The fact is the Federal Government takes more dollars out of the Washington coffers then I-695 ever will. That money that the Federal Government takes is partially sent back to the state in a form of 'incentive' to do what the Federal Government wants. For example, if you wish to receive X dollars you MUST have the Speed Limit set to 55 miles per hour. That was a Federal Expectation.

The state is not required by the Constitution to give the tax dollars we do to the federal government, each state has the RIGHT by constitution to dictate this, however Washington State refuses to stand up for the people, they would rather take more and give less.

Tony Schroeder Supporter 695 - Athiest Republican

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@nwlink.com), October 02, 1999

Answers

Tony wrote, "The state is not required by the Constitution to give the tax dollars we do to the federal government, each state has the RIGHT by constitution to dictate this, however Washington State refuses to stand up for the people, they would rather take more and give less."

Excuse me, where did this come from? The IRS, and the progressive income tax have been challenged in court, and they are still in business collecting taxes. I don't like paying my federal taxes any more than anyone else, but this initiative is about state and local taxes. This Washington has relatively little influence in the other Washington. Our state government is not responsible for the level of federal taxation.

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

Actually the State collects tax dollars then sends it to the Federal Government who then gives some of it back to the state. In the early 1900's the Federal Government started collecting taxes, I believe in 1930. You also have to realize that the Federal Government tries to spread our money to multiple social services across the country.

I realize in the single focus of 695 the federal taxation isn't involved, I am simply stating that instead of the state concerning itself with the less then 2% the licensing fee's take they should consider better ways to hold onto and spend their dollars.

Tony Schroeder

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@nwlink.com), October 02, 1999.

While I don't necessarily agree with all that "baddog" has to say on this topic, there are two issues that merit some discussion along these lines. One is the nature of "matching funds." These monies are OUR taxpayer dollars that are taxed away from us that come back to us with strings attached. Besides administrative requirements that increase overhead substantially, a HUGE string is that we must additionally tax ourselves to provide the "match" for the matching funds. The purpose of this is for government to encourage the further growth of government through further taxation. Although proponents of this use a variety of excuses for this practice, that is truly the only one that passes the logic test. These programs discriminate against both poorer states who may not have the tax base to come up with the match, and any state that taxes less than the average. This has the effect of pushing up tax rates in ALL states, as states compete to "get their money back." The second issue is the demise of federal income tax deductions for sales taxes paid. Since that time, the seven states with no state income tax have been at a significant disadvantage and are in fact subsidizing the other states. A quick example: An individual in Vancouver Washington with a state tax burden of $1000 that he pays through sales tax versus his counterpart across the Columbia in Portland Oregon who pays nothing in sales tax but pays $1000 in state income tax. The Oregon resident will get 15% of this back on his federal income tax, the Washington Resident will not. But no one in our state government or legislative delegation have attempted to redress this because, being politicians, they'd really like to create a state income tax which would automatically index up with the federal tax.

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

Craig,

Actually, the congress critter from the 3rd district (the 9 counties of SW Washington)(Baird) both ran on a plank of introducing this legislation in Congress; and actually DID introduce such legislation (within the last couple of months or so, actually) to address the issue of deductibility of state sales taxes from the income tax.

So, even though he lied to us about his marital status, and used his wife as a tool to get elected while dumping her at the same time, he has at least made that effort.

As for state legislators, what exactly would you have them do? As for your observation concerning a legislative desire to implement a state income tax, what evidence do you have to support that?

Westin "The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century." -- Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 03, 1999.

"As for state legislators, what exactly would you have them do? As for your observation concerning a legislative desire to implement a state income tax, what evidence do you have to support that? " Just there public and private statements. Not all, certainl;y, but many. If they were serious, the guv or Gorton and Murray could take it up to the Supreme Court under the equal protection clause. Might not win, but at least it'd get it on the radar screen.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 04, 1999.

Well.....did any of you fools ask them too?

-- (mkpow62@silverlink.net), October 04, 1999.

Don't know if the fools did or not, I'm not a liberal Democrat. I certainly asked them though.

Ms Murray didn't even respond. The Sladester's office indicated he was too busy saving the NEA.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 04, 1999.