Opinion
Re: Chris Vance's Quote
Here's what Republican consultant Chris Vance told the PI.com about Seattle and its history of passing local tax measures.
Vance's quote—a standard (and superficial) Palinesque anti-elitist attack on richie-rich liberals—doesn't make any sense. [pullquote]Vance is just using a stereotype to justify his stereotype.[/pullquote]
1) The way to pass tax measures in Seattle is to get the broadest turnout possible. Any pollster will tell you that the regular and consistent group of voters (4-4 voters) in Seattle, older homeowners, tend to be more tax-sensitive. Therefore, you need young, renters, and low-income voters. These are folks who aren't property owners and so aren't likely to actually be paying the tax.
Vance is exactly wrong when he says Seattlelites are more willing to tax themselves. The people who come out to pass the property taxes aren't the main group who are paying them.
2) The median income for a household in Seattle is about $57,000. That means half the households make $57,000 or less. Is that the Sarah Palin idea of a "rich liberal?"
And judging by the percentages on the tax measures that have passed in recent years, it takes most of the people below that line to approve taxes.
In November 2009, Seattle approved the $145 million, seven-year housing levy, 65.8 to 34.2.
In November 2008, Seattle approved the $73 million, six-year Pike Place Market levy 61.18 to 38.12, and approved the $146 million,
six-year Parks levy 58.87 to 41.13.
In November 2004, Seattle approved the $117 million, seven-year families and education levy 61.91 to 38.09.
Vance tries to hedge that issue by specifying that he's talking about "voters" as opposed to people. But in order to get data, Vance would have to have done some pretty sophisticated and limiting polling. Otherwise, he's just using a stereotype to justify his stereotype.
And frankly, as I said above: Most pollsters will tell you that you need a bigger electorate—not the just the stereotyped average voter, and those are conservatives, anyway—to pass tax measures.
Finally, it "rich liberals" around here are so interested in taxing themselves, how come King County voters defeated the high-earners' income tax in 2010 54.59 to 45.41.
“Seattle is full of rich liberals,” Vance said. “Human beings, when it comes to tax measures, generally vote their own self interest. And rich people are far more willing to tax themselves than poor people or even middle class or lower middle class people. Seattle is a rich city. Look at the housing prices. Most of the voters – maybe not all the people – but the voters live in houses or condos worth well over a half-million dollars. They’re college-educated professionals. They can afford higher taxes. … They are completely out of step with the rest of the state. Seattle has always been an island unto itself politically. That trend has accelerated. If you take Seattle out, Washington is a Republican state.”
And Vance says, even from his GOP perspective, there’s nothing wrong with Seattle’s stance on taxes. “Democracy works. It really does, you get what you want. The voters of Seattle have exactly the government they want. I’m not saying they’re worse, they’re just different.”
Vance's quote—a standard (and superficial) Palinesque anti-elitist attack on richie-rich liberals—doesn't make any sense. [pullquote]Vance is just using a stereotype to justify his stereotype.[/pullquote]
1) The way to pass tax measures in Seattle is to get the broadest turnout possible. Any pollster will tell you that the regular and consistent group of voters (4-4 voters) in Seattle, older homeowners, tend to be more tax-sensitive. Therefore, you need young, renters, and low-income voters. These are folks who aren't property owners and so aren't likely to actually be paying the tax.
Vance is exactly wrong when he says Seattlelites are more willing to tax themselves. The people who come out to pass the property taxes aren't the main group who are paying them.
2) The median income for a household in Seattle is about $57,000. That means half the households make $57,000 or less. Is that the Sarah Palin idea of a "rich liberal?"
And judging by the percentages on the tax measures that have passed in recent years, it takes most of the people below that line to approve taxes.
In November 2009, Seattle approved the $145 million, seven-year housing levy, 65.8 to 34.2.
In November 2008, Seattle approved the $73 million, six-year Pike Place Market levy 61.18 to 38.12, and approved the $146 million,
six-year Parks levy 58.87 to 41.13.
In November 2004, Seattle approved the $117 million, seven-year families and education levy 61.91 to 38.09.
Vance tries to hedge that issue by specifying that he's talking about "voters" as opposed to people. But in order to get data, Vance would have to have done some pretty sophisticated and limiting polling. Otherwise, he's just using a stereotype to justify his stereotype.
And frankly, as I said above: Most pollsters will tell you that you need a bigger electorate—not the just the stereotyped average voter, and those are conservatives, anyway—to pass tax measures.
Finally, it "rich liberals" around here are so interested in taxing themselves, how come King County voters defeated the high-earners' income tax in 2010 54.59 to 45.41.
