concerns

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

After researching some information on the internet, and finding out how much of the general revenue fund will be lost in the state of Washington if I-695 passes, i've become very concerned about the fate of many hardworking civil servants such as police officers, firefighters and public health employees. For those proponents of I-695, what would you tell the 20 year veteran of, say, the Yakima police department when he or she gets their pink slip? Will that be a real scenario, or will the money to pay people such as that come for someone else? I've also come to understand that if I-695 passes, then the county in which your vehicle is registered will assess a county excise tax of roughly the same amount. Is this true?

-- Drew H Nichol (dnichol@pacifier.com), September 07, 1999

Answers

Drew:

Washington is the 6th highest taxed state in the nation.

The state has a $1 billion tax surplus and the local governments have an additional $3 billion in tax surplus. The loss of the MVET represents less than 2% of government spending.

The governments will adjust just like we adjust when they raise our taxes.

It a police officer is terminated it will not be because of lack of money. It will be because government officials want to punish the taxpayer for voting for I-695.

The counties cannot levy an extra tax on automobilies without a vote of the people.

It seems strange that opponents of I-695 will say in one breath that the Xerox fees at the library can't be raised without a vote of the people and then in the next breath that they will automatically impose an extra tax on your car without a vote.

Then they will say I-695 will cause hundreds of public votes on every tax and fee increase.

Use you common sense. If politicians gave voters that many choices, the voters would vote no on all of them. The politicians are going to know that they're going to get a couple "bites at the apple" with taxpayers each year. So they're going to have to prioritize and put forward only the most essential tax increases. Colorado has had this same provision in effect since 1990 and it has limited excessive taxation (they are the 39th highest taxed state - Washington is 6th) Even former critics of Colorado's initiative admit it has worked well.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), September 07, 1999.


Drew, None of your beloved civil servants are going to lose their jobs. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get rid of a government employee even if he has done something wrong? Now the government might use I-695 as an excuse to get rid of some 'civil servants' they have been trying to dump for years but it probably won't work and the dumping will be from Choice and not because of I-695.

Second, the personal property tax. The state has already spoken on that matter and has stated that it would be nearly impossible to get something like that to be accepted by the people. And 'accepted by the people' is the KEY phrase. It can't happen unless you beg them to 'please charge me personal property tax'

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.


Drew:

This is a good place to see a variety of opinions. Please read them all in answer to several of these threads and questions, and make up your own mind. I doubt any 20 year police officers are in danger, unless they have not hired anyone new in 20 years; but some agencies will not be able to support the same staff on the same budget. It won't compute. Other tax increases will be needed to replace the MVET, just to maintain the current level of service.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 07, 1999.


What would *I* tell them?

"Good luck at whatever job you wind up with."

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 07, 1999.


Drew,

Why do you and a lot of others always say it is the police, fire and other essenstial services that will take the hits, (which I don't believe will happen). Why not insist that some cuts come from the give-a-way programs that the state and local goverments all love to support. How about all politician's cutting their staffs and budgets, reducing their unecessary travel, most of which ends up being a taxpayer paid vacation? At the state level, when they have to go to a special session, no pay for them, expenses paid out of the politician's budgets. Do you think they might try a little harder to take care of the important issues during the regular session if that was the way is was? I'll bet there might even be a little more cooperation between them. Quit wasting our tax generated dollars, as most of us work pretty hard to earn them.

Unless we start insisting on these types of things taking place and tell them we are not interested in the scare tactics all politician's like to use, we are going to continue to hear the same old BS from them.

Enough is enough.

-- Wayne Alishokis (wga1943@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ