I would have voted for a reduction in the MVET. I cannot support I-695 because under section 2 paragraph 4 the initiative says that a vote of the people is required whenever there is a "monetary increase in an existing tax..." This means that even if the legislature drops the sales tax a half of a percent, but if business goes up and more revenue is gathered by the lower tax rate then a state wide vote is still required. This doesn't make sense. As my children grow and get jobs and buy a house, more revenue will be gathered and more services will be needed but I-695 says that the additional revenue from population growth and business growth can not be gathered and spent for related services! On top of all this, why should citizens in Bellingham vote on the price of my kids school lunch fee? This initiative goes too far. I voted republican for all federal offices I could because I was tired of people far away telling us what to do locally. Now you want state wide initiatives to control local taxes and servi

-- Michael Savoca (savocas@yelmtel.com), October 25, 1999

Answers

There's another interesting effect that a friend and I were discussing. He was complaining he won't be able to deduct the MVET on his tax return. Although he owns 6 vehicles (including a motor home) and probably would come out ahead with it passing, it was an interesting twist. In effect, we'd be giving up locally controlled taxes, and giving the feds an increase.

Hmmmmm....

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), October 25, 1999.

No. You're wrong. The government is free to decrease any tax or fee. You desperately need to learn your math. If you don't understand the laws of percentages, I'm not going to educate you.

Good luck.

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 25, 1999.

"There's another interesting effect that a friend and I were discussing. He was complaining he won't be able to deduct the MVET on his tax return. Although he owns 6 vehicles (including a motor home) and probably would come out ahead with it passing, it was an interesting twist. In effect, we'd be giving up locally controlled taxes, and giving the feds an increase. " Unfortunately true and part of the big government enthusiasts way to get you to have an income tax, amongst other things. We ought to get our federal representatives to fight it, unfortunately they are pro-big government too.

As long as we allow things like this without griping about them, we'll be manipulated by the politicians. Same as federal matching funds. Those willing to tax themselves heavier, get their OWN tax money back, and some of the tax money of any group that won't play this game. If someone in the private sector did this, it'd be called extortion. Liberals get away with doing it because it's for a noble cause.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

As far a the tax write-off, it's no big deal since the amount of MVET you pay only reduces your taxable income. In effect, you reduce your federal income taxes by only about $75 when you pay $500 in MVET fees.

As far a voting on future increases, please read the definition of "taxes and fees" in the text of the intititive. A school lunch is not a "tax". It is a "product" which is no different that buying a lunch at a McDonalds. What you might have to vote on would be any increase in the taxpayer's subsidy to the school lunch program. I heard somebody making the same argument about aspirins they charge you for at local public hospitals and that we would have to vote on a price increase for them. This is just more hogwash being fed to us buy the anti-695 group.

I-695 will initially be a hard pill to swallow, but in the end, it will force our legislators to take a long, hard look at each and every appropriation and/or tax increase.

By the way, if they want to institute an income tax, I'd vote yes as long as the sales tax is reduced to maximum of 2%, with no chance of an increase without a majority vote of the people.

-- just a guy (torijosh@yahoo.com), October 25, 1999.