Washington voters will stand behind tax hike
Editor, The Times:
Oregon voters got it right [“Now is not the time for a tax party,” Opinion, Jan. 29]. They supported raising taxes to prevent $730 million in cuts to health care, education and other core services that would have devastated their state and undermined its long-term economic prosperity.
Washington legislators should take a lesson from Oregon voters and close tax loopholes, raise new revenue and fund the programs that the people of our state so desperately need in these unprecedented tough times.
Oregon voters stood behind lawmakers committed to dealing with this downturn in a responsible and balanced way. Leaders in Washington need to know that our state’s voters will do the same.
Only when Washington pulls out of this economic downturn, with its communities and public structures intact, will it be time to party.
— Rebecca Kavoussi, Seattle
Stop squeezing the needy
How quickly the spin is being applied to Oregon’s vote to increase the state income tax on the wealthy and corporations [“State Democrats see lesson in Oregon vote,” NWThursday, Jan. 28]. The Times’ Politics Northwest column reports that state Democrats are taking the Oregon vote as a sign that Washington voters would be happy to pay more taxes. Huh?
No, the point is that we should require those resting on their millions to contribute to the social good. In order to save vital services — such as Basic Health, education and food for children — Washington, like Oregon, needs a state income tax on millionaires and large corporations. It’s the only sensible solution and it’s long past time to dump the current tax structure that penalizes the poor.
Sens. Rosa Franklin, Jim McDermott and Jeanne Kohl-Welles are sponsoring Senate Bill 6250, which would institute a graduated state income tax and would slice sales and property taxes. I challenge legislators to bring it to a hearing this session. Then they’ll hear the electorate’s real message: Stop squeezing the neediest; tax the wealthy!
— Helen Gilbert, Seattle
Sales tax is not regressive
Some have noted that Washington’s sales tax is regressive: “It eats up a larger slice of poor peoples’ income.” This has not been true for years — not since Washington removed the sales tax from food and prescription medicines.
Low-income people spend most of their income on shelter, food, utilities and — if they are old or have young children — medical costs. Sales taxes are not collected on gasoline or bus fares. The [low-income people] I know buy their clothes in thrift stores. The cost is much lower, about 10 percent of retail in my neighborhood thrift store. So, the sales tax is collected on a much lower base.
Years ago, when Washington collected sales tax on food, the sales tax was regressive. That is no longer true. Former Gov. John Spellman said the sales tax has become a luxury tax. He’s right.
— Dave Rogers, Vashon
Reinstate estate tax
Now that the Senate has returned to work, I want to see our senators reinstate the estate tax. Rather than provide tax breaks for a few wealthy Americans, shouldn’t we make a much-needed investment in America’s future?
Haven’t the very wealthy already been bailed out? In times like these, we should be figuring out how to get America back on its feet, not throwing more money at people who don’t need it. I urge the Senate do the right thing and vote to preserve the estate tax.
— Jeanne McMenemy, Walla Walla
Provide businesses equal opportunity
In The Times’ Jan. 21 op-ed, Todd Achilles seeks to tax and punish those whose talents and efforts produce a substantial estate [“In tough times, it’s irresponsible to allow estate tax to lapse,” Opinion]. He has the arrogance to say a continuation of this tax will only affect a tiny number of the wealthy. Is it responsible to put a special tax on someone because they are few in number? Is that equal justice under the law?
Some risk-takers, entrepreneurs and small-business types succeed enormously and many fail into obscurity. Should America continue to attack those who produce with great success? Doesn’t this only discourage our most talented? America was founded upon the principle of equal opportunity under the law. Your op-ed seems to suggest that special treatment under the law is more appropriate.
Think back on the major companies who have come under attack by our government in the last half century. Most of these were started by someone willing to take risks most others would not take: Standard Oil, IBM, Boeing, AT&T and Microsoft, to name only a few that come to mind.
America seems to be evolving into a country of ever-increasing meddlesomeness in too many aspects of citizenship. To single out the successful few for special taxation is reprehensible. It is not the America of our Founding Fathers.
— Frederic S. Weiss, Mercer Island
100 percent tax on Bill Gates?
I really think Todd Achilles is off the mark in his op-ed piece. It goes to show you that “if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have the support of Paul.” Carried to its logical conclusion, we could have an estate tax of zero on you and me, and a tax of 100 percent on Bill Gates — allowing no deductions for charitable giving, of course. This might have the same net revenue result to the Treasury, but have a horrible result for the Gates family.
We already have an income-tax situation, where almost 50 percent of the taxpayers pay nothing. In fact, some get an even better deal because the government pays them a “rebate” on taxes they have not paid — the earned-income credit. But they still get to vote, directly and indirectly, on benefits for themselves
Our Founding Fathers would have been shocked by Achilles’ thinking, as they clearly did not contemplate our tax system being used for wealth-redistribution plans. Who will decide what is a “fair” amount of wealth to allow a family to have? A “wealth czar? What standards would be used? Would that be the end of small business so we can all work for the government — or at least become dependent on the government?
— Richard L. Prout, Seattle
Bush’s tax cuts overlooked
I got a chuckle over Thursday’s editorial addressing the president’s State of the Union address [“Obama heard the call: focus on the economy,” Opinion, Jan. 28]. In an otherwise excellent column, you acknowledge that when Obama took office “the nation was awash in red ink” from not paying for two wars, for an expensive prescription drug plan and from a recession that had already cost the Treasury $3 trillion.
This was a direct quote from the speech, but you conveniently left out the fourth element mentioned by the president — namely “two tax cuts.” The cost of the Bush tax cuts over the next 10 years has been estimated at almost $4 trillion — even if they are allowed to expire on schedule.
— James White, Lake Forest Park