Income tax long overdue

Editor, The Times:

Why is Sen. Lisa Brown’s income-tax proposal “a wretched idea,” as Monday’s editorial claims? [“Stay focused, Olympia,” Opinion, March 8].

As far as I can tell, the editorial board’s collective mind thinks it’s [a bad idea] because the state has more important things to do right now and it’s some kind of trick from the Legislature. Is the Legislature sneakily opening the door to a high sales tax and an income tax reaching across all income brackets?

That isn’t likely. The state hasn’t passed a general tax increase in 17 years. If anything, Washington’s lawmakers have been too timid in taking on a tax structure that obviously needs to change. The current policy — asking the bottom 20 percent to devote more than 17 percent of their incomes to taxes while the top 1 percent pays just over 3 percent — is what’s truly appalling.

Paying taxes isn’t pleasant by any means, but it is necessary if we want to keep a functioning state government. If Brown’s proposal is approved by the Legislature and Washington voters, it would be a tiny step toward fixing a tax system that right now isn’t fair or sustainable. Why is even bringing it up such an unspeakable sin?

— Garrett McCulloch, Seattle

Nip income tax in the bud

I read a letter to the editor extolling the wisdom of the powers that be to devise a proposition whereby the state’s financial woes can be alleviated by taxing incomes [“State income tax: current system unfair,” Northwest Voices, March 8]. It appears that an income tax is acceptable as long as it is applied to someone else’s income.

A few years ago, a maple key fluttered down and found a resting place under the edge of my back porch. Nobody noticed it until it sprouted and four little leaves appeared. I left it alone and it didn’t grow for several years and then it suddenly shot up to a height of approximately 10 feet. I do now wish I had pulled it up when it first appeared. It would have been so easy to avoid the unpleasant job of getting rid of it now that it has become a whole tree and a real problem.

$200,000 is not the fortune many people believe it to be. Whomever in the Legislature thinks that it is a huge sum will probably be replaced by someone who thinks the figure should be much lower.

Lets take out the tree before it sprouts.

— John Steptoe, Bothell

Income tax targets above-average earners

The editorial in The Times labeled the proposed income tax as a lame, desperate, awful extortion and an idea without political or economic merit. A progressive tax is a simple concept based on seeking additional taxes from the most fortunate and able.

The proposed income tax on those making more than $200,000 is a step to stem the 30-year erosion of funding for K-12 public education and other services and to temper the galloping wealth disparity in the United States.

The editorial would have better served the readers by helping us understand why those making four times the average wage — the average wage in Washington State is about $50,000 per year — could and should not shoulder a modest tax. The Times, of course, can be opposed to taxes if it wants, but to cheaply mislabel the legitimate political and economic concept of a progressive tax is embarrassing to the Pacific Northwest and smacks of yellow journalism.

— Scott Barnhart, Seattle

Soda and candy tax needed for the sake of kids’ teeth

I agree that removing the sales-tax loophole for candy and sugary drinks is a good idea [“A compromise plan for the state budget,” Opinion, March 7]. And this is coming from a dark-chocolate lover! I will happily pay a bit more for my “addiction” if it funds dental and medical services for kids.

Childhood obesity is a significant issue that needs addressing, but I also see dental disease as a major health issue affecting children. As a public-school nurse, I see kids daily who are in pain from untreated cavities and I’ve observed kids with teeth destroyed to the gum line. Kids can’t learn when in pain and dental disease is totally preventable.

For many families without dental coverage, regular dental checkups or even a visit to the dentist for a major problem are luxury items. These kids end up in hospital emergency rooms with taxpayers and consumers paying the bills.

Prevention is the operative word here. Money needs to be spent by investing in prevention programs. We must continue to support existing programs such as Access to Baby and Child Dentistry to provide dental care to low-income children.

Putting the sales tax on candy and soda could help to make our children healthier and fund programs that work.

— Mary K. Myers, Kent