Regarding your second paragraph, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

I think any attempt to modify the State constitution to allow an income tax would have to start with the prohibition on State (not local) sales tax. CA has the highest gas tax by a wide margin of any of the west coast states. (Oregon has a “hidden” gas tax in prohibiting self serve which ends up keeping prices on par with WA). CA has a State sales tax higher that WA (8.25% vs 6.5%) and it has a higher income tax than Oregon. The general perception is that’s where WA is headed if we simply add an income tax.

1) Cigarette taxes are regressive too, but they discourage behavior with large negative externalities. That’s much less the case with sales tax.

2) If you want to get behind a progressive income tax to fund transit I’ll get behind that too, but the point is that transit funding is highly progressive, regardless of where the funding comes from.

Oh and having laypersons make the choices? And since when are we going to be given the a-la carte menu for a state budget? I admit it would probably work if everyone was given a state budget and requirement that it add up to the state income. And then everyone was forced to allocate the money. The extremes would average out and we’d probably do a fine job of it and not fund things that we could do without. But you might find things like Light rail with less money than say jails or education which people rank higher than public transit.

So the area that has the densities to avoid needing asphalt and has the higher property-tax-generation-per-acre,

Rural King County doesn’t have anywhere near the property tax generation per acre of the cities. The tax paid is on assessed value which are way higher in incorporated areas. Of course it costs more to plan roads in a city than to chip seal a stretch of road in a rural area.

Remember also that once covered in asphalt for moving more automobiles, land that was once on the property roles generating property tax, gets taken off the property tax roles and no longer generates revenue.

No, the land becomes more valuable once subdivided and generates way more property tax. Most road widening doesn’t change anything with respect to land boundarys because county setbacks generally absorb the road. The land owners yard gets chewed up but the county still gets it’s taxes.

So Seattle gets 3¢ while Greenwater gets 5 cents? Karl Marx himself couldn’t come up with such an ass-backward distribution.

So the area that has the densities to avoid needing asphalt and has the higher property-tax-generation-per-acre, gets screwed when it comes to getting money for more (or rerairing) asphalt?

Remember also that once covered in asphalt for moving more automobiles, land that was once on the property roles generating property tax, gets taken off the property tax roles and no longer generates revenue.

And both the UP and the BNSF Rights-of-ways are ON the property tax roles; the two railroads are often the biggest taxpayers in some municipalities and counties in Washington State.

Also to your point about the sales tax; I wonder why the sales tax is not applied to gasoline purchases? It is a transaction that would be taxed if one was purchasing any other liquid. California applies sales tax to gasoline and diesel; why not the other west coast state with a existing sales tax, Washington State??

Or is it because, in a state that has traditionally used property tax for funding, vehicles, the second most expensive piece of property that most people own (most expensive for some) has been exempt from property tax since the cowards in Olympia genuflected to the watch salesman of Mukilteo those many years ago?

A) Pegged to inflation and raised every year

(See as an example what the USPS has now done in regards to the price of a first class stamp which will now, if needed, rise every year on or about May 11th)

B) Adjusted to compensate for improved gas mileage of most vehicles on the road.

(This is a tough one to do since public policy is usually to encourage efficiency. But what happens in the future when more and more vehicles no longer run on taxable gasoline?)

Yes… that’s true…

But so what?

So political energy should not be expended on an amendment. Rather, transit advocates should lobby the legislature to remove the sales-tax exemption for gas, as you suggest, and also oppose any new gas taxes in the future.

Does anyone know whether it’s too late for the existing gas taxes to be repealed?

Amazing the argument on one side is that car users don’t pay enough of the cost and then out of the other side of the mouth comes the suggestion gas taxes should fund transit. The sales tax is regressive but somehow the gas tax should be higher to be socially responsible. The last thing anyone would bring up is fares covering the cost.

There has been talk recently of pursuing a similar strategy with the income tax–just pass it legislatively and try to get the court to overrule its prior decision on the issue. I’m not saying it would work, but it might be worth a try.