoples' lives, in order to understand the tradeoffs that each point of view entails. I do think certain viewpoints are tightly linked to certain outcomes, and it wouldn't be demonizing to say "If you are for policy X you are accepting the likely effects Y and Z".
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  I think that this is probably a logical extension of the underlying logic. Sales taxes are inherently harder on people with less money than people with more money. That's demonstrable just based on simple math. Any argument for sales taxes over income taxes that doesn't recognize that fundamental mathematical truth is not being intellectually honest (or doesn't know the topic very well).
  - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
    The problem is that no one is naive enough to believe they'll somehow lower any existing taxes (either sales or property) with the introduction of an income tax. They'll keep them all, and try and introduce some new program that helps a specific demographic. From what I see, this usually ends up with money moving between pockets with a bureaucracy taking its cut along the way. I try not to be overly political, but I can't stand the idea of a strong, central planning government. Let's see a balanced, itemized budget. Even in the article they're just spitballing ideas with what they could do it an extra $140m.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    It doesn't seem like it logically follows to me. The government having more money is often a good thing, but it has to be weighed against the damage government programs can do and the costs to the people of higher taxation. It's debatable, and people like the woman in the article want to short-circuit the debate by calling the other side the devil.