Let's Repeal the Sales Tax Next?

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

I-695 doesn't go far enough.

Most of the state taxes we pay are in the form of sales tax to the state and local governments. If I go out on January 1, 2000 to buy my new BMW ($50,000 cost, I figure) with $30 tabs I'm still going to have to pay $4,000 in sales tax (8%).

Why should I have to pay that just because I can afford a new luxury vehicle? Government could run on user fees alone. If you have a fire and call the fire department, pay the going fee to pay for the service. Need the cops, call them and pay the bill yourself. Public schools could all charge tuition. Why should I pay for your kids to go to school when I don't even have any in school. Why should we pay for those who can't pay. Let them put out their own fires and fend for themselves. That's what our country was founded on, good ol' rugged individualism. Let's get back to it. Tim, can you do an initiative on the sales tax next?

-- David (unified@whidbey.net), September 17, 1999

Answers

Now you're talking. Gimme the petition, I'll sign it.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 17, 1999.

If you repeal all the taxes, who will be paying for the the services provided by government? This is indicative of your objective, which seems to be to incapacitiate government no matter what the damage is, and keep your money no matter what the public benefit is. The government is our means to do things together that need to be done, and together means we need to pay for it

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 18, 1999.

Sorry..........

I have to agree with dbvz, and it troubles me to think that the pro I-695 side would put such a thing up on here. I-695 will reduce the income of the state to a level that they will be able to work with, if they are willing to do so. Lets wait and see what happens, then take a reasonable look at other taxes, see if they can be reduced in a logical manner.

Please dont let your mouth(fingers) overload other parts so as to alienate reasonable people.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 18, 1999.


d-

"The government is our means to do things together that need to be done, and together means we need to pay for it "

I have absolutely no trouble with supporting the government in doing things that need to be done, and clearly those things need to be payed for. It is painfully obvious, however, that many of the things that you believe need to be done by government are not things that I believe need to be done by government. Essential services are fine, but they're expanding into many areas that are not only nonessential, but that they don't do particularly well. And this is causing a backlash and I-695 is part of that backlash. So even if you could change MY VOTE on I-695, it wouldn't really matter, because with or without my vote it's going to win in a landslide.

And guys (d and rons), What David put up at the top here is called SARCASM. He isn't really supporting I-695, he's is implying that those of us who support I-695 are such troglodytes that we see no roll for taxes at all. My post was SARCASM aimed at him, implying that I actually believed his post was serious. You guys both need to lighten up and probably get out a little bit more. After this is over, let's meet someplace and I'll buy you both a couple of beers.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 18, 1999.


"After this is over, let's meet someplace and I'll buy you both a couple of beers. "

I'll even find a bar that't transit accessible.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 18, 1999.



I think I agree with David -- and what's next? Will the next rollback be on a level property tax? Yeah, I think it's fair that Bill Gates pay the same tax as a homowner in the poorer parts of Rainier Valley -- or a farmer -- NOT! Also, whether or not you want to recognize it, bigger, more expensive cars tend to be bigger polluters and create greater road hazards for those on little economy cars. Looks to me like I-695 wants SOME of the people to have their cake and eat, it too, while leaving the people who don't have a choice about what they drive (or take public transit much of the time) out in the cold. This is not a bill for the little guy.

-- J. Kemp (jhofmannkemp@netscape.net), September 18, 1999.

Craig wrote, "I have absolutely no trouble with supporting the government in doing things that need to be done, and clearly those things need to be payed for. It is painfully obvious, however, that many of the things that you believe need to be done by government are not things that I believe need to be done by government."

What I have said several times, but does not seem to get through, is that the nature of government is that they will always be doing some things that some of the people don't like. You can't expect to live in a community, or a state, or a nation, that is the exact reflection of your personal agends unless you are the King or dictator. Other people, with different ideas, have the same opportunity you do of influencing the decisions and electing candidates. You win some and you lose some. Those that you lose are not a valid reason to withdraw support for the government. You can always move somewhere else if the situation becomes intolerable. To show how tolerant I am, I plan to continue to live in Washington, even if I-695 is approved.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 19, 1999.


"You win some and you lose some. Those that you lose are not a valid reason to withdraw support for the government."

If you believe that the government is doing things that it should not be doing, thats A PERFECTLY LOGICAL REASON to withdraw support. If the government was doing something you didn't like, would you INCREASE your support? If Pat Buchanan were to become your President would you say, oh well, I'm going to work hard to implement his policies, even if I don't believe in them? If you were Iraqui, would you say I'm gonna support Saddam, even if I don't believe in everything he does?

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


Craig:

If Gore or Bush are ELECTED President, yes, citizens need to support the leadership selected by the democratic process. That does not mean you stop trying to infulence the direction and policies, but you are not entitled to subvert the government or quit paying taxes if the "wrong" party is elected. Saddam is another matter entirely. No freedom of choice or democratic selection of the leadership.

Your comment about government doing things it shouldn't be doing is problematic. Shouldn't, as a matter of personal opinion; or shouldn't as a matter of law? If government is doing things that are illegal, challenge that in court; and if the courts ever become corrupt to the point people can't get justice a revolution is justified in my opinion. If you don't like it, but it is legal and supported by the existing process; like I said, you win some and you lose some.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.


d- I note with some amusement the answer: "If Gore or Bush are ELECTED President, yes, citizens need to support the leadership selected by the democratic process"

The question, however, was: "If Pat Buchanan were to become your President ...." I assume you found this prospect to terrifying to contemplate. ;)

And of course you win some and you lose some. That doesn't mean that you resign yourself to the status quo and get behind the elected officials regardless. It's an iterative and reiterative process, not a completed process. Otherwise we'd only have an election whenever the incumbent decided to leave or died of old age. That is one of the things that keeps a democracy stable. If there was no hope for peaceful change, the radicals would find all sorts of justification to attempt violent change. You win some and lose some, but tomorrow is always another day, even for the loser.

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



"The question, however, was: "If Pat Buchanan were to become your President ...." I assume you found this prospect to terrifying to contemplate. ;)"

Actually, Pat is so unlikely it was an unrealistic choice. But lets assume he is elected. If that many people want him in office he ought to get his opportunity to see what he can do with the job. We elected LBJ didn't we? He got to finish his term. Pat couldn't do worse than that, could he?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.


"We elected LBJ didn't we? He got to finish his term. " Actually, he got a term and a half, and opted not to run for another. I was too young to vote in that one.

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

Lets just all go to seattle and talk about this. What am I thinking the bridge was damaged by a wind storm again. and there is no money to fix it because all funds that are left are going to police, fire, public schools,to things that will be on the ballot next year.tell you what you can do give me the thirty dollars ,it might as well be 0 dollar car tabs and no taxes.I can take care of my self how about you

-- ruby s. cobb (rcobb@u.washington.edu), September 21, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ