Veep Drinking Game

Washington State Initiative and Resolutions for 2010

The Cranky Monkey advises on how you should vote. Because I know what I’m talking about.

Initiative 1053:
"Initiative 1053 would require a two-thirds majority to pass any tax increase in the state legislature."

Vote Yes

I know we have already voted on this many times and already approved it in Washington. But as residents know, the state legislator ignored this law, so now let’s do it again. Maybe one of these days they will actually start listening to the voters… okay, probably not, but it’s not like it will hurt anything to have it passed.

Initiative 1082:
"This measure would permit certification of private insurers as industrial insurance insurers, and authorize employers to purchase state-mandated industrial insurance coverage through an 'industrial insurance insurer' beginning July 1, 2012."

Vote No

Why am I saying vote no? Because I know absolutely nothing about this issue, that’s why.

Initiative 1098:
"This measure would tax “adjusted gross income” above $200,000 (individuals) and $400,000 (joint-filers), reduce state property tax levies, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any increased revenues to education and health"

Vote Yes

At first I was kind of against this initiative. I would prefer this initiative if it adjusted for inflation each year. Also, we are already in the top 5 highest taxed states in the country and have a f***ed up regressive tax system as it is, and I don’t think this really helps. But all my conservative, only voting republican, friends are against it, as if they are in any danger of making over $200,000 anytime soon. So, since they are against it that makes me for it. Plus as a homeowner I like the reduction in property taxes.

Initiative 1100:
"This measure would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributers and producers"

Vote Yes

Do I really need to go into the thousand and one ways this is awesome!?! I didn’t think so. If you have ever drunk alcohol or ever will, you should support this initiative, even if you don’t vote yes anyway.

Initiative 1105:
"This measure would close all state liquor stores and license private parties to sell or distribute spirits. It would revise laws concerning regulation, taxation and government revenues from distribution and sale of spirits."

Vote however the hell you want on this one

Does this initiative sound familiar? Yeah, it’s basically the same as 1100 that’s why I don’t give a crap how you vote on it, as long as you vote yes on 1100

Initiative 1107:
"This measure would end sales tax on candy; end temporary sales tax on some bottled water; end temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages; and reduce tax rates for certain food processors."

Vote No

I’ve been seeing a lot of signs in people’s yards in favor of this one. Most of those signs I’m sure paid for by the industries taxed by this. But the thing is we’ve had this tax in place for months now. It’s a tax on soda, candy, and bottled water. Yes, there are flaws in the way items are considered candy, but that doesn’t mean the law should be repelled, and the $130 million per year it generates does go to the cash strapped government.

Remember this is already in place yet Coke and Pepsi haven’t gone out of business. Tubby McGee is still buying his six pack of soda, Cindy the Candy muncher is still buying her sticks of High Fructose Corn Syrup/Corn Sugar, and Perry the plastic bottle boy is still drinking from his bottled water instead of his faucet.

Referendum 52:
"This bill would authorize bonds to finance construction and repair projects increasing energy efficiency in public schools and higher education buildings, and continue the sales tax on bottled water otherwise expiring in 2013."

Vote Yes – as long as you also vote no on 1107, since the tax revenue from that funds this one.
Think of the place you send your planet over populating children. You want them to be warm in the winters and cool in the summers don’t you? Then vote yes, but only if you vote no on 1107

Resolution 8225
"This constitutional amendment would change the way the state calculates its total debt interest (moving to "net" interest rather than "full" interest as the basis for the calculation)."

Vote Yes
Just read this description in the Seattle PI about this resolution as to why you should vote yes.

Resolution 4220
"Amending the state Constitution so that the provision relating to bailable crimes by sufficient sureties is modified"

Vote No

I know, most every is for this because this amendment allows judges to hold people who are charged with crimes potentially punishable by life in prison without bail until trial. But there are two problems I have with this.

The first problem is the more people we are holding in jail the increase in cost to the public to house and feed those people.

Second, this is for people charged with a crime, not guilty of that crime. In a way this is leaning toward guilty until proven innocent. If a person is charged then held in jail, they will lose their jobs, homes, and might not even be able to afford a lawyer because they can’t work. But, what if they are innocent? In a way, the system just created a criminal, because what are they going to do when they get out? Turn to a life of crime because it’s the only option? Maybe.


Rooster said…
Wow, mark this day in history. I actually agree with most of your opinions here.

I'm still trying to find unbiased information on 1098 though. Knowing our local government, I actually find it believable that within a couple years they will expand it to lower incomes. I'm against taxing just the affluent on anything. I really think that overall, everyone should be taxed a certain percentage across the board. That way everyone pays their dues proportionate to their income, and the gov't can divvy up the funds appropriately. Of course, that would be too easy.

From what I've seen, the property tax deduction is so minimal that it won't actually make much of a difference.

But again, I'm searching for unbiased. Amazing how hard that is to find.

As for 1107, I agree to vote no, but we do need to fix the one that went into law last year. It's all junk. No pun intended.
Quorri Scharmyn said…
I'm pretty sure I agree with most of your recommendations, but I want to look into that one that you have no idea about :P

But, I have to say that taxing all income levels across the board is unfair for one huge reason: people who make significantly less need significantly more of their income, as a percentage, just in order to get by with basic health and liberty.

Imagine it this way: if we tax someone who makes $30 k a year (social workers, teachers, etc.) at 20% of their income ($6 k a year) and someone who makes $300 k at the same ($60 k a year) the person who is making less now only has $24 k to pay for rent, food, transportation, clothing and toiletries, consumables, and emergencies and, god forbid they want to procreate, children. That person not only will barely be able to do this in a way that allows them to continue to be healthy and productive in society, but now they also won't be able to save any money at all, will never own a house, and a million other things that we've recently seen actually effect the entire economy negatively, even those people making $300 k a year and more. On the other hand, the person making $300 k a year or more is still able to do all those things and more, wasting money and time as they go and never worrying about anything at all except how many vehicles to own and which should be for water, air, or land.

I personally have no problem with not taxing people at all below a certain income and, in addition, think it is way more than fair to tax higher incomes at a higher percentage.

Don't like it? Don't make too much money- problem solved!! Besides, why do people have to be so damn greedy? Can't a huge house and every material object you could possibly desire at your beck and whim be enough? Do you also have to, on top of that, make extremely poor people even more poor?

One last thought: when those poor people who we help to keep in poverty by over-taxation end up needing public services because of how poor they are even though they work their lives away, do we tax them on those, too? "You can have this bag of food, but you have to give us back 20% of it!"'s just plain ridiculous.
Rooster said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rooster said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rooster said…
Either I didn't go into enough detail, or we can respectfully disagree :)

I came up with my "proportionate taxation" idea (which I'm sure is not original at all) when I was the guy making less than $30K.

This ideology was based on the fact I was actually being charged taxes at or around 30% of my income while the rich were floating at a cool 10-20% depending on their bracket and breaks. By proportionating the tax rate, the affluent would pay a larger portion while requiring LESS taxation from the lower incomes by averaging 15-20% across the board.

The fact is, if you don't make a lot of money, whether by choice or limitation, you're options will be limited regardless of tax brackets. This is a fact of life, and has been since the beginning of time. One I know all too well. I, however, accepted it for what it was and made due with what I had until I worked myself to the next bracket. The key is that anyone can survive on any income if they are responsible about it.

I don't judge anyone for wanting to make more money. It's their prerogative, and their choice to do with their money as they please. Making money isn't necessarily a thing of greed. For example, I worked hard to earn more money and broke free of that $30K income, but it wasn't just for toys or personal satisfaction. It was for the well-being of my wife and kids (procreation for me was a blessing), and to make sure they can live a good life if anything were to happen to me. Not just that, but don't hoard my money either. I do give back to the community through both service and offerings/alms as well. (Note: I'm only stating this to support my point of not being greedy, not to toot my horn)

As for your last thought, the best way to manage the secondary taxation (in my opinion) is to reduce government as well as government programs, otherwise this "20% tax" is what is required to maintain said programs.

Of course, the sheeple in this country keep swinging from the far left to the far right (rinse and repeat), so we never actually fix anything and the economy is getting worse while government inflates. Until the people of this country find middle ground, we will only see poverty grow.

Well, that's my opinion - hopefully I explained it better.
MGD said…
Sorry Rooster, as much as I enjoyed your same comments posting 3 times, I had to delete a couple of them for space.

I think both of you make compelling arguments on this issue. Thanks for the well thought out responses.
Quorri Scharmyn said…
Touche, Rooster, touche.