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

21–30 of 193 posts

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

#21

Post by calvinmorrison »

kimbernator wrote: post #19

I grew up in WA and as much as I enjoyed the lack of income tax, it's factual that until recently they held the title of #1 most regressive state tax system nationwide (recently bumped to #2 by FL). Income taxes are much better distributed among income brackets than consumption taxes are. I grew up just over the river from Portland, where there is no state sales tax; we got to enjoy the best of both worlds by crossin…

the great thing about sales tax is rich people spend a lot of money on dumb shit

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

#22

Post by nicpottier »

garbawarb wrote: post #6

When I was a new grad moving to the US and deciding where to live and work, the biggest draw of Seattle was its lack of income tax. Of course this particular $1 million threshold wouldn't apply to me until I'm very late in my career, or have a lucky year, or get married to a high-income person (the $1 million threshold applies to married couples, not just individuals) but Seattle loses a lot of its appeal if it's not…

Maybe that's a good thing? I miss the Seattle of the 2000s that was less overflowing with tech and more a mix of incomes.

I for one support the tax. The dichotomy of being a liberal state with a regressive tax structure needs to stop. Slippery slope argument aside this tax is a good first step. Income tax while imperfect seems to be the best system we have to tax the rich and not the poor.

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

#23

Post by cma256 »

ambicapter wrote: post #15
changoplatanero wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can in good conscious be opposed to new taxes. This tax is being introduced in a way that only affects the most privileged portion of the population but that's how the Federal income tax was introduced many years ago too. People who oppose the tax are looking forward to a future where the tax burden in Washington might be as oppressive as it is in California or New York.

States with massive, growing populations? Must not be as oppressive as stated.

Both California and New York have shrinking populations according to Wikipedia. And even if the estimates are wrong and they do have growing populations you still need to consider the fact that the Southern states are growing much faster.

Federal power is shifting south. If you like the politics of New York and California that's a long-term problem that needs to be resolved.

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

#24

Post by jobs_throwaway »

ambicapter wrote: post #15
changoplatanero wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can in good conscious be opposed to new taxes. This tax is being introduced in a way that only affects the most privileged portion of the population but that's how the Federal income tax was introduced many years ago too. People who oppose the tax are looking forward to a future where the tax burden in Washington might be as oppressive as it is in California or New York.

States with massive, growing populations? Must not be as oppressive as stated.

California and New York are the opposite of growing, and Washington thus far hasn't taxed anyone, so this statement makes no sense

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

#25

Post by rayiner »

SecretDreams wrote: post #20
garbawarb wrote: post #6

When I was a new grad moving to the US and deciding where to live and work, the biggest draw of Seattle was its lack of income tax. Of course this particular $1 million threshold wouldn't apply to me until I'm very late in my career, or have a lucky year, or get married to a high-income person (the $1 million threshold applies to married couples, not just individuals) but Seattle loses a lot of its appeal if it's not…

> The tax would apply only on the amount of income above the $1 million threshold, so a person making $1.5 million, for example, would be taxed on the final $500,000. It would apply to an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 households in the state, with collections beginning in 2029 on the previous year’s income. It's a sliding scale tax. Someone making a million will barely feel it. Someone making 50 million will feel it a l…

> Objectively, anyone making $50 million should feel it a lot and be taxed heavily. Nobody is making $50 million under their own power

You’ve got it backwards. The people making $50,000 are the ones who are dependent on someone else to provide all the infrastructure for their job.

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

#27

Post by HardCodedBias »

hectdev wrote: post #18
garbawarb wrote: post #6

When I was a new grad moving to the US and deciding where to live and work, the biggest draw of Seattle was its lack of income tax. Of course this particular $1 million threshold wouldn't apply to me until I'm very late in my career, or have a lucky year, or get married to a high-income person (the $1 million threshold applies to married couples, not just individuals) but Seattle loses a lot of its appeal if it's not…

I live in Texas. People move here and are flabbergasted by our property taxes.

AI says:

TX: Average Effective Rate: Approximately 1.36% to 1.6% (some estimates range up to 1.8%) of a property's assessed fair market value. The typical homeowner in Texas pays a median annual property tax of $4,108

WA: Effective Rate: The average effective property tax rate in Washington is approximately 0.75% to 0.79% of the home's value. State mean the median annual property tax payment is roughly $4,361 to $4,729

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

#28

Post by kimbernator »

orionsbelt wrote: post #13
collabs wrote: post #3

I don't understand how anyone in good conscience can vote against this tax. As a reminder, this tax does not affect income under a million US dollars. From the article, if you earn a dollar over a million dollars, you owe 9.9% so you need to pay a dime in income tax.

It’s a beachhead that will expand. The history of income taxes shows that. Once you have established an income tax, the next fight will be to raise it, or lower the income limit, and over years, it will end up covering everyone. The government is incentivized to over spend and then try to dig their way out be expanding taxes, but there is a limit to what you can tax. You want people to vote for a millionaire tax tie…

If that means curbing the comparatively high consumption taxes in WA, then it's for the best. The lowest income brackets pay an outrageous percentage of their income to taxes compared to the upper brackets because of them.

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

#29

Post by mtoner23 »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #21
kimbernator wrote: post #19

I grew up in WA and as much as I enjoyed the lack of income tax, it's factual that until recently they held the title of #1 most regressive state tax system nationwide (recently bumped to #2 by FL). Income taxes are much better distributed among income brackets than consumption taxes are. I grew up just over the river from Portland, where there is no state sales tax; we got to enjoy the best of both worlds by crossin…

the great thing about sales tax is rich people spend a lot of money on dumb shit

Not relative to their income tho. Sales taxes are regressive and get more money from the poor

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

#30

Post by garbawarb »

ambicapter wrote: post #10
garbawarb wrote: post #6

When I was a new grad moving to the US and deciding where to live and work, the biggest draw of Seattle was its lack of income tax. Of course this particular $1 million threshold wouldn't apply to me until I'm very late in my career, or have a lucky year, or get married to a high-income person (the $1 million threshold applies to married couples, not just individuals) but Seattle loses a lot of its appeal if it's not…

The assumption of course being that high-income people moving in is good for everyone.

Who are the "good" immigrants? It's a topic that's been talked about a lot recently but most countries, and I imagine states too, prefer that people with more money or income potential move there versus people with less.
Post reply on HN