Washington State Tax Question

dotnmarty":1chumvrx said:
Whether you like the left wing or the right wing, we can all agree that the turkey is the bird of choice for the holidays. So, in keeping with the holiday spirit of expressed throughout this thread, here's some interesting turkey research from our neighbors up north.

http://se.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/2004.turkey.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm a leg & breast man myself..... :wink:

No matter what state you are in they just find other taxes or words for taxes to increase.
Click to expand...

Main Entry: tax
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: charge levied by government on property, income
Synonyms: assessment, bite*, brokerage, capitation, contribution, cost, custom, dues, duty, excise, expense, fine, giveaway, imposition, impost, levy, obligation, pork barrel, price, rate, salvage, tariff, tithe, toll, towage, tribute

* = informal/non-formal usage
Click to expand...

My personal favorite: "revenue enhancement". :roll:
 
K7MXE":2ri7pb45 said:
I think after living here all my life that, Washington state would be one to avoid if one wanted to avoid taxes, fees and permits. Moneys have be generated in on form or other to operate the state. Taxes are easy and the big income is from revenue that runs close to ten percent for sales tax or the fines if you operate wrongly on the highways. On the positive side the state parks did drop the parking fee for day use and there are still lots of free launch sites. I think the biggest bang for the buck is Southeast Washington state on the Snake river but today one would need a heater in their boat. Interesting subject. Bob Heselberg Eatonville Wa
Click to expand...

Well - I've lived in Illinois, Arizona, California and Washington state (in that order). As far as taxes go, I'll take this state over any one of the above. In addition, it has many, many other qualities that make me happy to call it my home (going on 18 years now).
 
To get back to the question, part of which I answered, are interest and dividends taxed in this state? I don’t know and not being a tax guy should not answer.

These are no-partisan questions. Who to blame is not the question. What the law is is the question.

Just the facts mam , just the facts.


I will say that property tax is theft by who ever wants it. nevada has no property tax. I would be for a larger sales tax or just a across the board flat tax and even a income tax that everyone paid the same rate and I mean everyone. but to tax you over and over again on what you already own is a crime and should not be tolarated by free people.

A large sales tax instead of aproperty tax would still tax the rich more as they spend more. Allowing them keep their money and spend it will create more jobs also. In the end the state would end up with more money.

but before we get off on the pros and cons let answer the first two questions for our new member
 
I am also a refugee from Calif (and have several friends who settled in Sequim). We have spent quite a bit of time up there, and know that we would not be happy with the weather. So we first became "Texans" temporally through Eskapees (RV club). Then finally settled in Florida--and much of our decision was tax based. Both Texas and Florida do not have personal property tax or state income tax. Fl does have tax on certain investments, but that can be gotten around and is minimal.

Boat taxes: Washington found our Cal 46 in Sequim after a year or so. They wanted proof I had paid sales tax in Calif--which I had. I did not have to pay a "use tax" in Washington. They did ask for the annual tax, but we were keeping the boat in Sequim a minimal time, and did not have to pay that. (Think Canada for repairs). In my opinion, Calif. is the worse state for taxes (certainly New York could be worse)--and almost any state is better. Just look at the entire picture. We do love the PNW--and spend much of our summers up there.
 
localboy":1reu58sf said:
Wonder what effect this will have on fuel costs and boating?
Gregoire's plan is centered around some $493 million in tax increases, including a near-tripling of the tax rate on oil products and other pollutants.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So I just watched KIRO-7 news. "Ms. Gregoire" was questioned about the increased tax on "environmental hazardous oil based materials" and it's effect on fuel prices in WA. State (already the highest gas taxes in The Nation).

Her response was she "didn't undertand why they (fuel companies/processors) would pass on the cost to the end users" AKA taxpayers/fuel users. REALLY? :? She doesn't understand THAT and she's The Govenor of this State? SERIOUSLY? :roll:
 
That's pretty funny actually, but also pretty sad. Can anyone in public service really think we believe they are that naive? Sleepy Ted down here in oregon is just as bad. He was handing out tax credits for solar and wind energy development like penny candy and then discovers that we have to fund those credits. And not just a one time deal, for many years to come. Absolutely absurd.
 
I know not much raises hackles like taxes and I don't want to get into a crossfire, but I'd just like to clarify some things:

(1) Washington doesn't have the highest gas tax. "Among the highest" would be accurate. Checking http://retirementliving.com/RLstate1.html and doing a quick scan, I noted at least the following: Washington: 37.5 cents per gallon of gasoline; New York: 44.6; California: 46.6; Connecticut: 41.9; Hawaii: 44.4; and Illinois: 39.9. Yes, most are less, even significantly less and as the site points out, in 9 states, counties and cities can add their own gas tax but not in Washington State.

(2) The proposed increase in Washington is an almost tripling of the Model Toxics Control Act (passed by voters as Initiative 97 in 1988) and its Hazardous Substance Tax (HST); not the road tax on gasoline added at the pump. The HST currently is 0.7% (7 cents on 10 dollars) of the wholesale value, paid by the first possessor in the state of the HS (hazardous substances also include some chemicals, such as sulfuric acid, and all pesticides registered by the EPA). The proposal is to raise the HST to 2.0% of the wholesale value. Two thirds will go to the general fund for the next three years, the remainder to local governments for storm water management improvements. By 2016 all the revenue is to go to water quality and spill management, mostly to meet federal water quality requirements. I concede, there is no guarantee about where money actually goes but there are plenty of eyeballs, including that of industry, that will be watching to be sure it goes where intended if the increase happens.

(3) This is more ambiguous but will it show up dollar for dollar at the pumps? Not necessarily, many factors go into retail pricing including of course production costs and taxes paid by the producer. But it would be hard to show with empirical data that you get a dollar for dollar change at the retail level. Profits will also be part of the equation.

I'm not arguing for or against. Just trying to give some things to throw into the mix.
 
Oly,

Do you know off-hand how much tax money the Gov expects to raise by this tax?

1.3% does not seem like much, but pesticides and petroleum products are used by farmers, so expect food prices to rise too.

At least its not tripling the $0.375/per gallon gas tax!
 
My only point is this: w/ gov't it's NEVER enough. If I buy a C-Dory that I can't afford, I just can't go to my employer and say "Hey, I'm in debt due to my own stupidity, so I need you to give me a raise".
 
To answer the question, based on what I read in the paper, the total revenue will be "an additional $225 million a year." For the record, the original purpose of the MTCA tax was to fund a state "superfund" which would be used to identify contaminated sites and hopefully get a liable party to pay to clean it up. If necessary, like with the federal Superfund (CERCLA), the state can pay for the cleanup out of the MTCA Superfund and attempt to recover the money, up to 3 times the cost (incentive to do it yourself). This program will continue.

Re costs to agriculture: As I understand it, somewhere around 90% of the tax is paid by the petroleum industry and even though there are a lot of sites contaminated with petroleum such as leaking underground gasoline tanks, the petroleum industry has contended that they are not 90% of the problem and in effect subsidize cleanup at other kinds of contaminated sites (both soil and/or groundwater). Pesticides are a cause of some number of those sites; I can't tell you how many but maybe you could find out on the Department of Ecology web site. A historical pesticide issue are the contaminated sites where for decades arsenic was used to treat apple orchards. This practice stopped in the '50s I believe but there are large areas of homes, schools, and orchards that could become home sites, with pretty high levels of arsenic.

The theory is "polluter pays"--cleanup costs shouldn't be passed on to others. If that works or not, or is good public policy or not, you be the judge.
 
Oly,

Thanks for the reply.

The cost to agriculture I was referring to is the increase in the cost of petrochemical products used to raise crops, including diesel fuel, pesticides, and fertilizer made from petrochemicals.

If my math skills still work, to get $225,000,000 from a 2%tax means the wholesale value of the taxed products would be $11,250,000,000. That is a huge number, 11 billion 250 million dollars!

Can this be true?
 
localboy":22hzfvks said:
My only point is this: w/ gov't it's NEVER enough. If I buy a C-Dory that I can't afford, I just can't go to my employer and say "Hey, I'm in debt due to my own stupidity, so I need you to give me a raise".
Click to expand...
Marc- You don't like paying taxes, we get it, honest...On the other hand, you've got a good government job and I'm grateful that you are out there. I don't begrudge you one penny of my taxes. See you on the water. MartyP
 
Larry H":r1lws2mc said:
Oly,

Thanks for the reply.

The cost to agriculture I was referring to is the increase in the cost of petrochemical products used to raise crops, including diesel fuel, pesticides, and fertilizer made from petrochemicals.

If my math skills still work, to get $225,000,000 from a 2%tax means the wholesale value of the taxed products would be $11,250,000,000. That is a huge number, 11 billion 250 million dollars!

Can this be true?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. About $80B+ of good land in or leave this state/year just through our ports and some of that is petrochemicals. We also expend >$11B/year on energy in this state - see http://www.ofm.wa.gov/databook/. Note that not all the petrochemicals that originate in or pass through this state are necessarily used or purchased in this state so I'm not sure what percentage of this tax will actually be passed on directly to Washingtonians.

On a separate note (not directed at Larry), assuming that this site's WA residents represent a reasonable cross section of the state, more than 50% of them voted for Gregoire and more than 50% voted for many of most recent local tax increases. My point is that not everyone here will agree with everything that's said above and some may find the frequent government bashing carried out by a few to be a bit tiring on site devoted to boating.
 
Back
Top