In the April 10 Leader, the article purposing a 1.5 percent city income tax on high earners aroused my attention. It was well written and made a very good argument to bear the burden for governmental …
In the April 10 Leader, the article purposing a 1.5 percent city income tax on high earners aroused my attention. It was well written and made a very good argument to bear the burden for governmental services equally. Those that make less pay 16.8 percent tax, while those that make a lot pay only 2.4 percent just isn’t equitable, which suggests a flat federal income tax might simplify things as well as make things more equitable.
Now, how the government decides to spend those funds might be a more appropriate focus.
In the objectionable column is $500,000 given to the Fort Worden PDA, $1 million for beach access at the Maritime Center, opting for a $22 million water treatment plant instead of the $16 million option, and now affordable housing for $500,000, etc. And on the positive side: roads, fire protection, police protection and schools.
I have a house in Port Townsend, and from 2006 to 2016 my real estate taxes increased 66 percent, while the CPI only rose 21 percent. I also have a house in Port Hadlock that increased by only 24 percent. My point is Port Townsend’s spending choices should be curbed to support the positive needs and scale back the objectionable needs.
To give a spigot to my bank account, called income tax to any government, only seems to encourage the objectionable and curb the positive. What about the debt?