The initiative seems to require voter approval for any tax increase, and defines tax increase very broadly. The information I have seen from attorneys that have looked at the initiative indicate they are not in agreement on many basic points. So, what is it the initiative actually intends?

1. By any tax increase, does it mean from the point of view of the tax payer, or from the point of view of the goverment agency? Does it mean that each government may not collect more, in total revenue from any individual tax source, without a vote; or that the tax bill of each individual tax payer may not go up without a vote? What happens if the city collects all the sales tax it collected last year in 8 months? Do they stop collecting state sales tax? What happens if some people have a property value increase and others have a decrease, but the tax collections total the same for the agency? If the individual property tax bills stay the same, the agency will be collecting different tax rates on every parcel of property. Isn't that a violation of the equal taxation provisions of the constitution?

2. What about inflation in property value, and new assessed value in the local government resulting from new construction? Does the initiative require that no additional revenue be collected from these causes without a vote of the people? If so, the normal inflation in the operating cost of goverment (and not because of new programs and services) will not be funded. If new construction does not produce new revenue, the added value would reduce the tax rate for everyone else. The new homes and businesses could mean that the local government has new service needs that would not be funded. How long can a growing community operate on the same revenue, when the operating cost is still growing because of new construction and normal inflation? Does the initiative intend to require a vote for those "normal" and "expected" revenue increases that are needed to continue to provide the same level of service, under these circumstances?

3. What constitutes voter approval? Can an agency propose a ballot title that asks voters to approve the "normal" or "expected" tax increases that would occur (as in #2 above) for some period of time? The definition of what constitutes voter approval, and how it can be granted, and for how long, seems to be much less defined in the initiative that the concept of what is a tax increase.

4. When is the initiative legally in effect? The language it the initiative states it is 1/1/2000, but the state constitution requires initiatives to be effective 30 days after the election. Is it 12/2/99 or 1/1/2000? In either case, does that mean that the taxes acted on in 1999 (or before 12/2/1999, depending) are legal to collect in 2000 even if they are an increase over the 1999 rate or amount? If not, the last election date that is available to authorize a tax increase that would be effective for collection in 2000, is the 11/2/1999 election that the initiative is on. In effect, governments will need to forcast whether the initiative will pass, and propose any voter approval ballot titles they believe are needed by about September 17 to get them on the ballot. What happens if a county does not complete the work to finalize the levy ordinance until after 1/1/2000 (or 12/2/1999, depending)? Does that delay cause the actions of the local goverments that were completed in time, to become subject to the requirement for voter approval?

5. If you provide answers to these questions, can you cite the legal bassi for your conclusions? How can I know that the opinions stated here will actually be the way it will be interpreted by a court?

6. Several of the postings have been rather unconcerned about the revenue losses, and revenue freeze, that I-695 seems to be intended to cause. They seem believe "government" has enough, or can reallocate what it has to meet the most important needs. How does the state surplus resolve the budget shortage for a rural library district, or a fire district, or a city that depends on sales tax equalization? The initiative has no mechanism to require revenue-sharing to occur, so does every local government go to the legislature next year with funding request? Government programs are all created to meet a need that someone thought was important at the time. Does the initiative anticipate that the legislature will be the judge of which programs are most important for funding from the state reserves? Or is it entirely left to the local voters to establish by their vote on individual tax increase proposals made by the local governments?

7. How much can the legislature do with this, if it is approved in November and they meet in January? Is it expected that the legislature will answer some of the questions in 1 - 6 above, or will they all need to be addressed in the court challenges that are sure to be filed? What happens while we wait for those answers? I can imagine a variety of motions before judges, to delay implementation, or interpret sections, or challenge validity, or compel enforcement, or challenge local taxing actions believed to require voter approval, etc. What are the chances it will actually become effective by 1/1/2000, as proposed?

Thats about enough for now. If you actually have answers, great. If you don't have answers, and would rather attack my motives or parentage or inferred economic conditions, don't bother. I am looking for light, not heat. Thanks.

-- dbvz (dbvz@freei.net), August 19, 1999

Answers

Dear Mr. / Ms. or Genderless

I guess if we play your game we will have to know what the meaning of " IS " is. Given the implied complexity of your posting we should all just sign the backs of our checks and allow government to spend our money since if we try to take back 2 % the world as we know it will come to an end. Put the cork back in the bottle and sleep it off. You'll feel better in the morning.

Jim Coats

-- James Coats (deovin@whidbey.net), August 19, 1999.

With more time to think about this, I have some more questions:

8. If I-695 means that an individual property tax bill can't increase without a vote, and the same rate per $1000 AV must be applied throughout a taxing district due to constitutional equal taxation requirements, and some property is always way undervalued and needs to be re-valued when it is sold; what happens? If you get one property that has a value change of 100% or more because of a sale that will reduce their tax rate to half what it was (so the tax amount does not increase). That tax rate of 50% of the prior year becomes the maximum rate for the next year for everyone, because of tax equity. So, because of one property sale and revaluation, a local government could lose half its revenue the next year. Did I understand the "individual property" scenario correctly?

9. If I-695 means that the local government can not collect more next year than it did this year from a tax source, and retail sales could increase greatly by the opening of a new shopping center and construction of 2000 homes, and total AV could increase greatly by the construction of the new shopping center and 2000 homes, and the requirements to provide services could increase greatly by the construction of the shopping center and 2000 homes; what happens? It seems like the local government would need to stop collecting sales tax part way through the year, or estimate the lower sales tax rate to charge in January so they do not exceed the collections of the prior year. The property tax rate for everyone, existing and new construction alike, would be reduced so the local government would not collect more than the prior year. Funding to provide the services for the new shopping center and homes would not be provided by the normal expected new revenue (under the existing tax limitations), so in order to provide services the local government would need to reduce the level of service available to the rest of the community to provide a reasonable level of service to everyone. In effect, new development becomes an even greater problem for communities than it already is. Did I understand the "government revenue" scenario correctly?

10. In either of the above scenarios, how does the local government frame a voter approval request? Does the local government ask for approval for a levy rate increase, or a levy amount increase, or both? In the past, asking for approval of a levy rate inplied the amount because it must be applied equally to all taxable property based on value. Is that still accurate if I-695 is approved? Voters should now have the property value notice for taxes to be levied in 1999 for collection in 2000. If they approve a levy rate, they know what the levy amount will be on their individual tax parcel. Does it matter if the levy rate proposition is approved before or after the new property value notice is delivered to the property owners? Since renters are a large share of the population (50% ?), and they don't know what the assessed value change of the property they rent may be even after the notices are sent out, it does not seem to matter about the timing of the election. Renters, at least, vote without any value information on which to quess what the likely rent increase may be.

I hope it becomes clearer how all this will work, before the election date. As it is, the worst case scenarios get very bad very fast with no voter-approved "fix" available until 2001 tax collections, if the September 17, 1999 deadline is missed.

-- dbvz (dbvz@freei.net), August 20, 1999.

yo d- (I like to be on a first letter basis with my correspondents)

This posting is what when I was in the Air Force we used to call "chaff and flares." The analogy was to the actions of an enemy fighter pilot who, in the heart of the missile envelope, rather desperately uses countermeasures (chaff for radar, flares for heat- seekers) in an attempt to get the missile to break lock and miss. Right now the MVET is in the heart of the envelope because it is the least liked and most obvious of the many taxes that are collected. It isn't taken a little at a time, there is no witholding, it's up front and in your face. What's more, distribution is certainly not intuitive. For much of the state, ferries and mass transit are not a priority (not much mass in the Okanogan), and while they might support fire and law enforcement, they aren't willing to put 70% of their MVET into Seattle so that they can put 30% into their law and fire services. Besides, it's obvious that 2% can be trimmed from the government budgets in Washington, that doesn't even stop the growth, just slows it. So d, put as many of these long chaff and flares postings as you want in here. Like an AIM-9M, I'm gonna ignore them and home in on the target. I don't blame you. No sense going down in flames with chaff and flares still on the airframe, but the MVET IS going down in flames, so you'd do better to stop wasting time fighting and start figuring how you are going to do the re-allocations and cuts that the 2% reduction will provide. If you force me to get into the budget documents, I guarantee I'll find all sorts of things that will be new "targets of opportunity" for new initiatives.

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

Dear D, To introduce you to a basic political process: Voter approval works like this. The people vote. The votes are counted. The answer with the most votes wins. In some cases the side with 60% wins. In some cases the voters say no and Olympia says, "Screw you , you mindless idiots. We don't care what you want because we are GOD."

Now the other parts of your "Let's see if we can confuse them so much that they will lose their focus." Property tax is based on a percentage of the assessed value of the property. Of course you already knew that but your are creating a scenario which puts you in the position of the concerned but lost common citizen. Which you are not.

Sales tax: Well that is a percentage of each sale that is delivered to the government whether the deserve it or not. If there are more sales made or larger sales made more money is delivered to daddy Locke.

Oh My goodness!!!!! What can we do? We are selling more goods and services this year and I-695 says we can't raise taxes!!! We must 'cease and desist' the collection of sales tax until we provide a 'special' ballot to see if the people will allow us to do this!!!

Try to attempt to post something that at least seems to have some logic to it. Yeah this may seem to be a flame but it's a well-reasoned response to your questions which start out, "Hi, my name is Goober."

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 20, 1999.

So, why don't the 3 (now 4) recent answers show up on the forum? They are noted in the recent answers list, but I can't read them from their.

-- dbvz (dbvz@freei.net), August 20, 1999.

I was afraid I would get responses like these, based on what else has been posted. I really don't have a problem with the MVET issue. What I want to know is how this voter approval requirement is actually supposed to work. Is "no increase" from the individual tax payer point of view, or from the local government point of view? It makes a big diference in the effects, and how communities should deal with it. As I said before, if you have answers, great. If not, we all remain in the dark about what I-695 will actually do. I thought the voters were supposed to vote, "informed". Or is the idea to sell the MVET reduction and ignore the other issues?

-- dbvz (dbvz@freei.net), August 20, 1999.

Yo D-

Go to Ralph Munro's Secretary of State Page and read the text of the initiative. You can even read the pro and con for the voter's booklet for the election. I note with little surprise that the con statement was written by the AWB who make a mint out of public works projects like Safeco field, and the unions who get payed off through PLAs and the Attorney General making sweetheart deals to blow off the payroll paycheck initiative.

What a rogues ga

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 21, 1999.

Since I am still not getting all the new answers, I don't know if anyone has actually addressed my questions. Those that have responded, that I can get to, have not addressed much. While they did not address my questions, I will at least respnd to their answers:

Jim Coats refers to my post with the words,"implied complexity". I want to be clear about this. The complexity is not implied. It is real. The Initiative will make a broad and generalized change in the tax structure of the state. That structure is complex. I wish it were simpler, but it isn't. It was created and modified over the last hundred years or more, and a little change in one area can have consequences that only a tax attorney can find. The simple change in the initiative may have a variety of consequences that should be understood. If they are intended consequences; OK, we deal with them. If there are unintended consequences we need to deal with those also.

Craig Carson calls my post "chaff and flairs", and suggests I get on with figuring out how to reallocate funds to deal with the loss of MVET. That's not my question, and if all the initiative did was reduce state revenue from MVET I would not have asked the questions. As for figuring out what to do about it, that is what I am trying to do. The first step is to find out what the initiative will actually do. If it only effects state revenue from MVET, the state can probably deal with the reallocation issues effectively next year. The language is so broad that it does more than limit state revenue, and state tax increases, however. It effects local governments that get no revenue from MVET at all.

Maddjack actually responded, somewhat, to the questions; and that surprised me. While I am well aware of the political process, and how the tax system works now; it was interesting that he implied (but did not state) that local government should expect to collect more in revenue from tax sources without a vote of the people. He implied that my question about sales tax was stupid. Of course we continue to pay sales tax even if it generates more revenue. It is rate based, so a vote is only needed to increase the rate. Otherwise, you apply the rate to the higher value of taxable goods sold, and local governments get more money. If that is what the initiative means, great; we understand each other. We know what the legislative (or popular) intent is. That's good to have in the record when this gets to court.

Maddjack also noted that property tax is rate based. He stated it as a % of AV. OK. If the AV changes due to inflation or new construction, you apply the rate to the increased taxable value and the local government gets more money without a vote of the people. If that is what the initiative means, great; we understand each other on this tax also. A popular vote is only needed if a local government wants to increase the tax rate. I actually hope that is what the initiative means, because that would be easier to deal with.

With that understanding of the legislative (or popular) intent, the initiative is quite limited in effect. Government revenue can increase, and individual tax bills can go up, as long as the tax rate does not increase. Have I got that right? I am still unclear about what is meant by the definition of a tax increase, when it refers to "amount", however. And I did not see any authority for the opinion, but perhaps that is asking too much. As I said, I have seen information from several attorneys on this initiative, and none of them seem to agree.

It wold be nice to get an AG opinion on the effects of the initiative before the election, or at least something from those who drafted it that states the legislative (popular) intent. It could give everyone more confidence that the unintended consequences are somewhat limited.

-- dbvz (dbvz@freei.net), August 21, 1999.

Dear D,

Given the way words are bent today I see no way to explain it to some folks. I prefer to see it pass and then fight it out. At least the fight will be about what money the government may or may not take. A very similar Initiative was passed in Colorado and it is working quite well. Government will try to make as many problems as we allow them to get away with. I tend to aggree with this old saying you may have heard. " The only thing more frightening that someone from the government saying I'm here to help you, is a government attorney's interpretation of the written word"

Jim Coats

-- James Coats (deovin@whidbey.net), August 21, 1999.

Before anyone gets excited, and corrects my error, I will do it myself. I put "amount" in quotation marks, near the end of the post. In fact, the text of the section I meant to quote is:

" (4) For the purposes of this section, "tax increase" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a new tax, a monetary increase in an existing tax, a tax rate increase, an expansion in the legal definition of a tax base, and an extension of an expiring tax."

My point is, if the limit is on the tax rate, what is meant by, "a monetary increase in an existing tax"; or, "an expansion in the legal definition of a tax base"? And what do we understand is meant by, "but is not necessarily limited to"?

-- dbvz (dbvz@freei.net), August 21, 1999.

Dearest 'D', Probably one of the reaons you don't get new answers is because your e-mail address is faulty. That may be your fault but I believe the fault probably lies with Free-I. The have some server problems more often than not. I suggest you get a hotmail address because they are a lot more reliable.

There is NO sales tax increase when it is based on a percentage. It's simple. More sales more revenue.

The definition of a tax increase when it refers to an amount has two definitions. 1. The amount means percentage rate.......or 2. The tax in question is actually a fee which has a set amount.

There is nothing in the language of I-695 that restricts or prohibits and increase inrevenue through normal channels. It only requires a vote when there is an attempt to raise the amount of a fee or license or when a NEW tax, fee, license (monetary gouge) is requested. Or when they want to increase the Rate of an existing tax. And this is no limited to LOCAL government wanting an increase. It covers the entire spectrum.

Next in line should be a duplication of PROP 13 which restricts government from imposing artificial Revaluation of real property. Why do artificial property values always go up when government restrictions, interventions and other actions in reality make the value of much property plummet? As far as lawyers disagreeing..... well that is their primary function...disagreeing with just about everything.

And an opinion from the AG would be a totally unqualified opinion. She understands nothing of logic or rationality. She believes there is no such thing as personal responsibility and that the government should protect us from ourselves at the expense of the people who are funding her retirement account.

You can never look to a government official to offer credible information about something which may affect their personal power or their paycheck in a detrimental way.

There are no unintended consequences. The consequences are to cut an agregious FEE and restrict the government from retaliating against us in a different sector.

Any reduction in necessary services or projects will be the complete responsibility of the government as a punishment for standing up for what is rightfully OUR decision.

Class dismissed.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 21, 1999.

Dear 'D' you ask, "if the limit is on the tax rate, what is meant by, "a monetary increase in an existing tax"; or, "an expansion in the legal definition of a tax base"? And what do we understand is meant by, "but is not necessarily limited to"?"

This is called in 'legalize' attempting to fill the loopholes. Lawyers do two things. 1. They analyze every 'jot and tittle' to determine if they can twist the meaning of a simple statement to a point wher the statement no longer means what the author determined that it should mean. 2. They go over and over everything they write to make sure that their competition cannot twist anything they say into something with a completely different meaning.

That is the basis for law. Law isn't designed for the common man to understand. It is designed to keep them confused and make them pay lawyers exhorbitant sums so they can continue their devious little games in comfort.

"but is not necessarily limited to" means "In case I have screwed up in my definitions I am trying to cover my ass by implying that anything else you can think of to contradict me has already been covered."

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 21, 1999.

Maddjak

Your expanation was clear, and I apprciated everthing but the "class dismissed" comment. The problem was not Freei.net, but the fact I need to hit refresh since it does not do that at each entry to the forum. My mail address was shortened, but I think this is correct. I don't send mail to myself, and have not used it for anything, so can not be sure. Yours was the first clear statement of what we should understand by the language of section 4, and if correct will help relieve many concerns. If you are one of the authors, or primary proponents of the initiative, perhaps you could identify who in that inner circle agree that is the intent of section 4. As for the AG opinion, like it or not, until a court decides on any dispute about the initiative the office of the AG will be the authority the state and local government will use for their actions. If the AG agrees with you on section 4, it would take away a major uncertainty that will be used against the initiative. If they disagree, that can be challenged. Unfortunately, a court is unlikely to accept a case on the interpretation of an initiative that has not yet been approved, so that route to remove all ambiguity is not available. I recognize that the proponents do not believe any ambiguity exists; but different attorneys who have reviewed it understood it differenty, and different judges may also disagree. If the leading proponents clearly state the intent before the election, that may help clearly establish the legislative intent of the electorate if it is approved. Just a thought. It seems to me that beats getting it approved and arguing about what it means later.

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

Dear "D"

I have resisted answering any of your postings because you have not used your name.

Here is a brief answer to your question about the intent of I-695 on property tax. It is my opinion that I-695 limits the state from "an expansion in the legal defination of a tax base". It does not limit the people from expanding the tax base through new construction or the resale of property. The average home is resold every 6 years. The revenue increase allowed by the taxpayers adding to the tax base should be sufficient for county and government inflationary needs. They can ask for an increase - just like the schools do if more money is needed.

It is important to note that your property is valued at it's "true and fair value in money. Current law says this means that "true and fair" means current market value. This value is neither "true or fair". The intent of I-695 is to stop automatic revaluation of property until it is sold, improved or damaged.

The legal presidence for this is found in US Supreme court rullings on California's Prop 13. Only a brief excerpt is given below:

"...the State legitimately can conclude that a new owner at the time of acquiring his property does not have the same reliance interest warranting protection against higher taxes as does an existing owner. The State may deny a new owner at the point of purchase the right to "lock in" to the same assessed value as is enjoyed by an existing owner of comparable proberty, because and existing owner rationally (506 US13) may be thought to have vested expectation in his property or home that are more deserving of protection than the anticipatory expections of a new owner at the point of purchase. A new owner has full information about the scope of future tax liability before acquiring the property, and if he thinks the future tax burden is too demanding, he can decide not to complete the purchase at all. By contrast, the existing owner, already saddled with his purchase, does not have the option of deciding not to buy his home if taxes become prohibitively high. To meet his tax obligations he might be forced to sell his home or to divert his income away the purchase of food, clothing, and other necessities. In short the State may decide that it is worse to have owned and lost, than never to have owned at all."

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

So now I am confused again. Benham indicates that Proposition 695 has the same effect on Washington property revaluation, as Proposition 13 had in California, and cites a Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of that proposition. Maddjak indicates that the next step is to institute such a Proposition 13 type limit on property revaluation. Which is it?

Also, I understand that some reviewers now believe that if rate-based taxes can generate more revenue without a vote of the people (such as the sales tax), that may apply to the property tax on new construction but not on the increased property tax on existing property resulting from the inflation of the property value. The thinking is that the new construction tax is a calculation using the new value and the RATE of property tax from the prior year. Simple math. So, if new construction is added to the government AV, but inflation is not, the growth in service need and the growth in the cost of providing service to the existing community are in competition for the same new revenue. Inflation simply reduces the property tax levy rate for everyone, without generating any new revenue to cover inflation in the cost of providing services.

As for the prospect of some property being assessed at current market value, and other property being assessed at what the market value was when it was last sold; I doubt that propositon 695 can accomplish that without some more changes in state law, and the state constitution. As I understand it, this state has a tax equity provision that requires that everyone pay their fair share of the cost of government based on a consistent tax structure. Unless that provision is also changed (and it isn't mentioned in 695) properties in the same community getting the same services and valued the same, pay the same in taxes. The only exceptions that I am aware of are for seniors with low income levels.

As for not using my name, not everyone in this forum does. We seem to be able to communicate well enough this way. We should be addressing the issues anyway, and not the individual.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 23, 1999.

Dear "D"

Article VII sec. 1 of the Constitution states:

"All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only."

California has a similar rule. As long as all property is treated the same, there is no violation of the constitution.

Don't forget that the average house is sold every 6 years. Re- valuation at the time of sale will provide for inflation as well as the new construction that is added to the tax rolls each year.

Most taxing districts have ignored inflation when they have levied taxes on our property as a result of automatic property revaluation. (See your tax bill and the Washington Institute studies on R-47). I have compared inflation to my taxes from 1980 until 1998. The taxes on my home would be $971 if the taxes were to match inflation. But instead they are $2587.

Mr or Mrs "D" this is my last answer to any of your concerns until you identify yourself. Your e-mail address does not work either.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

Sorry about the E-mail address. It is new to me, and so far I have only one message that came in or went out. I may have the format wrong. As for using my full name, I don't think so. Some on this forum get very hostile and personal, and I just don't want to open that up any more than it is. If that means no more information from you, that is your choice. Your Prop 13 understanding of this is very interesting. If you were responding to me, I would ask if you know the text of Prop 13, and whether it had a lot more information about how it was to work. 695 is only about 150 words, excluding all the laws repealed. I can probably find the text of Prop 13 somewhere, but I suspect it had a little more detail than the few words in 695 that require voter approval for any tax increase. Perhaps even enough so the voters would know what they were doing. So far I have seen several explanations of the intent of initiative 695, and with little agreement. But since you are not responding to me I will look for Prop 13 on my own, and continue to look for some consistency regarding what to expect the effect of 695 would be.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 23, 1999.

Prop 13 is simple. I-695 has no relationship to prop 13.

Prop 13 says your house retains it's assessed value until somebody else buys it. Then the assessed value is in relation to the selling price. That way every house in the neighborhood can have a different value because the value is based on WHAT YOU PAID FOR IT not what some government monkey says it is worth.

You keep trying to twist I-695 into sales tax territory and real property tax. That's not what it is about.

If, all of a sudden, Olympia decided that it was going to leave the AV the same and increase the tax rate. That is when I-695 would kick in because of the RATE increase.

If some yokel decided that sales tax should now be twenty percent I- 695 would refer it to the people so they could say no.

None of your other hypothetical situations address the issues at all.

But that's okay because there are only twelve people arguing the finer points on this forum anyway.

I don't think we are going to convince many people one way or the other. This is an excercise in argument building.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 24, 1999.

Monte Benham and Maddjak need to talk. From what I have seen, I tend to agree with Maddjak on the relationship of I-695, and Prop 13. There is no relationship. I have looked for the text of Prop 13, without success so far. I did find a site that is old, but talks about what it does:

http://www.hjta.org/the.htm

Acquisition Value Provisions of Prop. 13 Section 2 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution (enacted by Proposition 13) establishes an acquisition-value assessment system. It provides that property is to be assessed at its value when acquired through a change of ownership or by new construction. Thereafter, the taxable value of property may increase annually by no more than the rate of inflation or two percent, whichever is less. There are certain exceptions: (A) market value, if lower than acquisition value, establishes value for tax purposes; (B) property transferred to a spouse, between parents and children, etc., is not reassessed; (C) certain other changes of ownership, added to Article XIIIA by voter approval in the years since 1978, do not trigger reassessment, and (D) property assessed by the State Board of Equalization, such as property of state-regulated utilities, is not subject to the acquisition value limitation. (See ITT World Communications v. City and County of San Francisco, 1985.)

None of this looks like what I-695 would adopt. A great debate continues about the fairness of two homes in the same neighborhood, with the same actual value, getting the same services; but one paying on the value established 20 years ago (+ inflation at 2%) That brings up another point. We already have a 6% inflation limit, and now the IPD limit, on tax levies. That, at least, makes more sense in terms of fairness. The total levy is limited; but individual properties still pay their fair share for the services they get, based on value.

None of this Prop 13 information really relates to I-695. I note that Prop 13 had to ammend the state constitution to do what it does. I-695 does not attempt to do that.

It does look like none of this is getting out to the general population. How are they to know what I-695 means?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 24, 1999.

I would like to contribute an answer to your question on August 21: "What is meant by 'a monetary increase in an existing tax'"? I think I understand the confusion that has arisen in your mind as it relates to the total amount of taxes raised by a particular tax and whether this amount is limited by the section you quoted from I- 695. In my view it is not so limited. Not every tax is a rate, as the property, for example, is. Thus, if I-695 should pass the $30 tab fee would be a tax. If the legislature wished to increase the tab fee to $40 this would qualify as "a monetary increase in an existing tax" and would have to be approved by a vote of the people. If I-695 did not have this provision I imagine some would be concerned that the legislature would simply raise the tab fee willy-nilly to levels that they would perceive to be unreasonable again. Thus, this protects the people against such action by requiring their approval. If more cars were licensed in 2001 than in 2000 and thus more revenue from the $30 fee was raised, this would not be limited by I- 695 since the only thing that was rising was the total amount of taxes, not the "existing tax" of $30 per vehicle. I have no connection to those who put the initiative on the ballot. In fact, I did not know about it until it had already qualified. I practiced law for several years, but am now inactive.I am not the Attornet General. I believe my explanation holds together and is consistent. The confusion may arise because sometimes "tax" in the initiative is talking about a rate and sometimes a fee. But I do not believe there is any problem of the sort you were worried about. I hope this is of help.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Vancouver Car Owner, Thank you for addressing the concern directly. As I understand your answer, you believe the property tax is a rate and not an amount; so if the tax rate does not increase it does not require a vote. The tax bill of an individual property owner can increase due to revaluation or new construction on the property, and the tax revenue of a local government can increase from this tax source. Is that accurate? That is what I understood to be the position Maddjak stated here earlier. If that is what it means, several concerns are removed. Some who responded don't seem to agree that is what it does, and the fact that the initiative (in subsection 4) lists several items that would be defined as a tax increase contributes to the confusion. Are each of these of equal importance? Is the monetary amount only limited if the tax has no rate attached to it? Where do you find those distinctions in the Initiative? Are they somewhere else is state law? Can you cite a legal precident for your interpretation, as it relates to the property tax? This is where I hoped we would get, when I asked the original questions.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 24, 1999.

Yes. It appears you understand my position accurately. The total gross amount of revenue can increase even though the tax itself (whether a rate or a fee) does not increase. I cannot cite any legal precedent since I am not aware that this has been on an initiative in Washington before. I see no reason to suspect that some of the things noted in Subsection 4 are of higher or lower importance than the others. Perhaps the best way to test my understanding is to work with any hypothetical examples you may be concerned about specifically, as I tried to do with the example of car tabs. Let us use the fare for a ferry. If the number of people riding the ferry increases the aggregate amount of revenue raised by the same individual fare will increase. This would not be prohibited by I- 695 as I understand it. If you have other specific concers let's try them out. Thanks for thinking about this.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Vancourver Care Owner: I have been mostly concerned about how this works for the property tax. Local governments levy the tax as an amount, which has a monetary increase each year. It is also defined as a rate, in the regulations that allocate the levy authority among local governments. I used the sales tax to compare issues, to help identify what was different about the property tax (if anything). Your response, and that of Maddjak, state that they are not different. Both are rate based, and can increase tax bills and local government revenue without a vote.

I hate to sound like I won't take "Yes" for an answer, since your position is what I hope is correct; but I don't see how you get it from the language of the initiative. From the point of view of the local government and the individual tax payer, the property tax will have a monetary increase each year under your interpretation. Why does the monetary increase language not apply, if all the listed limits are equal? I am looking for some legal authority somewhere else in state law, or a court decision that makes it clear. This is the kind of ambiguity that can be the basis for a challenge to the validity of the initiative, if the intent is not clear and voters can't know what they are enacting. If something exists to remove the ambiguity, that would help. From prior posts, it is clear I am not the only one with some other ideas about when a vote is needed. This clarification is not a minor issue, for local governments or property owners. Thanks again, for addressing the concern directly.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 25, 1999.

'D' Simplicity...........

Property tax is regulated so that they can't collect over a certain percentage more this year than they did last year. The formula is already in place. They do this by assessing an arbitrary and fictional revaluation of the property. We have been gullible enough to let them do this. However if they decided to raise the property tax by increasing the PERCENTAGE which is how it is normally done they would have to ask the people's permission. The existing method already has the people's permission.

Sales tax is similar and is one of the arguments FOR I-695. If the people are not restricted from purchasing automobiles by a confiscatory tax burden then MORE sales tax will generated.

The only way to reduce the sales tax revenue without reducing the percentage is to force people to quit buying things. That is what the present system does.. It reduces revenue by restricting the ability of the people to purchase.

Say sales tax is 8%. If they want 10% they must have permission.

I really like the idea of Olympia and all it's little clones being forced to get on their knees and say "Mother may I?" instead of smacking us with a cattle prod.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

I just realized that Monte Benham is one of the co-chairmen of the initiative campaign! Could it be that Maddjak is Leo "Jack" Fagan, another co-chairman? I find it more than a little distressing that one of the co-chairmen of the initiative is of the opinion that it will institute a Prop 13 type freeze on property values. What does that tell us about the proponents, and the voters, knowing what they are doing if this is approved? If Benham is right, we have some huge problems to deal with if it is approved. If Maddjak is Fagan, the chairmen don't agree on what they are doing.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 25, 1999.

"I just realized that Monte Benham is one of the co-chairmen of the initiative campaign! Could it be that Maddjak is Leo "Jack" Fagan, another co-chairman?"

Could it be that maddjak is Jack the Ripper??

Chaff and flares, D, chaff and flares.

You can't argue successfully on the ISSUES, so try to confuse the issue and come up with ad hominem arguments.

Getting REAL desperate D.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 26, 1999.

dbvz Its clear to me from long practice in courts on property tax matters that monetary increase will be interpreted by courts as necessarily different than tax rate increase. If it isnt the same, (and rules of statutory construction used by the courts preclude the possibility that the two are the same), it can only mean an increase in the total tax collected, if it is imposed by an action of the government. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, in property tax, the monetary amount must be adopted (imposed) each year, unlike excise taxes, where a rate stays in place until changed. Thus I-695 will certainly require every increase in monetary amount of property tax to receive voter approval each year, even if that increase is solely due to new construction and the tax rate actually decreases as a result. Unlike Referendum 47, this Initiative does not exclude new construction (which represents new growth and problems) from the limit on increased taxes without voter approval in its definition of monetary increase.

Since it requires voter approval of tax rate increases as well, local governments will also be required to obtain voter approval when significant reductions in value of property occur, if the rate is to float up to the statutory limits to keep revenue stable when a downturn strikes. Except when total property values are dropping and tax rates are already at their maximums, property taxes will drop annually (not stay the same) unless approved by voters.

Governments may be able to delay elections on excise tax increases and fees, but almost none will be able to avoid elections on property tax each year, because the alternative is literally tax reduction, not deferred increase. Unless they can do more with less per capita, they must seek approval annually. Since they can only know what is possible late in September when the Assessor gives out estimates of total value, they may not even be able to request the ballot issue by the September 17-23 deadline to get on the November general election each year. If they miss that deadline, they cant get voter approval to avoid the reductions before the tax is imposed and billed. There are no other lawful election dates after the November general election and before tax levies must be certified to the Treasurer for collection on Jan 15. If the general election is missed, the Assessor would be required to reduce the levy to the maximum allowed under I-695 without a vote, which will usually be an actual reduction in total dollars and never an increase.

In Pierce County, I am told that general elections cost about $750,000, which every government participating must share in the proportion which its number of registered voters bears to the total number of registered voters of all taxing districts participating in the election. If each of the 30 governments levying property tax in the County participate in every future general election, 325,000 registered voters would be eligible for the election. A City of 3800 registered voters would have to pay 3800/325,000 X $750,000 = $8769 to get approval of rates and monetary amounts within the other statutory limits.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), August 26, 1999.

Dear "D" Property tax does not get a monetary increase. The property value is adjusted..

And I have nothing to do with the I-695 organization. I disagree with Monte on the property tax but I may be wrong. He may be wrong or both of us may be wrong. It makes no difference.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

Maddjak: "It makes no difference"? If we don't know what the initiative will do, what is it doing on the November ballot? "It makes no difference"!?! If you are not Jack Fagan, then perhaps the chairmen are all in agreement that they expect a Prop 13 type freeze of property values. Should we be happy about that? I asked that the authors and the inner circle get their intentions on the record. Benham has, and I appreciate it. Now I know I don't want what he wants.

Bob Dick: Thank you for addressing the concern directly. You are one of two on this forum who has. Your position is in conflict with that of Vancouver Car Owner, who also indicates he is an attorney. If the monetary increase in the levy of a local government requires a vote, but the property value continues to be adjusted by inflation and new construction under the established procedures for county assessors, property tax levy rates will be rapidly reduced.

Craig Carson: Did you have something to add, that actually helps resolve the ambiguity of I-695?

I am convinced that all I am going to get are guesses about what I- 695 will do. Some are better informed guesses than others, but no one really knows. I think it does matter what the effects of the initiative will be. It does not make sense to just vote it in, and argue it out in court later. Whoever wrote it, should have considered some of these basic questions in advance, and addressed them in the text of the initiative so we would know what we are voting on. If a Prop 13 type value freeze is what is intended, say so, and provide the details of how it should work like they did in California. If monetary increase only means a fee increase, and not the property tax, then say so in the initiative.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 26, 1999.

D-

"Craig Carson: Did you have something to add, that actually helps resolve the ambiguity of I-695? " Don't see this initiative as being any more ambiguous than lots of laws turned out by the professionals (State legislature and Congress). You bring up different interpretations than mine, but that's what we have courts for. Heck, I thought the 2nd amendment was pretty straightforward, but it's been interpreted about a million different ways by various gun opponents and gun advocates. I sure didn't see any constitutional right to an abortion in MY copy of the constitution, but someone sure did. Racial preference used to be OK, then it was bad, then it was good, now it's apparently bad again. Same for separation of church and state (school vouchers are in violation but the GI bill (which could be used at divinity schools) wasn't? You got me.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 27, 1999.

The following exerpts attempt to summarize what contributors believe to be the answer to the question: How does the "Voter approval" requirement work? Other responses did not actually address the question. Conclusion: No one knows for sure.

"Do you want to vote on the CPI adjustment needed to keep the library district running, every single year? " Westin: Yes Craig Carson: Yes

Jim Coats: Given the way words are bent today I see no way to explain it to some folks. I prefer to see it pass and then fight it out. At least the fight will be about what money the government may or may not take.

Maddjak: There is nothing in the language of I-695 that restricts or prohibits and increase inrevenue through normal channels. It only requires a vote when there is an attempt to raise the amount of a fee or license or when a NEW tax, fee, license (monetary gouge) is requested..... Next in line should be a duplication of PROP 13 which restricts government from imposing artificial Revaluation of real property.... Prop 13 is simple. I-695 has no relationship to prop 13.... If, all of a sudden, Olympia decided that it was going to leave the AV the same and increase the tax rate. That is when I-695 would kick in because of the RATE increase. ... However if they decided to raise the property tax by increasing the PERCENTAGE which is how it is normally done they would have to ask the people's permission. The existing method already has the people's permission.

Bob Dick: Unfortunately, as you pointed out, in property tax, the monetary amount must be adopted (imposed) each year, unlike excise taxes, where a rate stays in place until changed. Thus I-695 will certainly require every increase in monetary amount of property tax to receive voter approval each year, even if that increase is solely due to new construction and the tax rate actually decreases as a result.... Unlike Referendum 47, this Initiative does not exclude new construction (which represents new growth and problems) from the limit on increased taxes without voter approval in its definition of monetary increase..... Governments may be able to delay elections on excise tax increases and fees, but almost none will be able to avoid elections on property tax each year, because the alternative is literally tax reduction, not deferred increase.

Vancouver Car Owner: In my view it is not so limited. Not every tax is a rate, as the property, for example, is.... The confusion may arise because sometimes "tax" in the initiative is talking about a rate and sometimes a fee. But I do not believe there is any problem of the sort you were worried about. I hope this is of help.... The total gross amount of revenue can increase even though the tax itself (whether a rate or a fee) does not increase.

RD Monte Benham: It is my opinion that I-695 limits the state from "an expansion in the legal defination of a tax base"....The intent of I-695 is to stop automatic revaluation of property until it is sold, improved or damaged.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 27, 1999.

d-

"because the alternative is literally tax reduction, not deferred increase."

I don't think Mr. Dick is correct, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if he is.

Craig

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 27, 1999.

Craig Carson:

Your last post, at least, did not refer to my inquiry as "chaff and flairs". I should have responded to that earlier, but resisted. That reference implies that my questions are just a diversion to take attention off the real issue, which you believe is the MVET. Actually, I believe the real issue is the voter approval requirement, and the MVET is the diversion. If the effects of 695 are as some of the responders here have stated, voters should know it and evaluate the consequences

Much has been made of Washington being the 6th highest taxed state, per capita. Placement on that list has a lot to do with the cost of living in different areas, and the average per capita income. If 6th is too high, would 25th be ok? or 50th? We could reduce our per capita public spending to that of a third world country; and the result would be streets that aren't paved, water not fit to drink, police and fire protection that is ineffective or non-existant, and public employees that are so under-paid they can only earn a living by graft and corruption. None of that is uncommon elsewhere. Have you lived in some of the areas at the low end of the scale? Some quality-of-life benefits result from public spending on infrastructure and programs. Most of us live here because we like the quality-of-life benefits, and don't want that to change.

A lot has been made of MVET being 2% of government spending. All government spending, not just the state? Including all the fixed expenses that can't be changed without breaking contracts and committments? How about using some realistic figures?

For me, the MVET is not the issue. It may need to be changed to be more fair, or acceptable, or related to the programs funded. The issue is the approval vote on everything, and how our representative government should operate. Sometimes the right thing to do, will not be the popular thing to do; and sometimes an evaluation of an issue will produce a more complicated (but better) solution than can be stated in a ballot title. We elect representatives to do that work for us, and they generally do a good job. People prefer to live here over other places, so our state and local governments must be doing something right.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 27, 1999.

"People prefer to live here over other places, so our state and local governments must be doing something right."

No- The state is nice enough that we'll hang in there DESPITE our tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber politicians.

Craig

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 27, 1999.

"D"- it has been everyone against you up till now, but I'm going to change that. The real issue of I-695 is the voter approval of taxes. The backers want to cripple the state government because their libertarian and republican ideologies happen to coincide on the issue of lowering taxes. Washington is one of the most liberal states in the US, but the conservatives figure if every change in governmental regulations has to pass a vote of the people, the people, who they contemptuously think have no patience or brains, will grow tired of the instruments of democracy and vote in people who want less government. This translates to a state dominated by business and special interest, the same people who logged out our forest, polluted our rivers and oceans, killed as many salmon as they could get away with, and made the air in Spokane poisonous to breathe. We have a highly refined system of government in Washington; there is no taxation without representation. If the backers want to change the government, convince enough people to vote in candidates who share their views. These people can then enact these reforms they advocate. The underhanded and diversionary methods they use demonstrate their lack of regard for the people of Washington, most of which will not have their taxes reduced significantly by this measure, a fact they are careful to obscure. To the supporters of I-695: if you don't like our system of government, change it through constitutional methods in the open. Your chosen methods of working through vaguely defined initiatives do not speak well of you or your intentions. Thank you

-- Nick Glatzer (nglatze@tcs.tulane.edu), August 27, 1999.

Craig Carson: "tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber politicians" Nick Glatzer has this right. The people elect them, and they do the best they can balancing priorities and interests. I noted elsewhere, we have a part-time legislature of people who mostly work in the real world and try to do a good job. They have the time and the staff and the responsibility to resolve any problems in how the MVET is assessed. The legislative process, for all its faults, would not have produced a bill with as many unanswered questions as I-695 presents.

Nick Glatzer: Thank you for you comments. I didn't feel entirely alone (see Bob Dick post) but it did seem like few of the proponents want to talk about how the initiative is expected to work and what it means to the functioning of government.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 27, 1999.

Dear 'D' in response to your "The following exerpts attempt to summarize what contributors believe to be the answer to the question: How does the "Voter approval" requirement work? Other responses did not actually address the question. Conclusion: No one knows for sure."

It seems there are many things you are incapable of understanding.

One of those things is that the things you posted of our comments were in direct response to questions addressed in previous posts.....and not in response to your original question..

So carry on with your campaign of confusion and misdirection. I'm sure you will copy your preious post to some ANTI 695 forum to demonstrate just how stupid we really are.. so, like Monte, I am off.

Ther may be some serious questions to deal with on this forum but yours don't fall into that category..

-- maddjak(pero porque no idiomas otros?) (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 28, 1999.

Maddjak: I recognize that many of the posts I quoted did not intentionally respond to the original question. They were, however, those I found to be most indicative of what the writer believes IS the answer to the question. As I noted before, many here have been reluctant to respond with any detail or specificity. And now I lose the input of Maddjak as well as Monte Benham. Since you don't like the questions you abandon the discussion? That Ok. I stated my conclusion on August 27. Unless new information is provided, we are done here.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 28, 1999.

On August 25 dbvz wrote that "the property tax will have a monetary increase each year under your interpretation." I do not believe this is accurate. Under my interpretation there is a difference between the total revenues generated by a tax and the tax rate or fee itself. I believe I-695 affects the tax rate or fee and not the total revenues generated by such rate or fee. Thus, under my interpretation the property tax is a certain rate of dollars per $1,000 of valuation. The total revenues generated by such a tax is such rate times the total valuation in the district. The total revenues might carelessly be referred to as a "tax", but it is in reality simply the gross monetary result of applying an actual tax to the circumstances. Thus, if when I-695 would take effect the tax was $1 per $1,000 and the district wished to raise this tax to some new amount, such a move would be "a monetary increase in an existing tax". If without raising the tax it so happened that more total revenue was raised then there would have been no "monetary increase in an existing tax" even though the total revenues had risen. The Initiative does not limit the size of gross revenues; it limits the size of the tax. This means that "a monetary increase in an existing tax" refers to the tax such as the new $30 tab fees. Not the fact that more vehicles may be licensed in 2001 than 2000 and thus more total revenues from the same tax may be generated. I think your confusion may arise because you are mistakenly referring to the gross revenues as a "tax" when in reality the gross revenues are the result of adding up each application of the real tax on each transaction or situation that is individually taxed. Legal language can be very technical and fairly precise and what we say in informal language may not accurately convey what the legal meaning is in a very serious circumstance such as a law. Gross revenues are not a "tax". A taxing body does not levy a gross amount to be divided up. Rather, they anticipate what they think a tax will raise in gross revenues and then budget it. Most often they are wrong, either because more or less gross revenues are generated from the various individual taxes that are imposed. The tax is not automatically raised or lowered, but there is either a deficit or surplus that is generated. I hope this clarifies my interpretation and what I believe is a reasonable and prudent way to view I-695 from the plain words of the document itself.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

Vancouver car owner:

The confusion, results from the ambiguity of the initiative. I believe you may be correct, regarding the sales tax or the $30/vehicle license fee. Several attorneys tell me you are wrong about the property tax. It is not levied as a rate, but as a monetary amount by each local government, within the limits imposed by state law. No governmental action is needed to leave the sales tax rate as it is, but each year local governments must act on a property tax levy and approve the increase. City or district levy ordinances do not levy a rate, as in $1.37/$1000 AV; they levy an amount, such as $1,876,432. That monetary increase in the tax amount that occurs each year appears to be subject to the I-695 requirement that it be approved by a vote. Maddjak speculated that the current process of setting the property tax rate withing the statutory limits, was already given voter approval. If that interpretation prevailed, I-695 would do nothing since every tax has a process that goes back to voter approval of the state constitution and the authority of the legislature to impose taxes and delegate authority to local government.

The initiative does not answer these questions, and interpretations here have no weight with how a court will eventually rule. I stand by my conclusion. No one really knows.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 02, 1999.

I concure with D (and a Gasp! went up from the crowd), if only because court interpretations for such things as the paycheck protection initiative have been so bizarre.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 02, 1999.

If you are correct and the property tax is actually leveied as a gross amount, then at the least if that amount were to be raised it would have to be approved by majority voters under I-695. If the amount levied were specifically a one-year tax, then any amount thereafter would have to be approved by majority voters. I have not studied our property tax situation so I cannot verify that your understanding is correct and I find it a very weird way to tax, but that is not to say you are wrong. I have always assumed it was set as a rate by amount of valuation as I was used to in Oregon before moving to Washington many years ago.

I don't find this a particular obstacle to I-695, however, because the only difference is that voters might have to approve each yearly tax levy recommended by the district directly, rather than approving any increase in the rate as I thought was the case. Thus, the district would be directly accountable annually to voters. If people object to that, then they will object to I-695 regardless. I now plan to do a little more study about how property taxes are set in Washington. Thanks for the education.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

Vancouver car owner: You may want to look at the post by Bob Dick, above, for one opinion about property taxes. I understand how you could take the position that the regular property tax is a rate, and not an amount; but in fact, the rate floats as a result of the maximum amount that can be levied (under the statutory limits of 106% above last year or the IPD limit), and the total assessed valuation of taxable property determined by the assessor. The rate comes into play if the calculated rate would exceed the statutory limit for the specific type of local government, or the totol of all regular levies would exceed the statutory maximum. Cities can levy up to $3.60/ $1000, library districts $.50/$1000, fire districts $1.50/$1000, etc. etc. All together, regular levies are not to exceed $9.50/$1000; except that some special levies are authorized above $9.50, such as an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) levy that requires 60% approval. If the maximum would be exceeded, the state law has a pecking order of which local government gets its levy rate reduced, and by how much, until it is back to $9.50. If the legislature tried to change the upper limit, the constitution has a 1% limit ($10.00/$1000) on regular levies. But wait, my property tax rate is more than $10.00/ $1000. The excess above the regular levy results from excess levies that were approved by vote of a super majority (60%) for bonds, etc. It is a complicated system, with a lot of potential for unintended consequences when you tinker with it. That is my greatest concern about I-695. The intended consequences are significant enough, and difficult to manage. The unintended and perhaps unknown consequences could be worse. And no one really knows.

And as for getting voter approval of the increase every year, what that would mean is that the normal increase in the cost of operation would be unfunded each year, until the votes were counted. Employee contracts have CPI based adjustments in them, and supplies, services and employee benefits all go up with inflation. If the revenue does not go up, personnel and service levels must be cut; and for many local governments the cuts would be into meat and muscle immediately. If a 3% CPI increase in operating costs and wages is not funded by a revenue increase, 3% of the staff need to be cut so those that are still working maintain the same buying power.

While we are on buying power, if taxes go up with the rate of inflation is that really a tax increase? If I make $40,000 one year and pay $16,000 in taxes, and the next year inflation is 5% so I make $42,000 and pay $16,800 in taxes. Adjusted for inflation it is not a tax increase. As a share of my income it is not a tax increase. In terms of buying power it is not a tax increase. By the definintion in the initiative it IS a tax increase. It is an $800 "monetary increase" in the tax. That, multiplied by all the residents in a city or district, is what we are talking about when we limit the amount of the tax in such absolute terms.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 02, 1999.