Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 193 posts

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#171

Post by alkonaut »

_b wrote: post #152
alkonaut wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if one has income tax and property tax separate (which I guess happens now) then presumably one has also codified that income is _not_ property (which I guess is the more common state of affairs )?

If ordinary laws could redefine words in the constitution, then every constitutional right and protection you care about is undercut.

Seems like this would be something for a Supreme Court to try. It was ordinary laws and cases (presumably) that had established the norms of equating income with property.

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#172

Post by alkonaut »

thewebguyd wrote: post #153
alkonaut wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But simply changing the constitution to just allow an income tax is politically impossible? The majority isn’t big enough?

Yeah, majority isn't big enough. To modify the state constitution, you need 2/3 vote in both the house and the senate, and it also must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the next general election. Since republicans are always unified against an income tax, dems only hold a 30-19 majority in the senate, and a 59-39 majority in the house, missing 3 and 7 votes respectively. The plan for this tax is basicall…

Why not just charge it on the paying end (payroll tax)? It would be the same thing but charged from employers.

E.g my Employer pays about 125 to pay me 100 because of payroll tax. Then I receive 70 because the employer also pays my tax directly. My income was only 100 and the total tax was 55.

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#173

Post by cush »

tzs wrote: post #128

On Nextdoor here (Puget Sound area but on the other side of the water from Seattle) there are a lot of people who (1) post a lot about how property taxes and gasoline taxes are too high, (2) complain about any cuts to government services, and (3) oppose any effort to tax income even if the threshold is way way way higher than anything they or anyone they know will ever come near on the grounds that at some future tim…

property taxes are indeed way too high

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#174

Post by evanelias »

RhysU wrote: post #164
evanelias wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point or why you are sure of that? New Jersey consistently ranks as having the highest average property tax rate of any state, and it also has relatively high income tax rates. This is mainly caused by having a ridiculous number of tiny towns and tiny school districts, each with redundant services and employees.

Redundant may be a strong word. NJ ranks at the top of the states for public schools, e.g. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education NJ has effectively a publicly operated system of private schools where the tuition is the tax burden.

My small NJ town has its own school district, containing a single K-8 school. Yet it has both a superintendent and a principal.

Grades 9-12 feed into a regional high school, which also has its own school district containing just that school. It also has its own superintendent and principal.

I don't think "redundant" is a strong word for this situation.

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#175

Post by reliabilityguy »

pc86 wrote: post #106
reliabilityguy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NJ, in areas with good schools, has higher property taxes.

And I'm sure we can find places with higher property taxes than those New Jersey examples.

My point was that NJ has places with higher property taxes, and people still move into those places by choice.

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#176

Post by RhysU »

evanelias wrote: post #174
RhysU wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redundant may be a strong word. NJ ranks at the top of the states for public schools, e.g. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education NJ has effectively a publicly operated system of private schools where the tuition is the tax burden.

My small NJ town has its own school district, containing a single K-8 school. Yet it has both a superintendent and a principal. Grades 9-12 feed into a regional high school, which also has its own school district containing just that school. It also has its own superintendent and principal. I don't think "redundant" is a strong word for this situation.

How many employees at each of those schools? How much management? Is the manager / employee ratio lower or higher than where you work?

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#177

Post by evanelias »

RhysU wrote: post #176
evanelias wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My small NJ town has its own school district, containing a single K-8 school. Yet it has both a superintendent and a principal. Grades 9-12 feed into a regional high school, which also has its own school district containing just that school. It also has its own superintendent and principal. I don't think "redundant" is a strong word for this situation.

How many employees at each of those schools? How much management? Is the manager / employee ratio lower or higher than where you work?

Sorry but I'm not spending an hour doing math on employee counts just to satisfy an HN commenter. There's no universe where it is sane and reasonable to have 4 separate highly-paid school superintendents in a 3-town area (towns feeding into the regional HS) with total population of only 25k, especially as these schools don't even rank particularly well.

And that's not even accounting for the principals. Think of it this way: if a country's navy has only a single boat, does it really need both an admiral and a captain?

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#178

Post by [deleted] »

evanelias wrote: post #177
RhysU wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many employees at each of those schools? How much management? Is the manager / employee ratio lower or higher than where you work?

Sorry but I'm not spending an hour doing math on employee counts just to satisfy an HN commenter. There's no universe where it is sane and reasonable to have 4 separate highly-paid school superintendents in a 3-town area (towns feeding into the regional HS) with total population of only 25k, especially as these schools don't even rank particularly well. And that's not even accounting for the principals. Think of it t…

[deleted]

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#179

Post by [deleted] »

evanelias wrote: post #177
RhysU wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many employees at each of those schools? How much management? Is the manager / employee ratio lower or higher than where you work?

Sorry but I'm not spending an hour doing math on employee counts just to satisfy an HN commenter. There's no universe where it is sane and reasonable to have 4 separate highly-paid school superintendents in a 3-town area (towns feeding into the regional HS) with total population of only 25k, especially as these schools don't even rank particularly well. And that's not even accounting for the principals. Think of it t…

[deleted]

Re: WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

#180

Post by lovich »

pc86 wrote: post #72
TheJoeMan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "free" federal tax filing service I use in Florida, makes their money by charging for state filings. It will add an additional hour or two of effort to every resident of the state, even if they are below the state income threshold which is quite an externality. Also, I would be wary bragging about buying your goods in Oregon, you technically may owe WA use tax https://dor.wa.gov/taxes-rates/use-tax .

This is one of those things that I question the legality of, but it will never get answered because nobody is going to the Supreme Court over sales tax. I can understand the argument of me sitting at home in State 1, buying something online, and having it delivered to me in State 1, and owing State 1 some sales tax on that. It is absolutely no business of State 1's what I do when I travel into State 2. Whether or not…

The Use tax is levied when you bring items from State 1 into State 2 and use it within State 2's jurisdiction.

Not State 2 taxing you for using items within State 1's jurisdiction.

As far as I remember from my tax days they are also limited to the difference between the tax you paid for in the originating state and the state you use the item in, much like US federal taxes for citizens abroad.

In practice as well, no government gives a fuck about regular consumer abuse at that level. You get hit for violating the taxes when you either were A: committing other crimes and this was more of them throwing the book at you, or B: are a company or organization abusing the tax difference at large, such as a laundromat in Massachusetts buying 500k of machines in New Hampshire and thinking your'e so clever for tricking the tax man.

Post reply on HN