On Mon 09/13 the CCDCC membership finished endorsing all of the Initiatives and referendum as stated below, including suporting the Income Tax. [The information for all the Initatives is on the Initiative Page - Click Link]
Pro's, Con's, and Editorials on State Income Tax I-1098 were in Sunday 09/12 Columbian. They are reprinted from a scan below:
I-1098: State Income Tax
Yes: Education, health care will benefit from tax on richest
By Marilyn Watkins
Initiative 1098, the tax reform proposal offered by Bill Gates Sr., will be good for Washington, and particularly beneficial for Southwest Washington. I-1098 will result in new investments in education and health care, tax cuts for small businesses and property owners, and a modest new tax strictly limited to the richest 1 percent.
Main Street small businesses struggling to survive this recession are among I-1098's biggest beneficiaries. Under 1-1098, more than 80 percent of businesses will be fully exempt from paying business and occupation taxes, and another 12 percent will receive a significant B&O tax cut.
For middle-class families as well as businesses, I-1098 also reduces the state portion of the property tax by 20 percent. That totals $400 million, money families and businesses can turn around and spend.
In order to invest in higher-quality education and more comprehensive health care, 1098 adds a modest tax which is strictly limited to adjusted annual gross incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $400,000 for couples. In other words, a couple earning $401,000 would pay tax on only $1,000. Couples earning less than $400,000 pay nothing.
According to estimates by Washington's Office of Financial Management, 118,000 businesses will be newly exempt from B&O taxes, 39,000 additional businesses will see a B&O reduction, and only 38,400 out of3.2 million filers - the top 1.2 percent - will pay the new income tax.
We all know that education is the key to opportunity. Businesses need a well-educated work force to operate efficiently and stay competitive. Yet Washington ranks a dismal 47th in K-12 spending, according to the Census Bureau. We rank 37th in awarding bachelor's degrees and 39th in graduate degrees. And with more than 900,000 uninsured in Washington, health care has become unaffordable for too many.
Recent deep budget cuts have particularly, affected Southwest Washington. Clark, Cowlitz, Pacific, Lewis, Skamania and Wahkiakum counties have suffered a 5 percent cut in the number of teachers. The waiting list for the Basic Health Plan now stands at a record 12,725 in the Vancouver area (9,000 in Clark County alone) and is rising.
I-1098 will raise $2 billion annually to restore these cuts. That money will not go to the state general fund, but instead will be dedicated to investments in lower class sizes, early learning, increased rigor in high schools, and greater access to higher education. 1-1098 will also provide funding for the Basic Health Plan, long-term care and public health. In the Vancouver area, that means more than $50 million annually to hire teachers and more than 7,000 additional slots in the Basic Health Plan in Clark County.
With I-1098, Washington will join 43 other states that already have an income tax. Because 1098's exemption is so large - the first $400,000 of income for couples is not taxed - the average effective rate on the top 1 percent of taxpayers will be just 4 percent. Neighboring states such as Oregon and California impose much higher effective rates on their wealthiest residents.
Wealthy opponents have made much ado over the fact that 1-1098 includes an individual's business income. But only 3 percent of business owners have incomes above $250,000 annually, and most states tax that same income and with much less generous individual exemptions. Moreover, business expenses, investments and losses will all be fully deductible.
Opponents also claim that after two years the Legislature will extend the income tax to all. But in Washington, the people have the last word. For instance, this November, the voters will decide on the new taxes passed last session and a new two-thirds requirement for future tax increases. The voters will decide on any change to the income tax as well, as 1-1098 explicitly requires.
Let's keep Washington a great place to live, raise a family and run a business. Please vote yes on 1098.
MARILYN WATKINS is policy director oj the Economic Opportunity Institute, a think tank that works to improve economic security for Washington state residents
I-1098 State Income Tax
No: Imposing income tax would kill an advantage the state enjoys
By State Sen. Joseph Zarelli
Go to ·'ChooseWashington.com," a website run by the state Department of Commerce, then click on "Why Washington" and drop down to "Favorable Business Environment." There you'll see it, presented as an advantage our state offers compared to others: "No income tax in Washington."
With unemployment in our state continuing to hover near 9 percent, it's hard to imagine flashing a "go away" sign at potential job creators. But that's exactly what Initiative 1098 would do, by imposing an income tax on Washingtonians for the very first time. And that's one of the reasons my name is listed with other income-tax opponents in your state voters' guide.
Washington voters have rejected every previous income tax proposal; they have many reasons to say "no" to Initiative 1098.
Start with the damage it would do to Washington's business climate, and how smacking a narrow band of successful people with a new tax of 5 to 9 percent would take almost $2 billion a year out of the private sector.
An income tax would fall like a ton of bricks on some of those involved with the most innovative, job-producing businesses and companies in Southwest Washington and the rest of the state.
We can see three more reasons just by turning our heads. Start with Idaho: its combination of a modest state income tax and a state sales tax didn't prevent cuts this year to health and welfare services, such as help for people with mental illness.
Look across to Oregon, which has an income tax and no sales tax (it's no secret that many people choose to reside in Clark and Cowlitz counties partly for that reason). Oregon voters in January approved a sharply higher tax rate on people with incomes above $250,000. Now it appears that tax hike will generate 36 percent less than supporters claimed. Perhaps that's because unemployed people don't pay income tax (but they still pay sales tax, even if they consume less).
Farther south is the best one-word argument against a state income tax: California. It has a state income tax, a state sales tax and the worst budget problem of any state.
Then there's the question of trust! To start with, I-1098 is reminiscent of the federal income tax, which began in 1913 as a 1 percent tax on the "rich." We all know how that's turned out.
As for the vow that passing I-1098 would mean reductions in the sales tax or property tax or business taxes, do voters really trust Olympia to let go of that revenue for long? Considering our state government is expecting budget shortfalls for the next several years, it wouldn't be long before lawmakers started fiddling with all of the tax brackets and rates in 1-1098, should it pass. Probably two years, as that was all it took before this year's Legislature dismantled the Initiative 960 law that made tax increases more difficult and proceeded with nearly $800 million in tax hikes.
Sure, I-1098 purports to require a public vote before taxable-income levels could be lowered. Just ask I-960's authors how a similar stipulation in that law was tossed out by a simple-majority vote in the Legislature.
Before you know it, more people would be subject to an income tax, and the revenue "dedicated" to education and health services would find its way to other earmarks. No wonder 70 percent of those responding to independent pollster Stuart Elway thought it likely "it will only be a matter of time before the income level is lowered and everyone will end up paying an income tax."
1-1098 represents the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, targeting "high earners" in that divisive, us-versus-them sort of way. Yes, our tax code needs some reform, but not the kind that would have us following California and losing one of the key advantages Washington has to offer to prospective employers.
I encourage you to visit www.Defeatl098.com and, for good measure, ChooseWashington.com - and let's protect our ability to say: "no income tax in Washington."
STATE SEN.]OSEPH ZARELLI of Ridgefield represents the 18th Legislative District. He is lead Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.
Sunday Editorial is a link to the Columbian
,