Lack of health care accrues costs exponentially
Editor, The Times:
I agree that the “charmed” quality of life is at risk in Washington state but for very different reasons than The Seattle Times [“Legislators should focus on cuts before taxes,” Opinion, Feb. 21].
There is nothing charming about 100,000 people becoming uninsured overnight. There is nothing charming about temporarily disabled Washingtonians not getting the treatment they need to get healthy and back to work. There is nothing charming about hospital costs and insurance premiums going up because people have lost access to preventive care.
Washington state is not in this situation because of decisions made in Olympia. We are in this situation because of an unprecedented economic recession. And the proposals made by The Seattle Times for closing the budget gap will simply not get us there.
Without new revenue sources, programs like General Assistance-Unemployable and Basic Health will be eliminated and we’ll all pay exponentially. Simply put, Washington cannot afford to eliminate basic health care. We can, however, afford to eliminate tax loopholes and pay small tax increases. These measures are a small price to pay.
— Rebecca Kavoussi, Seattle
Taxing out-of-state visitors
I was intrigued by the idea of paring special-interest tax breaks to boost the state’s budget as outlined in Jim Brunner’s piece “$500M in tax breaks targeted” [News, Feb. 24]. I think the notion of adopting a plan for out-of-state visitors to apply for a tax rebate makes sense.
As a tourist in B.C. Canada, I have successfully used their system of recouping the GST — goods and services tax — and also occasionally declined to apply for it and let my taxes benefit my Canadian neighbors. This seems to me a more appropriate strategy to add to the state’s coffers than removing the voter-approved car-tax break that would cripple the automotive industry’s efforts to stay afloat and hurt consumers as well.
Ultimately, I think the Senate’s plan for increased scrutiny concerning any tax break is needed — along with a proposed end date. Whether it serves the public’s best interest is imperative and must be firmly applied so that the outcome is fair as well as lucrative for the state. With “$50 billion a biennium worth of state tax breaks on the books,” surely there must be a way to bridge the Democratic and Republican standoff and reallocate some of these funds for the good of all.
— Jaime Seibert, Seattle
Taxes hurt poor, do little to plug gap
Why are we considering revenue proposals that will only increase inequities between Washington’s rich and poor citizens? [“Olympia’s tax plans: How they’d affect you,” page one, Feb. 24]. According to the D.C.-based Tax Foundation, Washington is already one of the top-10 states for combined state and local sales taxes (third highest), gasoline taxes (also third highest) and cigarette taxes (eighth highest).
The governor’s incomplete answer to the state’s $2.8 billion budget shortfall does not even raise enough revenue to prevent further severe cuts to necessary state-funded services like education. Democratic leaders have made statements that they would like to see higher revenue-proposals — $900 million or so — which is still far short of what is needed to balance the state budget.
State leaders talk a good game about reforming our tax system, but only in the offseason. We cannot try to cut our way out of this problem, especially when those cuts continue to tear away the social-safety net.
Washington’s regressive revenue system unfairly burdens the working class by taxing consumption rather than income. Instead of placing a greater tax burden on those struggling most in this economy — as current Olympia proposals surely would — let’s focus on progressive reforms to make our revenue structure more reliable and fairer to all citizens.
— Sam Whiting, Seattle
Burning fat through taxes
Moving here from California was a shock: $5-$10 more for bottom-shelf liquor, $6 for cigarettes. But why?
Five years later I have adapted. I now recognize I am a sinner and hence pay a higher tax on my “vices.” There has been a multi-decade movement to eliminate smoking in the United States, and while I applaud its motives, I believe it’s time that another demographic faced this same tax discrimination: fat people.
Heart disease now kills more people than lung cancer and although the two can be linked, the 67 percent of Americans who are overweight or obese certainly contribute to the statistics.
All I’m saying is, if cigarette [taxes] are going up another dollar, why couldn’t the cost of Dorito’s and Hungry Man TV dinners go up the same amount? I’m sure taxing the vices of the overweight could bring in more than the $86 million increase expected from cigarette revenue.
If the government is claiming to look out for our health in its efforts to wean our bad habits, why can’t we kick the butt and the gut?
— Savannah Willow, Seattle
Taxing businesses
I’m angry and saddened by recent ads sponsored by some businesses opposing business tax proposals and saying that we just need to “reduce the size of government.”
Under current law, many companies are not required to pay Washington’s Business and Occupation tax even though they do a significant amount of business in the state. According to the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, the Senate budget released Tuesday would provide a more reasonable standard of determining which businesses operating in Washington are liable for B&O taxes, generating about $73 million in the current biennium.
The Senate budget also would make $838 million in cuts, severely gutting our health, education and environmental infrastructure. These cuts come on top of the $3.6 billion eliminated last year. Last year’s cuts will result in thousands of Washingtonians finding higher education unaffordable, tens of thousands of working families losing their health insurance and larger class sizes for kids in our public schools.
Unemployment has hit my family hard, but we do our part to preserve critical human services. Businesses should do theirs too. Please, legislators, share the responsibility with businesses and don’t cave to their demands. While you’re at it, institute a state income tax and reform our regressive tax system.
— Barbara Ramey, Kirkland
Don’t balance budget on farmers’ backs
I am a wheat farmer and farm some of the land that my great-grandfather homesteaded in the 1800s. My grandfather farmed it, my father farmed it and I have farmed it for about 40 years.
Our legislators are working to balance our state’s budget. One proposal is to remove our sales tax exemption on diesel fuel that we use in farm equipment — fortunately, I think that fuel you use in your car will still be exempt from sales tax. Another proposal is a B&O tax on farmers. This is probably kind of like what is included in the invoice from my attorney.
Several years ago, the wheat I produced was selling at a price that ensured me a profit. Today, the economy is poor and the wheat price is below my cost of production. Unlike some products, we can’t just add new costs to our wheat price. If our costs go up, we just lose more and that can’t go on very long.
I don’t envy our legislators’ difficult job, but making my industry worse isn’t going to feed hungry people and it will probably be detrimental to our state in the not-too-distant future.
— Nat Webb, Walla Walla
Simple solution: cut across the board
The budget deficit appears to be somewhere near 5 percent, which should be easy to overcome with no tax increases.
During times like this, the successful company where I worked would use a very simple and effective method: Every organization in the company would be asked to cut its budget by 5 percent, with no reduction in products and services. Managers who said they could not do it would be replaced by managers who could and it worked!
— Andrejs Zamelis, Burien