I have heard many times that our State Constitution explicitly forbids a State Income Tax. Even the "Claims vs Facts" link in this WEB site claims this to be a fact. I really want to believe this, but I have scoured the State Constitution and have not found any prohibition on Income Tax. In fact, I see no mention of Income Tax anywhere. Not even in Article VII "Revenue and Taxation". Can anybody who is familiar with this provision of the constitution please tell me which Article and Section I can find it in? I'm concerned that nobody in this state has even bothered to look at our "law of the land", which is so handsomely quoted all the time. When Olympia finds out the truth, we could be screwed! It must be there, I just can't seem to find it. Help.

-- Steve Phillips (stevephillips@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999

Answers

Very good question. I can't find it anywhere either. I even performed a search of the word "income" on the full text of the constitution. The only times that it came up, it had nothing to do with the prohibition of a state income tax. Perhaps they got confused since both times the state considered an income tax it was referred to the voters. This doesn't mean that it HAS to be incorporated into the constitution, just that they wanted to ask the people for their approval (think Referendum 49). I dunno, maybe it's hidden somewhere. Wouldn't it be helpful for them to cite their source when they made the claim? You would still have to get voter approval for an income tax under 695, but it ain't quite as difficult as they'd like us to believe.

I hadn't even checked out the revamped site yet. Quite interesting. Westin complained about there being an error in one of the No site claiming Dale Foreman as an opponent, but the errors on this site take the cake.

Take for example the Olympian "endorsement" in the articles section. It is in FACT an article on how much Intercity Transit relies on MVET funding. But the person who sourced it claims that by showing this subsidy, the Olympian supports I-695. A bald faced lie. It is further compounded by the title given to it "Olympian Endorses I- 695." But of course whoever posted it clearly knows this is a distortion and adds the disclaimer "I have no opinion as to its accuracy." Yeah, that worked for Mike Seigal when he aired the claims that Norm Rice is gay.

The entire "Claims vs. Facts" section is itself a laugh riot:

It claims that the AWC admits that a personal property tax would never be placed on motor vehicles. Again, a source would be nice. Everything I read from the AWC mentions that it would be UNCLEAR as to whether the property tax would be automatically reinstituted and subject to a court challenge. I haven't seen them say anything about it NEVER happening.

It makes the claim that the constitution prohibits an income tax. (see above).

It claims that there won't be more vehicles on the road, just newer ones. So all the older ones are going to just disappear? Sure, some will be junked, but most will become hand-me-downs to kids, or sold to other people. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just that their claim has no merit.

Most of the other "facts" are just their own claims without any evidence to back it up (do "most" states ONLY use gas taxes for roads, or do many of them use tolls?). But my favorite is their response to the claim that I-695 will gut R-49. In a nutshell, they don't even address the claim. They just bring up that 695 completes the cut in the MVET that R-49 started. Well the $30 cut in R-49 was a gimmick for people to vote for it. The main purpose was to provide several billion dollars for a number of road projects. Hmm, I wonder why they don't address that?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

Patrick, you definitely are a government employee and I bet your job security will go out the window if I-695 passes. You're shaking in your boots!!!!!!!!!

-- caroline morgan (celtic266@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

Patrick writes:

"Take for example the Olympian "endorsement" in the articles section. It is in FACT an article on how much Intercity Transit relies on MVET funding. But the person who sourced it claims that by showing this subsidy, the Olympian supports I-695. A bald faced lie. It is further compounded by the title given to it "Olympian Endorses I- 695."

I was struck by the tone of the "article" that was there. It was the same sort of writing style that you'd see in the some trash tabloid. But what fascinated me more was this tidbit, in the facts section:

"R-49 provided an embarrassingly small tax cut of $30 per car. Voters were insulted by such a pitiful tax cut but it was better than nothing so they voted for it. R-49 addressed the problem of outrageously expensive license tab fees  I-695 solves it."

I'm curious where the Yes on 695 people came up with this. Do you have any polling to actually back up this claim, or is it just something that has been pulled out of thin air?

My take on R-49 was that people voted on it because it provided funding for a bunch of desperately needed road projects, not because they were insulted by it. Why would anybody vote for something that insults them?

And is there going to be anything that actually addresses the fact that 695 guts R-49, or is the answer on the "facts" page still going to be a lie?

It's fascinating that the Yes on 695 page frantically asks for money to combat the lies of the state's political elite...and then blatantly lies on the same page.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

The R-49 told the voters that Washington's license tab fees were among the highest in the nation. A $30 reduction was better than what they had so voted for it. The only county that turned down R-49 was the very county that it was designed to help, King County.

I-695 addresses the same problem of high taxation but sets the license tab fees to $30.

The fact that the Washington Constitution does not mention an income tax, does infact prohibits the state from imposing one. To do so requires a change in the Constitution. This requires a 2/3 vote of both houses and a vote of the people.

Would you vote for an income tax? Do you know anyone who would?

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), September 03, 1999.

First to Caroline: Wrong and wrong. I'm not shaking in my boots, I'm laughing in them. If the I-695 people have to turn to paraphrased interpretations of newspaper articles for an "endorsement" then that seems to point out a hint of desperation to me.

And Monte seems to have a very selective memory regarding R-49. The 98 Voters' Guide pro statement listed 4 items that R-49 would do: reduce license fees, allocate more of the fee to transportation needs, provide $2.4 billion towards transportation projects, and provide local governments with criminal justice and economic development funding. I-695 would immediately increase one of those items and completely eliminate the other three (you can argue that politicians can reallocate funding to keep this from happening, but we're talking about what I-695 WILL do, not what politicians COULD do). Hmm, 75% of what R-49 was promised to do eliminated. Of course this is only my opinion, but that sounds like a pretty hefty gutting to me. And Monty, King County was never promised ANYTHING for R-49. All it did was provide additional revenue for unknown future projects. Given the fact that King County traditionally receives fewer dollars back than they put in (read my East vs. West thread), they had a very good reason to doubt that they would see much of that money.

Finally, your theory that since an income tax is not mentioned in the constitution it would be illegal is an interesting one. Let's test it, shall we? Can you find any mention of a Business and Occupation tax in the state constitution? I just did a text search of it, and couldn't find any reference. I also did a quick skim of Article VII (the one on taxation) to see if they called it something else. I admit, I'm not a lawyer, but I couldn't find anything. Strange, I do believe that we have a B&O tax.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 03, 1999.

Monte writes:

"The R-49 told the voters that Washington's license tab fees were among the highest in the nation. A $30 reduction was better than what they had so voted for it."

Thanks for responding, but you're still evading my question. Where is the information that people were "insulted" by the tax cut in R-49 coming from?

How do you know that people voted for this measure because it decreases their car tab tax, and not because it offered to build much- needed roadways?

Is it your opinion?

Have you done a survey of state residents?

As far as I can tell it's just your opinion. But I could be wrong...assuming you'll actually answer my question.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 03, 1999.

Well Patrick, here you go again.. Explaining Exactly what I-695 WILL do.. Go check the Washington state government comments about it http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/I-695/ Even they are not as arrogant as your are... They state what it POSSIBLY could do.. Note the word POSSIBLY.

What do you know that they don't know? What inside information are you privy to that even Olympia hasn't seen?

Why don't attempt to back up your claims with facts??

It can't be done because all that is available is suppositions

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 03, 1999.

You crack me up Maddjak. As it exists today, the distribution of MVET revenues is VERY specific, including distributions to funds like Sales Tax Equalization, Distressed Counties, and criminal justice acounts. The AMOUNT of money that gets distributed to these specific funds is of course projected for the upcoming year, but the FACT is that regardless of the amount that eventually goes to these accounts MVET revenue IS currently earmarked for the specific accounts. Yes, the projected losses to the state and local governments is a projection, but it is a well known FACT that these specific accounts WILL NOT receive ANY MVET revenue should 695 pass.

You know Maddjak, for someone who complains about the opponents using half truths and lies to scare people, you seem to be pretty comfortable with using the same tactics in an attempt to keep people from even being concerned about possible effects of the initiative. Your entire argument seems to ba based upon the idea that since no one has exact numbers about just how much of a hole this will create in state and local budgets, we shouldn't even care about it as an issue. Trying to keep the people ignorant and docile are we?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 03, 1999.

Patrick--

"The AMOUNT of money that gets distributed to these specific funds is of course projected for the upcoming year, but the FACT is that regardless of the amount that eventually goes to these accounts MVET revenue IS currently earmarked for the specific accounts. "

and prior to referendum 49 it was going somewhere else. You demonstrate that it would be prudent for the legislature to meet to rebalance the shortages against all available accounts, to basically split the shortages equally so everything that was going to be funded at 100% now will be funded at 98% of projected. Is this certain? Well, no, but if the legislature is too stupid to do this, then I damn well want a veto over future tax and fee increases.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 03, 1999.