Fix regressive tax system

Editor, The Times:

I don’t think there is anyone who will disagree that we currently have a budget crisis [“$2.6 billion budget gap prompts look at taxes,” page one, Jan. 11]. Because of the economic situation, revenues haven fallen drastically and Olympia is faced with having to choose between raising [sales] taxes, making painfully deep budget cuts, or some combination of the two.

The only other option is a state income tax. Replacing the sales tax with an income tax will provide many benefits — in times of economic crisis, the burden of funding the state stays with those who can best afford it and the burden on the poor will be reduced. Higher-income taxpayers will not be excessively burdened because they will be reimbursed 35 percent by the federal tax system — and probably more by 2011.

Furthermore, Washington businesses will benefit because there will no longer be an incentive to buy goods over the Internet or outside the state to avoid sales tax. Our businesses might even draw purchasers from neighboring districts that have sales taxes.

But the state Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a state income tax violates the state constitution. Many residents — myself included — fear that initiating an income tax will place Washington on the path to California-style taxation with its 8 to 10 percent sales tax and 10 percent income tax.

We need to put politics aside and come up with a constitutional amendment that allows a state income tax and protects the citizens of Washington from excessive taxation. Olympia, the ball is in your court.

— Bill Roberts, Renton

State employees provide welfare services, have economic commitments

The Seattle Times has the belief that as state residents lose their jobs, the state should reduce the number of state employees accordingly [“State spending should match revenues at hand,” Opinion, Jan. 10].

When residents lose their jobs, they also lose their income and their health insurance. They reduce spending, resulting in less sales-tax revenue. But this is also the time that residents rely more on state and federal programs. Just look at the increase in food stamp, Medicaid and basic-health applications. It is called the safety net. More demands are placed on state workers to help state residents through these difficult economic times.

These hard economic times demand more state workers, not fewer. The reason residents pay taxes is to provide basic services in good times and to receive help available in bad times.

Instead of always demanding that state employees take ever more cuts to wages and benefits, it is time to look at our tax structure. Remember, state workers also have mortgages, bills and economic commitments that can’t be negotiated downward.

— Doreen Suran, Bellevue

Increase the gas tax

I have a simple proposal for closing the budget gap: Increase gas taxes by $1 per gallon.

With current gasoline prices, this would likely bring us back to gas prices we were seeing a few years back and would provide benefits that would last a lifetime.

Higher prices mean: reduced gas consumption, resulting in lower CO2 levels; decreased risk of oil spills; increased use of our underused light-rail investment; adoption of alternative-energy options and resultant jobs; and more money lining our government’s pockets instead of corrupt regimes.

According to a 2008 report on gas consumption from the Sightline Institute, Washington state drivers consume approximately 2.6 billion gallons of gas per year. Bingo! 2.6 billion times $1 equals a closed budget gap. The average person’s weekly gas consumption is 7.9 gallons, so the personal hit will average $32 per month — that’s less than a latte a day. Imagine the precedent this would set for the state and the country.

— Jon Lisbin, Seattle

Republican leadership offers sensible idea

The schoolteacher from Everett conveniently gets it wrong [“Solution is not consistent with shared values,” NW Voices, Jan. 7]. The Republican leaders aren’t suggesting we “sell more liquor, reduce comp for injured workers and reduce public employee’s salaries and benefits.” They instead offer sensible, party-neutral ideas to dramatically increase revenues and lower costs.

The Washington State Liquor Control Board unnecessarily operates a liquor distribution and retail-sales network that could easily be absorbed by existing wholesale and retail grocery businesses, saving the state a few hundred million in unnecessary overhead — without any change to safety or consumption. That’s already been proven in our state’s rural areas where liquor sales are left to private enterprises.

As an insurance broker, I know our monopolistic workers’ compensation system is one of only four remaining in the U.S. Opening the state up to competition from experienced insurers who provide competitive workers’ compensation solutions would drive down costs — not coverage as some predict — by 30 percent. Employers should have the choice to spend less to acquire the same state-mandated worker benefits. The job it saves may be your own.

As an employer, I too am exasperated by the continuous increase in health-insurance costs. Asking employees for a little skin in the game represents just a sliver of control in the private sector. Public employees who receive their gold-plated benefits package on the backs of taxpayers should participate a little in that cost like the rest of us.

The Republican leaders aren’t suggesting pathetic park and trail closures to terrify hikers into paying a boot tax. They have identified three common-sense areas where hundreds of millions of dollars can be found as first steps toward fiscal solvency. These ideas should not be denounced simply because they come from Republican leaders.

— Kevin Rabourn, Newcastle