Explain this thought process, please.

[jillio]

Washington State has no state income tax. They are currently in significant debt and do not have the income to bring the state out of debt. The infrastructure is suffering.

On the latest election, they proposed instituting an income tax that would not kick in until a single had made $200,000 or a married couple had made $400,000. That means, if a couple were making $500,000, they would have made income tax only on the money above $400,000, or on $100,000. The amount, at the proposed percentage of 5%, would have been $5,000. Only $5000 on a $500,000 income. The number of people affected in the state would have been an approximate 2%. So, 98% of the people voted out a tax that would not have affected them at all, but would have brought the state out of debt and allowed needed repairs to the infrastructure.

Someone, please explain to me the rationale that made people vote down such a reasonable and fair solution.

 

[Reba]

You would have to ask the Washington voters for their reasons. I can think of a couple. Because they know that once you open the gate to income tax there's no ever closing it. The limitations set now could be changed (for the worse) later. Also, it could be seen as a hindrance to future businesses coming into the area.

Would that potential amount really be enough to bring the state out of debt permanently?

 

[jillio]

You would have to ask the Washington voters for their reasons. I can think of a couple. Because they know that once you open the gate to income tax there's no ever closing it. The limitations set now could be changed (for the worse) later. Also, it could be seen as a hindrance to future businesses coming into the area.

Would that potential amount really be enough to bring the state out of debt permanently?

How would it be a hindrance to future business? You have given me potential reasons. I am looking for the thought process behind those reasons. Exactly how do you think these predictions will come true?
My point, people do not think things through to the end. They simply hang onto something they have heard, and never question the why or the how. When the why and the how are investigated, the superficial reasons are, 90%of the time, disproven.

What permanently? No state stays out of debt permanently. But it would certainly take them farther out of debt than they are currently. That is what progress is all about. Forward movement.

 

[Reba]

How would it be a hindrance to future business? You have given me potential reasons. I am looking for the thought process behind those reasons. Exactly how do you think these predictions will come true.

My point, people do not think things through to the end. They simply hang onto something they have heard, and never question the why or the how. When the why and the how are investigated, the superficial reasons are, 90%of the time, disproven.

Like I said, you have to ask the voters if you really want to know.

Our federal income tax was supposed to be temporary and limited in scope. How'd that work out? That could be a precedence that the Washingtonians were concerned about.

 

[Tousi]

I also wonder how many dollars the 2% of the citizenry would have brought in at 5K per head.

 

[Reba]

You addendum:

What permanently? No state stays out of debt permanently. But it would certainly take them farther out of debt than they are currently. That is what progress is all about. Forward movement.

If that amount isn't enough to keep them out of debt then what's to stop the state from increasing the percentage and lowering the cutoff limit in order to get even more tax revenue?

You consider increasing taxes to be progress?

 

[Tousi]

This may or may not be relevant but I saw a headline somewhere that said "Rich Avoid New Jersey"......

 

[jillio]

I also wonder how many dollars the 2% of the citizenry would have brought in at 5K per head.

That 5K was only the estimate given for 100,000 dollars of taxable income. It was an example.

But again, it would have been more than is in the coffers now, and without taking anything out of the pocket books of 98% of the population. Yet 100% of the population would be enjoying the improvement.

 

[jillio]

Like I said, you have to ask the voters if you really want to know.

Our federal income tax was supposed to be temporary and limited in scope. How'd that work out? That could be a precedence that the Washingtonians were concerned about.

We are talking about state income tax, not federal.

Would you have voted for this state income tax? If not, why would you not have voted for it?

 

[Jiro]

My sweet friend said it the best - "looks like the purposes of slowing down the recovery economy progress and creation of job opportunities are to let people including government to learn to save more money, spend wisely, and use resources."

 

[jillio]

This may or may not be relevant but I saw a headline somewhere that said "Rich Avoid New Jersey"......

Probably very relevent. We are discussing the thought processes behind political decisions.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

No need for income tax.

Reduce taxes to zero where people notice, just hide the tax somewhere else where people won't notice and prime it to the point where it could pay off the debt, slash services to the point where people are hurting, wait 10-15 years, bam, you're out of debts. Then hide the pain the people are going through, and ride on the illusion that it's for the betterness of the province.

It's the Canadian way.

 

[Tousi]

That 5K was only the estimate given for 100,000 dollars of taxable income. It was an example.

But again, it would have been more than is in the coffers now, and without taking anything out of the pocket books of 98% of the population. Yet 100% of the population would be enjoying the improvement.

Yes, I already see this...it is an age-old story..picking on the rich has bad side effects as we all know...

 

[Jiro]

We are talking about state income tax, not federal.

Would you have voted for this state income tax? If not, why would you not have voted for it?

absolutely not. IMO - Income Tax is illegal. It's thievery. I did the work with my blood and sweat... not government. I'll gladly pay for any other tax like gas tax, sales tax, property tax, etc... but not income tax.

 

[jillio]

My sweet friend said it the best - "looks like the purposes of slowing down the recovery economy progress and creation of job opportunities are to let people including government to learn to save more money, spend wisely, and use resources."

Now, explain exactly how that is to be done. What resources. Resources without funding dry up. How do we stop the infrastructure from crumbling. Take people's cars away? Institute a fine for driving over a certain number of miles every week? How do we create jobs without the funds to start business?

 

[jillio]

absolutely not. IMO - Income Tax is illegal. It's thievery. I did the work with my blood and sweat... not government. I'll gladly pay for any other tax like gas tax, sales tax, property tax, etc... but not income tax.

So, do you also refuse to use the benefits that an income tax provides for the state?

 

[jillio]

Yes, I already see this...it is an age-old story..picking on the rich has bad side effects as we all know...

Picking on the rich? Are you serious?

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

absolutely not. IMO - Income Tax is illegal. It's thievery. I did the work with my blood and sweat... not government. I'll gladly pay for any other tax like gas tax, sales tax, property tax, etc... but not income tax.

So do you consider corporate, business and payroll taxes thievery as well? It's not coming out of your cheques, but it's affecting how much you make.

 

[Tousi]

Probably very relevent. We are discussing the thought processes behind political decisions.

Ok, point taken. As a voter, I wouldn't have picked on the "rich". Is that what Washington residents did?

 

[Reba]

We are talking about state income tax, not federal.

Can you just ignore that? You don't see how that is a precedence?

Would you have voted for this state income tax? If not, why would you not have voted for it?

I would not vote for a state income tax. In fact, in our state I would vote to do away with the one we have.

Why should I vote to increase the amount of money the state bureaucrats will have to waste? They haven't properly managed the tax revenue they've been getting so why give them more of it?