My view about income taxes
I don't like them. That should be fairly obvious by now.
In any case, I'll be short this time.
Here is background. The Democrats in Olympia want to impost an income tax in Washington State. To do so, one needs a constitutional amendment - such a tax was ruled unconstitutional way back in 1935. Stare Decisis says we cannot have one - unless we make changes. Which requires a 2/3 vote.
This was the genius of our founding fathers - they designed a system to kill legislation. Bad legislation. In their mind, legislatures were to make small changes over time - basically, tinker with institutions that need tinkering. Not to lead revolutions. Which is why we have supermajorities to change legislative rules, several layers of government to approve something, courts to overturn things.
This was tattered a bit in the 1910's, and the 1930's, but largely, the structure is still in place.
Despite the fact that Democrats love taxes, they are afraid to impose an income tax in Washington State. Because Republicans might start running the place again. A temperate observer of Olympia, John Postman, writes about this stuff on his blog (actually, he is a reporter with the Seattle Times, so he gets paid to write about this stuff). He mentioned that Democrats are only slowly coming out of the shadows.
Well, a bunch of Seattle types really want an income tax. Because they want more taxes. If they could, they would tax 134% of your income - and demand more. Their is no such thing as a logical roof on levels of taxation - basically, supply-side economics is complete and utter bunk (even though Keynesian economics does agree with supply-side economic theory when marginal tax rates go into the stratosphere).
I responded - here is what I wrote:
There are of course four problems with the state income tax:
1) Washington is already a highly taxed state. We're in the top ten. This will push us even higher.2) And is the value of our services in proportion to our level of taxes? Ha!3) As mentioned above, the sales tax will incrementally increase, to match the nearly 9% it is today.4) There is always this concern about regression. My saying is "regression, schmregression." Government services under a sales tax are applied equally. Sure, if you're rich, you might get a nicer street and the police have better response times, but you are already paying more than someone else into the system. Even under a regressive system.There has been this absurd idea about equality of conditions floating around for 200 years. And this idiotic idea has been the source of the biggest miseries over the last 200 years. Sure the rich pay less as a percentage of income, but they pay much more in sales tax as well. And unlike an income tax, it is very difficult to cheat and find exceptions in the sales tax system (you can't dodge a sales tax when you are buying a $60,000 car, for example - even if you buy in Oregon).The thing is, we all get benefit from government services. Hence, we should all pay for government services. And yes, the rich will pay more for said services. But it allows for everyone to contribute. In reality, the true regressive nature of taxation comes in that those who pay the least get the higher proportion of benefits compared to what they contribute toward the system.
This is a pretty keen observation, if you ask me!
One last note: The funny thing is, that, a generation ago, "moderate" Republicans were pushing for income taxes in their respective states! This is probably why an actual "moderate" Republican deserves to be listed on the endangered species list.
In any case, I'll be short this time.
Here is background. The Democrats in Olympia want to impost an income tax in Washington State. To do so, one needs a constitutional amendment - such a tax was ruled unconstitutional way back in 1935. Stare Decisis says we cannot have one - unless we make changes. Which requires a 2/3 vote.
This was the genius of our founding fathers - they designed a system to kill legislation. Bad legislation. In their mind, legislatures were to make small changes over time - basically, tinker with institutions that need tinkering. Not to lead revolutions. Which is why we have supermajorities to change legislative rules, several layers of government to approve something, courts to overturn things.
This was tattered a bit in the 1910's, and the 1930's, but largely, the structure is still in place.
Despite the fact that Democrats love taxes, they are afraid to impose an income tax in Washington State. Because Republicans might start running the place again. A temperate observer of Olympia, John Postman, writes about this stuff on his blog (actually, he is a reporter with the Seattle Times, so he gets paid to write about this stuff). He mentioned that Democrats are only slowly coming out of the shadows.
Well, a bunch of Seattle types really want an income tax. Because they want more taxes. If they could, they would tax 134% of your income - and demand more. Their is no such thing as a logical roof on levels of taxation - basically, supply-side economics is complete and utter bunk (even though Keynesian economics does agree with supply-side economic theory when marginal tax rates go into the stratosphere).
I responded - here is what I wrote:
There are of course four problems with the state income tax:
1) Washington is already a highly taxed state. We're in the top ten. This will push us even higher.2) And is the value of our services in proportion to our level of taxes? Ha!3) As mentioned above, the sales tax will incrementally increase, to match the nearly 9% it is today.4) There is always this concern about regression. My saying is "regression, schmregression." Government services under a sales tax are applied equally. Sure, if you're rich, you might get a nicer street and the police have better response times, but you are already paying more than someone else into the system. Even under a regressive system.There has been this absurd idea about equality of conditions floating around for 200 years. And this idiotic idea has been the source of the biggest miseries over the last 200 years. Sure the rich pay less as a percentage of income, but they pay much more in sales tax as well. And unlike an income tax, it is very difficult to cheat and find exceptions in the sales tax system (you can't dodge a sales tax when you are buying a $60,000 car, for example - even if you buy in Oregon).The thing is, we all get benefit from government services. Hence, we should all pay for government services. And yes, the rich will pay more for said services. But it allows for everyone to contribute. In reality, the true regressive nature of taxation comes in that those who pay the least get the higher proportion of benefits compared to what they contribute toward the system.
This is a pretty keen observation, if you ask me!
One last note: The funny thing is, that, a generation ago, "moderate" Republicans were pushing for income taxes in their respective states! This is probably why an actual "moderate" Republican deserves to be listed on the endangered species list.
posted by EricMatthew at 8:07 PM
<< Home