<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Wednesday,  April 17 , 2024

Linkedin Pinterest
News / Opinion / Columns

Jayne: Let’s talk about taxes – without the political rhetoric

By Greg Jayne, Columbian Opinion Page Editor
Published: November 8, 2015, 6:04am

Hey, I don’t like taxes, either.

Trying to raise three kids and trying to figure out how to eventually pay for college and trying to pay the bills, every dollar matters. All this despite my exorbitant salary as a journalist (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). These struggles, I’m sure, are shared by a lot of people, and I am well aware that many families have it tougher than we do.

But while I often am annoyed by taxes and typically feel that my wife and I can spend our money more efficiently than the government can, I also am annoyed by rhetoric. Webster’s tells us that rhetoric means “language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable,” and it seems as though that is the accepted standard when it comes to talking about taxes.

Which brings us to a discussion The Columbian’s Editorial Board had Friday with Susan Hutchison, the chair of the state Republican Party.

By the ultimate scorecard of political success, Hutchison is doing a bang-up job. Republicans are winning elections and have made strong gains in both houses of the Legislature since she took over in 2013, turning Washington into a two-party state after decades of Democratic dominance. Whether or not they can win a statewide election remains to be seen, but that is a discussion for another time.

Because, for now, I am curious about Hutchison’s use of time-tested Republican talking points. You know, the ones about taxes being too high and regulations being too strict and Washington being too burdensome on citizens and businesses.

As I said, these are time-tested assertions. Why, a quick check of last year’s campaign website for state Rep. Liz Pike, R-Camas, reveals this as the first item under the “Issues” tab: “Repeal job killing regulations.” The campaign page for state Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, states, “I support regulatory stability and oppose excessive regulations that drive up costs.” There are more, but you get the point.

Washington looks strong

Anyway, Hutchison pointed out that California has the highest taxes in the Western United States, and she said businesses and jobs are fleeing that state. But some recent headlines from the Los Angeles Times include these: “California tops other states in job growth” and “Job growth in California soars.” So much for that talking point.

Hutchison also said that business regulations in Washington are harmful to the economy, but Forbes last month ranked the state as having the 10th-best climate for business in the country. Among other accolades, Forbes noted, “Venture capitalists are always searching for the next great Washington company, pouring $2.9 billion of VC money — fifth most in the U.S. — into the state between 2012 and 2014.” This is, after all, the state that spawned Amazon, Costco, Microsoft and Starbucks. We must be doing something right.

Also notable among the Forbes report is the state’s rankings of No. 2 in growth prospects and No. 4 in labor supply. It is that second number that brings us to the idea of personal taxes, because a strong labor supply requires a strong education system, and a strong education system requires a strong tax base. Believe it or not, schools don’t generate their own revenue, as much as Tim Eyman would like them to.

For a report last April, Forbes and The Tax Foundation examined income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes for each state. It determined that Washington residents face the 24th heaviest tax burden, a ranking consistent with similar studies from other groups.

That might or might not be too heavy. I don’t know. But it seems as though being in the middle is a reasonable and defensible position.

Whether or not we like taxes, some investments make sense from a public policy standpoint. Others do not. Either way, we need to talk about them in an analytical fashion that is supported by facts rather than the rhetoric of well-honed talking points.

Loading...