Make it fair.

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

We can go back and forth all year about this. Who knows what services will realy suffer and what ones won't. I feel that 2% will definatley be made up one way or another. Evertime this issue comes up people compare it to other states. I am not saying Oregon can do it why can't we? All I want is it to be equal across the board. Someone mentioned "If you can afford the new cars you can afford the Tabs" Isn't that what sales tax is about? Sales tax being based on the value of the car makes sense. Also car insurance is partialy based on the value of the car. That should be enough punishment for buying a new car. I think everyone should pay the same amount on Tabs. If this money goes to so many things that benifit us then EVERYONE should pay the same. I don't care if it is $100 or $500 but EVERYONE pay it. It does not cost more for a new car to go down the road than an old one. And we all use pretty much the same roads. If this is the only answer I am for I-695. But $800 for tabs a year is rediculaous. That can not be justified.

-- (cbrown@besolut.com), September 14, 1999

Answers

Yes, maybe everyone should pay the same. And there are ways to fix the MVET. However, I-695 is not the answer. What is? Well, perhaps the people need to be more involved with politics, and make their elected representatives fix it and make it right. Yes people will tell you what a boost this will be to the ecomony. Will a minimum job loss of about 20,000 people be good for the economy? There will be losses of over 4,000 in the transit industry alone. Less transit service, no money for new and improved roads, more cars on the roads, less ferry service. Hmm...doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Of course, I would only ask that you look at all the facts before you decide. Pay more attention to the issue than just reviewing this website. A few entries down, on the forum page, there are other websites listed, that tell other information and facts. There are two sides to every story, please look at both sides, then make your decision. That would be the only fair thing to do.

-- Mike Powell (mkpowel62@silverlink.net), September 15, 1999.

Sure it can, CB, like this:

I am a politician. I know better than you how money should be spent. You have money. That was an error. All money belongs to the state. I will take the money that has erroneously wound up in your hands, and spend it properly. You are too dumb or too selfish to spend it properly. If you don't give me the money, I will use the police authority of the state to take the money from you, and punish you as an example for others who might be tempted to deny me state money that has erroneously wound up in their hands. The citizens are their for the purpose of providing the politicians and bureaucrats money. That is the natural order of things in the political world. What is hard to understand about this?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 15, 1999.


Mike, we feel your pain. We also sympathisize we the delusion you are suffering. We cheer for the loss of 20,000 jobs. Because if 20,000 jobs are lost then what those people were doing was absolutely unnecessary!

The state could stand to shut down maybe three times that many jobs (and I use the term loosely) because many of the jobs across the board in government do NOTHING but waste money.

Of course the FACTS you reference are not facts. They are scare tactics. They have NO basis in reality in this dimension or any other dimension.

Yes there are two sides to this story. There is the side of the poeple who wish to retain some of their hard earned money and force the government to restructure it's throwaway policies.

And there is the other side who believes that Olympia is their own private mama sow that they were born with the RIGHT to suckle on.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.


Mike; If I lose my job due to I-695 I figure I'll do what I did before I worked here and that is look for a good paying job. Since my father raised me to be self reliant I think I can handle it. Unlike you and Patrick and "d" who seem to think government is the end all, I don't. It always amazes me when people whine about what good the government does for the working person. I remember when Clinton got elected he promised a tax cut. After 19 days of hard work (with Monica) he told us there was just no way the country could afford it. So he raised taxes, being on disablity at the time I didn't think much of it. When I did my taxes I discovered I had to pay an additional $3,000 dollars because Clinton taxed SSDI benefits (I guess I was one of the filthy rich). And now that there is supposedly a surplus with the Feds, Clinton dosen't want to give any of it back because "we the people" wouldn't spend it wisely (as if the govenment ever has). Now that I am working again and can afford to buy a new car the state and you whiners say "well if your rich enough to buy a new car you should be able to pay for the tabs" bulls**t! It's my money, I worked for it. The Feds, state, county, city and all the other taxing districts did not, they pass laws or ordinances saying they have a right to my earnings. How much are you going to allow them to take before you get good and pissed off about it. Or do you want to just hand over yours and my whole check and let them decide how much we get back. By the way they have names for this its called slavery and pimps. And referencing a earlier post, I too picked fruit when I was younger and learned a few things. One, I didn't want to pick fruit the rest of my life. Two, I would get an education so I could get a good paying job. Apparently this last one has been over looked by a few people in this state and others who rely on the government to supply their needs for them. When I was on disablity, all I thought about was being able to get back to work of any kind so I would not have to rely on the state each month for a check to buy my food and pay my bills. And no the state would not give me a waiver so I didn't have to pay the tabs on my cars.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 15, 1999.

Gee Ed, Your were living off the state and my tax dollars huh? The services were there when you needed them, but now that your done, forget about everyone else? I would expect someone like you to be in favor of this. By the way, you ask, "how much will we let them take?", well....all of yours.

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 15, 1999.


Dear Mike,

I guess you could say I was living off the state, but since I have been working since I was 10 and paying taxes (yes you may not believe it but it is true), I feel that getting some of it back was not living off the government tit. I was injured on the job trying to protect people and paid into the system for just such situations.

I tried to find a doctor in this state to treat me for the problems that I have. All but the last just tried to cover them up with drugs. Since I have found a decent doctor, I have been working. I did not try to scam the system and sit on my a$$ and collect money.

When I went back to school, the state would not pay for it. So I went into debt. But the state wanted me to have my instructors evaluate me during this time. I told the state to shove it. I was paying for it so they had no say in who I was doing in school. By the way, I was on the Honor Roll.

Finaly in the second and final year the state decided they could help me out. My that was big of them.

If someone is truelly injured and on SSDI, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with are the people in this state who are not injured or disabled sitting on their a@@ expecting the rest of us to support them.

Lastly, like a true liberal you say they can have all of my check but none of yours. How you people sleep at night is beyond me. I guess until this is a true socialist society you don't.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.


Try again ED,.

I did say they could have all of yours, but I said nothing about having none of mine. They can even have what I pay in my tab fees. You see, I am willing to give more than you, and I've never had any public assistance. By the way, I sleep very well at night, thank you for asking.

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 16, 1999.


I feel compelled to come to the defense of Ed, and illuminate a few things for Mike. Ed works and pays taxes (like the rest of us). Part of those taxes are there to help people who come up on hard times (like Ed did), like they should. When Ed gets better, he rejoins the work force, and starts to pay taxes again. What Ed has a problem with (and half a million other voters) is the level of taxes. The tax burden on the residents of this state are obscene. I don't mind paying taxes. I want to pay cops, firemen, emts, teachers and other state services. But they can't find enough money elsewhere to pay for all this? We have a sales tax (among the highest in the land), property taxes (again among the highest), fuel taxes (surprise, one of the highest again), and myriad of other taxes, and this state currently has a surplus of $1 bill. And it is not enough? As far as all those jobs being lost, if you read english well enough, you'll note that they say the jobs/money/road projects could be lost, not will be lost, could be lost if the money is not reallocated. The surplus will fund current projects until the legislature and county governments can reallocate funds to keep them going. I fail to see how a 1-2% loss in the state budget will stop the state from functioning. And how is it that when the state looses a little revenue, the politicians immediately threaten to cancel or stop funding the most important projects? Is this our representative government at work? If I had to take a pay cut, I certainly wouldn't cut food and utilities first, I would look else where to reduce the budget. The truth is, the people of this state are over taxed. We work hard for our money and hate to see it wasted. When Ed was hurt, he needed a little help. The taxpayers make payments every month to see that he and other like him get help. He eventually got back on his feet and is a productive member of society (who is once again earning a wage, paying taxes and putting his money back into the economy). That is the way the system is supposed to work. It is not meant to place everyone in a government codependent relationship. I don't mind paying taxes Mike, that is not the point. The point is that government takes far too much of my money, and I want some of it back. If you feel the need to contribute something extra to society, feel free to do so. Look in the phone book under GoodWill or Adopt-a-Highway. Don't trample the rest of us with your moral highhorse.

-- Jason Warner (uberjason@netscape.net), September 16, 1999.

Back to the original topic, and away from the Ed and Mike show--

There's no way a flat tax isn't regressive. It is morally just that those who have more give more. By the way, when the Reagan-Bush tax cuts happened, trickle-down didn't work as expected. Those who earned more did not contribute more of their savings to charities -- highest (percentage of income) contributions were made by people who earned less than $50,000 a year. Yes, license tab fees could be lower. But why not simply lower them a percentage and raise the gas tax to a commensurate level? Then the people who drive low mileage vehicles and shun public transport can help to make up the difference for those of us who choose to take public transport whenever possible, because we believe that it's important to preserve what we have, rather than spend our children's inheritance. By the way -- one thing you pro I-695-ers seem to have forgotten: Driving is a privelege, not a right. It's something we forget too often. We live in the richest country on Earth, and we use the greatest amount of natural resources per capita than anywhere else. With all the complaining on this site about having to pick up the tab for someone else, it might be good to remember that we depend on poorer countries to pick up the tab for our waste, both literally and figuratively. Why do we do it? Because we can. WHy do they let us? Because they can't afford not to. Please try to remember that with privelege comes responsibility. I'm not sure how I-695 fulfills anything but a reprehensible tendency towards a couple of the seven deadlies.

-- J. Kemp (jhofmannkemp@netscape.net), September 19, 1999.


JK-

"It is morally just that those who have more give more"

Do you have a reference for this, or is this your religious belief?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 20, 1999.



Mike said "Will a minimum job loss of about 20,000 people be good for the economy? There will be losses of over 4,000 in the transit industry alone. Less transit service, no money for new and improved roads, more cars on the roads, less ferry service."

Mike, There could be jobs lost, here at the big B and other companies, people are laidoff to make profit and/or to shrink costs. Who the heck said government jobs are sacred?

As for the " no money for new and improved roads", that is a out and out lie and a scare tactic. hmmmm, last I knew there was a tax on our gasoline that goes to repair and improve roads. And if that goes, we can vote to fund roads.

More cars, maybe, maybe not.

Less ferry and transit service, could be, but if the people that ride them want more, they can pay more. Or we can vote to subsidize them.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.


Religious and political, Craig. However, for sources, I would refer you to any of the world's primary philosophies or religions. It's hardly a partisan belief. I'm only saying that we are all morally responsible to each other as a society. It's kind of a glass half full thing -- I'd rather focus on the good we can do for others, and through that, ourselves, rather than whining about coughing up some cash for paying for what is, for many, not just necessity, but excess. If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry.

-- J. Kemp (jhofmannkemp@netscape.net), September 22, 1999.

JK- At what point does what would be illegal and immoral for an individual to do, depriving someone of their property against their will, become acceptable when done by the government?

I have nothing against other people's religions, as long as they don't try to compel me to adhere to them. I have nothing against other people's philosophy, as long as they don't interfere with mine. But the issue of how much the individual should be forced to give up for the collective good is not a trivial one, and too many liberals try to trivialize it. Whose definition of "collective good" gets used is also another point that often gets overlooked by the holier than thou crowd, on both sides of the political spectrum. Be careful not to build tools that your opponents will some day use against you. Most of the world has not been able to make the sort of compromises with these issues that we have. The norm in the world is still NOT democracy as we would define it, even for our close allies.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 22, 1999.


And our norm is not direct democracy either. Here is where that Civics class would be of help.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.

"And our norm is not direct democracy either" Maybe it should be. Seems to be working in Colorado.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 22, 1999.


J. Kemp

Sorry to bother you so much but I was answering a question. Which I now pose to you. Who the hell died and made you Bill Clinton? This statement by you "It is morally just that those who have more give more" sits right up there in the Communist Manifesto (which you probably got it from).

You start with "when the Reagan-Bush tax cuts happened, trickle-down didn't work as expected. Those who earned more did not contribute more of their savings to charities", hogwash. The amount contributed to charities skyrocketed. And do you know why? Because the common people had more money in their pocket to spend on as they saw fit. Not has the government saw fit.

Now on to this line. "highest (percentage of income) contributions were made by people who earned less than $50,000 a year". You must have this wrong as according to your mentor Bill these are the filthy rich, who would never ever think of using their own money for good.

And you say "But why not simply lower them (vehicle tabs) a percentage and raise the gas tax to a commensurate level? Then the people who drive low mileage vehicles and shun public transport can help to make up the difference for those of us who choose to take public transport whenever possible". Then you finish that thought with driving is a privilege. How the hell do you think you get around town so cheap now on mass transit. The people of the state pay the majority of the bill already idiot. So as you sit on that nice comfy bus saveing your money for your kids (which is okay), me and the rest of the people who have to drive a car to get to work are helping with those investments.

"We live in the richest country on Earth" Yes we do. The people of this country worked their asses off.

"we use the greatest amount of natural resources per capita than anywhere else" Your right on this one to. Pretty tough taking care of the rest of the world but not building anything or using gas or other such items in the process wouldn't it.

One last question. What of the seven deadly sins are you talking about? Slavery? Nope, that's what the government is doing to us. Uh, wanting to keep what I earn? Nope can't be greed, as its what I earned working 8 or more hours a day for. Let's see envy maybe. Can't be that one. That's reserved for you and the rest of the liberal dogs, as you watch us little people who have no idea what were doing spend our pay checks, or investing like you. Can't think of one, maybe you can help?

Ed "contributed more to charities last year then Al Gore"

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), September 23, 1999.


J.Kemp:

Further to Ed's post, your comment about charitable contributions in the wake of Reagan's tax cuts (30 percent over three years) is incorrect. I read in the Wall Street Journal that charitable contributions by Americans during the Reagan years reached all-time historic highs. I can't be more specific about numbers etc, because I read this in 1991 or so, whenever it was that Clinton proposed and Congress voted (straight party line vote when Democrats were in the majority) to impose the greatest federal tax increase in history on the American people.

The increase in charitable donations makes sense because Americans are by nature a generous people, which is why such institutions as Project Hope, CARE USA etc. etc. have American origins. Whenever there is some disaster in the world, Americans are always there, not only with government aid but private aid. A retired doctor I know still collects old pairs of prescription eyeglasses and ships them to a clinic in India. After 30 plus years, that makes a difference, quite apart from the goodwill. Also, after the federal tax cuts, our church contributions went up. Conclusion: Individual Americans, through the millions of individual, personalized decisions they make, can spend their money more efficiently than government can.

Your statement about American consumption of natural resources, while true, is only part of the story. The fact is that America and Americans, from their use of natural resources, produce the vast majority of the wealth in this world, and are responsible like no one else for lifting living standards in the world. You can find poverty anywhere, especially in socialized countries, but my statement is still true. All the oil in the Middle East was absolutely worthless until Western (read: American) knowledge and technology came along and produced marketable oil products that people wanted and used.

Ed: My thanks to your dad for his service during the Korean War.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), September 24, 1999.


A.C. writes:

". I can't be more specific about numbers etc, because I read this in 1991 or so, whenever it was that Clinton proposed and Congress voted (straight party line vote when Democrats were in the majority) to impose the greatest federal tax increase in history on the American people."

In 1991, meaning two years before Clinton was president?

Actually charitable giving has held steady at around 2% of the GDP for the last 40 or so years regardless of how the economy is doing or whether tax cuts are made. This is according to the Wall Street Journal. There are fluctuations, but they are generally minor.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 24, 1999.


A.C. Johnson writes:

"The fact is that America and Americans, from their use of natural resources, produce the vast majority of the wealth in the world, and are responsible like no one else for lifting living standards in the world."

Whose living standards are you talking about, A.C.?

George W. Bush's?

Or perhaps the East Timorese, whose slaughter, according to widespread and credible documentation which has accumulated since 1975, is pretty much directly traceable to the natural resources which lie underneath the ground in East Timor, and the control of which simply must remain in the hands of the TNC's who benefit from U.S. bankrolling of the Indonesian Military.

Sorry to burst your bubble, A.C.: petroleum products are the reason the East Timorese are being slaughtered with the wimpiest of "protection" from the U.S. military. Not only that, but the U.S. military CONTINUES TO TRAIN the Indonesian military from whose ranks the anti-independence militias are drawn.

American natural resource consumption has improved millions of lives around the world.

I don't think so!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 24, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ