I read the Seattle Times article that was convienently posted on this site. It makes sense to me, and I think the no campaign did themselves a disservice if they really ARE lying about the numbers.

But come on! How can the yes campaign think that I-695 WON'T result in the loss of jobs? When you cut funding (especially billions of dollars of funding) for road construction programs, someone will have to get the boot.

And quite honestly, I don't care if it's 70,000 jobs (like the no campaign says) or 24,000 jobs (like the Times article says) - either way, too many people are losing their jobs.

So I guess my question is really: where do the 24,000 people who lose their jobs go? Where will they work? Their savings of "an average of $142" won't help them out when they no longer receive a paycheck!

The yes campaign should recognize this significant by-product (unemployment) of this irresponsible initiative.

-- (everett244@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999

Answers

I agree with you 100%. And here's the real kicker...... I don't know about the rest of the state, but here in Spokane, the city is self- insured. That means that for all the jobs that will be lost, and there will be alot, the city has to pay for the unemployment benefits. Kind of a Catch-22 isn't it.

-- Dave K. (dpk9030@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

"But come on! How can the yes campaign think that I-695 WON'T result in the loss of jobs? " I fail to see where this money will be taken out of the economy. It will still be spent within the state. It does not disappear below the event horizon into some black hole in space or something. What it does is to take the money out of government revenues and keep it in taxpayer revenue. You can debate the pros and cons of that, but pretending that the money will just disappear from the state's economy is more than a little disingenuous.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: Do the majority of people in this state want to support the services that these people provide? If so, they will vote to increase the funding. If not, then progress has been made.

Assuming that the people do not increase taxes to a high enough level that the additional taxes equal the tab fees: Where does this money go that people save on license tabs? Most will not just up and disappear. Will it not be cycled back into the economy? If there is additional consumer spending, does it not mean that there are additional jobs created (especially with billions of dollars of funding)?

Really... do you truely believe that the money will disappear??

-- Allan (ae_me@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

If 24,000 jobs related to government in any form disappear, too bad. It's not my mission in life to support government jobs. For those of you who insist that government can solve all of our problems, or that the MVET is OK (you'll all note that the opposition has made NO effort to provide any alternative) feel free to pay more then you have too for your tabs after this passes. You may actually save a few of those precious, tax-supported jobs.

Westin

"Every day's a holiday... every meal a banquet."

De Toqueville

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.

Heck. I was going to post some long winded reply to this, but I think I can do it in a few sentences:

Projected figures are just that, projected figures. I also project that next week's winning lotto numbers are going to be 2, 5, 23, 24, 34, 38. (Note: If I win, I'll give some of it to the I-695 Yes campaign)

As for where these people will go for a paycheck... in the article it said something about these were CONTRACT labor construction jobs. As a contractor, NO CONTRACT JOB IS A GUARANTEED PAYCHECK OR CONSIDERED STEADY EMPLOYMENT!

From the article: "The construction-job projections come from the Associated General Contractors of Washington and another construction- lobbying group in Olympia, both of which depend on state contracts for transportation projects."

It sounds to me that these people who need the jobs the most, are the ones coming up with an incredible figure for the No campaign because THEY don't want to lose their jobs! "Hey boss, I think I need to be earning $100,000 a year because you need me!"

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

Usually Sandy's silly retorts make me chuckle, but I have to admit she has a point: contract workers DON'T have "steady" employment.

But, they do have employment at some times in the year, which is much more than they will have if I-695 passes. If there are no overpasses to be built, no money to repair roads - quasi-steady employment will become non-existant employment.

And yes, I understand that predictions are not as reliable as the here and now - but again, what can you expect?

If I was about to lose my job because an initiative might pass, I'd like to know what the odds are. You can't fault employers for making a calculated guess about their work loads. It's the responsible thing to do, in my opinion.

And lastly, regarding the reintroduction of saved tab fees into the economy - time and time again, economists have predicted that the amount of money saved is not enough to recirculate into the economy, generate sales tax revenue for the state and equal the amount lost if I-695 passes. Please stop regurgitating this argument. It's old, it's tired and it's a lie. If you can show me a solid economic argument using (gasp!) actual evidence like numbers and examples, it would certainly help your case.

-- (everett244@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

"And lastly, regarding the reintroduction of saved tab fees into the economy - time and time again, economists have predicted that the amount of money saved is not enough to recirculate into the economy, generate sales tax revenue for the state and equal the amount lost if I-695 passes. Please stop regurgitating this argument. It's old, it's tired and it's a lie. " You are correct here Everett, but that's not what I said, or what Allan said. In point of fact, the state will recoup more than you'd expect, because of something economists call the multiplier effect. If you put a dollar into the economy it gets spent a number of times, as each recipient spends it on something else. Although the state won't necessarily tax each transaction (wholesale sales, food, drugs, etc.) it may well be that you'll collect taxes two or three times on that dollar. Albeit, that'd only produce one-fourth the revenue to the state that they would have received had they just kept the MVET. What we were referring to, however, is the issue of jobs lost or gained. In that respect, the elimination of the MVET is just a shift in money from the public to the private sector, with little gain or loss (there actually is a little loss due to loss of MVET deductions from the income tax for those rich enough to itemize). You wind up with essentially a zero- sum game, with the resources subtracted from the public sector being essentially offset by resources added to the private sector. I'll accept your apology for the allegation that I lied.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

"And lastly, regarding the reintroduction of saved tab fees into the economy - time and time again, economists have predicted that the amount of money saved is not enough to recirculate into the economy, generate sales tax revenue for the state and equal the amount lost if I-695 passes. Please stop regurgitating this argument. It's old, it's tired and it's a lie. If you can show me a solid economic argument using (gasp!) actual evidence like numbers and examples, it would certainly help your case."

HELLO!!!! The amount that recirculates into the economy will be close to the same amount that is saved in tabs! I did not say that there would be just as much TAX money in the system. Ok....lets try to make it a little clearer for you...

Scenario 1: The government collects the money. It automatically suffers from "administrative fees." Now it is put out for bid... and there goes more of it... (how much is left?) then it goes to a contractor... then to employees....then they spend it (re-enters economy). Sound about right??

Scenario 2: The individual keeps their money (not paid as tab fees). They make a purchase (enters economy). Does this make sense? Yes, and part will go to taxes, but about 8% depending on where you are at.

How does the money not make it back into the economy? Where's the lie? How do you do your math?

-- Allan (ae_me@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

I apologize profusely for calling you a liar. I didn't mean you personally - I simply meant that the arguement in discussion was less than credible.

I received my information from a 9/26 article in the Seattle Times. I attached a portion of the article here - and for sake of argument, it is a very fair article in my estimation.

...Eyman also argues his initiative would boost the state's economy by putting money back in every car-owner's pocket. That money, he says, would be spent on clothes, computers and other goods that would deliver more sales-tax revenues to state and local coffers.

State Economist Chang Mook Sohn says Eyman is wrong. He doubts the initiative would trigger additional consumer spending because it simply shifts the same amount of money from government-workers' pockets to general taxpayers. Consumer spending will likely stay about the same, he says, regardless of what happens to I-695.

Again, my apologies. I still think your rationale is stretching it a bit, however - you are assuming all money stays in-state, which is a bit doubtful.

-- (everett244@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

"Again, my apologies. I still think your rationale is stretching it a bit, however - you are assuming all money stays in-state, which is a bit doubtful. " Which brings up the issue of federal tax deductibility of taxes in Washington state (predominately sales tax) and tax deductions in other states. Hopefully, everyone, por and con, will write their congressperson to get them to restore the income tax deduction for sales tax. The absence of this deduction hurts the five states without state income taxes, relative to the states with income taxes. Additionally, our attorney general, fresh from her victory beating up on the despicable tobacco companies, ought to appeal the lack of this deduction to the supreme court under the equal protection clause. We (citizens of WA) are being adversely discriminated against for not choosing to have a state income tax. Given that the constitution had to be modified to make a federal tax legal, the reserved powers clause should give us the option as to how we choose to finance state government without federal penalty.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.