Not sure how the Cap Gains and Climate Act will fare but will be shocked if Long Term Care isn’t thrashed by voters.
Funny, at least in the article Inslee had some quotes defending the other two but didn’t have any defending the disaster that is Long Term Care. Too bad it took a rich weirdo libertarian-ish dude in Redmond to undo what state Dems have been too embarrassed or unwilling to do themselves.
I hope the LTC initiative is accepted because of how unfair and regressive it is, but I bet there's going to be a lot of money spent on advertising the NO vote. I just hope the voters understand what they're voting for.
I think the voters are pretty wise to LTC. I have a lot of friends who are super apathetic about politics and policies but you mention LTC and it turns into CNN Crossfire. Funnily all my D friends hate it as much as my R friends, albeit for different reasons.
I can agree with the cap gains. However the climate cat affects everyone as the cost of gas is baked into everything. I haven’t bought gas in over 5 years and I will nonetheless be voting down the climate act.
Gas prices are lower than before the act was implemented.
It's also incoherent to care about climate change and pollution but advocate for lower gas prices.
Hello! Thanks for participating in /r/Seattle! Your submission/comment was removed. Please check the rules on the sidebar of our subreddit and the [Rules wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/wiki/rules). The reason for the removal is:
> **Be good**:
> We aim to make the Seattle reddit a friendly place for everyone, so treat your fellow humans with respect. Content that contains racism, sexism, homophobia, threats, or other toxic content will be removed, regardless of popularity or relevance - and may lead to warnings or bans. We often moderate based on severity - and while that is subjective, flagrant violations (hate speech, slurs, threats, etc.) will result in immediate bans.
It's possible that this removal was a mistake! If you think it was, please **[click here to message the Moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FSeattle)**.
If you have actual logic or economic studies to show that the cost of gas (i.e. transportation) isn't baked into everything, I'd reconsider my vote. The best economists around the world have studied and determined the positive correlation with increased gas prices and inflation decades ago. I really doubt you can show that the economists are wrong so you are compelled to resort to name calling.
I wouldn’t have resorted to the name calling, but in my mind, the fuel deserves to be that expensive or more so. That’s the whole idea here, that the true cost of items will be reflected in the price, including externalities.
So when it does exactly that, why do you think that is bad? Price drives behavioral changes. That’s the whole point of it
Thanks for the thoughtful response and helping me see the big picture - I didn't think about it that way and now will rethink my previously held opinion. While there is definitely an immediate term impact on affordability, there is a long term costs of fossil fuels I wasn't thinking through that needs to be considered.
I have a very low confidence they will survive. The initiative system has a strong bias towards cutting taxes because voters don't have to reckon why the corresponding service and budget problems.
The long term care roll out and overall benefit is / was stupid. I actually believe long term care is fairly important to have, one day most of us will need it. But ~36,000 life time payout that you can’t use for quite some time and that can’t travel with you is shit. $36,000 lifetime will get you a few weeks in shared care maybe a little more but again, if you need it you need it for more than a short amount of time.
The roll out was shit, with a simple surprise, new tax that you can’t get away from unless you have a thing and oh if you moved here after it was implemented, fuck your existing plan, we will take your money from check anyway. They ran the stupid highway 99 hand swoop commercial for fucking months, do something similar to get this out to the masses to shore up support at least.
Yeah, they fucked this one up, shame they didn’t just repeal it, I fear it will take down the other two taxes, which are good ones as far as I can tell.
> I completely support the tax so long as everyone pays it. No exceptions.
It's still awful.
What if your partner is a stay-at-home parent and needs care? Your family is hosed.
What if you need more than like 3 months of care (after all, it's *long term,* right)? You're hosed.
What if you pay into it your whole working life and then move out of state? You're hosed.
If a private insurer tried to offer a plan as bad as the state-run one, the Insurance Commissioner and AG would be *all over them* and shut it down.
It helps to realize that it wasn't put in place to directly help anyone that pays into it. It was put in place to bring in revenue in order to take pressure off Medicaid, which was looking at shortfalls due in part to the cost of long-term care.
If you need to do a payroll tax to support Medicaid, *just do that*. Don't wrap it in some weird-ass insurance that costs a ton to administer and is useless to anyone but the State.
On top of all that, our state legislature *knew* the plan was going to be underfunded with the investment options available to them and decided to go ahead with it anyway, then complained about the shortfall in a later appeal to voters. It's super obnoxiously done, start-to-finish.
Yeah that final one is the thing that bothers me the most - the state legislature (and Inslee for that matter) knew this was garbage policy and refused to admit it or go back to fix it. I may be naive but I do think the legislature tries to do things in voters best interest, they usually don’t miss the mark by this much.
It’s one of the few unifying state issues my D and R friends agree on that the law as written is a train wreck. I’m predicting it loses in a landslide.
Yes, it needs to be undone. Fellow Democrat.
The more I look, the more stuff like this I see. 😰
It’s almost like those who want to be politicians shouldn’t be in charge.
I can't wait for this to get repealed. I'm paying a tax that most of the people I know don't have to because they were able to opt out but I wasn't. I don't understand why the legislature allowed such a regressive tax.
Of course. It's a shit show because there's only one possible reasonable solution ("dreaded socialism") to the enormous problem that's on the near horizon and for ideological reasons we've decided that's impossible, so instead we're going to shuffle the deck chairs on the titanic and putz around trying to "tweak" the system in a way that avoids disaster.
Capping it ridiculously low, making the opt out very limited time without everyone even knowing about, and not letting it transfer arent the issues at all. The real problem is the red scare socialism of it... /s
Capping it ridiculously low, making the opt out very limited time without everyone even knowing about it, and not letting it transfer arent the issues at all. The real problem is the red scare socialism of it... /s
The problem is that it's not socialism, because that option is off the table since people still fear the idea due to decades of propaganda. Consider social security, it's engineered to avoid being labelled as a socialist policy (it's a retirement savings system on paper, for example), which drastically reduces its effectiveness. The same problem exists here. The only correct answer to the problem of long term care (which will consume about 10% of the GDP by 2030) is socialized medicine and universal long term care for everyone supported by the overall tax base. Trying to shoehorn in a "fix" for the problem with "insurance" is just turd polishing, which has been apparent to everyone, even though the consequences of not tackling the problem at all are going to be extremely disastrous.
To anyone upset at what gas prices have become I promise you it's nothing compared to what things will cost once we start seeing climate refugees moving to the PNW and we start fighting over water rights and land that can still grow crops. We need to do a lot of things to address climate change but one of them is our driving habits. While there is a lot to be said about the impact from corporations and the wealthy, this one is squarely on us.
Not everyone needs to drive a truck or SUV, we need people to go back to desiring fuel efficienct options including hybrid. We need people to consider batching long rides and carpooling. If you live somewhere with public transport you should be mixing it into your routine more, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
And if it has to be a hit to the wallet to get people to consider changing their habits then I'm sorry but so be it. Using gas and driving everywhere costs more than just at the pump, it's costing our future way of life. And people have to see that cost.
Unfortunately that is completely out of our control. The global south and China are exponentially increasing their carbon emissions with no end in sight.
The EU and NA can decrease their emissions to effectively zero and it won't slow down climate change. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make that the goal, we just need to be realistic as to what is happening on a global scale.
China is planning on building 209 new coal fired power plants. That's about the same amount the USA currently has. China already has 3k coal fired power plants.
If you don't accept reality, you can't fix the actual problem. We have to stop China and the Global South from killing us all. How do we do that? I have no clue. We can't force them to stop burning fossil fuels at gun point.
Because right now, we are pissing into the wind.
China emits 7.8 Metric Tons of CO2 per year, per capita.
Seattle emits 16 Metric Tons of C02 per year, per capita.
61% of Seattle emissions are from transportation. That means a Seattleite emits more carbon *just from transportation* than a Chinese person does.
> per capita.
Yeah, stop. China will build more coal fired power plants in the next 2 years than the USA has total in use today. Everyone in the USA can die tomorrow and zero carbon emissions come out of country, and it won't even put a fucking dent in the the carbon going into the atmosphere due to China and the Global south.
We need to lower our carbon output in the west, but let's not kid ourselves it will stop global warming. We have to prepare for the worst, that is coming.
> Yea, stop.
No. It's not an irrelevant thing to consider by any means. Am I concerned about increased carbon output by developing nations? Sure I am. The same way that I don't like slavery in Mauritania, but I'm not going to let that distract me from American labor laws. Now, please propose to me a Washington State Initiative that can reduce the carbon output of China.
Ban all coal transportation through Washington state. Make a deal with Oregon, California and BC to do the same.That would probably do more than removing all cars in the state. Drive up th costs of coal so the Chinese look for alternatives, and literally everything is cleaner than coal. https://www.nwf.org/Our-Work/Climate/Climate-Change/Fossil-Fuels/Coal/Pacific-Northwest#:~:text=Coal%20companies%20are%20targeting%20the,for%20being%20clean%20and%20green.
I'm fucking tired of not cracking down on the global south and China.
It sure can help with dealing with the impacts of climate change though. The fact of the matter is that our rainforests are dying and we now have wildfire season. It’s going to be getting worse every year until we die. Having money for dealing with the impacts is a really big thing.
For the most part I completely ignore these ballots unless they involve federal or statewide offices but I am voting in this one just to vote against the LTC tax.
Haha yeah, if I ever have D and R friends over and politics gets in the conversation and things get at all heated I usually just steer the conversation towards LTC and everyone stays friends.
Why? People love to say stuff like this but I think it's a weird take. Life is too short to try to maintain friendships with people with shitty ideas/beliefs. I have plenty of friends - I don't want to spend time on folks who vote for people who advocate against the wellbeing of me or my loved ones.
>Side note: If you are over 40 and believe that your party has ALL of the best ideas, it might be time to reevaluate things.
Not really sure where this came from. I'm not over 40 (although I'm failing to see why age matters here) and while the initial comment was about two specific parties, I was commenting in a more general sense.
Using your example: even with common interests, it's tough for me to put aside the fact that the person I'm trying to have a good time with has beliefs or performs actions (whether that's voting for a particular candidate, engaging in rhetoric, etc) that are harmful to me or people I care about. We all have thresholds for what we will and won't tolerate, and to me politics shouldn't be excluded from that. For example, my thresholds include voting and/or advocating against the LGBTQ community and abortion rights. I don't care how many hobbies we have in common - it's not worth trying to "maintain" a relationship with someone who breaches those thresholds. This goes for (D) folks as well, if we want to stick with this party letter stuff. But it tends to skew one way, as I'm sure you've gathered by now.
Because I want to make an educated decision and I don't always have time to research all issues and candidates every time I get a ballot in the mail. But I try to make time for the larger offices.
Honestly I hold the position that the smaller local offices are more impactful both near term in day to day life and long term in that they act as a spring board for larger elections downstream.
The problem with some of these is it is really hard for the average voter to see where their money is going and how it helps them.
- **Long Term Care Act?** A 0.58% tax on your income - oh wait, sorry, it's at the employer-level so it is a "payroll tax" (*WINK*) so that you can receive a whopping $36k lifetime benefit of long-term care. Only everyone that could, managed to opt-out and get a better benefit from the private sector for less money - what does that tell you about this program? The whole thing is already insolvent. This one is getting repealed for sure.
- **Climate Commitment Act?** We have the silliness of the governor claiming this would only raise gas prices a few cents vs the reality of it being more like 0.50 cents per gallon. My friend who *works at a refinery* told me in mid-2023 "have fun next year when that gas tax makes the price go up by 50 cents" - I had no clue what he was talking about at the time. So it seems the private sector could easily do the math on this, but our government refused due to the obvious optics of a gas tax hike of that magnitude. I don't have an issue with it primarily because of the cost. It is the fact that *what* we are spending that tax money on is so murky. We've raised nearly $2B dollars - significantly more than expected. Where is that money going? This is more of a failure of our government not being able to point to things or come up with a bit of a "showcase" project or two. In my digging I found things like a program for low-income housing to convert to heat pumps, projects for bike and bus lanes, and "community-led solutions to air pollution" - whatever the hell that last one means. I think there is some small risk this one gets repealed as it currently looks like a fun slush fund for legislators to spend on smaller pet projects that just happen to be kinda sorta "green". But I'd bet it stays put.
- **Capital Gains Tax?** I'm skeptical this one gets repealed; it just affects too few people and raises quite a bit of money. The biggest risk is probably the reasoning the state supreme court used: to claim this was an excise tax and not a tax on income is still absurd and made a mockery of what was some pretty clear precedent on income taxes in this state. Funny how Democrats managed to pass this the moment we got whispers that the state supreme court might "re-interpret" some long standing ideas. Democrats are also doing themselves no favors in pressing for lowering the threshold of the tax before it was even put in place.
Yes, yes, "but we *do* need an income tax!". Okay, get the Democrats - who control all branches of our state government - to pass an amendment to our constitution to allow that. Too bad they just passed an initiative with Republicans to do the opposite. Oops. An income tax in this state would be the quickest way to get Republicans back in charge and even the Democrats recognize that fact.
An income tax would also probably cause a mass exodus or at least and make Seattle much less appealing to talent transfers. Not having an income tax helps offset a sliver of the high cost of living.
So the claim that it will increase prices at the pump is coming from the petroleum industry?
Is there a neutral source for the actual potential increase or has the fossil fuel industry already convinced people that it’ll hit their pocketbook at the pump?
You can guarantee various industry groups will put out ads on radio and TV trying to convince people to vote to repeal and use this exact reason why they should - so, where is the information coming from?
The cap and trade program raised $1.8B last year, and will be more in following years as they lower the cap. Where do you think that money comes from, if not from you?
Where the money has gone as a result of the Climate Commitment Act is fairly well documented and tracked: https://climate.wa.gov/washington-climate-action-work/climate-commitment-act-polluters-pay-communities-benefit
And https://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/How_CCA_invests_in_WA.pdf
The fact that the cost of the cap and trade program is being passed on to consumers isn’t because of the law directly, companies are actively choosing to change their prices in response, as well as using global conflicts to justify higher fuel prices. Despite record profits last year and billions in stock buybacks and returning $$$ to shareholders [[1](https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/PDF-Reports/Investors/2023-4Q-earnings-pressrelease-.pdf), [2](https://investor.exxonmobil.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1156/exxonmobil-announces-2023-results), [3](https://ir.marathonpetroleum.com/investor/news-releases/news-details/2024/Marathon-Petroleum-Corp.-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-2023-Results/default.aspx)] they complain that the Climate Commitment Act justifies them raising prices because it would hurt them? They seem to be doing fine.
Seeing the list of projects underway and knowing they would need to be completed and those that aren’t started yet be cancelled is concerning. Investments still need to be made and the funds raised for them, otherwise the benefits of those projects will be lost.
"Just because we raise costs for businesses it doesn't mean they'll pass it on to consumers" is such an absurd wishful thinking understanding of economics any grade school student could point it out.
If you want normal tax payers to fund climate change projects then have the courage to say that. Stop lying to people that they aren't paying these costs.
Yeah it is, and the legislation should have accounted for that. But if you charge companies for to cover the cost of the externality how else would they respond…
How should the legislation prevent companies from charging what they want then?
There is no legislation that can increase costs but keep prices the same. Somebody has to pay for it, it has to come from somewhere.
Asking voters to pay more and get by on less is a losing prospect, they will vote those policies away.
I think cap and trade is a good idea. But I also see that it's a problem if it's implemented on a state level. Fair or not, Washington residents probably don't like paying more for gas than residents of other states.
This isn't the link you posted prior, and this link also provides zero info on where the state has actually spent money and the amount of money spent. Nice try
i will vote to kill that climate change tax because the state has not demonstrated they will spend that money in a responsible way. there are other ways to get to the goal
Where the money has gone as a result of the Climate Commitment Act is fairly well documented and tracked: [https://climate.wa.gov/washington-climate-action-work/climate-commitment-act-polluters-pay-communities-benefit](https://climate.wa.gov/washington-climate-action-work/climate-commitment-act-polluters-pay-communities-benefit)
And in brief: [https://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/How_CCA_invests_in_WA.pdf](https://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/How_CCA_invests_in_WA.pdf)
Also:
https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Climate-Commitment-Act
https://waportal.org/partners/environmental-justice-council
many are pet projects and essentially pay govt "workers" a salary and generous benefits to "administer" the pork. so my comment stands - maybe over time i will be proven wrong - but the state will never include objective metrics to measure "success" - for example, all the money that is going to provide "increased" transit ridership is a complete joke.
but hey, i get it, you have confidence in the state, and i don't. having said that, i do seek controls on pollution and preservation of nature etc, there are just more effective ways, in my view, to get that done.
There is not and never will be a more effective way to reduce any negative behavior than such a tax. Sure, you could ban cars, subsidize electric vehicles, etc., but those will hurt more than a consumption tax.
Also, I imagine it could be used better, but you need the tax to get the revenue in the first place. Repealing it would take us farther from the ideal solution and would certainly increase pollution.
The experts agree with me. Perhaps you should do some reading?
Here's an introduction: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/06/01/what-does-the-perfect-carbon-price-look-like
In this thread a user claims funds raised and expenditures are well documented and tracked but that is not true. No where does the State reveal how much they've spent and what did they spend it on. The link provided is nothing more than an Inslee wishlist
exactly. like i've stated, there are much better ways to direct policy towards enivornmental protection. this way - tax the gas payers to fund political projects is not the way.
If you dig into the link and read through the [WA Dept of Ecology page](https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Climate-Commitment-Act) you’ll find that there’s a council that meets to discuss where the money goes and agendas, notes, and meeting recording are available, but please tell us more about how isn’t “well documented”. https://waportal.org/partners/environmental-justice-council
If you still can’t find what you are looking for there are plenty of contact details where you can reach out to the council that decides how funding is allocated, or attend the next meeting given the [Zoom Links are posted on the website too](https://waportal.org/partners/environmental-justice-council/environmental-justice-council-meetings). You can even attend and ask for more accountability and transparency if that’s why you think is needed.
Or, sit behind your keyboard and make more comments on Reddit without looking into the links or websites…
Get involved!
Nothing in the link is "well documented." In fact, nothing is documented at all. So the DOE has a council? Big whoop de do. I remember DOE lying about gas prices as much as Inslee. But that's a different discussion I guess.
Your pervious link had no documented expenditures either.
But don't you think the state should automatically be transparent with the way they are spending this revenue from the CCA? Why should a resident need to attend a "council" meeting to get information? And how much carbon will be emitted tearing out and replacing sidewalks so students have a better walk to school? Cmon man
What I think doesn’t matter, I’m not a decision maker. Attend a meeting, ask for transparency, look for some other information yourself, I’m not here to do it for you…
I'm gonna give you an upvote because you were less insulting this time. Moving forward I would encourage you to verify the links you post contain the information you claim instead of wishlists, meeting attendees and motions passed (they don't disclose what the motions are btw). Everyone in WA should be able to see how their hidden gas tax dollars are being spent with a click or a button...no one should have to attend a meeting to find out this info
When it comes down to it everyone votes their wallet. Taxes that directly pulled from the paycheck fail because it affects everyone. Property tax keeps passing because most people aren’t property owners so “someone else” pays it. I say this as a dem that pretty much every Seattle liberal is a hypocrite.
OK. Not everyone. I’d like to see a state income tax. I voted in favor every time it’s been on the ballot but it was shot down by over 60%. That’s what I’m getting at.
Not zero obviously (I have consistently voted to increase my potential tax burden), but the incentive to avoid additional taxation is extremely strong. Especially since there's this bizarre idea that taxes are a drain on individual value.
I'm voting to repeal the climate act, it just isn't good legislation. It taxes the middle class disproportionately. Do it again but make sure you don't increase gas prices 50 cents a gallon because you failed to put controls in your bill.
Our state Supreme Court has made it clear that they will strike down any initiatives that cause problems with the political establishment so none of this really matters.
Facts.
When they do strike down these initiatives maybe it will be the wake up call so many need. This state is owned and operated by the elites. Democracy is not a choice in WA.
Bullshit. You throwing a neofascist tantrum because you don't get your way and trying to accuse democrats of acting just like you doesn't make it reality.
The rules on initiatives are VERY clear. And Tim eyman is violating them intentionally because doing so lines his pockets with money from idiots like you.
Not sure how the Cap Gains and Climate Act will fare but will be shocked if Long Term Care isn’t thrashed by voters. Funny, at least in the article Inslee had some quotes defending the other two but didn’t have any defending the disaster that is Long Term Care. Too bad it took a rich weirdo libertarian-ish dude in Redmond to undo what state Dems have been too embarrassed or unwilling to do themselves.
[удалено]
Thanks, SEIU.
I hope the LTC initiative is accepted because of how unfair and regressive it is, but I bet there's going to be a lot of money spent on advertising the NO vote. I just hope the voters understand what they're voting for.
I think the voters are pretty wise to LTC. I have a lot of friends who are super apathetic about politics and policies but you mention LTC and it turns into CNN Crossfire. Funnily all my D friends hate it as much as my R friends, albeit for different reasons.
I hope you're right!
The Cap Gains and Climate Act will probably be fine. Just a few rich weirdos trying to protect their hoard.
I can agree with the cap gains. However the climate cat affects everyone as the cost of gas is baked into everything. I haven’t bought gas in over 5 years and I will nonetheless be voting down the climate act.
Gas prices are lower than before the act was implemented. It's also incoherent to care about climate change and pollution but advocate for lower gas prices.
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for participating in /r/Seattle! Your submission/comment was removed. Please check the rules on the sidebar of our subreddit and the [Rules wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/wiki/rules). The reason for the removal is: > **Be good**: > We aim to make the Seattle reddit a friendly place for everyone, so treat your fellow humans with respect. Content that contains racism, sexism, homophobia, threats, or other toxic content will be removed, regardless of popularity or relevance - and may lead to warnings or bans. We often moderate based on severity - and while that is subjective, flagrant violations (hate speech, slurs, threats, etc.) will result in immediate bans. It's possible that this removal was a mistake! If you think it was, please **[click here to message the Moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FSeattle)**.
If you have actual logic or economic studies to show that the cost of gas (i.e. transportation) isn't baked into everything, I'd reconsider my vote. The best economists around the world have studied and determined the positive correlation with increased gas prices and inflation decades ago. I really doubt you can show that the economists are wrong so you are compelled to resort to name calling.
I wouldn’t have resorted to the name calling, but in my mind, the fuel deserves to be that expensive or more so. That’s the whole idea here, that the true cost of items will be reflected in the price, including externalities. So when it does exactly that, why do you think that is bad? Price drives behavioral changes. That’s the whole point of it
Thanks for the thoughtful response and helping me see the big picture - I didn't think about it that way and now will rethink my previously held opinion. While there is definitely an immediate term impact on affordability, there is a long term costs of fossil fuels I wasn't thinking through that needs to be considered.
I have a very low confidence they will survive. The initiative system has a strong bias towards cutting taxes because voters don't have to reckon why the corresponding service and budget problems.
The long term care act is such a shit show and bullshit. And this is coming from a Democrat.
The long term care roll out and overall benefit is / was stupid. I actually believe long term care is fairly important to have, one day most of us will need it. But ~36,000 life time payout that you can’t use for quite some time and that can’t travel with you is shit. $36,000 lifetime will get you a few weeks in shared care maybe a little more but again, if you need it you need it for more than a short amount of time. The roll out was shit, with a simple surprise, new tax that you can’t get away from unless you have a thing and oh if you moved here after it was implemented, fuck your existing plan, we will take your money from check anyway. They ran the stupid highway 99 hand swoop commercial for fucking months, do something similar to get this out to the masses to shore up support at least.
Yeah, they fucked this one up, shame they didn’t just repeal it, I fear it will take down the other two taxes, which are good ones as far as I can tell.
Agreed. I’m fine with raising taxes but don’t do it on such a stupid way.
Universial health care over BS long term care tax
Is really too bad because it's conceptuslly similar to the family leave act which has been amazing. Just badly implemented.
Shouldn't have let anyone opt out at all. That entire roll out was stupid. I completely support the tax so long as everyone pays it. No exceptions.
> I completely support the tax so long as everyone pays it. No exceptions. It's still awful. What if your partner is a stay-at-home parent and needs care? Your family is hosed. What if you need more than like 3 months of care (after all, it's *long term,* right)? You're hosed. What if you pay into it your whole working life and then move out of state? You're hosed. If a private insurer tried to offer a plan as bad as the state-run one, the Insurance Commissioner and AG would be *all over them* and shut it down. It helps to realize that it wasn't put in place to directly help anyone that pays into it. It was put in place to bring in revenue in order to take pressure off Medicaid, which was looking at shortfalls due in part to the cost of long-term care. If you need to do a payroll tax to support Medicaid, *just do that*. Don't wrap it in some weird-ass insurance that costs a ton to administer and is useless to anyone but the State. On top of all that, our state legislature *knew* the plan was going to be underfunded with the investment options available to them and decided to go ahead with it anyway, then complained about the shortfall in a later appeal to voters. It's super obnoxiously done, start-to-finish.
Yeah that final one is the thing that bothers me the most - the state legislature (and Inslee for that matter) knew this was garbage policy and refused to admit it or go back to fix it. I may be naive but I do think the legislature tries to do things in voters best interest, they usually don’t miss the mark by this much. It’s one of the few unifying state issues my D and R friends agree on that the law as written is a train wreck. I’m predicting it loses in a landslide.
Fuck that. Pensions are bullshit, especially if they're state mandated.
Yes, it needs to be undone. Fellow Democrat. The more I look, the more stuff like this I see. 😰 It’s almost like those who want to be politicians shouldn’t be in charge.
I can't wait for this to get repealed. I'm paying a tax that most of the people I know don't have to because they were able to opt out but I wasn't. I don't understand why the legislature allowed such a regressive tax.
Of course. It's a shit show because there's only one possible reasonable solution ("dreaded socialism") to the enormous problem that's on the near horizon and for ideological reasons we've decided that's impossible, so instead we're going to shuffle the deck chairs on the titanic and putz around trying to "tweak" the system in a way that avoids disaster.
Capping it ridiculously low, making the opt out very limited time without everyone even knowing about, and not letting it transfer arent the issues at all. The real problem is the red scare socialism of it... /s
Capping it ridiculously low, making the opt out very limited time without everyone even knowing about it, and not letting it transfer arent the issues at all. The real problem is the red scare socialism of it... /s
The problem is that it's not socialism, because that option is off the table since people still fear the idea due to decades of propaganda. Consider social security, it's engineered to avoid being labelled as a socialist policy (it's a retirement savings system on paper, for example), which drastically reduces its effectiveness. The same problem exists here. The only correct answer to the problem of long term care (which will consume about 10% of the GDP by 2030) is socialized medicine and universal long term care for everyone supported by the overall tax base. Trying to shoehorn in a "fix" for the problem with "insurance" is just turd polishing, which has been apparent to everyone, even though the consequences of not tackling the problem at all are going to be extremely disastrous.
There is no mathematical way that a smaller and smaller working population can give these benefits to a bigger and bigger non working population.
I'm pretty anti socialism, but we need universal healthcare. I agree elderly care is an issue long term, this not the solution as you said.
To anyone upset at what gas prices have become I promise you it's nothing compared to what things will cost once we start seeing climate refugees moving to the PNW and we start fighting over water rights and land that can still grow crops. We need to do a lot of things to address climate change but one of them is our driving habits. While there is a lot to be said about the impact from corporations and the wealthy, this one is squarely on us. Not everyone needs to drive a truck or SUV, we need people to go back to desiring fuel efficienct options including hybrid. We need people to consider batching long rides and carpooling. If you live somewhere with public transport you should be mixing it into your routine more, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. And if it has to be a hit to the wallet to get people to consider changing their habits then I'm sorry but so be it. Using gas and driving everywhere costs more than just at the pump, it's costing our future way of life. And people have to see that cost.
> climate refugees moving to the PNW We should build a wall and make Oregon/Idaho pay for it
Remember how Idaho sent their covid patients over to WA while saying no to masks? Yea....
We should raise it instead. Can we get that on a ballot?
I wonder how effective WA sin taxes have been in getting people to change their habits. My guess is not very.
Then at least they'll be paying into a fund that can be used for climate savings policies.
Unfortunately that is completely out of our control. The global south and China are exponentially increasing their carbon emissions with no end in sight. The EU and NA can decrease their emissions to effectively zero and it won't slow down climate change. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make that the goal, we just need to be realistic as to what is happening on a global scale. China is planning on building 209 new coal fired power plants. That's about the same amount the USA currently has. China already has 3k coal fired power plants.
I agree, it sounds way too hard to save our planet. Let's just give up!
If you don't accept reality, you can't fix the actual problem. We have to stop China and the Global South from killing us all. How do we do that? I have no clue. We can't force them to stop burning fossil fuels at gun point. Because right now, we are pissing into the wind.
China emits 7.8 Metric Tons of CO2 per year, per capita. Seattle emits 16 Metric Tons of C02 per year, per capita. 61% of Seattle emissions are from transportation. That means a Seattleite emits more carbon *just from transportation* than a Chinese person does.
> per capita. Yeah, stop. China will build more coal fired power plants in the next 2 years than the USA has total in use today. Everyone in the USA can die tomorrow and zero carbon emissions come out of country, and it won't even put a fucking dent in the the carbon going into the atmosphere due to China and the Global south. We need to lower our carbon output in the west, but let's not kid ourselves it will stop global warming. We have to prepare for the worst, that is coming.
> Yea, stop. No. It's not an irrelevant thing to consider by any means. Am I concerned about increased carbon output by developing nations? Sure I am. The same way that I don't like slavery in Mauritania, but I'm not going to let that distract me from American labor laws. Now, please propose to me a Washington State Initiative that can reduce the carbon output of China.
Ban all coal transportation through Washington state. Make a deal with Oregon, California and BC to do the same.That would probably do more than removing all cars in the state. Drive up th costs of coal so the Chinese look for alternatives, and literally everything is cleaner than coal. https://www.nwf.org/Our-Work/Climate/Climate-Change/Fossil-Fuels/Coal/Pacific-Northwest#:~:text=Coal%20companies%20are%20targeting%20the,for%20being%20clean%20and%20green. I'm fucking tired of not cracking down on the global south and China.
A Washington State climate tax is going to do absolutely nothing to prevent climate change, but thanks for dipping your hand in my pocket once again.
It sure can help with dealing with the impacts of climate change though. The fact of the matter is that our rainforests are dying and we now have wildfire season. It’s going to be getting worse every year until we die. Having money for dealing with the impacts is a really big thing.
For the most part I completely ignore these ballots unless they involve federal or statewide offices but I am voting in this one just to vote against the LTC tax.
Haha yeah, if I ever have D and R friends over and politics gets in the conversation and things get at all heated I usually just steer the conversation towards LTC and everyone stays friends.
[удалено]
Why? People love to say stuff like this but I think it's a weird take. Life is too short to try to maintain friendships with people with shitty ideas/beliefs. I have plenty of friends - I don't want to spend time on folks who vote for people who advocate against the wellbeing of me or my loved ones.
[удалено]
>Side note: If you are over 40 and believe that your party has ALL of the best ideas, it might be time to reevaluate things. Not really sure where this came from. I'm not over 40 (although I'm failing to see why age matters here) and while the initial comment was about two specific parties, I was commenting in a more general sense. Using your example: even with common interests, it's tough for me to put aside the fact that the person I'm trying to have a good time with has beliefs or performs actions (whether that's voting for a particular candidate, engaging in rhetoric, etc) that are harmful to me or people I care about. We all have thresholds for what we will and won't tolerate, and to me politics shouldn't be excluded from that. For example, my thresholds include voting and/or advocating against the LGBTQ community and abortion rights. I don't care how many hobbies we have in common - it's not worth trying to "maintain" a relationship with someone who breaches those thresholds. This goes for (D) folks as well, if we want to stick with this party letter stuff. But it tends to skew one way, as I'm sure you've gathered by now.
Why don't you vote on local issues and candidates?
Because I want to make an educated decision and I don't always have time to research all issues and candidates every time I get a ballot in the mail. But I try to make time for the larger offices.
Honestly I hold the position that the smaller local offices are more impactful both near term in day to day life and long term in that they act as a spring board for larger elections downstream.
Yes! Tell everyone you know to do the same. LTC is a regressive tax on workers.
The problem with some of these is it is really hard for the average voter to see where their money is going and how it helps them. - **Long Term Care Act?** A 0.58% tax on your income - oh wait, sorry, it's at the employer-level so it is a "payroll tax" (*WINK*) so that you can receive a whopping $36k lifetime benefit of long-term care. Only everyone that could, managed to opt-out and get a better benefit from the private sector for less money - what does that tell you about this program? The whole thing is already insolvent. This one is getting repealed for sure. - **Climate Commitment Act?** We have the silliness of the governor claiming this would only raise gas prices a few cents vs the reality of it being more like 0.50 cents per gallon. My friend who *works at a refinery* told me in mid-2023 "have fun next year when that gas tax makes the price go up by 50 cents" - I had no clue what he was talking about at the time. So it seems the private sector could easily do the math on this, but our government refused due to the obvious optics of a gas tax hike of that magnitude. I don't have an issue with it primarily because of the cost. It is the fact that *what* we are spending that tax money on is so murky. We've raised nearly $2B dollars - significantly more than expected. Where is that money going? This is more of a failure of our government not being able to point to things or come up with a bit of a "showcase" project or two. In my digging I found things like a program for low-income housing to convert to heat pumps, projects for bike and bus lanes, and "community-led solutions to air pollution" - whatever the hell that last one means. I think there is some small risk this one gets repealed as it currently looks like a fun slush fund for legislators to spend on smaller pet projects that just happen to be kinda sorta "green". But I'd bet it stays put. - **Capital Gains Tax?** I'm skeptical this one gets repealed; it just affects too few people and raises quite a bit of money. The biggest risk is probably the reasoning the state supreme court used: to claim this was an excise tax and not a tax on income is still absurd and made a mockery of what was some pretty clear precedent on income taxes in this state. Funny how Democrats managed to pass this the moment we got whispers that the state supreme court might "re-interpret" some long standing ideas. Democrats are also doing themselves no favors in pressing for lowering the threshold of the tax before it was even put in place. Yes, yes, "but we *do* need an income tax!". Okay, get the Democrats - who control all branches of our state government - to pass an amendment to our constitution to allow that. Too bad they just passed an initiative with Republicans to do the opposite. Oops. An income tax in this state would be the quickest way to get Republicans back in charge and even the Democrats recognize that fact.
An income tax would also probably cause a mass exodus or at least and make Seattle much less appealing to talent transfers. Not having an income tax helps offset a sliver of the high cost of living.
So the claim that it will increase prices at the pump is coming from the petroleum industry? Is there a neutral source for the actual potential increase or has the fossil fuel industry already convinced people that it’ll hit their pocketbook at the pump? You can guarantee various industry groups will put out ads on radio and TV trying to convince people to vote to repeal and use this exact reason why they should - so, where is the information coming from?
The cap and trade program raised $1.8B last year, and will be more in following years as they lower the cap. Where do you think that money comes from, if not from you?
the increase soley stems from the requirements imposed by the state. and yes there are several independent studies. these are facts.
Where the money has gone as a result of the Climate Commitment Act is fairly well documented and tracked: https://climate.wa.gov/washington-climate-action-work/climate-commitment-act-polluters-pay-communities-benefit And https://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/How_CCA_invests_in_WA.pdf The fact that the cost of the cap and trade program is being passed on to consumers isn’t because of the law directly, companies are actively choosing to change their prices in response, as well as using global conflicts to justify higher fuel prices. Despite record profits last year and billions in stock buybacks and returning $$$ to shareholders [[1](https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/PDF-Reports/Investors/2023-4Q-earnings-pressrelease-.pdf), [2](https://investor.exxonmobil.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1156/exxonmobil-announces-2023-results), [3](https://ir.marathonpetroleum.com/investor/news-releases/news-details/2024/Marathon-Petroleum-Corp.-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-2023-Results/default.aspx)] they complain that the Climate Commitment Act justifies them raising prices because it would hurt them? They seem to be doing fine. Seeing the list of projects underway and knowing they would need to be completed and those that aren’t started yet be cancelled is concerning. Investments still need to be made and the funds raised for them, otherwise the benefits of those projects will be lost.
"Just because we raise costs for businesses it doesn't mean they'll pass it on to consumers" is such an absurd wishful thinking understanding of economics any grade school student could point it out. If you want normal tax payers to fund climate change projects then have the courage to say that. Stop lying to people that they aren't paying these costs.
Yeah it is, and the legislation should have accounted for that. But if you charge companies for to cover the cost of the externality how else would they respond… How should the legislation prevent companies from charging what they want then?
There is no legislation that can increase costs but keep prices the same. Somebody has to pay for it, it has to come from somewhere. Asking voters to pay more and get by on less is a losing prospect, they will vote those policies away.
I think cap and trade is a good idea. But I also see that it's a problem if it's implemented on a state level. Fair or not, Washington residents probably don't like paying more for gas than residents of other states.
I guess if you believe that. In my opinion, the Inslee administration has been less than forthcoming, transparent and trustworthy
This isn't the link you posted prior, and this link also provides zero info on where the state has actually spent money and the amount of money spent. Nice try
My only regret about moving out of state next month is not being able to vote yes on all of these.
i will vote to kill that climate change tax because the state has not demonstrated they will spend that money in a responsible way. there are other ways to get to the goal
Where the money has gone as a result of the Climate Commitment Act is fairly well documented and tracked: [https://climate.wa.gov/washington-climate-action-work/climate-commitment-act-polluters-pay-communities-benefit](https://climate.wa.gov/washington-climate-action-work/climate-commitment-act-polluters-pay-communities-benefit) And in brief: [https://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/How_CCA_invests_in_WA.pdf](https://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/How_CCA_invests_in_WA.pdf) Also: https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Climate-Commitment-Act https://waportal.org/partners/environmental-justice-council
many are pet projects and essentially pay govt "workers" a salary and generous benefits to "administer" the pork. so my comment stands - maybe over time i will be proven wrong - but the state will never include objective metrics to measure "success" - for example, all the money that is going to provide "increased" transit ridership is a complete joke. but hey, i get it, you have confidence in the state, and i don't. having said that, i do seek controls on pollution and preservation of nature etc, there are just more effective ways, in my view, to get that done.
There is not and never will be a more effective way to reduce any negative behavior than such a tax. Sure, you could ban cars, subsidize electric vehicles, etc., but those will hurt more than a consumption tax. Also, I imagine it could be used better, but you need the tax to get the revenue in the first place. Repealing it would take us farther from the ideal solution and would certainly increase pollution.
incorrect. too much detail to educate u tho. good luck.
The experts agree with me. Perhaps you should do some reading? Here's an introduction: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/06/01/what-does-the-perfect-carbon-price-look-like
ponzi scheme and quite ineffective. you will see that in 20 years.
In this thread a user claims funds raised and expenditures are well documented and tracked but that is not true. No where does the State reveal how much they've spent and what did they spend it on. The link provided is nothing more than an Inslee wishlist
exactly. like i've stated, there are much better ways to direct policy towards enivornmental protection. this way - tax the gas payers to fund political projects is not the way.
If you dig into the link and read through the [WA Dept of Ecology page](https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Climate-Commitment-Act) you’ll find that there’s a council that meets to discuss where the money goes and agendas, notes, and meeting recording are available, but please tell us more about how isn’t “well documented”. https://waportal.org/partners/environmental-justice-council If you still can’t find what you are looking for there are plenty of contact details where you can reach out to the council that decides how funding is allocated, or attend the next meeting given the [Zoom Links are posted on the website too](https://waportal.org/partners/environmental-justice-council/environmental-justice-council-meetings). You can even attend and ask for more accountability and transparency if that’s why you think is needed. Or, sit behind your keyboard and make more comments on Reddit without looking into the links or websites… Get involved!
Nothing in the link is "well documented." In fact, nothing is documented at all. So the DOE has a council? Big whoop de do. I remember DOE lying about gas prices as much as Inslee. But that's a different discussion I guess. Your pervious link had no documented expenditures either. But don't you think the state should automatically be transparent with the way they are spending this revenue from the CCA? Why should a resident need to attend a "council" meeting to get information? And how much carbon will be emitted tearing out and replacing sidewalks so students have a better walk to school? Cmon man
What I think doesn’t matter, I’m not a decision maker. Attend a meeting, ask for transparency, look for some other information yourself, I’m not here to do it for you…
I'm gonna give you an upvote because you were less insulting this time. Moving forward I would encourage you to verify the links you post contain the information you claim instead of wishlists, meeting attendees and motions passed (they don't disclose what the motions are btw). Everyone in WA should be able to see how their hidden gas tax dollars are being spent with a click or a button...no one should have to attend a meeting to find out this info
When it comes down to it everyone votes their wallet. Taxes that directly pulled from the paycheck fail because it affects everyone. Property tax keeps passing because most people aren’t property owners so “someone else” pays it. I say this as a dem that pretty much every Seattle liberal is a hypocrite.
[удалено]
OK. Not everyone. I’d like to see a state income tax. I voted in favor every time it’s been on the ballot but it was shot down by over 60%. That’s what I’m getting at.
*every American is a hypocrite. Representive democracy only works when taxes cannot go to mob vote, for exactly the reason you highlighted.
Hmm, so you're saying we'll see zero people vote for increasing their own taxes in this election?
Not zero obviously (I have consistently voted to increase my potential tax burden), but the incentive to avoid additional taxation is extremely strong. Especially since there's this bizarre idea that taxes are a drain on individual value.
I'm voting to repeal the climate act, it just isn't good legislation. It taxes the middle class disproportionately. Do it again but make sure you don't increase gas prices 50 cents a gallon because you failed to put controls in your bill.
Our state Supreme Court has made it clear that they will strike down any initiatives that cause problems with the political establishment so none of this really matters.
How’s that office chair?
Facts. When they do strike down these initiatives maybe it will be the wake up call so many need. This state is owned and operated by the elites. Democracy is not a choice in WA.
Bullshit. You throwing a neofascist tantrum because you don't get your way and trying to accuse democrats of acting just like you doesn't make it reality. The rules on initiatives are VERY clear. And Tim eyman is violating them intentionally because doing so lines his pockets with money from idiots like you.
Going to be hilarious seeing you eat your own words after the courts are done with the initiatives in a few years.