# Anti-light rail petitioners fall short of signatures



## CHamilton (Apr 18, 2012)

Anti-light rail petitioners fall short of signatures



> The Clark County [Washington] Auditor’s office has declared more than two-thirds of signatures turned in by light rail opponents seeking a vote to be invalid.
> 
> A group of Vancouver residents submitted 9,039 signatures to a petition calling for a vote to create an ordinance that would prohibit any city resources from being used to extend TriMet’s MAX line into Vancouver.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 18, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Anti-light rail petitioners fall short of signatures
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chalie: Good to know that Chicago Style Political Tactics don't work in the NW!!! :lol:

Why on earth would these NIMBYS be against Light Rail, Portland has an Excellent System and you can avoid the I5 Traffic Gridlock!!


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 18, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > Anti-light rail petitioners fall short of signatures
> ...




Why would ANYONE be against light rail! Hello future!


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 19, 2012)

It's complicated, of course, but Clark County has traditionally been conservative and anti-transit. They voted down a MAX extension several years ago. At present, there's a big new highway bridge project for crossing the Columbia River, and the locals don't even want to see a transit component included there.

Keep in mind that Clark County is an area where people live because Washington has no personal income tax, and they do their shopping in Oregon where there's no sales tax. All illegal, of course, but hard to catch.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 19, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> It's complicated, of course, but Clark County has traditionally been conservative and anti-transit. They voted down a MAX extension several years ago. At present, there's a big new highway bridge project for crossing the Columbia River, and the locals don't even want to see a transit component included there. Keep in mind that Clark County is an area where people live because Washington has no personal income tax, and they do their shopping in Oregon where there's no sales tax. All illegal, of course, but hard to catch.


There's nothing complicated about people who seek to commit fraud. These greedy scam artists are so proud of their accomplishment that they have no problem regaling perfect strangers with their rather obvious ploy. I have no idea why it's hard to catch when the people doing it are anything but shy about spilling the beans to anyone who cares to listen.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 19, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > It's complicated, of course, but Clark County has traditionally been conservative and anti-transit. They voted down a MAX extension several years ago. At present, there's a big new highway bridge project for crossing the Columbia River, and the locals don't even want to see a transit component included there. Keep in mind that Clark County is an area where people live because Washington has no personal income tax, and they do their shopping in Oregon where there's no sales tax. All illegal, of course, but hard to catch.
> ...


Actually, a serious question: How is this illegal? I know there can be issues with, say, registeting one's car in another state to avoid local taxes, but IIRC there's nothing illegal about choosing to shop where prices are lower (whether because of varied tax policies or just wacky pricing quirks such as a price war between gas stations) so long as you're not evading import/export duties.


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Keep in mind that Clark County is an area where people live because Washington has no personal income tax, and they do their shopping in Oregon where there's no sales tax. All illegal, of course, but hard to catch.


I must admit I am a little confused about the "illegal" bit. Which law is broken by these people who live in Washington State and shop in Oregon and even possibly work in Oregon? Is it some state law that Oregon has? If so how does it survive a constitutional challenge?


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 19, 2012)

Washington has a use tax:



> ...a tax on the use of goods or certain services in Washington when sales tax has not been paid. Goods used in this state are subject to either sales or use tax, but not both. Thus, the use tax compensates when sales tax has not been paid.


Lots of WA residents don't pay this, especially since -- because there's no state income tax on individuals -- most people don't have to file state tax forms.

Of course, our sales tax is high, and business owners have to pay a "B&O tax" that's levied on gross receipts, not profit, so it's really nasty for small business owners like me. But proposing a state income tax is the kiss of death for any WA politician. Same goes for proposing a sales tax in Oregon.

And no, the B&O tax isn't named after the railroad -- it's a "business and occupation" tax. But one of the many coffee places in my neighborhood takes advantage of the dual meanings by calling itself B&O Espresso.







(image from the Capitol Hill Seattle blog)


----------



## Ryan (Apr 19, 2012)

Most states have a use tax. You're also supposed to apply it to things that you buy "tax free" on the internet, or when you purchase things from a state with a lower sales tax rate than your home state.


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2012)

Ah! so the illegality is in not paying use tax on things purchased in Oregon or elsewhere where the sales tax rate is lower than in Washington. Got it.

Somehow it seems to me that the cost of collecting that tax would be higher than the amount collected.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 19, 2012)

Unless and until we have a true "Big Brother" type dictatorship, I do not see how could be enforcable. Likewise, I do not see how this could be illelgal. It is not the government's business where I buy things.

This sort of thing does occur in a place like Singapore, where they check how much gas (petrol in that part of the world) you gauge shows when you drive across the causeway into Malaysia because it is much cheaper in Malaysia. But then, Singapore has a true "big brother" style series of controls on their population.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 19, 2012)

But it is the government's business to see that you pay the tax that you owe.

All they would have to do is audit you. Produce a bank statement that you spent $x at a shop in Oregon, and not have the use tax on your Washington tax return.

Like Jis said, it would likely cost more in enforcement than the tax revenue that it would bring in.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 19, 2012)

George Harris said:


> I do not see how this could be illelgal. It is not the government's business where I buy things.


As I was saying, if you really want to know who is a likely candidate for tax dodging all you have to do let them have their say on the issue. No "big brother" police state dictator required.


----------



## GoldenSpike (Apr 19, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Keep in mind that Clark County is an area where people live because Washington has no personal income tax, and they do their shopping in Oregon where there's no sales tax. All illegal, of course, but hard to catch.


The remark is misleading and you are misinformed.

People move to Clark County because of the many jobs in the Portland OR metro area right acorss the river/stateline. In turn they pay OR income tax.

If as you say they move there because of no sales tax in OR, why are Vancouver businesses busy? Could it be the few bucks they might save is not worth the time and

gas? You are likely right on the purchase of big ticket items.

And, it is not illegal. Please refer to WA RCW 82.08.0273: Exemptions - Sales to nonresidents

The operative words are: *The property is for use outside this state *

"(_b) The purchaser is a bona fide resident of a province or territory of Canada or a state, territory, or possession of the United States, other than the state of Washington; and_

_ _

_ (i) Such state, possession, territory, or province does not impose, or have imposed on its behalf, a generally applicable retail sales tax, use tax, value added tax, gross receipts _

_tax on retailing activities, or similar generally applicable tax, of three percent or more; or..._."

It is win-win for WA and OR businesses and consumers since OR folks can shop tax-free in WA.

But liberal WA government has introduced bills to end the practice to fund happy-face agendas. Clark County businesses oppose this stunt.

What is illegal is the game-playing that has gone on with WA residents to avoid paying for vehicle license plates. OR charges about $40 for two years. In sharp contrast,

WA used to base licensing fees on the value of the vehicle resulting in $300-400 and more per year. A voter initiative ended this thievery by the state. IIRC residents now

pay about $30 per year.

* *


----------



## Blackwolf (Apr 19, 2012)

GoldenSpike said:


> What is illegal is the game-playing that has gone on with WA residents to avoid paying for vehicle license plates. OR charges about $40 for two years. In sharp contrast,
> 
> WA used to base licensing fees on the value of the vehicle resulting in $300-400 and more per year. A voter initiative ended this thievery by the state. IIRC residents now
> 
> pay about $30 per year.


The Oregon license plate/vehicle registration shenanigans are true for those living in California as well. I have seen plenty of Oregon license plates on vehicles parked in driveways here in NorCal, and they are not just visiting. Yes, completely illegal and it can mean for some trouble ($$$$!!!) if/when you get pulled over by the CHP and are found to be living in California for greater than 30 days with out of state plates on your vehicle. But then again, the difference between that $40 for two years in Oregon and $300 a year plus a smog check every other year (and additional $70-$100, even for diesels built after 2007) in California is pretty huge.


----------



## JayPea (Apr 19, 2012)

GoldenSpike said:


> What is illegal is the game-playing that has gone on with WA residents to avoid paying for vehicle license plates. OR charges about $40 for two years. In sharp contrast,
> 
> WA used to base licensing fees on the value of the vehicle resulting in $300-400 and more per year. A voter initiative ended this thievery by the state. IIRC residents now
> 
> ...



For years, before the initiative to roll back car tabs to $30, residents here in Washington were registering their boats in neighboring Idaho. No one locally registered their boat here in Washington. I had no idea (and still don't) what it costs to register a boat, but it must have been a significant amount for folks to go to the bother to register them in Idaho. Laws were passed to end that, and now most here are on the "up and up" with regards to registering their boats. And when the $30 car tab law first went into effect, my car license fees went UP. Under Washington's old system, the amount charged to license a car was tied to the age and value of it. I was driving a bucket of bolts that was barely roadworthy, and was paying $19/year. And, as Washington has no state income tax, and the fees collected for car licenses was a sizable amount that was added to the state's coffers, a huge amount of income, especially in rural areas, was lost. So to offset that huge loss, various fees and taxes were added to other goods and services. My local cable service, for instance, added a $2+change tax to my cable bill. Between one thing and two others, I now pay about $45 for for a $30 car license.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 19, 2012)

I'll note that this is a large part of why I'm opposed to a national sales tax (under any name) replacing the income tax, and I've told more than a few folks this: If you have a 20% tax in that vein (a low estimate by any stretch of the imagination), you're going to get a _lot_ of border-hopping business, especially for things close to but not over the declaration limits (currently $800 per the CBP forms...that'll cover back-to-school shopping pretty easily, for example, and saving $160/trip would be worth the hassle to a lot of folks...especially if they can _also_ fudge the values on things on top of that).


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 19, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I'll note that this is a large part of why I'm opposed to a national sales tax (under any name) replacing the income tax, and I've told more than a few folks this: If you have a 20% tax in that vein (a low estimate by any stretch of the imagination), you're going to get a _lot_ of border-hopping business, especially for things close to but not over the declaration limits (currently $800 per the CBP forms...that'll cover back-to-school shopping pretty easily, for example, and saving $160/trip would be worth the hassle to a lot of folks...especially if they can _also_ fudge the values on things on top of that).


Sales taxes are flat taxes, which means they are mostly regressive in nature. They may look "fair" because everyone pays the exact same rate. However, they are much more punitive to people at the lower rungs of the economic ladder because the relative impact to their purchasing power is far greater. Income tax is at least _intended_ to be progressive. That is to say it's designed to have less impact on those who are struggling and take more from those who can afford it without serious suffering as a result. There are so many gray areas and loopholes that it doesn't always end up working out that way, but at least there is a bit of reason and compassion being applied to the tax rate. As for me, I would support efforts to reduce or even abandon sales taxes altogether and replacing them with increased income and/or capital gains taxes on a sliding scale rate. For most of the 1980's the US had a top tax bracket of 50%. That sounds absolutely crazy today, but it was just a fact of life back then. In the roaring 20's the top tax bracket was around 75%. In the 1950's the top tax bracket was over 90%. But here in 2012 we're told over and over again that today's 35% top tax rate is far too much of a burden for our wealthiest citizens to pay. It seems to me that the whole trickle-down theory has been proven ineffective. We gave it three decades of continuous trials and watched our economy get weaker and weaker with each boom-bust cycle. At this point I'd like to try something else. Something that isn't based on rewarding wealth or punishing poverty. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 20, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I'll note that this is a large part of why I'm opposed to a national sales tax (under any name) replacing the income tax, and I've told more than a few folks this: If you have a 20% tax in that vein (a low estimate by any stretch of the imagination), you're going to get a _lot_ of border-hopping business, especially for things close to but not over the declaration limits (currently $800 per the CBP forms...that'll cover back-to-school shopping pretty easily, for example, and saving $160/trip would be worth the hassle to a lot of folks...especially if they can _also_ fudge the values on things on top of that).
> ...


First of all, please note the fact that I did not apply any moniker to the taxation scheme (in the British sense of the word "scheme") which I described.

During the Roaring 20s, there was a major variation...IINM, Harding and Coolidge worked to cut the top rate _way_ back, into the mid-20s; the super-high rate in the early 20s was an artifact of Wilson and WWI.

Also, there is another fact that is often missed: Those super-high rates were on people earning the equivalent of several million dollars per year, while our current top rates peak out in the $300,000 range. Though the rates were higher overall as a rule, outside of the immediate WW2 era you can generally find that taxes on those earning the equivalent of $100,000-$200,000 to be at the very least not terribly unrecognizable. Likewise, the top income tax rate hits something like 10% of the population (again, I could be wrong here, but based on Wikipedia's income numbers this seems about right).

I'd point out that the reduction in tax rates is almost universal within the Western world as well (Britain had super-high rates into the early 1980s, for example, and it was only over two terms in office that Thatcher was able to cut those back)...the old Beatles line from "Taxman" of "one for you, nineteen for me" or something like that was pretty accurate (and there was even one year in there where a marginal rate on one category of income exceeded 100% due to sloppy legislating).


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Apr 21, 2012)

People that don't want to pay tax dosen't mean they shouldn't like transit.


----------

