Principled objection to city income tax

I support a state income tax, to pay for diverse purposes of government, but I oppose the idea of a single-purpose Olympia income tax for households over $200,000 income. My reasons are principled.

1. I oppose single-purpose taxes. They fund “poster child” programs, not broader government services. They reduce chances for a second, third, etc., special-purpose tax to follow.

2. If I picked my top issue for a city tax, it would be affordable housing, not tuition. Other programs reduce tuition based on income. The situation is desperate for low-income renters.

3. An all-or-nothing income tax on higher income households is very crude policy. About 600 residents in households over $200,000 would subsidize 4,000 in households between $100,000 and $200,000, as well as many times more in poorer households.

4. Olympia’s progressive voting profile makes us an attractive test for Seattle-based strategists behind this proposal. But local-choice taxes long-term are likely to bypass poorer communities (say, Rainier or Yelm) that need tuition help more but would not pass this tax. We need statewide taxes and subsidies.

I reject council member Jones’ notion that my vote for a state income tax in 2010 means I support this city income tax. That’s untrue, for the reasons above. I have a regular conflict with City Council meetings or I would be there in person to say this.

This story was originally published May 20, 2016 at 3:22 PM with the headline "Principled objection to city income tax."