Proposed tax on super-rich could eventually extend to the not-so-rich
Published 2:59 pm Monday, May 10, 2010
Regarding the recent letter, “Government is like a computer’s operating system,” hopefully we all recognize the need for a government and no additional analogies are required. However, in regards to remembering the computer analogy, remember the past as well. Then take into consideration the present.
For example, when the federal income tax was first ratified in 1913, it was only supposed to be 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6 percent surtax on incomes above $500,000. Only 5 short years later the income tax went up 77 percent to top earners. So remembering the past, there is little history that, once passed, any kind of income tax, even if initially only on “the wealthy” or “rich,” won’t eventually include more and more of less “rich” individuals.
Now consider the present. With our current elected officials, it is very easy to see how prone they are to increase taxes as a very easy way to deal with the budget.
For example, I recently asked all my representatives, as well as the governor and people from the Legislative Evaluation and Accountability Program, what I thought would be three relatively simple questions”
“Given the increases in taxes, and the recent increases in the state’s budget:
1. In the past six years, what are the five largest increases to the state’s budget?
2. What are the five largest portions of the current state’s budget?
3. What was done to decrease those portions of the state’s budget?
None of them had any knowledge of the largest items in the budget and I still am waiting for an answer. I did hear that education rose 1 percent. But the budget had risen over 30 percent in the past six years. So that can’t be it. You would think given the concern over the budget deficit, our elected officials would know what the largest items are in the budget. My family certainly knows what the five largest areas where we spend our money.
So you see, it is much easier for them to raise taxes than deal with, or even know, where we are spending the most money. Even my kids have a better sense of fiscal responsibility.
To summarize my concern, even though I am not “super rich” or even “rich,” I will not be voting for a state income tax. The subsequent and more then likely risks to those of us average workers is just too high.
Surely given the current situation, there must be other reasons that being “super rich” or “selfish” to be opposed to having a state income tax.
Bob Cerelli, Bellevue
