Did anyone notice that the very first published response by a government official (I think the State Budget Director) to the new initiative was to play the envy card? This official was quoted in the first news article I read as fuming that the people benefited most by the new initiative would be the owners of expensive waterfront property, and that it would be no benefit to the average property owner. You know, guys, this one may be a walk in the park for us - the bureacrats haven't learned a thing from their spanking by I-695!

As far as it helping only the Medina types, I kmow that my real estate taxes have gone up an average of 6% a year for the five years since I retired - I would be delighted to have this cut by a factor of three as provided for by the initiative!

And, a little off the subject, all you people who are promoting an income tax really don't know the magnitude of the genie you're wanting to let out of the bottle. I came out here from Illinois (thank God!!!!!) quite a few years ago, but still visit there occasionally and, up until a few years ago, did my parent's taxes. The last time I did this, in 1993, the Illinois income tax was 2.5% (on gross income, no deductions of ANY kind), in addition to which they had a 7% state sales tax, not too awfully far behind our Washington State sales tax.

The ONLY way that a State income tax might get my approval here is if the there was an iron clad prohibition against ANY sales tax. And you all know that that will never come.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), November 23, 1999

Answers

Your property taxes have gone up 6% per year huh.? For the last five years huh?

Can you spell "Initiative 601"?

-- (mkpow62@silverlink.net), November 23, 1999.

"This official was quoted in the first news article I read as fuming that the people benefited most by the new initiative would be the owners of expensive waterfront property, and that it would be no benefit to the average property owner. "

Hmm, if it's anything like 695, those'll be the people voting against it. So we have nothing to worry about.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 23, 1999.

You need to do some analysis of the property tax increase issue. For example:

1. How much of the property tax increases were due to voter approved issues, such as bond issues and local school levies? Voter approval is what 695 requires, and should remove the objection that it is somehow an excessive increase.

2. What has the rate of inflation been over the period? If the rest of the tax is not going up more than the rate of inflation, it is not an increase in taxes in either buying power or constant value dollars.

3. Separate the revenue increase due to inflation from the revenue increase due to new construction in the community. If you are looking at your personal tax bill, that has already happened. Agency revenue due to new construction is not passed on to all property owners - just those who added value to their property by construction.

4. Was your property valued less than market value for several years, and the tax assessor just brought it up the the correct value? Instead of complaining about the tax increase, you should be greatful you were paying less than your fair share for several years. The application of the tax rate to the current market value is just a mechanism to distribute the tax load equitably. If you were paying less than your share, others were paying part of it for you.

5. If you want to tinker with the property tax, do it carfully with consideration of what is permitted by the constitution. One thing you could do is increase the senior exemptions and credits, to deal with the often used concern for those on a fixed income. Just remember that if the seniors on a fixed income get further reduced taxes, it means the rest of us are paying for that with increased taxes. That's OK with me, but the issue of the fixed income does not justify a tax cut for everyone, only those in that situation.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 23, 1999.

Sorry, guys. I really do know how to spell "response" (see subject line). It's just that I'm a LOUSY proofreader!

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), November 23, 1999.

Albert,

I retired in February of 1990. In 1990, I claimed $2291 on my schedule A for property tax on the house I lived in then and still live in. I am still on a fixed income and still retired. This year, 1999, my property taxes are $4643 and the evaluation just came in nearly 15% higher. This is more than double in 9 years. I am sure I will be paying over $400 per month next year in property tax. Is it time to quit raising taxes in this equalization of assets scheme?

-- Jim Labyak (jimlab@msn.com), November 24, 1999.

Jim:

It is time to give senior citizens on a fixed income a break, but that does not justify the same break for the rest of us. When seniors pay a reduced tax, it means everyone else is paying part of their share. When everyone pays a reduced tax, it means the level of service available from government must be reduced.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 24, 1999.

db--"It is time to give senior citizens on a fixed income a break, but that does not justify the same break for the rest of us. When seniors pay a reduced tax, it means everyone else is paying part of their fare. When everyone pays a reduced tax, it means the level of service available from government must be reduced."

I understand your reasoning and partially agree. Unfortunately, it doesn't paint the whole picture. Are reductions in government services inherently a negative thing for society as a whole?

As an example, the Seattle Times has reported about a clean air program that will be deleted due to I-695. You get the feeling we're supposed to exclaim, "Oh the horror!" Unfortunately, a rational person looking at air pollution stats for the Puget Sound would understand this battle has pretty much been fought *and* won.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 24, 1999.

Brad:

The battle may be won, but the war isn't over. As I noted in another thread, none of the cuts being considered can properly be considered "essential" services. These are all subjective judgements that will have some effect on the quality of life in the state over time. I generally support the current level of service being provided by government at all levels, and am willing to pay my share for those services. I certainly support improving government efficiency and effectiveness, but elimination of programs that are working well is another issue entirely.

This started as a discussion of the suggested property tax aspects of Son of 695. If what results is a general reduction in property tax revenue to local governments, and not a targeted reduction for those on a fixed income, what services are reduced? It is general fund revenue to cities and counties, so we don't know exactly what would be cut. It is nearly 100% of the revenue that supports the library district, fire districts, the Emergency Medical Services levy, and the the local and state school levies. Does everyone really want to cut back on those services? Fire district, EMS, and schools levies usually pass with wide margins; so that does not seem likely.

Tax cuts are actually service cuts, and the debate should be about the cost and benefits of the services. To answer your question, my answer is yes. Reductions in government services are a negative thing for society as a whole, provided that the services of government are those the community wants and are efficiently and effectively delivered. How much of a negative, and whether it is worth the cost, are subjective judgements we decide by the political processes.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 24, 1999.

db--"The battle may be won, but the war isn't over. As I noted in another thread, none of the cuts being considered can properly be considered "essential" services. These are all subjective judgements that will have some effect on the quality of life in the state over time. I generally support the current level of service being provided by government at all levels, and am willing to pay my share for those services. I certainly support improving government efficiency and effectiveness, but elimination of programs that are working well is another issue entirely."

I understand, but you misunderstand my point. In the case of the air quality agency, you can make a supportable argument that their work is (for whatever reason) fundamentally finished. If you accept this argument, it's reasonable to believe there's no rational explanation for maintaining current funding levels. Unfortunately, given the inertial and risk averse nature of government, business as usual reigns supreme.

FWIW, I think a similar argument can be made for law enforcement as well. Oversimplifying a bit, until we start making more 18-34 y/o males, our crime rate will continue to decline.

In general, I think the son of 695 is piling on. . .too much too soon.

"Tax cuts are actually service cuts, and the debate should be about the cost and benefits of the services. To answer your question, my answer is yes. Reductions in government services are a negative thing for society as a whole, provided that the services of government are those the community wants and are efficiently and effectively delivered. How much of a negative, and whether it is worth the cost, are subjective judgements we decide by the political processes."

This was something ignored by both sides of the I-695 debate prior to its passage. I've not even a sliver of an idea as to why. Interestingly enough, this debate appears to be going on now.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 24, 1999.