Letters to the editor

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

SERVING THE CITIZENRY

Celebrating success: All who participate deserve consideration

Editor, The Times:

I take exception to Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey's "The joys of not having a state income tax" (column, Dec. 17). I am particularly disturbed by the notion that there should be a double standard of taxation in Washington state.

Ramsey argues that what he calls the "ability to pay" principle should "hold" at what he calls "the low end," while successful people should not be taxed according to their ability to pay since "a tax on success" is "neither fair nor smart."

So, is it fair to tax failure, relatively speaking, but not success? Or is it just "smart" to exploit the poor so that the rich get to keep more of their money?

But the real problem with Ramsey's thinking is that it is based on an atomistic social theory (i.e., having no intrinsic obligations among classes), according to which individual success is credited solely to the "successful" person without regard for the contributions of those who make up that person's social and economic environment.

True fairness dictates that those among us who do well economically shoulder a proportionally greater share of the cost of maintaining an organized society.

Jan Sjåvik, Carnation

Bottomless pitfalls

It's not surprising that Bill Gates father, William Sr., favors a state income tax. Nor is it surprising that he and his son's billionaire friend, Warren Buffet, oppose an end to the federal estate tax.

The super-rich know that, even in the face of higher taxes — whether when they are alive or dead — they'll have so much money left over to spend or to pass on that it would hardly make any difference to them or their heirs.

Not so for us mere mortals! That's why Bruce Ramsey's analysis of Gates' pitch for a state income tax, aided by Dan Evans, that liberal former governor in Republican "clothing," is so to the point.

In citing pollster Stuart Elway's remarks, Ramsey hits the nail on the head: Voters don't trust the state government to exercise "fiscal discipline" with the money it gets now, much less even more.

James Shenfield, Bainbridge Island

No seat at the table

Bruce Ramsey's "not smart" argument holds that having low tax rates encourages venture capital, high-tech and high wages.

If it were as simple as Ramsey suggests, then the handful of other states lacking an income tax, including Nevada, South Dakota and Wyoming, would also be high-tech meccas. They aren't.

In fact, there is much evidence that businesses, particularly high-tech firms, gravitate to areas where the quality of life is high, where citizens are well-educated, the air and water are clean, crime is low, etc. In other words, where the blessings of government — paid for by those dreaded taxes — are enjoyed.

But it's nothing short of remarkable to find Ramsey making the case for regressive taxation in terms of "fairness." In a country that boasts the lowest overall tax burden on its wealthy citizens (among wealthy, industrialized nations); at a time in which America's wealthy class has seen its share of after-tax income and wealth soar even before its tax rates were recently slashed; when the budget deficit is exploding despite cuts in everything from veterans' to children's benefits; when Congress is able to find billions to subsidize hugely profitable corporations but can't extend unemployment insurance benefits; when the polarization of wealth between the haves and have-nots has reached levels not seen since before World War II, one would think that choosing to defend regressive taxation on the basis of fairness could not be taken seriously.

Ramsey thinks the fact that the poorest Washingtonians spend 17 percent of their income on state and local taxes while the richest spend under 4 percent is a good thing.

Mr. Gates disagrees. So do I.

John Norris, Shoreline

The table shrinks

Bruce Ramsey speculates that not having an income tax stimulates investment, innovation and personal savings. Recent Washington Policy Center analysis shows that his assumptions are right on target.

Using the Washington-STAMP computer model, created by economists at Suffolk University in Boston, we are able to show that imposing an income tax, as proposed by the Tax Structure Study Commission, would cost Washington 134,000 jobs and reduce disposable income by $4.3 billion each year.

Not having an income tax is a strong incentive for companies and individuals to create high-paying jobs, to invest in new products and to keep their earnings here in Washington. There is no argument that our tax structure should be updated to reduce the burden on businesses and low-income families, but imposing an income tax is a bad idea, for business, for government and for taxpayers.

Eric Montague, director, Small Business and Entrepreneurial Policy, Washington Policy Center, Seattle

Pass the paring knife

Bruce Ramsey makes his case to reject all thought of a Washington state income tax by using a chart, lumping state taxes with federal, and declaring that we in Washington are under a progressive tax system as a fact of life. Would that common sense were so simple! Instead, we got to read an exercise in the joy (hurrah!) of deluding ourselves.

Ramsey wrongly argues that if voters approve a state income tax, there would be no other reduction in taxes, such as our mushrooming sales tax. Has Ramsey forgotten that voters control that tax also?

Give us voters a break: We are not so foolish that we'd "forget" to lower the sales tax and possibly other taxes if we pass an income tax.

And here's the rub: A state income tax isn't about simply more money for politicians to squander. How money gets spent can be controlled (there's a news flash that even Tim Eyman has figured out).

What a state income tax is about is reversing the current idiocy of punishing the poorest among us so that we then in turn have to raise sales taxes to fund services to help those most in need — a cycle currently in place and plaguing us all, thanks to our regressive tax structure.

We are practicing sheer idiocy today, and Ramsey declares our delusion a joy. Why, I think The Times might offer him a promotion!

Bill Kirlin-Hackett, Redmond

Calculator on the fritz

Hit 'return' key

I see that the Pentagon is making excuses for Halliburton's overcharging the U.S. taxpayer by $61 million, stating that an "antiquated accounting system" made them unable to keep track of the cost of a gallon of gas ("Oil overcharge blamed on accounting," Iraq Digest, Dec. 18).

Gee, must be an accounting system from the horse-and-buggy days, huh? Nothing like hiring a world-class outfit like Halliburton to carry out the nation's business.

But I wonder — will the Pentagon let us know when that antiquated system makes a mistake that favors the taxpayers? Or does it only err in one direction?

George Randels, Port Townsend

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company