Here's an article in the Seattle Times pointing out that Eyman doesn't have the numbers to back up all his claims.

"In the future that Tim Eyman wants voters to envision, Initiative 695 would barely send a ripple through state and local government. But Eyman's premises are at best overly optimistic; at worst, dubious." http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/trut_19991020.html

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 20, 1999

Answers

Apologees for the duplication, albeit in URL form where the formatting is better and the copyright clearer, of the topic here "Where's the truth? (1999-10-20)"

For your clicking convenience: seattletimes.com: Eyman's I-695 statistics don't tell the full story

An example of how the numbers game works:

Washington is simultaneously the "sixth highest taxed state" and ranked as the eighth-best "tax heaven" in the country for households making $80,000 a year.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Billy,

I would think that before you try and bust Eyman for his spin, you'd also want to take your own side of this issue to task for their campaign of lies and distortions... even those lies they've actually been called on by other supporters of the "no" side! You know, like the "74,000" jobs that they say we'll lose if this passes?

And, of course, I would perhaps take a different view of this initiative if I one of the relatively few that made $80,000 per year... perhaps the rarified air you travel around in?

Sixth highest is sixth highest. Period. I wouldn't care if it was 26th highest, that would STILL be TOO high.

Actually, the best column I've seen on the issue was James Vesely's effort of a few days ago.

"Don't tell me how bad it's going to be without car-tab revenues; explain how you defend the current tax. If a tax is unfair at its core, a free people have the right to repeal it."

This tax is indefensible. You anti's and the governor have had, literally, MONTHS to provide an alternative. And what have you collectively managed to get done?

Zip.

Stop whining. Get over it.

Westin

"Speaking from my own religious tradition in this Christmas season, 2,000 years ago a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child in a manger because the inn was full." VP Al Gore, Dec. 22, 1997

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 20, 1999.

"This tax is indefensible."

It is clearly just to tax automobiles for the use of public roads, parking, accidents, and their effects on the environment. How and how much to tax, and where the funds should go is always up for discussion.

However the word indefensible may best be applied to 695's assesment that a regressive tab tax of $30 per car is preferable to our current system, when all one has to do is look at the increasing smog around the sound to realize we are not paying enough for the priviledge to drive.

And what I find far more offensive than Tim's bandying about misleading numbers from studies out of context, or any statement by the No camp about how 695 will cost particular jobs, is the presentation of this initiative as being a "$30 tab initiative."

The $30 headline is a sheep's clothing for the more important effect of the initiative, changing how we levy taxes in this state. Tim and his campaign people pretend there is no risk nor need to debate this change, ignoring this effect in web page after after sound bite after sign.

Mr. Eyman and the Yes team are clearly people who have discarded care about democratic processes in this state, in favor of getting a few bucks back in their own pockets in the short term.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Billy wrote: Mr. Eyman and the Yes team are clearly people who have discarded care about democratic processes in this state, in favor of getting a few bucks back in their own pockets in the short term.

Exactly how, sir, is using the initiative process, and getting an issue passed (or not) 'discarding the democratic processes'??? There is nothing, repeat NOTHING more democratic than a public vote. Anything else is a lesser form of democracy. Not necessarily bad in all cases, or good in all cases. We have a representative democracy in this state and this country. But there also remains an initiative process on which the people, the big hearted taxpayers which provide the platform for the representative democracy, and the roads, and the busses, and everything else the state does, or has, or will ever do or have, vote. You may not like what 695 says or applies, but it is democratic. In its text, 695 does reduce the representative democracy in one area: fees and taxes. The result is it INCREASES the 'pure democracy' element by giving the citizenry a direct say in the application of taxation upon themselves.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 20, 1999.

"It is clearly just to tax automobiles for the use of public roads, parking, accidents, and their effects on the environment. How and how much to tax, and where the funds should go is always up for discussion." I don't see it's clear at all. If it were clearly for the purposes stated above, it would be based on some sort of formula combining vehicle weight size, vehicle emissions, fuel consumption and mileage probably a gas tax). Unfortunately, it's not directly based on any of these things. "However the word indefensible may best be applied to 695's assesment that a regressive tab tax of $30 per car is preferable to our current system, when all one has to do is look at the increasing smog around the sound to realize we are not paying enough for the priviledge to drive."

I'm curious to hear you complain about increasing smog in the Puget sound. I've only lived here for a few years, but I've found the air quality here pretty good (course, I came from Philadelphia and Denver respectively). The only reason why I ask is that overall air quality levels in the US have been trending towards better over the last few years. Is the Sound's air quality bucking the national trend? "And what I find far more offensive than Tim's bandying about misleading numbers from studies out of context, or any statement by the No camp about how 695 will cost particular jobs, is the presentation of this initiative as being a "$30 tab initiative." The $30 headline is a sheep's clothing for the more important effect of the initiative, changing how we levy taxes in this state. Tim and his campaign people pretend there is no risk nor need to debate this change, ignoring this effect in web page after after sound bite after sign."

Given your opposition to I-695 and the popular support of part II of the initiative (more popular than the $30 tabs), I would think you'd be *thankful* this issue hasn't been a focus of the I-695 campaign.

I generally won't guess at a person's motivation, but I can only presume you think the issue wouldn't be so popular if it came under intense scrutiny. If you believe this to be true, perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to why.

"Mr. Eyman and the Yes team are clearly people who have discarded care about democratic processes in this state, in favor of getting a few bucks back in their own pockets in the short term." This is just inflammatory. Perhaps you could explain how they have "discarded care about democratic processes in this state." Whatever ones feelings about initiatives and referendums (presumably, tax increase votes would appear as referendums), you'd be daft if you think they're not democratic.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 20, 1999.

I believe 695 is flies in the face of honest democracy because it is an initiative which combines two distinct subjects under one title:

b) $30 per tabs a) change tax levying system to direct democracy from representative

Article 2 of the WA state constitution states that only one subject is allowed per title for legislative bills and I think for good reason, that each subject be more readily considered on its own merits. I believe 695 clearly violates this test in that it is presented by its proponents and often perceived as a $30 tab inititiative, when in fact it is ALSO and NOT INSIGNIFICANTLY a change to how taxes are levied.

IMHO The responsible democratic way to proceed would be

a) submit an initiative for changing how taxes are levied to a vote of the people. If this initiative passes, carefully considered by a properly focused debate, passes we may then

b) proceed as voters to consider specific tax changes like tabs.

a) before b), like the horse before the cart.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Now is the time for serious tax reductions, Initiative I-695 provides an Excellent "Vehicle" to allow the people of Washington to determine how there tax dollars will be spent in the future.

I welcome the New problems that will be encountered with the passing of I-695, I want the ability to go to the voting booth to approve or deny how my elected officals want to use my Hard Earned tax dollars.

If our roads need fixing then lets raise the money through a Gas Tax to fix them, one would think if you use alot of gas then you must be on the road alot, those who use our roads the most would simply pay the most.

The threats that our most precious services will be cut ie:Police-Fire-Medical Aid-Schools-Mental Health, this is an insult to the tax payer, I'll bet there is someone out there that can compile a nice list of Non-essential service's, High government salaries, and other government waste that would cause some serious concern. Did the Superintendants office desk in the Puyallup School District actually cost $12,000.00 (dollars).

When I-695 passes, We The People (sounds familure) will tell our elected officials how are tax dollars are to be spent via the majority vote, Take the responsibility and make a differance, Vote Yes I-695.

Rocky Becker, Tax Payer.

-- Rocky Becker (ssam@sttl.uswest.net), October 20, 1999.

Brad: "If it were clearly for the purposes stated above, it would be based on some sort of formula combining vehicle weight size, vehicle emissions, fuel consumption and mileage probably a gas tax). "

I agree that the formula for calculating the tab tax should be changed from just ability to pay criteria as it currently is, to make it more reflective of consumption, accounting for the cars' weight and fuel consumption.

But cutting the tax to a flat $30 is equally as arbitrary, and additionally encourage automobile purchase and use.

On smog and polution in general I have lived in Seattle all my life and have noticed more smog in the air and more pollution in streams over the years. Salmon have been hurt by this.. its all around, whether or not we are conforming to federal 'clean air' standards more or less each year. How much polution is acceptable, I think the less we have the better and right now its plainly visible on a sound sunset.

"Given your opposition to I-695 and the popular support of part II of the initiative (more popular than the $30 tabs)" What is your source? I believe the old KOMO poll was a tiny sample size and haven't been able to find the questions. And anyway, before those questions were asked, how much public debate has there been on this most important issue?

"I would think you'd be *thankful* this issue hasn't been a focus of the I-695 campaign. " No, I don't believe that the ends justify means in democracy.

"I generally won't guess at a person's motivation, but I can only presume you think the issue wouldn't be so popular if it came under intense scrutiny. If you believe this to be true, perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to why. "

I believe that if we support multiple subject votes under one title like 695, a significant tax increase could be slipped in under the guise of a more popular tax cut, or visa versa. Try writing an initiative to reduce sales tax to %5, I bet it would be so popular you could pretty much slip whatever you wanted in underneath.

I also think it worth considering whether a populist tax system will enjoy more resistance from special interest / big business via deceptive advertising than our representatives are right now from lobbying.

695 also says nothing about how these proposed fee and tax votes are to be carried out, it is obvious the proponents plain just didn't think this inititiave out carefully and here it is, ready to pass under the "$30 Tabs!" label sans analysis and discussion.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Will--"I believe 695 is flies in the face of honest democracy because it is an initiative which combines two distinct subjects under one title: b) $30 per tabs a) change tax levying system to direct democracy from representative"

At the risk of being boring, this has nothing to do with democracy. It is interesting WRT judicial challenges to its constitutionality. (Un)Fortunately, in most places, democracy and the judicial system have little in common (they'd be better compared to monarchies).

As an aside, wouldn't it be fascinating if initiatives could modify the state constitution? At this risk of offending just about everyone, I imagine legislators would currently find this topic as welcome as a fa** in church.

"Article 2 of the WA state constitution states that only one subject is allowed per title for legislative bills and I think for good reason, that each subject be more readily considered on its own merits. I believe 695 clearly violates this test in that it is presented by its proponents and often perceived as a $30 tab inititiative, when in fact it is ALSO and NOT INSIGNIFICANTLY a change to how taxes are levied."

FWIW, if the state Supreme Court takes a broad interpretation (ed note: isn't it funny how broad interpretations and judicial activism go together. . .I wonder if they do in the case of tax cuts) of the initiative, it seems to me that it would be reasonable for them to say the initiative *is* about one topic--taxes.

"IMHO The responsible democratic way to proceed would be

a) submit an initiative for changing how taxes are levied to a vote of the people. If this initiative passes, carefully considered by a properly focused debate, passes we may then b) proceed as voters to consider specific tax changes like tabs. a) before b), like the horse before the cart."

In principle, I think most people would prefer this as well. On the other hand, most people also realize that things don't always happen exactly the way they'd like. Put another way, most people are understand quite well the idea of getting *some* of what you want being better than getting *none* of what you want.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Rocky: "Now is the time for serious tax reductions"

I heartily agree. Sounds like you are fed up and want some change... check that you aren't frustrated to the point of losing your reason.

Firstly, read above about how 695 is changing how we are taxed under the cover of free money to the people.

Secondly, do you think that making a $30 tax per auto is fair and equitable? 695 would make the MVET a regressive tax, whereas I believe that rich making the rich pay in part for less fortunate folks' mobility is a good thing.

Can we really raise gas taxes enough when raising the price of gas to where it pays for polution it might encourage people to DRIVE across the border to get gas as they once did for tabs?

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 20, 1999.

"I believe that rich making the rich pay in part for less fortunate folks' mobility is a good thing. " But the reality, Billy, is that the less fortunate people are ALSO going increasingly to autos, because transit doesn't meet their needs. It is a telling indictment of transit that those who use it think LESS highly of it than those that don't. Like the "separate but equal" school systems of the 50s, they were separate, but certainly not equal. It's slower, less comfortable, less convenient, a poor fit for working mothers, and people are leaving it at the first opportunity. It's still the demographics, Billy.

"Vehicle ownership has become almost as universal as licensing. The proportion of households with no vehicle declined from approximately 21 percent in 1969 to 9 percent in 1990. Since households without vehicles tend to be smaller than average, only 6 percent of persons lived in households without vehicles in 1990 (Lave and Crepeau 1994). The 1995 NPTS also reports 6 percent of persons without vehicles. "

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

Billy,

Is this where I ask you how it is that the folks in Oregon and Idaho find a flat tab fee to be "fair and equitable?"

Since you're a liberal, we can all understand how near and dear the concept of redistributing wealth is to you... but not to the rest of us.

One fee for all? Absolutely fair... absolutely equitable.

Westin

"My first pledge will be to restore integrity to the White House. And I'll fire anyone who has lied to the American people or the United States Congress." - Al Gore, in a February 2, 1988 presidential debate

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 20, 1999.

"Article 2 of the WA state constitution states that only one subject is allowed per title for LEGISLATIVE BILLS and I think for good reason, that each subject be more readily considered on its own merits. I believe 695 clearly violates this test in that it is presented by its proponents and often perceived as a $30 tab inititiative, when in fact it is ALSO and NOT INSIGNIFICANTLY a change to how taxes are levied." "

Legislative bills? Did I miss something here? I thought that this was an initiative. Nobody in the legislature would have the huevos to offend the bureaucracy with a real tax cut, much less something that empowers the lowly voter.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.

Billy wrote: believe 695 is flies in the face of honest democracy because it is an initiative which combines two distinct subjects under one title:

b) $30 per tabs a) change tax levying system to direct democracy from representative

Article 2 of the WA state constitution states that only one subject is allowed per title for legislative bills and I think for good reason, that each subject be more readily considered on its own merits. I believe 695 clearly violates this test in that it is presented by its proponents and often perceived as a $30 tab inititiative, when in fact it is ALSO and NOT INSIGNIFICANTLY a change to how taxes are levied. ===========

I disagree wholeheartedly that it flies in the face of 'dishonest democracy'. I really don't think, Billy, whether we agree or disagree on the merits of the initiative or not, that 695 is somehow dishonest. It simply comes down to how much damage to 'we the people' think that it'll do, or not do. I've read the initiative, and it's fairly easy to understand. In addition, if this were an illegal initiative, given your reference to article 2, I think that something would have been done about it already. I have a feeling that there is some interpretatin room regarding the legal nuances of article 2. But re-referring to your comments about flying in the face of 'honest democracy', you fully uphold my earlier post saying that if anything, it makes the system more PURELY democratic by putting the decision of taxation hikes (not taxation in and of itself) into the hands of the people.

Regarding your comments about 'fairness and regressiveness', I'm afraid that your and I will never agree on those issues because of a fundamental difference in world view. My world view being that since roads SHOULD be paid for from the general fund, that richer people ALREADY subsidize the mobility of 'those less fortunate', because rich people will pay more actual $'s in the other taxes already levied by the state because they spend more, have bigger houses etc, more expensive general purchases, etc. Remember, 10% of a lot of money = more money than 10% of a little money. It may still be 10%, but the resulting effect is those higher on the financial scale put more money into the system than those on the lower end.

-- Paul C. Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 20, 1999.

Will--"On smog and polution in general I have lived in Seattle all my life and have noticed more smog in the air and more pollution in streams over the years. Salmon have been hurt by this.. its all around, whether or not we are conforming to federal 'clean air' standards more or less each year. How much polution is acceptable, I think the less we have the better and right now its plainly visible on a sound sunset."

Sigh, I gave you the perfect opening to go convince me with some statistics on air quality in the Puget sound. Instead, I get feel-good, anecdotal horsesh**.

"What is your source? I believe the old KOMO poll was a tiny sample size and haven't been able to find the questions. And anyway, before those questions were asked, how much public debate has there been on this most important issue?"

Again, I'm referencing the KOMO poll (FWIW, I've been unable to find the poll on their site. . .what kind of news site doesn't have a full-text search engine), but a copy of their press release is found in the news section of the lifetel site. As far as the sample size goes, it was a sample of 500 likely voters. A population size of 500 is actually a reasonably *large* sample size. You can take my word for it or you can go (must have a browser that support Javascript) here and plug 4.38 into confidence interval.

As far as public debate goes, there really hasn't been much. As I've pointed out before, this is not immoral or irrational. For whatever reason, *neither* side has focused on the issue.

"I believe that if we support multiple subject votes under one title like 695, a significant tax increase could be slipped in under the guise of a more popular tax cut, or visa versa. Try writing an initiative to reduce sales tax to %5, I bet it would be so popular you could pretty much slip whatever you wanted in underneath."

This is just plain ridiculous. It indicates you've the presumption people don't know what they're voting on. Maybe I know a better class of people, but I've not talked to anyone planning to vote for *or* against the initiative who isn't aware of *both* portions of the initiative.

"I also think it worth considering whether a populist tax system will enjoy more resistance from special interest big business via deceptive advertising than our representatives are right now from lobbying."

Sheesh, if this campaign has shown us anything, it's that $$$$ alone doesn't lead to success or failure with the public. Even a casual observer would see the no 695 campaign is the victim of "a good ole fashioned butt whupping."

You've gotta have a believable message. For whatever reason, people are currently "buying" what Tim Eyman's trying to sell. Why is it they don't "buy" the no695 campaign message. . .the aroma of steaming dog piles come to mind.

"695 also says nothing about how these proposed fee and tax votes are to be carried out, it is obvious the proponents plain just didn't think this inititiave out carefully and here it is, ready to pass under the "$30 Tabs!" label sans analysis and discussion."

The answer to your first question is obvious--they'll come as tax increase referendums on regularly scheduled ballots (FWIW, this is why the "massive increase in election costs" argument is laughable).

Quite frankly, I believe the initiative is reasonably well conceived, if your intention is to enact a relatively large tax cut and ensure the legislature doesn't turn right around and "re-collect" the tax.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Correction to my previous post

"flies in the face of 'dishonest democracy'"

I meant to write 'honest democracy'.

Sorry!

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 20, 1999.

Brad: "At the risk of being boring, this has nothing to do with democracy. " Well I'll be boring by saying that I disagree with you here.. believing that a measure is authored and presented affects the outcome.

Certainly it would be interesting if the initiative process could change the constitution as I believe is the case in Oregon. I'm not holding my breath as I assume the current method for changing the consitution requires representative support, and they'd sure be unlikely to make that particular change.

"I wonder if they do in the case of tax cuts) of the initiative, it seems to me that it would be reasonable for them to say the initiative *is* about one topic--taxes. "

I see what you are saying but I'd hope they wouldn't judge it so broadly as isn't the real point to dissalow the distraction set of possible outcomes within another set?

"Put another way, most people are understand quite well the idea of getting *some* of what you want being better than getting *none* of what you want. "

Check, but as the combination of subjects on 695 may get it cast out or delayed by the courts I'm not sure the stated goal of reducing taxes will be more likely to happen sooner than if appropriate protocol were followed.

Craig: Re: "I believe that making the rich pay in part for less fortunate folks' mobility is a good thing. " "But the reality, Billy, is that the less fortunate people are ALSO going increasingly to autos, because transit doesn't meet their needs."

Yes we've been having a great discussion about the lesson of this shift towards the auto over in the "Will 695 hurt transit?" topic. However, to set aside for a moment the unfortunate lack of linkage between external costs and taxation that accounts for those costs, under the current system those poor folks in their $3000 cars and $60 tabs are being subsidized by the rich folk in their $30,000 cars by their $600 tab payments.

Paul: I presume you weren't out there gathering "$30 tab initiative" signatures or you could testify as to which of the two issues people considered most before they signed? The just way is to ask people to consider separate issues separately. Remember the rookie judge that got elected on faulty name recognition alone?

Westin and Paul: Our opinions about the redistribution of wealth differ, and I'm not surprised more people here think that a person having to scrape by to afford a cheap car, should pay as much for the privilidge as someone making $80K a year and driving an expensive SUV or whatever. Most states use a non-regressive income tax, WA state is already notoriously regressive via the sales tax, glad you are happy with the current state of affairs.

Zowie: The reason I cited the legislative bill language is that I feel the reasoning behind it applies to the inititiative process: think of it as words to live by "thou shalt not put a wolf in sheeps clothing to pawn it off on the people".

Brad: There are plenty of sources for you to check up on polution numbers. The effects of polution are in the news (oops liberal media) all the time and costs have been assigned to them whether you like it or not. You could just spare the web search if you like and ignore smog, water polution, et al. I'm sure then it will continue to hang around for the kids and the salmon to suffer from the real problem with shit.

In the news: Some Medina folks helping to pay for your auto: Neighborhoods blame 520 bridge traffic

-- Billy Morton (leftod@deja.com), October 20, 1999.

"It is clearly just to tax automobiles for the use of public roads, parking, accidents, and their effects on the environment. How and how much to tax, and where the funds should go is always up for discussion."

I am confused here. Billy states that "It is clearly just to tax automobiles for the use of public roads, parkings, accidents, and their effects on the environment." Then why are there so many jobs at stake if 695 passes? Some examples are the Humane Society, schools, the "DARE" program with the city police departments, etc. What do these have to do with the use of public roads, parking, accidents, and their effects on government? If somebody could enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

-- Benita (jmb@ewa.net), October 20, 1999.

Will--"There are plenty of sources for you to check up on polution numbers. The effects of polution are in the news (oops liberal media) all the time and costs have been assigned to them whether you like it or not. You could just spare the web search if you like and ignore smog, water polution, et al. I'm sure then it will continue to hang around for the kids and the salmon to suffer from the real problem with shit."

Explain to this to me, if air pollution in the Puget sound is getting worse, how do you explain the following (#1 hit on infoseek for Seattle air pollution)Seattle Times article? Rest assured, I now appreciate your reluctance to post data in support of your position. If you talk with a therapist, you might want to ask him or her to explain the concept of cognitive dissonance.

For our remaining readers, I'm not advocating *for* pollution.

WRT the liberal media editorial comment, I'd challenge you to show me where I've ever said (even easier. . .implied) the media has a liberal bias. Feel free to hunt far and wide, you won't find it because I *don't* believe there is such a thing. I'll save you some further embarassment. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh and I've not once listened to Ken Hamblin (even as a Denver resident). I'll never read "The Turner Diaries" nor have I ever read anything by Ayn Rand or William Bennett. I'm non-religious and I (almost forgot) know how to spell pollution.

When you use your pre-conceived notions to make a judgment about someone that has no basis in fact, it's called bias or prejudice.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Billy... You state "It is clearly just to tax automobiles for the use of public roads, parkings, accidents, and their effects on the environment." Then please tell me why it is the newer 'emission controlled' vehicles are the ones paying the highest amount while the older, 'non epa-stadard' vehicles pay next to nothing? Can you also explain why a $30,000.00 truck for instance pays less than a $30,000.00 'luxury' car. It is nearly a $200.00 difference. How is a luxury car more responsible for pollution, parking, accidents or the environment????? One more thing, Billy.... You say "I believe that if we support multiple subject votes under one title like 695, a significant tax increase could be slipped in under the guise of a more popular tax cut, or visa versa. Try writing an initiative to reduce sales tax to % 5, I bet it would be so popular you could pretty much slip whatever you wanted in underneath." You really need to be honest if we are going to debate seriously. The 'second part' of I-695 has been discussed openly from the very beginning. I believe it is possibly one of the very reasons this initiative will pass. The general population is sick and tired of having absolutely no say regarding the amount or how 'our' tax money is spent.

-- Joan Knox (joan@netdesignsnw.com), October 21, 1999.

Billy wrote:

Paul: I presume you weren't out there gathering "$30 tab initiative" signatures or you could testify as to which of the two issues people considered most before they signed? The just way is to ask people to consider separate issues separately. Remember the rookie judge that got elected on faulty name recognition alone?

No I wasn't. However, this initiative has been clear if not at the time of signing, certainly shortly thereafter. Everyone, but EVERYONE I know, is quite clear on the tax and fee increase limitation. Suggesting that it's foggy and unclear that this 2nd part of the init. is 'hidden' from the populace, is like suggesting that there actually really are a large block of people who actually really think that cigarattes aren't harmful to health. It's just something I won't waste any more bandwidth debating.

Billy wrote yet more:

"Westin and Paul: Our opinions about the redistribution of wealth differ, and I'm not surprised more people here think that a person having to scrape by to afford a cheap car, should pay as much for the privilidge as someone making $80K a year and driving an expensive SUV or whatever. Most states use a non-regressive income tax, WA state is already notoriously regressive via the sales tax, glad you are happy with the current state of affairs."

I'm not happy with the state of affairs. I think sales tax should be lowered dramatically! You may like to call non-graduated taxes as regressive, that's fine. Guess what I call GRADUATED taxes: Oppressive. The very framework with a graduated or progressive tax is based upon penalty. And depending on how deeply you want to scrutinize the philosophy, it becomes a penalty on top of a penalty. If I buy $10,000 worth of goods and are taxed at 10%, I gave $1000 to the state. If I buy $1000 worth of goods, I gave $100 to the state. To charge me 20% because I bought 10,000 of goods suggests that I will be penalized for putting more money back into the local economy, thus creating an incentive for me to put LESS into the economy, thus causing the state to receive less. My proof: ME! That's right. I buy NO, repeat NO high ticket items in the state of Washington. Computers, Kayaks, software over $100, electronics etc. etc. All mail order, or bought across the border- sales tax FREE. I REFUSE to pay the oppressive washington state sales tax. The result: Washington is losing my stream of $ into the economy, and Washington State Govt. is losing the tax revenue from said purchases. I'll bet you that I am NOT an anecdotal case. I only wish I had the resources to do a full study to find out just how much loss of revenue the state suffers due to high sales taxes.

-- Paul Oss. (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 21, 1999.

Oh and another thing. Don't ever, ever base your government policy based upon 'need'. You mention people scraping by, Billy. Well, recently, my financial situation has taken a turn for the worse, and I am currently 'scraping by'. I pay almost $200 for my tabs. I can't afford it right now. That's regressive. Remember, Billy, the people who're really, really poor are probably paying little more than $30 a vehicle. Many of them are probably paying slightly more. So any logic that suggests that it will 'hurt them' can only be emotionally based. If a man who scrapes by and pays $40 for his tabs, while someone two miles away isn't scraping by and is paying $900 for his, then 695 passes, and the poor mans tabs drop to $30, I really, really don't think that he's going to get all upset. I think he'll be thankful for the $10.

Bottom line, when you base a policy on need and what some central planning authority believes a group of citizens can or can't afford, you've got good old fashioned oppression. The govt. has no business telling me what I can and can't afford, simply based on my paycheck. You worry about what you can afford, and I'll worry about what I can afford.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 21, 1999.

Benita:

"I am confused here. Billy states that "It is clearly just to tax automobiles for the use of public roads, parkings, accidents, and their effects on the environment." Then why are there so many jobs at stake if 695 passes? ""

Because of lost revenue for the state. Currently there isn't a linkage between car taxes and compensating for their environmental effects, I never claimed there was, but there should be.

Joan:

Again, I agree and have stated in this thread the auto taxes should be better related to compensating for their costs. Furthermore, though many of you may disagree, *I believe that ability to pay is a just and valid input to taxation.*

Joan and Paul:

See the heading of this forum "$30 car tab inititiave" for further evidence the Yes Campaign's continued leverage of a sound bite that hides the dual subjects of the inititiative.

Paul:

I'm with you, in that in general I don't like to pay taxes either.

I will base my ideas for what government policy should be on my own logic and intuition applied to what I learn, not what someone else says I should think. See *

And if you can't afford to pay the costs of driving like others out on the road you are incented to sell your car and take advantage of other transportation options for transportation. I believe what would hurt you most is if we lose competition to the automobile because of subsidizing its costs to such a great extent other options aren't used. If you are philisophically opposed to public transit satisfying your need, there is always your commuting by Kayak or computer which you haven't paid taxes on.

Brad:

"Explain to this to me, if air pollution in the Puget sound is getting worse, ..."

I did not claim above that air or water or noise or what have you is getting worse, I have claimed that it is an obviously unresolved problem, in part caused by the auto. Check your local salmon run or sunset for confirmation.

"When you use your pre-conceived notions to make a judgment about someone that has no basis in fact, it's called bias or prejudice. "

This is rife among posts in this forum.. Opponents to 695 and myself in particular have been repeatedly labeled, "stupid" "whiner", "liberal", etc.., I agree it is not constructive, sorry if I let it slip out unfairly into my post to you.

Now:

Who's up for critiquing the Seattle Times article at the start of the thread that shows Tim's numbers are like those of a politician?

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 21, 1999.

Billy wrote:

And if you can't afford to pay the costs of driving like others out on the road you are incented to sell your car and take advantage of other transportation options for transportation. I believe what would hurt you most is if we lose competition to the automobile because of subsidizing its costs to such a great extent other options aren't used. If you are philisophically opposed to public transit satisfying your need, there is always your commuting by Kayak or computer which you haven't paid taxes on.

Billy, this is my point exactly. If I can't afford a 'thing' because that thing has a price beyond what I can bear, that is one issue-- one of free markets. But, if the market sets the price for a thing that I CAN afford, but the STATE applies taxation to that thing, causing me to be unable to afford that thing, that's oppression, plain and simple. When a fixed income, little old lady has her house paid off, but she can't afford the taxes due to increasing assessments, so she's forced to move out, that's supposed to go under the umbrella of "she'll be 'incented to sell her [house]'"? That's immoral, it's evil, it's oppressive, and it's wrong. She paid for her house, she's done. She should not, nay, WILL not be penalized for buying a house that has increased in value since its purchase. If and when she sells the house, then she will be subject to market forces upon the purchase of a new one. When the state applies taxation on things, thus making normally affordable things too expensive, then it's time for revolt.

Oh, and regarding people calling you 'liberal whiner'. Yes, it is unfortunate, but unfortunately, that's the way things go. I haven't called you any names, at all, and I won't. I think you've been very civil. But if I can give you any advice: ignore it. I suggest that the welfare system has destroyed thousands of lives by creating a cycle of dependency, and I'm accused of racism, fascism (which is logically incorrect, by the way) and wanting to kill children. It just goes with the territory.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 21, 1999.

Paul: Carefully considered and passionate advocate for personal responsiblity and the free market! ( I'm trying out nice names :-)

"Billy, this is my point exactly. If I can't afford a 'thing' because that thing has a price beyond what I can bear, that is one issue-- one of free markets. But, if the market sets the price for a thing that I CAN afford, but the STATE applies taxation to that thing, causing me to be unable to afford that thing, that's oppression, plain and simple."

I understand what you are saying, though I trust you knew what your tabs were going to be when you purchased the car or considered moving here. Our difference probably lies in that I don't believe the market and tax mix fairly account for the current market cost of that auto you drive. The autos need roads, police, maintenance etc.. these are almost exclusively payed for by the people via government, amounting to taxation, and a subsidy for the auto industry.

My belief is that autos cost the public more than the revenues from their sales tax, gas tax and $30 a year. For evidence we have traffic snarls, pollution like smog and silty spawning beds caused by roads etc... I believe its time for us to start paying those costs towards a better future and I believe 695 is a step in the wrong direction because it makes driving cheaper compared to other alternatives, which admitedly are all similarly subsidized by government intervention.

"When a fixed income, little old lady has her house paid off, but she can't afford the taxes due to increasing assessments, so she's forced to move out, that's supposed to go under the umbrella of "she'll be 'incented to sell her [house]'"? That's immoral, it's evil, it's oppressive, and it's wrong. She paid for her house, she's done."

I agree property taxes can cause shameful individual situations. Via this method growth can steam roll people, often leading to high density / valued projects forcing out low density, more environmentally friendly, households.

But on the other hand shouldn't the lady be obligated to pay for the city services she recieves? Those services are often go up in price with inflation and growth as her land and her building values have. Should there be complex regulations for home sales that try and predict these cost increases before she buys? Should the increased costs instead be paid for upon her death by an estate sale?

Practically our current system is that everyone is charged property tax on their property according to its assessed value each year.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 21, 1999.