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.
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.
is all in favor of local government right up until they do something they don't like. Then they want the State gov't to step in and outlaw it. The State gov'ts seem about perfect. Big enough to oppress but not so big they can't just buy them all out.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Washington's constitution states "a county, city, or city-county shall not levy a tax on net income."
Hope the rich enjoy their tax being based on gross income. Those 'tax writeoffs'? Not so writeoff-able anymore. No response to the 'income is actually property' precedent except "bullshit!".
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
In 10 years, the Seattle City council will complain about the impact of commuters on its road infrastructure
More likely they will be complaining about why there isn't enough usage of the mandatory tandem bicycle ride-sharing service that they instituted when they turned all the city's North-South streets into seven-abroad bicycle lanes.
I proudly call Seattle my home. And its mayors and city councils really do believe they're doing the right thing, bless their hearts. But they are pretty much all blithering idiots. Because Seattle is a tech boom town filled with generally liberal people, they have the money and political backing to do well-meaning but impractical things.
You know, things like spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a bike share program in a city that is full of huge f***ing hills and where it rains half the year. Or mandating a $15 minimum wage without studying it first and then seeing it decrease earnings of those it was designed to help, at least according to one recent study (more research over time is still needed to say for sure). There's a much longer list for someone crankier than me to make.
It's well meaning but it's almost universally poorly thought out in terms of unintended consequences. Like this income tax idea, which will perversely drive out the people who pay the most in property taxes and push them into driving into work from the suburbs. And Seattle already has miserable traffic. But, again, while the economic sun is shining the city has the leeway to try these grand but foolish experiments. Unfortunately, at some point the tech boom here will end and there will be a nasty bill to pay for it.
"95% of all Slashdot
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."
Yeah, that was my first thought, when did $250K a year define you as rich?
In *every* part of the US, that will define you as rich. If you can afford a $50,000 car, you are rich. If you can afford a 2000+ sqft home, you are rich. If you can afford to buy a decaf latte grande every day, you are rich. *Most* americans live paycheck to paycheck and are vastly in debt. Slashdotters are not typical people. Moreover, most slashdotters don't even know anyone who isn't rich. They will live in a rich neighborhood, and work with rich people, and buy everything online, or from stores staffed by the children of rich people. On the rare occasion when they do go into a walmart, they look at the cashier with pitty thinking that these are the only poor people. They never see the 5,000 people who would kill just to get that walmart job. They never see the people working the warehouse jobs, or the folks living in the places where you joke about being unsafe to drive at night. They simply don't understand that their world is the exception not the rule.
The other side of that are the working class and poor. They know the rich exist, but they never see them, they never get to go into those neighborhoods. Their kids don't go to the same schools with the rich kids so they never have a reason to meet with the rich parents at PTA meetings (assuming they could even get enough time off work to go).
The simple truth is there are two Americas. There is the one you live in, and the one they live in. I sincerely hope you never have to live in their world because it is a pale shadow of the America you live in. In spite of that fact, their lifes work means you can get your stuff cheap online and in store. They buy the products that directly or indirectly fund your huge paychecks. In a very real sense, they are very nearly modern day slaves who's entire existences fuels your lifestyle.
The average American watching TV is looking at a lifestyle that is beyond their own. They can only aspire to have the kind of wealth they see on their nightly sitcoms and dramas, but they watch anyways always dreaming that they live those lives instead of their own.
I could give you a million places to look where you could peel back the veil of abject poverty and see the new slave class this country has embraced, but it is probably better that you continue to live the fantasy so that you can pursue the things that just might actually make a better tomorrow for everyone. If you had to face the demons that comes with your own wealth, it might destroy the fragile innocence that allows you to sleep at night.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
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...
I live in Seattle. You can debate the merits of having an income tax, or not. But you'd have to be an outright moron to think they would keep the threshold at $250K. Now they're saying "we'll have an income tax at $250K, we'll solve the homeless problem with the money". In 4 years, homeless issue will be worse, and they'll say "we'll make it $175K and we'll solve the homeless problem". 4 more years, "Let's make it $100K and we'll solve the homeless problem". Once the mechanism is in place they (the gummint) won't be able to control themselves.
*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.
Or mandating a $15 minimum wage without studying it first and then seeing it decrease earnings of those it was designed to help, at least according to one recent study (more research over time is still needed to say for sure). There's a much longer list for someone crankier than me to make.
It's well meaning but it's almost universally poorly thought out in terms of unintended consequences.
Bullshit. I was part of the effort to raise the minimum wage in Seattle to $15. The effort was studied and argued ad nauseam. We looked at all the data. Study after study shows that paying people a living wage is not only feasible, but improves the economy. It may be shocking to learn, but putting money into the hands of people who'll actually spend it in the community boosts the economy. Your spending is my income, my spending is your income. You get paid more, then you spend more. Then I make more and pay you back. That's how economies work.
(What hurts an economy? A few rich assholes sucking up all the money for themselves and then sending that money out of the economy to their Swiss bank accounts.)
This recent study came out contradicting previous results. It stated that increasing the minimum wage hurts workers. Turns out the new study wasn't peer reviewed. Another shocker. One problem of many is that the new study excluded minimum wage employers with multiple locations. Why? No good reason. If a restaurant was successful and opened a second location, it wasn't included in the study. No surprise that increasing the minimum wage looks bad if you methodically cut out the successful businesses.
http://www.epi.org/publication...
Like this income tax idea, which will perversely drive out the people who pay the most in property taxes and push them into driving into work from the suburbs. And Seattle already has miserable traffic.
Everyone wants to live close to downtown. Part of that is precisely because of the miserable traffic. We've got the hottest housing market in the nation. If a few people leave over the income tax, there's 10 times the number of people who'd love to buy their homes, move in, and pay that income tax. Our housing market will be completely fine with this tax change.
But, again, while the economic sun is shining the city has the leeway to try these grand but foolish experiments. Unfortunately, at some point the tech boom here will end and there will be a nasty bill to pay for it.
Yeah, sure. The internet is just a fad. It'll end soon. Keep telling yourself that.