Special Session Heats Up
Summer Stinson, one of the originators of Washington's Paramount Duty, went to Olympia this week to testify about the Senate budget bill. Here's her statement:
I am Summer Stinson, a public school mom and the co-founder of Washington’s Paramount Duty. We named our organization after the constitution’s guarantee of ample, regular, and dependable funding for our public schools.After she finished, he said what you see in the photograph which is rather stunning given her remarks. It's also strange because voters have every right to question the motives of elected officials - who they see, who donates to their campaigns, the bills they put forth, who supports those bills, etc.
Past legislatures have operated under the belief that their paramount duty was to keep taxes low on wealthy individuals and large corporations. The result is that children in this state are being denied their constitutional right to an amply funded public education.
We are not here for partisan games. Unfortunately, after the vote that was taken on the floor last Friday, I know better.
Still, this revenue proposal is one that every Senator should be proud to support. This is a great start toward getting full and ample funding to our schools.
The capital gains tax is an excellent proposal — which is why virtually every other state, including Idaho, has one. Their economies thrive with a capital gains tax. Ours will too.
This proposal also begins to close some of the billions in corporate tax loopholes.
Please pass this plan. It’s still not enough. But it’s a great start and we stand ready to help you with more.”
In listening to the Senator over several years, I have found him to be singularly humorless, uptight and rigid.
And now, apparently, being a citizen-activist bothers him. Works for me.
Comments
It's asinine comments and attitudes like this one that insures that pot shot takers will remain ineffective. The senator is absolutely correct that his motives were being questioned. The state needs an income tax if it wants more revenue. Capital gains can be sequestered. Statewide property tax isn't bad either.
Soaked
An income tax would obviously be much better but our children can't wait for the incompetents in the legislature to get that figured out.
Some testified against the capital gains tax. They had good reasons. Increased taxes will be passed to the middle class.
Current proposals will provide Boeing with millions of dollars in tax breaks.
The middle class will pay for McCleary. It is just the way it works.
Motives were being questioned.
-NW Mom
Soaked
What are you talking about? The capital gains tax would not be on primary homes.
Facts Matter
Albert
Soaked
I believe the court will continue to uphold our constitution and its own precedence and strike down a capital gains tax.
It's not going to happen, and if if it does, it won't produce the revenues so many seem so wedded to.
A cap gains tax would exempt primary homes. Would only apply to cap gains profits of more than $50,000 per year per couple. We need this tax. 41 states have it. They figure out how to deal with its fluctuations over time by creating a rainy day fund during boom times. Saying it's not "reliable & dependable" is a red herring, and misses the point. All tax revenues fluctuate over time. We can figure it out.
WA needs a cap gains tax now to get to great schools.
Soaked
And here's the thing about the proposed capital gains taxes --- the proposal is a 7% tax on capital gains of $50,000 per year per couple. If the legislature would (in some alternate universe) pass this, it would be 8% on $40,000 in a few years and then 10% on $30,000 in the future. All the while, there would be no relief on sales taxes, business and occupations taxes, or property taxes. In other words, it would be piled on top of current taxes. Plus, it would pertain to "the rich" now, but would eventually be on everyone --- which is really the goal, right? You really want a state income tax --- the tax that our residents have voted AGAINST eight times.
Finally, alex, go look at those other 41 states. All of them have state income taxes. We do not. Capital gains taxes ARE income taxes and are unconstitutional in our state.
Albert
What about capital losses? Will those count against capital gains, as they do federally. Or will the state provide refunds to residents who incur capital losses? If the state honors carry-forward losses, the state may never see any capital gains.
Soaked
Since this is a blog for people interested in education, and SPS in particular, and since schools in WA have been shown to be underfunded (see McCleary) how do you propose fully funding our schools?
I'd welcome your ideas, as opposed to shooting down a tax that has the support of 65% of a WA residents--a capital gains tax. You sound unhappy about the potential for income taxes and capital gains tax. I would be happy to pay either, since I believe, with education and human services, you very much get what you pay for.
So, again, it's easy to shoot ideas down, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on where new revenue for schools could come from.
What I know is that to fulfill McCleary - without hurting other programs/departments as the GOP plan would - is to find new revenue. That's the Legislature's job.
If people have other ideas, I'm with Alex, let's hear them.
Revenue options --- A general income tax has little to no chance of passing in this state, so it's off the table. A capital gains can't pass the legislature, would likely fail at the ballot since it's not dissimilar to I-1098, and it's likely to be found unconstitutional (given that it's an income tax). Regardless, a capital gains tax would be tied up in court for several years. So, that leaves property taxes, B&O taxes, sales taxes, and closing of tax preferences as the options.
My opinion is that the "McCleary solution" will involve a combination of options --- as it should --- including a property tax swap, internet sales tax, and a sales tax on soda and bottled water. If retired homeowners could be exempt from any property tax increase, that would be great.
Albert
And you left out tax breaks for big companies. That, too,needs to be examined. (unless that's what you are calling "tax preferences.")
Albert
Me, well, I'm just getting older by the minute and have seen things change and turn on a dime so I never say never.
The McCleary case will have been dismissed. So I suppose a new plaintiff would file a new lawsuit and the process will start again. Right?
The Supreme Court won't keep the case open in perpetuity. That would make them quasi-legislative.
It seems like we should want the statute that is ultimately passes to be written in stone.
I completely agree with Alex. Alex I think many people in Seattle, especially those familiar with other states education and other services agree with you. We also need the taxes to tackle the petty crime in Seattle which is off the charts crazy compared to other cities in the US. Tax me please
-KG