Comments on: Seattle Head Tax Repealed

By: John

John — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:11:34 +0000

Or, Adam could refer to the post which actually talked about the Lander Street project :( Sorry.

By: John

John — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:10:27 +0000

Write Council. There was no “populist outcry” against this tax, nor (sadly IMO) enough popular uproar to keep it. We have hundreds of millions in needed ped and bike projects (all of which of course tie in well with a transit-oriented, sustainable, walkable city) and although Conlin has talked a good game, I see no evidence of any planning on his part to actually generate some additional revenue. Nick’s proposal is the first concrete one I’ve seen.

A PS to Adam – talk to Jodie Vice, Jan Drago’s aide (for another few weeks anyway, then she’s on her way to SDOT) about the history of the Beacon Hill project you mentioned in the original post. It’s a good story :)

By: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner

Mathew "RennDawg" Renner — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:10:26 +0000

The “to stupid” comments were scarcastic. I do not feel that way.

By: VeloBusDriver

VeloBusDriver — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:58:55 +0000

I smell a troll – especially since you are writing about people who are “to stupid” and how people “want to keep what is rightfully theres”.

How about attacking this tax with some facts instead of the tired old line of people keeping “their money”.

By: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner

Mathew "RennDawg" Renner — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:19:25 +0000

There is no free lunch. The problem is that we have goverments on every level doing things they have no business doing. If all levels of goverment would only do what goverment has to do then everyome’s taxes will be kept to a minimum. Also, if a tax is unjust then it should not exist. It does not matter how much is raised, who it affects or what it goes for.

By: Zed

Zed — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:10:26 +0000

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

By: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner

Mathew "RennDawg" Renner — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:38:55 +0000

Yes, it is insane that people want to keep more of what they earn. How dare they want to keep what is rightfully theres when those who do nothing to earn it are more entitled to it. After all the people are to stupid to know what is best for them and their money.

By: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner

Mathew "RennDawg" Renner — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:36:52 +0000

Well, does that mean that the goverment wants fewer people owning property. People sometimes have to sell there homes or other properties because they cannot afford the taxes on them.

By: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner

Mathew "RennDawg" Renner — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:32:39 +0000

Actually, yes I would. I do not mind the standard sales tax on these items though.

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:14:29 +0000

In fact it was only in the last year or so that Congress brought the transit exemption up to the same level as the parking exemption.

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:24:24 +0000

I think the tax was “opaque” to the commuter, since he couldn’t see the details…

By: Oran Viriyincy

Oran Viriyincy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:00:20 +0000

Yeah, I spent that much money yesterday filling up my gas tank halfway after not touching the car in the garage for months.

For a few bucks less I get an unlimited $2.75 transit pass good for a month from my employer (City of Seattle).

By: VeloBusDriver

VeloBusDriver — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:50:20 +0000

So you would support the repeal of our State’s onerous liquor and tobacco taxes?

By: josh

josh — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:44:11 +0000

I admire the purity, but you need to remember, whatever you tax, you deter, whether you intend to or not.

When you decide where to raise your revenue, it only makes sense to tax things you want less of. Don’t create a tax just to be a deterrent if you don’t need the money, but don’t ignore the effect your necessary revenue measures will inevitably have.

By: justinf

justinf — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:57:30 +0000

I’m not sad to see this tax go as I agree that it doesn’t seem to be an effective way to get people out of their cars. I am sad to see the lost revenue for biking and walking improvements — clearly our city needs them. I would hope the city council replaces the lost revenue by increasing on-street parking fees and the taxes on private parking lots.

By: Justin Bernard

Justin Bernard — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:15:53 +0000

$25 a year?? The anti-tax zealousy in the US is insane.

By: archie

archie — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:19:30 +0000

I agree, but to sadly burst your bubble, this part of the tax code also allows for a similar deduction of employer provided PARKING benefits… :(

By: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner

Mathew "RennDawg" Renner — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:11:24 +0000

Taxes shouls exist for one purpose and one purpose alone, raising revnue. If a tax is created for any other purpose than it need to be gotten rid of. It does not matter what the tax goes for. It could lead to abuse by goverment.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:51:12 +0000

I think what you are describing is a pre tax benefit. What ever is taken out of your paycheck reduces your taxable income. You still pay for it but because of the tax code you’re income tax is reduced as if your pay had been cut by that amount. It’s the same way the mortgage deduction reduces your tax payment (except only the interest is deducted from the taxable income, not the entire mortgage payment). I agree that it is a sensible exclusion. I don’t know how many exclusions I’d put it in the sensible category but I’m pretty sure the sensible category would be in the minority if I (or anybody outside a small minority of tax lawyers) actually knew the details behind the thousands of pages (and many thousands more pages of court rulings) in the federal tax code.

By: Good Grief

Good Grief — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:03:41 +0000

Kirkland doesn’t charge B+O tax. I think Seattle is (was) one of the few cities (maybe the only) to charge both a Head Tax and City B+O