Are you ready for gas tax increase in January? (Seattle: fit in, assessor)

[mayfair]

An income tax would be more fair. The current system in WA (high sales and property taxes etc., no income tax) means lower income/middle class, including seniors, have a higher tax burden as a percentage of their income.

[509]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

Ready?

I'm with this... Conservation will far exceed our silly 20 yr CARB / emissions goals for FREE, and could be implemented TOMORROW. (or even yet today ) No multi million dollar agencies, burdensome laws and regulations, monitoring officials, or vehicle / infrastructure changes needed.

but... I would immediately raise USA fuel prices to match world markets (~$8/g), with an added $$$ for our superb technology and incentive to be FIRST in technology and innovation, rather than first in pollution, first in the worst education and least and most expensive healthcare of the developed world. (we proved that by being FIRST in Covid deaths!) not smart, or educated...

Enjoy the journey, it's a sad shell of what it could have been, implemented 49 yrs ago.

Inslee's Department of Ecology says that by 2038 the Carbon Tax at $8.00 a gallon will reduce CO2 emissions by 20%. Exactly, the same amount we can reduce CO2 emissions tomorrow by implementing 55 MPH.

BTW...Inslee has the authority to implement 55 MPH tomorrow, by himself. The authority is his.

He refuses to do it. He and the Democrats don't really believe in climate change.

They do believe is shifting BILLIONS of tax dollars to their campaign contributors.

[Bluefox]

Again, we see an example of Washington not really caring about how this is going to affect people barely making ends meet. Most of the higher income people will barely notice but for those who are struggling to pay rent/groceries/childcare/etc in an inflationary environment and an economy barreling toward a recession, this will make things even worse. It strikes me as incredibly tone deaf and pouring salt on the wound. Not everyone lives in an area with viable public transportation and not everyone can afford a Tesla.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by Arcos

Seems asinine to have voters approve or disapprove of laws passed by the legislature that was elected by the same voters. Why have a legislature, in that case?

What’s next, require voter approval for court judgements?

Seems like that would set up a system where necessary laws would be disapproved just because people don’t want to pay taxes.

Equally ironic is the WA Supreme Court striking down voter approved measures, because they might limit the government's ability to collect more taxes. (I-747)

https://taxfoundation.org/washington...rty-tax-limit/

My personal WA residence is now taxed $46/ day (Up from <$3/ day)
Same house, no improvements, just that now it is old and worn out (Not spiffed for a 'top-dollar-sale'. )

[Arcos]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

Equally ironic is the WA Supreme Court striking down voter approved measures, because they might limit the government's ability to collect more taxes. (I-747)

https://taxfoundation.org/washington...rty-tax-limit/

My personal WA residence is now taxed $46/ day (Up from <$3/ day)
Same house, no improvements, just that now it is old and worn out (Not spiffed for a 'top-dollar-sale'. )

Actually, that doesn’t seem ironic at all. We can’t have voters approve measures that go against the Constitution. Otherwise why have a Constitution? And we can’t have measures approved that would end up in massive dysfunction if people would trend towards removing all taxes and this disassembling the government.

As for your real estate taxes, the value is not just in the house, it’s much more in the land. Do you expect it to sell for less than when you bought it because it’s worn down?

[Arcos]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

Again, we see an example of Washington not really caring about how this is going to affect people barely making ends meet. Most of the higher income people will barely notice but for those who are struggling to pay rent/groceries/childcare/etc in an inflationary environment and an economy barreling toward a recession, this will make things even worse. It strikes me as incredibly tone deaf and pouring salt on the wound. Not everyone lives in an area with viable public transportation and not everyone can afford a Tesla.

Actually, I agree with this. If the law was conceived and passed at a time when this was less of a concern, but is now going to be implemented during a very different economical scenario, then it should be reviewed for impact and potentially modified. Probably a good idea to write to your Representative/Senator and request some kind of modification or relief.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by Arcos

..
As for your real estate taxes, the value is not just in the house, it’s much more in the land. Do you expect it to sell for less than when you bought it because it’s worn down?

I didn't build my home brick-by-brick to sell it. I planned to LIVE in it (until death). But WA state has made that impossible, as they have with many other rules. It is a state for the gainfully employed / those making a significant income. WA is displacing thousands of the very citizens who purposed to make WA communities a nice place to live. Progress (?), just as the new fuel tax is 'progress'.

[Arcos]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

I didn't build my home brick-by-brick to sell it. I planned to LIVE in it (until death). But WA state has made that impossible, as they have with many other rules. It is a state for the gainfully employed / those making a significant income. WA is displacing thousands of the very citizens who purposed to make WA communities a nice place to live. Progress (?), just as the new fuel tax is 'progress'.

I understand. I wish this state had an honest income tax, even though it would affect me negatively. It seems odd to live somewhere where the government scrounges for money in multiple ways when there could just be a progressive income tax where people pay in accordance with their means, and services are covered by the general fund.

On the carbon tax issue, I confess I haven’t looked at it at great length. I do know that taxing carbon will reduce carbon use, to some extent, and we need to do that. I do also know that other measures (like the often repeated 55 mph speed limit) would be much more universally abhorred, and thus aren’t really practical to expect from our politicians.

I’d just like to see the Republican Party sink their teeth into the issue of climate change and work with Democrats on a comprehensive and effective solution, as opposed to just pretending the problem doesn’t exist and trying to stoke discord. If the leaders that Republicans trust start promoting the truth, then their supporters may not like it, but they will start working towards a solution. And that’s sorely needed.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by 509

Climate change is a scam by the Democrats...

Ya sure, yu betcha...

Why would you be interested in solutions to a problem you don't believe exists?

[StealthRabbit]

One could ask... What is the Fuel tax purposed to benefit?

Are there other more appropriate ways to fund that budget item?

If tax is applied as a conservation incentive ...
1) Is that legal?
2) Is that effective?
3) Are there more effective measures to implement that have more benefit to meet the objective?
4) What are the LT consequences of any of the options?
5) What is the cost and net value of the solution?

Fuel tax may be a diminishing commodity for a sustained revenue source, or conservation incentive.