Slashdot Mirror
Seattle City Council Unanimously Approves Income Tax For the Rich (geekwire.com)
reifman writes: Amazon, tech employees and those making $250,000 or more annually in Seattle will now pay a 2.25 percent income tax. "The Seattle City Council estimates that the tax would bring in an additional $140 million each year," reports GeekWire. "The revenue would go toward the city's housing affordability agenda and carbon reduction goals and supplant federal funds if they are cut. The revenue is also intended to alleviate the burden of Washington's property and sales taxes, which are often called the most regressive in the country." Anyone who's seen Amazon's impacts on Seattle and its low and middle income residents will appreciate how this tax will help the homeless, lower income and improve the environment. Not everyone is thrilled with the recently approved legislation. Jason Mercier, who directs the center for government reform with the Washington Police Center, said: "[The council is] going to unanimously adopt an illegal income tax that has no hope of taking effect and will waste taxpayer resources on litigation the city is sure to lose." The measure is expected to be challenged in court, as Washington's constitution states "a county, city, or city-county shall not levy a tax on net income." According to The Washington Post, Mercier said there is decade of case law saying that a graduated income tax is unconstitutional because income is property and under the constitution, property tax has to be taxed uniformly and no more than 1 percent.
Washington state doesn't have an income tax. But it has 10% retail sales tax and 2% tax on all real estate sales (not on the profit -- on the full amount of the sale).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
MOST large cities have an income tax.
I don't see rich people fleeing Chicago or NYC.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It is legal for many cities to collect income tax--you are right, many cities do that. But not in Washington state, because the state constitution expressly prohibits it.
It is absolutely legal for a city to collect income tax. MANY cities do just that.
You missed the part about the Washington State Constitution banning city income taxes. NY City is not in Washington.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
It's the fastest growing city in the nation for a few years running now, which doesn't exactly add up to "ghost city." I guess it's actually not "built out to welcome crowds of people" since it is singled out for world-class traffic congestion, and its housing/homelessness crisis. That's why they're levying an income tax on the super wealthy, as other cities have.
I won't bother to look for NYC or Chicago, but Detroit has an income tax: http://www.michigan.gov/taxes/...
I think some of our great state's other shitty cities have them, too.
--Jim (me)
The relevant sections are on pages 26 and 27 of the Constitution's text, available online here:
http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/documents/12-2010-wastateconstitution.pdf
Specifically (italics mine):
There follows three long passages describing the conditions under which such a "taxing district" may exceed the 1% aggregate taxation limit defined previously on page 26. Whether Seattle's particular circumstances meet those conditions, I have no particular comment. I post this merely to point out that Seattle, as a city government, does have a constitutionally viable mechanism for imposing its own tax scheme.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I can verify that Chicago does not have one. We would string them up...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
It's been years, but I believe NYC has an income tax.
Ages ago, I worked on payroll software in NYC. Of course, to test that I was doing things correctly, I used my own paycheck. I couldn't get it to balance out. Turned out my boss was taking NYC taxes out, even though I didn't actually live in NYC (I lived out on Long Island and took the train in). She calculated everything out for my co-worker, who lived in the city, and then just used the same numbers for me (since we were paid the same).
He was a little annoyed when I got a "raise" and he didn't...
It's marginal. Here's an article with a bit more detail
So yeah, Mr. $251k owes $22.50.
*Most* americans live paycheck to paycheck and are vastly in debt
This is true, but except at the very bottom it has almost nothing to do with income. Plenty of people making >$250K also live paycheck to paycheck and are vastly in debt. Whether or not you're living at the edge of your finances has much less to do with how much money you earn than it does how you spend. I know families of six that live on $25K annually and have money in the bank and no debt other than the mortgage on their (old and very small) house. I know DINKs that have combined incomes of $400K annually but every cent is pre-spent, and any unexpected expenses go on credit cards. There's a *huge* difference in the way those people live; the difference is larger than $375K per year, because the former live below their meager means while the latter live above their ample means.
Being rich or poor is somewhat determined by choices and effort, but mostly determined by luck. Living paycheck to paycheck, however, is almost always due to choices. Note that I said "almost", because there are exceptions; cases where people who do live below their means get slammed with some impossible expense (e.g. medical expenses) which sucks up their savings and leaves them with unmanageable payments, perhaps garnished from their wages. There are also people who live on disability income which will evaporate if they save any money (stupid, stupid policy). But *most* Americans who live paycheck to paycheck do it by choice, though few of them believe it. But have them sit down with a decent financial planner who will help them identify where their money goes, optimize it (which may involve moving, since many are house-poor), and create a budget that enables them to save, and they can stop living that way.
Personally, I used to live paycheck to paycheck, on a $100K income, until I realized that I was being stupid and took control. Granted that it's a lot easier to take control of your finances with $100K income than with $25K income but it's totally possible for the vast majority even at the bottom end of that range. There is a point below which living just about becomes impossible, of course.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Because the sure fire way to up your standard of living is under Socialism right?
I don't know that it's clear which is ultimately better; the modern form of socialism (which is capitalism with a strong safety net funded by heavy taxation), or something closer to pure capitalism (pure capitalism exists nowhere). My suspicion is that both approaches work, but which will work in a given country depends on the local culture.
Talk to a Fin, German, or Swede about their great economic mobility opportunities. (real people, not fabricated media reports).
That's stupid. If you want to know about such things, you don't seek out anecdotes, which may tell you very different things depending on whom you encounter, you look for data. Common measures of economic mobility put Swedes, to pick one country, far above Americans. Some more recent research questions those measures which focus only on single-generation changes and look at multi-generational mobility. By those measures, Swedes have roughly the same level of economic mobility as Americans. I don't see any data that indicates they have less mobility than Americans.
That said, I strongly suspect that a regional analysis of the US would yield a different result, because we know very well that mobility varies greatly across different regions of the country. https://www.theatlantic.com/bu.... Perhaps people in Salt Lake City (per that 2014 study, the city with highest upward mobility for moving into the middle class) or San Jose (the city with the highest upward mobility for moving into the top quintile) are significantly more upwardly mobile that people in Stockholm (or whatever Swedish city has the highest mobility). I haven't found any studies that apply the same measurement techniques to make comparison feasible (and even then such things are tricky). But, as a nation, the US is no more mobile than Sweden, and probably somewhat less, which means that extensive safety nets don't kill mobility, and their absence doesn't guarantee it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Maybe a state versus federal thing? I don't know, from a non US standpoint 2.25% income tax on $250k seems almost comically small, so intuitively I'd guess it's in addition to existing income tax(es). Heck I get less than half that and I'm paying over 30%.
If you make $250,000 you fall into the 33% bracket (between $191,650 and $416,700), so you nominally one would pay $65,899.25 or 26.4%. Of course that is before any deductions and is different if you are married, but overall someone making $250k will generally pay 20-25% in federal income taxes (plus 6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare) .
Enigma
So, if that is your definition of "rich", what do you define Warren Buffet and Bill Gates as? Because I assure you their lifestyles are way different than a 2000+ sqft home and a latte every day.
No, there's in fact alot more Americas then that, but for some reason you people just love forgetting an actual "rich" exists, by calling most of the working class "rich" and just lumping in the billionaires, as if those two classes are even remotely comparable.
I don't see rich people fleeing Chicago
The average annual income of taxpayers leaving Illinois was $77,000 while the average income of people entering Illinois was $57,000 in 2014; the vast majority of the outflow hailing from the Chicagoland area. So yeah, it's pretty much exactly "rich" people fleeing Chicago.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
RCW 36.65.030
Searching the Revised Code of Washington for the single word "income" results in 2,266 hits.
Please penalize yourself 10 Karma points for sloppy research.
---
At any rate, those rich aren't really paying much in the way of taxes even if this particular tax is allowed to take effect.
For someone making $250k, that's a $6k tax. It's not bankruptcy but it's like buying the city two venti mochas at Starbucks every day. Just so they can play Social Justice and throw money out the window on misguided programs. Fuck that.
No, it's not. For someone making $250K, it's a $0 tax. It's called a "marginal tax" - one that applies ONLY to income OVER $250K. Educate yourself.