Welcome to The Binary Circumstance!

Featured Article : Those Generous Democrats

590sirotashutterstock_85315837It appears that Washington State legislators are considering a couple of property tax bills. It is unclear to me how they are related and according the Seattle Times, copies of at least one of the bill is unavailable.

OLYMPIA — State lawmakers during a special session Thursday will consider helping struggling homeowners by letting households earning up to $57,000 a year defer part of their property tax.

Gov. Christine Gregoire called the special session to reinstate a 1 percent cap on property-tax increases that was recently thrown out by the state Supreme Court.

The governor on Monday outlined a second measure that would let some homeowners who meet income guidelines defer up to 25 percent of their annual property-tax bill, with restrictions. Copies of the legislation weren’t available.

The governor noted the deferral would be temporary. “When the house is sold, the state will be reimbursed,” she said.

By discussing a deferral which would have to be paid back with about 7% interest according to Gregoire, they are acknowledging that their taxes are driving people out of their homes. For anybody committed to freedom and individual rights the discussion would stop there. Our legislators would ask themselves. Since when does the state have the right to tax people out of their homes? Maybe the growth of the state’s budget and the size of government has become a violation of basic human rights they would conclude.

But Gregoire and her team have come up with a plan to allow the homeowners to defer payment until the property is sold. Then the state would collect a hefty 7% interest rate on it in addition to the back taxes. I wonder how much it will cost to administer this new program and which individuals with political connections will get the jobs. Not to mention the difference in Home Insurance.

Then there’s this:

The cutoff of $57,000 is roughly the current median household income in Washington. The state estimates about 7,500 people would take advantage of the program. Gregoire said local governments would not lose any money because the state would cover the lost revenue.

If the state can cover the lost revenue then why raise taxes at all? Doesn’t that mean they already have too much money?

Latest Posts


An Inconvenient Truth

I recently had the opportunity to see Al Gore’s documentary about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. If you haven’t seen it yet, I highly recommend it. The data and the before and after pictures were all very effective in communicating the point of the movie which is that we are entering a “period of consequences” when we will see rapid changes in the environment due to global warming. Watching the movie, it is hard to escape considering the possibility that ...
Read More

Ayn Rand: The Roots of War

Having read much of Ayn Rand’s nonfiction work, I have been surprised and dismayed by the use of her philosophy, Objectivism, to justify the war in Iraq. Ironically, some of the worst offenders are those in the more orthodox Objectivist camp, like the Ayn Rand Institute, whom one might expect to have the most authentic interpretation of her work. Rand’s views on war are not by themselves the arbiter of morality for this war or any other. Speculation about how ...
Read More

War Brings a Return of Fiat Money

It is no secret that our government is spending billions of dollars to fight the war in Iraq and to “rebuild” it now that the war has “ended,” at least in the reality-challenged mind of our President. President Bush has stated that he doesn’t intend to raise taxes but plans to make his previous tax cuts permanent. So how will the disaster in Iraq, the war for liberation, be financed? If history is any indicator, the answer is the printing ...
Read More