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

41–50 of 193 posts

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

#41

Post by pc86 »

makestuff wrote: post #5
seiferteric wrote: post #2

I think I don't like income tax as it disincentivizes labor and also makes it harder for working people to build up wealth. Making a million a year sounds like a lot, but who knows how long someone might be making that kind of money? Meanwhile already wealthy people are mostly untouched. Would rather see majority of taxes come from corporate taxes and capital gains.

How do you deal with a corporation just moving their HQ to another state though? It is hard because you cannot just say oh we should only have a federal income tax because then states would just rely on the federal government for funding. At the same time the wealthy people/corporations can easily move to another state leaving the middle class to make up for lost revenue.

You deal with it by competing with other states, which is what happens now, and what is intended based on the very architecture of the federal and state governments. This will make Seattle less attractive to the type of person who makes a LOT of money almost entirely from W2 income. Private practice physicians, specialty attorneys, that kind of thing. "Working people" who happen to be very highly compensated.

If I was in that type of role and I could routinely expect to make $1.5-$2M/yr it would absolutely make me consider places like Florida or Texas more, especially with the marriage penalty mentioned in the article (although I'm curious how many households have two people both earning more than $1M/yr).

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

#44

Post by unethical_ban »

NDizzle wrote: post #14
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.

[flagged]

Republicans in Harris County sold voters on the Beltway 8 toll road in the 80s based on the idea that when the bonds were paid off the tolls would go away.

Clever hack: they never stopped issuing bonds.

At least they've made it really easy for them to take your money. You don't need a toll tag, they'll scan your license plate, mail you, and charge you extra for mailing you. No coins needed.

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

#45

Post by pc86 »

josefritzishere wrote: post #26

Progressive taxation is the most efficient and fair system of taxation. America was it's most prosperous when the top federal income tax topped 90%, 1944-1963. Modern wealth consolidation makes this structure even more logical.

Everyone except the people uncritically repeating this political talking point agrees that a 90% marginal rate is very far on the right side of the Laffner curve.

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

#47

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kimbernator wrote: post #28
orionsbelt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If that means curbing the comparatively high consumption taxes

“Most of the roughly $4 billion a year the tax would bring it would be devoted to the state’s general-fund budget to pay for government agencies and services. A 5% chunk would be earmarked for early education and child care.

Democrats also say they’d use some of the money to fund free school lunch and breakfast for all kids in K-12 schools, though Republicans pointed out that money is not legally earmarked in the income tax bill.

ADVERTISING Skip Ad Skip Ad Skip Ad The bill would also exempt more businesses from paying the state’s business and occupation tax. It also would eliminate the sales tax on purchases of diapers, and personal hygiene products such as toothpaste, antiperspirants and shampoo.

It also would expand the state’s Working Families Tax Credit, which sends annual rebates of up to $1,300 a year to lower-income working families. Ferguson had pushed for the expansion of the program and said the revised bill would make 460,000 households eligible for the payments.”

TL; DR It’s not materially curbing the sales tax.

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by rayiner »

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.

> I don't understand how anyone in good conscience can vote against this tax

Then you have intellectual blinders on. There’s good reasons to have broad based taxes instead of singling out rich people. In Sweden, for example, the top tax bracket kicks in at 1.5x the median income. In Germany, the second highest 42% bracket kicks in around 70,000 euros and the top 45% bracket kicks in at 277,000 euros.

None of the countries that American liberals admire in terms of having a robust welfare state adopt a policy of “soak the rich.” The have policies based on solidarity where everyone in the top half or third take on a heavy tax burden.

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

#50

Post by SecretDreams »

rayiner wrote: post #25
SecretDreams wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ah yes, all the 50k makers are dependent on the very altruistic nature of the 50mil earners who all got there under their own power and without any systematic abuse, grifting, or generational wealth to get them going. Won't anyone think of these poor folks? They'll now have 49x0.099 mil less yearly income to charitably pay their indebted employees bonuses.
Post reply on HN