Should Washington state split into two states? (Seattle, Olympia: credit, homes)

[bartonizer]

Originally Posted by bergun

Sounds good to me... This way I can sell my house at insane California prices and then move to Free State of Eastern Washington.

The price discrepancy already exists. Why can't you do that right now?

[Carlyee3]

Originally Posted by 509

The article is written by a journalist that really does not understand policy analysis.

I actually went through and created my own spreadsheet using that data and splitting the state into along the Cascade divide.

The artricle is correct in the fact that King County pays for the REST OF THE STATE.....It actually pays for Thurston County. All that money goes to Olympia.

First, issue is that the journalist used Method 2 in the Office of Financial Management. That method counts monies in Olympia as monies that went to eastern Washington. Under that method when you look at the analysis the state spends more on WELFARE for Adams County in Olympia than they do in Adams County!!!

Method One should have been used. It actually tracks state revenues and expenditures by individual county.

The statement that "No county in Eastern Washington pays more in state general fund taxes than it receives back in expenditures." is not true. Not sure if it was true in 2011 or not, but that is no longer the case.

These are from 2013.

Here are the eastern Washington counties that receive more in general fund taxes than they generate.

Adams, Franklin, Kittitas, Okanogan, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, Yakima, Whitman.

Here are the western Washington Counties that receive more in general fund taxes than they generate.

Callam, Clark, Gray's Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, Thurston.

That does not include transportation taxes. Currently eastern Washington ships money over the Cascades to support the mega-transportation projects in the Seattle area.

The analysis is also incomplete in the area. For example, much of Federal highway spending is prioritized by the Governor of the state. So yes, Garfield County is part of the eastern Washington region of DOT and the state funding is less than state taxes paid. BUT this region of DOT gets back 46 cents for every dollar paid in local, state, and federal transportation taxes. Almost all the federal transportation taxes are shifted to western Washington. Which is why Spokane still does not have a north-south freeway after 50 years.

Basically, Washington state exempts the large corporations from taxes. So tax revenues in Washington state some 80% is my estimate is paid by sales taxes and small businesses. Expenditures are primarily for the poor, elderly, and schools. Those are primarily for health care and education.

Anyway, when I combined the difference between revenues and expenditures between eastern and western Washington was less than one percent in 2013.

Good analysis. But a question? Why couldn't eastern WA be a separate state since there are more people in the region east of the Cascades than in WY, or MT. Maybe as many as in ID? Wouldn't have to join ID that way?

[PS90]

Originally Posted by Carlyee3

Good analysis. But a question? Why couldn't eastern WA be a separate state since there are more people in the region east of the Cascades than in WY, or MT. Maybe as many as in ID? Wouldn't have to join ID that way?

I'm no economist, and 509 could probably explain it better than I can, but your question comes up often in these "Split the state" threads, and none of the anti-split people, who swear that Eastern WA would shrivel-up and die without Western WA, ever bother to answer it.

Eastern WA would be just fine without Western WA if we modeled our economy off of MT or WY. Why couldn't we do that?

[rkcarguy]

I was mulling over a bunch of the "what ifs" in my mind about this yesterday, and came to a bit of a different conclusion. Instead of a few counties deciding the fate of the rest of the state, why not localize more of the initiatives on a county level? You want mountain high taxes on utilities, fuel, soda pop, workers wages, etc? You got it! Just not the rest of the state. When your county becomes no longer financially viable because it's chased out all the businesses, taxed out all the working people, and is left with a bunch of handout seekers and no more money, they will realize their little wannabe socialist program has failed.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

I was mulling over a bunch of the "what ifs" in my mind about this yesterday, and came to a bit of a different conclusion. Instead of a few counties deciding the fate of the rest of the state, why not localize more of the initiatives on a county level? You want mountain high taxes on utilities, fuel, soda pop, workers wages, etc? You got it! Just not the rest of the state. When your county becomes no longer financially viable because it's chased out all the businesses, taxed out all the working people, and is left with a bunch of handout seekers and no more money, they will realize their little wannabe socialist program has failed.

As long as the budget is by county too. Without an income tax, many sin taxes pay the bills. If Eastern Washington doesn't want certain taxes, that's fine as long as they pay for their own roads, schools, police, infrastructure, etc. It would allow Western Washington to keep their tax revenue in Western Washington. I would have no issue with the state splitting other than there would likely need to be another state admitted to equalize the Senate. From a state standpoint, splitting the state or redrawing the lines to allow Eastern Washington to join Idaho is not something I would oppose.

[509]

Originally Posted by Carlyee3

Good analysis. But a question? Why couldn't eastern WA be a separate state since there are more people in the region east of the Cascades than in WY, or MT. Maybe as many as in ID? Wouldn't have to join ID that way?

Eastern Washington as a separate state would be one of the wealthiest states in the US.

For a western state it would be fairly small with great transportation links, cheap energy, a well educated workforce, and a high tech infrastructure that is lacking even in western Washington.

It would be the 36th largest state in the union.

It's population would be equal to that of Idaho.

There is no reason to join Idaho. Idaho is a good state (I lived there for almost a decade), but eastern Washington has many more resources with much lower governmental costs. Idaho is NOT a low tax state, simply because it is so spread out and the mountains significantly add to governmental costs. In contrast, the mountains of eastern Washington are along the edges and mostly owned by the Federal government with few residents.

There is a very limited high tech infrastructure in Idaho...it is common in eastern Washington.

Nah, we want to be on our own.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by PS90

I'm no economist, and 509 could probably explain it better than I can, but your question comes up often in these "Split the state" threads, and none of the anti-split people, who swear that Eastern WA would shrivel-up and die without Western WA, ever bother to answer it.

Eastern WA would be just fine without Western WA if we modeled our economy off of MT or WY. Why couldn't we do that?

That's fine, if you want to be MT or WY. MT has a personal income tax, but WY doesn't. Both have more cows than people. Eastern WA benefits from being able to ship its wheat from our ports. WY has been trying to open ports here for its coal, with no luck.

[509]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

That's fine, if you want to be MT or WY. MT has a personal income tax, but WY doesn't. Both have more cows than people. Eastern WA benefits from being able to ship its wheat from our ports. WY has been trying to open ports here for its coal, with no luck.

Idaho has an income tax as well as sales tax. it is a high tax state. Even though they do not give tax breaks to Boeing, Amazon, Weyerhauser, Microsoft, etc nor do they build stadiums for the richest men in the world. BUT it is a state separated by mountains, mostly owned by the Federal government with high costs for government services. However, I never minded paying my taxes in Idaho. I do mind paying taxes in Washington to support Boeing and Paul Allen. Idaho is totally unlike eastern Washington.

I believe under the constitution you cannot stop shipping eastern Washington wheat to Asia. BTW most of it actually goes to Portland, but the apples do go through the port of Seattle.

Coal shipments require a new infrastructure. That you can refuse to build.

[Tall Traveler]

As a conservative I say no, just suck it up and deal with it. On the other hand, wife is now wanting to leave the great state of Washington due to its new gun laws and extreme left wing tilt.

[Carlyee3]

Originally Posted by Seacove

As long as the budget is by county too. Without an income tax, many sin taxes pay the bills. If Eastern Washington doesn't want certain taxes, that's fine as long as they pay for their own roads, schools, police, infrastructure, etc. It would allow Western Washington to keep their tax revenue in Western Washington. I would have no issue with the state splitting other than there would likely need to be another state admitted to equalize the Senate. From a state standpoint, splitting the state or redrawing the lines to allow Eastern Washington to join Idaho is not something I would oppose.

Actually, I think, the Seattle road system sucks $$ out of the rural areas like Spokane and Yakima. Depending on what data you use, I think it isn't as you say for other items. I bet Eastern WA would love to have autonomous control over their taxes and getting rid of the liberal laws passed by the west side.