Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt_wulfeck | Hacker News Reader

We’ll see how long Washington can maintain its income-tax free environment [1].

1. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-c...

> “Whoever goes against this is openly causing suffering,” she said.

This quote really stands out to me. Is this demonization of opposing viewpoints a new thing, or am I just noticing it more in the last two years?

>Is this demonization of opposing viewpoints a new thing, or am I just noticing it more in the last two years?

I think it's more in recent years. Especially in the US where things are highly polarized and every issue seems to have a "Republican" take and a "Democratic" take. So points of view on specific situations are taken to reflect much more about a person's overall position than they actually do. And we have more echo chambers reinforcing our conviction about being right in the first place.

Finally I think there is also something legitimate about connecting viewpoints to consequences and evidence where possible, and discussing higher level concepts with the low level consequences in peoples' lives, in order to understand the tradeoffs that each point of view entails. I do think certain viewpoints are tightly linked to certain outcomes, and it wouldn't be demonizing to say "If you are for policy X you are accepting the likely effects Y and Z".

I think that this is probably a logical extension of the underlying logic.

Sales taxes are inherently harder on people with less money than people with more money. That's demonstrable just based on simple math.

Any argument for sales taxes over income taxes that doesn't recognize that fundamental mathematical truth is not being intellectually honest (or doesn't know the topic very well).

The problem is that no one is naive enough to believe they'll somehow lower any existing taxes (either sales or property) with the introduction of an income tax. They'll keep them all, and try and introduce some new program that helps a specific demographic.

From what I see, this usually ends up with money moving between pockets with a bureaucracy taking its cut along the way. I try not to be overly political, but I can't stand the idea of a strong, central planning government.

Let's see a balanced, itemized budget. Even in the article they're just spitballing ideas with what they could do it an extra $140m.

It doesn't seem like it logically follows to me. The government having more money is often a good thing, but it has to be weighed against the damage government programs can do and the costs to the people of higher taxation. It's debatable, and people like the woman in the article want to short-circuit the debate by calling the other side the devil.

Except this law violates various state laws, as well as the state constitution, so it will be struck down upon judicial review.

Those facts are not an exception to "we'll see"

> as well as the state constitution

Given the current makeup of the state supreme court, it's a coin flip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com