Please vote NO on I-1033

[Anglinarcher]

I personally have worked in campaigns for officials, ballot measures, initiatives, and once a state senatorial campaign and office of the elected official (When I was a conservative, and for a very conservative Christian senator).

AA, I am very impressed that you have accepted the information presented and actually applied it to your values and saw the concern. The most I can ask is a NO vote, but it must be a vote reconciled by your thoughts on how we do business as a state. I have to reiterate that I can see your point, and agree with you, that the state level finances need some restructuring. I just don't think controlling the revenue stream in a broad based tactic like this is the answer.

To protect the citizen, you control the spending first. Once the spending is controlled, the surpluses build themselves and we pay our way out of debt. Controlling the revenue stream doesn't just affect the state, it affects every governmental agency from the state budget office all the way down to your local community school district.

E

In my youth (early 30's), I wanted to get involved in Politics. I was asked to run for office by both the Democrats and Republicans. My wife, sensing how device politics was becoming, said I would be a great politician, and she hoped I and MY NEXT WIFE would enjoy it. I did not run for office and we just celebrated our 29th anniversary.

We do agree that the broad based tactic is not the answer; I just contended that sometimes that is what it takes to causes the tax and spend to step back and re-group. We also agree that "To protect the citizen, you control the spending first. Once the spending is controlled, the surpluses build themselves and we pay our way out of debt." So far, I have seen no desire or motive for any State to control the spending - and that is my concern. It is said that if you are stuck in a hole, stop digging. We seem to have not been able to get that message to the political parties, both of them, to date.

I am curious, you say that once you were conservative? What changed? Winston Churchill said something to the effect that if you are 20 and not a liberal you have no heart; If you are 40 and not a Conservative you have no brain. This is the normal evolution of things, as exemplified by Dennis Miller, comedian and talk show host.

You have gone the other way, what impacted your life to convince you to change? What lessons did you learn, or what life experiences do you endure, to cause this type of evolution?

[Anglinarcher]

AA I REVOKE MY COMMENT AND yOUR EXACTLY RIGHT!I get really get fed up with all these people trying to fix a problem and they have no concern about. This guy wants to fill his pockets up with our money and he has been doing it for a long time and will continue. This is a bandaid that will fall off and the wound will get even more outta control. People just wanna quick fix.Angling your right we the people need to get educated.If we dont we will continue to get the short end of the stick.

It does seem strange that this State has a professional tax rebel. Is it that he has struck a cord with those that are tired of the high taxes, or ...............

I guess that argument could be made that the best way to shut him up is to eliminate his causes, but that is not likely to happen soon. Still, your point is well taken. At least his money comes from private donations, not from taxes.

All wounds get bandaids or bandages, it is the treatment they receive with them that makes the difference. We need to improve the treatment so when the bandaid falls off the would can complete the healing process.

So, will I vote for or against 1033? Still not sure! Punish the local government to take a shot at the State Government? Vote against it and send a message to the State Government, and local Governments, that I don't care? Seems like I still have some thinking to do.

[Gisteppo]

AA, on my politics, we can start a new thread or you can shoot me an email, but I'd rather keep this on topic for the reader.

E

[Anglinarcher]

AA, on my politics, we can start a new thread or you can shoot me an email, but I'd rather keep this on topic for the reader.

E

Done! Good point, need to keep on thread.

[G-Man]

Here is what I do not understand, isn’t tax revenue already tied to inflation? My assessed property value increases as do non grocery items that I by in stores, both of which are taxed. Mathematically the amount of tax revenue the State collects increases at the same rate of inflation. Why is it then that one would need to increase the tax rate over and over and over again? If it costs the government more to purchase an item or a service than what the average Joe expects to pay, something is very wrong. If I can manage to make it without more than a typical cost of living increase, so to should our government, to expect anything else is unacceptable. Governments guilty of spending beyond their means is why we rebel and vote for tax reduction initiatives. If you or I were way into debt what would the remedy be? (I hope none of you said get another credit card or play the Lotto!) Cut spending on the nice to have things, focus on the necessary and become more thrifty. Got fiscal responsibility?

On a side note: I feel a politician’s financial history and credit score should be made public when they announce their candidacy for office. I’d rather not vote for someone to spend the tax payer’s money who can’t manage their own finances responsibly.

[Anglinarcher]

Here is what I do not understand, isn’t tax revenue already tied to inflation? My assessed property value increases as do non grocery items that I by in stores, both of which are taxed. Mathematically the amount of tax revenue the State collects increases at the same rate of inflation. Why is it then that one would need to increase the tax rate over and over and over again? If it costs the government more to purchase an item or a service than what the average Joe expects to pay, something is very wrong. If I can manage to make it without more than a typical cost of living increase, so to should our government, to expect anything else is unacceptable. Governments guilty of spending beyond their means is why we rebel and vote for tax reduction initiatives. If you or I were way into debt what would the remedy be? (I hope none of you said get another credit card or play the Lotto!) Cut spending on the nice to have things, focus on the necessary and become more thrifty. Got fiscal responsibility?

On a side note: I feel a politician’s financial history and credit score should be made public when they announce their candidacy for office. I’d rather not vote for someone to spend the tax payer’s money who can’t manage their own finances responsibly.

I like that candidate requirement - that is one thing we should all scream for.

Your first point is a better way of making my point. The only way it does not work is if the "services" are growing faster then the rate of inflation. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Still thinking.

[Gonefishing]

I have a very simple Initiative that I would like to start writing up

Just vote no on any Tim Eyeman initative.

I know it won't solve anything. It won't lower the cost of my car tabs. Or bring under control the amount of money I pay for my property taxes because a. the formula used to calculate the darned things changed again. and b. I voted yes on every darned thing out there that was using the value of my property to pay for it. It won't lower the price of my beer, or cable costs, or the cost of my gas, or even reduce the number of trips I make to Ted's to restock my fishing tackle box. It won't do anything to keep lakes open, or parks, it won't repair no bridges or streets. It won't keep ferry costs under control. It won't keep Batista and boobs in Everett from being a bigger problem. It won't pay my parking tickets in Edmonds, it won't put fish in my ice box, nor will it help me to recall where I left my cell phone. It won't cure traffic problems on I5 or I405 or any other stretch of road that either ends in or has the number 5 in it. And for sure it won't help in determining which cities police department is going to respond to an issue in unincorporated Snohomish county.

But it will make me feel good because I will again be able to just say no to Tim Eyeman.

The riter of this post is not responsible for any and all spelling erors that mya have occrured ni the psoting of this entry as he is dictionayrilly challenged agian....

[Gisteppo]

Here is what I do not understand, isn’t tax revenue already tied to inflation? My assessed property value increases as do non grocery items that I by in stores, both of which are taxed. Mathematically the amount of tax revenue the State collects increases at the same rate of inflation. Why is it then that one would need to increase the tax rate over and over and over again? If it costs the government more to purchase an item or a service than what the average Joe expects to pay, something is very wrong.

Gman, you actually make a fantastic point. Funny part is, it works both ways.

If taxes are tied to sales, and sales change commensurate with what we have and what we dont have in our pockets, then why does Eyeman need to manipulate that? Sales tax isn't regressive, it is based on what is spent in the economy. The sales tax the state uses is already limited by what we taxpayers are willing to spend.

What 1033 does is damage the ability to ask for money when service levels change. Say you have a city that has 200,000 citizens. Today, I-1033 goes into effect. Next year you get a new development based around a new company. This requires new infrastructure such as streets, signals, sidewalks, police services and fire services need to increase in staffing to protect the area, water, sewer and garbage collection need to serve the new residents. Because 1033 is based on POPULATION plus COL, the city only gets tax revenue increases for those people who live WITHIN the city. If a major manufacturer builds a facility, but the bulk of the employees live outside the city, the infrastructure still is required ( the workers need the services while at work) but the tax law forbids a tax increase to suppor that businesses service needs. The city now has to either provide a lower level of service or let the new business (including jobs and revenue) go to another location.

This, for the eastsiders, will drive even more business to Idaho, short changing Washington of jobs, residents, much needed tax revenue, and living wage jobs even more.

Another reason to vote NO

E

[Desertcreek]

The fact of the matter is that most of this discussion over budgets and budget cuts would be moot if our economy hadn't melted down and the economic meltdown cannot be blamed on any politician. The responibility of the economic meltdown rests solely on the shoulders of we the people and our insatiable appetite for stuff at any cost.

I would love to see a politician tell the public it their fault instead of his opponents fault that this thing is such a mess. How many votes do you think that person would get? The truth can be painful and a vast majority of the public doesn't want to hear that they are the problem.

[G-Man]

Well I’m still on the fence regarding I-1033. My problem is with what happens in reality as opposed to what should happen. Keeping in mind that State and local government collects revenues from businesses as well as the general public I can’t see how they get themselves into a hole. As more money is spent and made in an area, the more taxes that get collected. No city sprouts up overnight bustling with people, paved roads, new utilities, etc. It’s a gradual increase that for the most part should be footed by those doing the developing. Instead, the opposite occurs with government providing incentives to developers, which in turn are paid for by the folks that already are established in the area. Speaking for myself, I’d rather not foot the bill for these types of deals and oppose the filling of a wetland or clearing a forest just to increase the tax base. If you look at it from afar, this is really what it all comes down to, increasing the tax and voter base to gain more political power/clout.

The initiative may actually force government to allocate money collected properly as opposed to dumping it into a general fund. Also, the decision to increase taxes to provide for growth, schools, etc. is placed back on the voters, where it belongs. I’ll be reading a PDF copy of the initiative in its entirety before I make my final decision. My initial take is that it may have been created with good intentions, but poorly written and does not take into account all of the real world scenarios.

[Gisteppo]

Instead, the opposite occurs with government providing incentives to developers, which in turn are paid for by the folks that already are established in the area.

A perfect example:

Cabelas, whom everyone knows, needed a presence in the inland empire area. They weighed their options because the company wants to make the best financial decision for the store. They chose Post Falls over Spokane because Spokane required them to pay for their infrastructure (2 signals, a couple miles of asphalt, an interchange or two, traffic corrections, lighting, and load related mitigation for water/septic and stormwater). Post Falls offered to build much of it for them and defer their sales tax revenue over a span of time (I believe it was 10 years) which was an escalating scale, so the company could make more cash early on, then gradually pay their taxes.

It isn't the government trying to wield some sort of power, running cities is competitive business. With sales tax revenues nearing a million dollars annually, Post Falls put the burden of infrastructure on the residents in the short term for a lucrative long term income. Spokane's conservative council wouldn't give such strong concessions because they can't afford to, as the citizens are already reluctant to pay for what services they have.

There are thick layers to the issues, so Im glad some of these questions are bubbling out.

E

[Desertcreek]

Instead, the opposite occurs with government providing incentives to developers, which in turn are paid for by the folks that already are established in the area.

A perfect example:

Cabelas, whom everyone knows, needed a presence in the inland empire area. They weighed their options because the company wants to make the best financial decision for the store. They chose Post Falls over Spokane because Spokane required them to pay for their infrastructure (2 signals, a couple miles of asphalt, an interchange or two, traffic corrections, lighting, and load related mitigation for water/septic and stormwater). Post Falls offered to build much of it for them and defer their sales tax revenue over a span of time (I believe it was 10 years) which was an escalating scale, so the company could make more cash early on, then gradually pay their taxes.

It isn't the government trying to wield some sort of power, running cities is competitive business. With sales tax revenues nearing a million dollars annually, Post Falls put the burden of infrastructure on the residents in the short term for a lucrative long term income. Spokane's conservative council wouldn't give such strong concessions because they can't afford to, as the citizens are already reluctant to pay for what services they have.

There are thick layers to the issues, so Im glad some of these questions are bubbling out.

E

Eric,

You have got to be kidding me. Are we talking about the Spokane located in Washington State? You blame the conservative side of the Spokane City Council for running off Cabelas? The same Washington State that is one of the most unfriendly business states in the union? I know becasue I owne one and I'm not talking about a side business from home and a normal job that pays the bills business owner. A real business with employees, and everything. I hear a lot of talk from a lot of folks about how business works but how many of you have owned or operated one? That was not intended to be offensive to you E.

It would be very easy to argue that it was not the conservative side of the council that drove Cabelas away but the liberal side but I won't. I will agree with you that our local government's unwillingness to make the same concessions as Idaho but this states B&O tax drove them off. You would have to own a business and pay B&O tax to know what I am reffering to. I am unaware of any other state in the Union that has one. It is a different rate for every business but mnie is 2.5% and it is applied to the gross revenue without deduction. I am unaware of any other tax that is applied at the gross margin without deduction. In simple terms every dollar my company receives is taxed at 2.5% then we get to pay payroll tax and all the rest of the normal taxes.

Now I don't know if the B&O tax was contrived by a conservative or republican but it has been responsible for running off many businesses in this state. That is an incredible spin you put on that whole Cabelas deal and what burden do you suppose Post Falls put on it's residents? The City Council didn't make a decision based on a short term burden they thought their constituants wouldn't tolerate. Are you serious? This state is an unfriendly state to do business in and that isn't subjective it is a fact. This isn't like having to have a baby to know it hurts. You would have to own and operate a business in this state to know what it feels like.

[Gisteppo]

I will agree with you that our local government's unwillingness to make the same concessions as Idaho but this states B&O tax drove them off. You would have to own a business and pay B&O tax to know what I am reffering to.

Just a side note, the city of Spokane has never carried a B&O tax. It comes up from time to time to cover expenses, but isn't too popular an idea for the reasons stated above.

E

[Desertcreek]

Eric,

With all do respect you have no idea what you are talikng about. It's not up to the City. It is a State tax and it's not something they were contemplating it already exists and has for a long time. Did you read what I wrote? I don't pay B&O to the city of Spokane I pay it to the state and I would have to pay it regardles of the city I live in if that city is located in Washington as would Cabelas. Like I said you would have to own and operate a business to know some of these things.

I'm not certain I was clear enough about what a f'd up state this is to operate a business in. Besides the B&O tax (wich is applied at the state level and cities have no say in) we also have convoluted franchise laws. Technically we aren't even allowed to use the term franchise even though that's what they are. We also have terrible insurance laws. This I speak of from experience because I have an insurance division of my business. Life and annuity carriers have to make special products just for Washington state. Out of 50 states NY,OR, and WA are the only 3 that have to have different products than the rest of the country because our insurance laws are so rediculous. These are things you would have to experience first hand. You can't learn from reading a voters pamphlet. We have had a liberal Govenor, State Attorney General, and Insurance Commisioner for most of the 34 years I have lived in this state.

The other thing I found weird about your statement regarding Cabelas is that aren't the conservatives always accused of siding with corporations and sticking the bill to the public. Yet you state that it was conservative city council members that were unwilling to give tax concesssions to Cabelas. You can't have it both ways.

[G-Man]

Okay, why is it so important to grow the tax base? In the Cabela's scenario described above, does the tax revenue 10 years down the line benefit the taxpayer, I don't think so. You'll just have a larger government taking care of more taxpayers, that's a push in my opinion. Ideally what you really want are higher yield businesses and associated incomes that would equate to an increase in tax revenue without the need for larger government. And in this mythical world, surplus revenue could be held for economic downturns, natural disaster recovery, etc. If the residents of a city are happy with the size of their community, what gives politicians the right to cut deals with businesses and developers to move into an area? Do we really want every city to aspire to become the next Los Angeles or New York? If a new business wants into an area bad enough it will find a way to displace or buy out a current, rival or less desirable business.

Just in case anyone is interested - No other State government has a tax on gross receipts (B&O tax). In Washington State the county and the city may also impose a B&O tax, some do some don't. The vast majority of States impose a traditional corporate net income tax similar to the Federal corporate income tax.

[Gisteppo]

With all do respect you have no idea what you are talikng about. It's not up to the City. It is a State tax and it's not something they were contemplating it already exists and has for a long time. Did you read what I wrote? I don't pay B&O to the city of Spokane I pay it to the state and I would have to pay it regardles of the city I live in if that city is located in Washington as would Cabelas. Like I said you would have to own and operate a business to know some of these things.

Apparently I was unclear in my statement. SPOKANE doesn't charge a B&O tax to its citizens. Yes, the state has one, as well as the VAST MAJORITY of other cities our size in Wa. This is a separate tax above the state one, which is why we have certain businesses in town that we stole from the west side (SIRTI, Hollister-Stier, etc) I didn't say the state didn't charge it.

The other thing I found weird about your statement regarding Cabelas is that aren't the conservatives always accused of siding with corporations and sticking the bill to the public. Yet you state that it was conservative city council members that were unwilling to give tax concesssions to Cabelas. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, typically conservatives are the corporate people. In this circumstance they were corporatists, but they also realized that there was absolutely no funding to support the infrastructure, and couldn't take on the burden. There were open council sessions on this, which has video archived at City Cable 5 if you care to research it further. The council is conservative, but they are common sense people with their own businesses, seeing that if they were running a business as they run the city, there wasn't the current capital to invest in what Cabelas needed, where PF had it.

_____________________________________________________________

Gman, the object isn't to grow government, it is to stabilize it and meet a level of service commensurate with the natl average. Our public safety services are roughly 20-40% under the natl average, and response times are FAR too high. The concept is to have revenue that allows things like what Seattle has in their Medic 1 program. If you have a heart attack in Spokane, you will be waiting on average 7-8 minutes until definitive care. In Seattle, they are between 3-5 minutes. Their save rate for heart attacks is over 40%, ours is below 20%. This is what you get for your increased tax revenue, excellent services.

You CRUSHED it on this one:

Just in case anyone is interested - No other State government has a tax on gross receipts (B&O tax). In Washington State the county and the city may also impose a B&O tax, some do some don't. The vast majority of States impose a traditional corporate net income tax similar to the Federal corporate income tax.

Now THATS an initiative I can get behind. Restructuring the tax law to a known national standard, something that has been tested and works. If Eyeman would design something like that for the Initiative process, I think he could find broad support.

E

[Desertcreek]

E- It is becoming very clear to me that you and I are speaking 2 distinctly different languages. The comment G-man made about B&O taxes is precisely the same comment I made in 2 prior posts and you didn't understand. Did you read the part where we both stated that Washington is the only state in the Union that has such a tax?

[Gisteppo]

Yes, I did see that. All I was stating is that the city itself does not impose a B&O above and beyond the state B&O. Most cities do.

Washington imposes the B&O because they don't want to utilize a regressive income tax, and because B&O taxes more directly tax a business for the work they do instead of the money they earn. It is harder to hide income from a B&O, thats why we have it. I agreed with Gman because he offered up that solution of an income tax on companies, abolishing the B&O.

E

[Anglinarcher]

OK, I know that this is probably too late for most, but I will be voting for 1033.

Here are my thoughts. First, the current financial condition is the result of our representatives not living withing their means. If there tax receipts are dropping because I/We are not able to spend as much money, then how can they have the gall to expect us to SPEND more money just because they want us to. Is that not the same as me not being able to pay my credit card so I tell my boss he needs to increase my pay?

The solution is that they can and should be creating rainy day funds, and then living within their means. It makes no since that we, or our Government, be it State, City, or County, should be living on next weeks or next years pay check. I may lose my job, and they may have lots of me that have lost their jobs, so they need to learn to do what I do when I lose a job, and that is to cut back to the bare bones. We are wise to have our personal rainy day funds, called savings accounts, so why is it so hard for the so called elite to see this.

Now, as for 1033, I have read the initiative inside and out. It has been suggested that the Governments cannot raise taxes. This is a lie. They must ASK us for permission, but they can raise taxes above growth and inflation.

Now, about balancing the budget. How do you do that? I got to thinking about the last fishing lure order I made. I started with what I thought was a large budget ($150). I dove into the catalogs and started looking for lures and components that would do specific jobs.

What I found was a lure here that was close, but not quite - a lure there that was close, but not quite, so both ended up on my wish list. I wanted some spinner rigs for my Walleye fishing, and why not get three sizes instead of two. What about that color, or this color; it may make all the difference next time I go out.

Soon I totaled my "wish list" and found it was $500+. OK, time to cut back, set priorities. None of the items on my list were over 5 or 6 bucks, so cutting one or two items, or public services, would balance my budget. Some items I decided I only need one or two sizes, or in public terms I don't need 5 agencies dealing with a problem, have one agency deal with it. I also found out that I really could live without some lures. Some services that are claimed to make money, like the swimming pools, should be private if they are really able to make money. Other services, like leaf clean-up or some snow removal, may need to be cut back - you know, like maybe I only need two colors of walleye blades and not 5.

We are becoming more and more of a Socialist Society. We need to stand up and say stop, now, or as Margret Thatcher said, Socialism stops working when we run out of other peoples money. The other people she is talking about is you and I.

No, no matter which side you are on, get out there and VOTE.

[G-Man]

AA, I understand your line of thinking. I'm at a level in my company where I have to plan for my spending not only for the upcoming year but 5+ years down the line. It is not as complicated as folks make it out to be as long as you have a good grasp of what your needs are going to be and can forecast your revenue accurately. I typically have money "left-over" in my budget come the end of the year which is typically looked down upon, with this year being an exception. Suddenly, with the economy in the tank, I'm being counted on to come in under budget. The nice thing about this is that when I ask for additional capital, it is very close to being a lock that I will get it. I view our current group of politicians like I do my teenager. Left to his own devices, any money he comes across vanishes in an instant with nothing to show. Until elected officials start to treat other people's money better than their own, we need laws in place to make sure things don't get out of hand. The way I see it, this initiative was brought upon the State of Washington by the very people who are whining about it the most. They made their bed now they will have to sleep in it.