Washington State Boat Taxes Could Double

[backinblue]

They are talking about millions of $$$, how cute of Canada!

 

[Alaskaflyer]

Not unusual the cuts in taxes increase government revenue.

 

[SteveK]

Reduce taxes, then reduce deductions even more. The net is you pay more taxes.

 

[backinblue]

Reduce taxes, then reduce deductions even more. The net is you pay more taxes.

Correct. Did you really expect a reduction in revenue and spending? That belongs in the humor thread.

 

[backinblue]

Reduce taxes, then reduce deductions even more. The net is you pay more taxes.

And guess what's coming next? Eliminate the tax reductions but not the leave the deductions where they are.

 

[Alaskaflyer]

Reduce taxes, then reduce deductions even more. The net is you pay more taxes.

I was just confused by the phrasing - sure, that's oversimplified but could be true. I was just hoping he wasn't referring to the modern day Philosopher's Stone best exemplified by the so-called Laffer Curve.

 

[backinblue]

It is simplified but very true for those of us who pay a lot in SALT. But I also believe that a reduction in taxes can result in increased revenue if the tax cuts spur economic growth and lower unemployment, etc.

 

[Alaskaflyer]

It is simplified but very true for those of us who pay a lot in SALT. But I also believe that a reduction in taxes can result in increased revenue if the tax cuts spur economic growth and lower unemployment, etc.

It's never been clearly proven to do so, unfortunately.

 

[backinblue]

It's never been clearly proven to do so, unfortunately.

While avoiding politics, I would say that there has been some proof that it does work, but maybe has never been in place for a long enough period of time for it to work and pay for the cuts.

 

[firehoser75]

Tax increases in one form or another should not come as a surprise for most TF members. With all of the drastically increased Government spending (and the huge amount of "money printing") associated with this pandemic, how else are they/we going to pay for it? Elected official's pay cuts?

 

[backinblue]

Tax increases in one form or another should not come as a surprise for most TF members. With all of the drastically increased Government spending (and the huge amount of "money printing") associated with this pandemic, how else are they/we going to pay for it? Elected official's pay cuts?

You are correct. Personally I would have preferred a little less drastic spending and therefore less drastic tax increases looming. Paying people more on unemployment than they made working makes no sense and helps no one except those who would prefer not to work.

 

[SteveK]

It's never been clearly proven to do so, unfortunately.

Generally storefronts advertise for help wanted when the economy is growing when demand exceeds supply of unemployed. Coincidently, that occurs when business has lower taxes.

As an example for anyone that stepped foot into a MacDonalds 40-50 years ago and now will see maybe a 1/3 of the staff now due to higher costs overall.

 

[backinblue]

Those are kind of 2 different issues Soo but I agree with you.

Lower taxes on people and business gives people more money to spend and businesses more money to spend on expansion and hiring.

Part of the # of personnel is due to how many a business can afford. So as we push for higher minimum wage to help the lower income workers, you push them out of the workforce because business can't afford them and it becomes more attractive to make a business case to replace them with automation. I'm not against automation, I am against forcing businesses to pay a higher wage because it hurts those the most that it is meant to help. Let the market set wages, not some out of touch politicians.

 

[BandB]

Those are kind of 2 different issues Soo but I agree with you.

Lower taxes on people and business gives people more money to spend and businesses more money to spend on expansion and hiring.

Part of the # of personnel is due to how many a business can afford. So as we push for higher minimum wage to help the lower income workers, you push them out of the workforce because business can't afford them and it becomes more attractive to make a business case to replace them with automation. I'm not against automation, I am against forcing businesses to pay a higher wage because it hurts those the most that it is meant to help. Let the market set wages, not some out of touch politicians.

Well, now that you've taken this so far off topic, as a businessman, I can't just ignore what you've typed. if minimum wages are raised then everyone is impacted equally and it does not cost jobs as you describe nor does it make businesses unprofitable. It may raise prices on some items in some businesses. That's the real tradeoff, are you willing to pay a little more so people have incomes that will get them out of poverty.

Thankfully, we're seeing a trend, starting with businesses you wouldn't have expected. Some of these wages I'm quoting are now higher than I'm showing. Walmart has raised their minimum to $13 and as much as $19 in some locations. Target is at $15. Aetna at $16. Amazon at $15, Bank of America at $17, Ben and Jerry's at $18.13, Charter at $18. Cigna at $16, Costco at $16. Disney at $15. Facebook at $15. Fifth Third Bank at $18. Google at $15. Chase at $16.50-$18 depending on location. Santander at $15. Starbucks at $15. Wayfair at $15. Wells Fargo at $15-20 depending on location.

McDonalds CEO is on record saying they are doing just fine in areas in which minimum wage has been increase and it has not led to closures, to job loss, or to increased automation. Furthermore, Kempczinski has stated that a 10% increase in wages results in about a 1.4% increase in the price of a Big Mac and no reduction in sales of them.

We raised our minimum from $15 to $16 when Costco did.

I do believe everyone working 40 hours a week at a job should make enough to escape poverty. Even with the housing costs in South Florida I can put together a monthly budget for $15 an hour employees allowing them to live alone. $15 an hour provides take home pay of $2,232 per month. They can afford all the necessities, but very few luxuries. That's fine, that's the goal. I remember when we were at $11 and then slowly moved up, we couldn't put anything together for them. The only way they could survive was with a roommate.

We had other retailers tell us we were crazy but their prediction of our doom didn't come into play. I don't want to be in business if I can't provide employees a decent income. I don't honestly care about the survival of a business only paying $7.25 an hour to it's employees. In addition to retail, we've raised wages in manufacturing similarly with no adverse impact on our businesses.

Minimum wages are up widescale in major employers and employment is up. Those not following suit are having a difficult time finding employees. But statements as to all the negative that happens when minimum wages increase just haven't ever turned out to be true.

Now, as I stated, it will ultimately cost the consumer, but far less percentage wise than it benefits the employee.

 

[backinblue]

OK if you really want to go there.....

Minimum wage should not be considered a wage to support a family. Minimum wage is what a 16 y.o. dishwasher gets paid. But that is far from the most important part. I'm not against minimum wages, but tell me how a NATIONAL minimum wage makes any sense? A teen worker in NYC or SanFran would laugh at $15/hr but in other places in the country that's a good wage for a working father. Why does anyone think that a single wage makes sense everywhere in the U.S.? Here's a crazy thought, what if there was no minimum wage? Businesses would pay what's required to staff their business. Workers will decide whether they are willing to accept that wage for the job to be performed. Minimum wages and union labor has been outdated for many years. Companies can not take advantage of workers anymore. They have to pay what the workers demand in order to hire staff to support their business. Why do we need a federally mandated wage? Again, it sounds great on the surface, lifting people out of poverty. However, what it does in reality is cut jobs and hours of the lowest paid workers and makes it easier to replace them with automation. Why not pay every worker $100/hr so we can all be rich? You think that works? It's the same argument.

 

[BandB]

OK if you really want to go there.....

Minimum wage should not be considered a wage to support a family. Minimum wage is what a 16 y.o. dishwasher gets paid. But that is far from the most important part. I'm not against minimum wages, but tell me how a NATIONAL minimum wage makes any sense? A teen worker in NYC or SanFran would laugh at $15/hr but in other places in the country that's a good wage for a working father. Why does anyone think that a single wage makes sense everywhere in the U.S.? Here's a crazy thought, what if there was no minimum wage? Businesses would pay what's required to staff their business. Workers will decide whether they are willing to accept that wage for the job to be performed. Minimum wages and union labor has been outdated for many years. Companies can not take advantage of workers anymore. They have to pay what the workers demand in order to hire staff to support their business. Why do we need a federally mandated wage? Again, it sounds great on the surface, lifting people out of poverty. However, what it does in reality is cut jobs and hours of the lowest paid workers and makes it easier to replace them with automation. Why not pay every worker $100/hr so we can all be rich? You think that works? It's the same argument.

The reason we need most federal moves, that states are waiting for the federal government and not moving on their own. The Federal is considered the absolute minimum and states encouraged to go higher. Even the most aggressive plan moves the Federal to $15 over a number of years.

For students under 18 perhaps make it less if people wish. We're not talking to support a family. We're talking one person wanting to live alone in a small apartment and working 40 hours a week. Perhaps in some states it could be less than $15 and still work but then those are also the states with the most poverty and the greatest need for more taxpayers. At $15 per hour you become a taxpayer and no longer one depending on government assistance unless you're single with children.

There is absolutely no evidence it cuts jobs or increases automation. If we had good options for more automation, they'd make sense regardless whether labor was $8 or $15 an hour. If employers were inclined to cut jobs, they'd do so regardless, whether labor was $8 or $15 an hour.

I don't claim $15 is adequate everywhere. Some areas require more, some as much as $20. Some may be ok as low as $13. Easy enough to establish it based on community levels as we already have poverty levels established for every community as well as income restricted housing rates. $7.25 is just a disgrace.

What would happen with no minimum wage? Those who could least afford to be taken advantage of would be. Those who hadn't yet developed skills or received training wouldn't make enough to have housing. Overall wages would drop. And as more are below a subsistence level, they resort to other options including government aid and not working and including illegal activity.

The naivety of saying "Companies can not take advantage of workers anymore." They do so all the time. Look at the food processors, especially during the pandemic. Look at small businesses not paying for overtime or even full hours worked. Even look at large companies cited for wage and hour law violations.

 

[kthoennes]

Gee, if higher wages have no effect on employment and no damaging effect on business then why don't you pay all your workers $159,000 per year? $250,000? Sorry, your post simply defies logic and reason.

 

[BandB]

Gee, if higher wages have no effect on employment and no damaging effect on business then why don't you pay all your workers $159,000 per year? $250,000? Sorry, your post simply defies logic and reason.

My defy your logic and we are talking within reason while you choose the absurd. However, the states that have raised minimum wages have been carefully tracked and businesses haven't been harmed in them. We have real life examples and that's what I base my comments on. As to paying $159 and $250k. It's amazing what percentage of salaries are tied up in the highly paid and executives vs. the low paid.

 

[backinblue]

My defy your logic and we are talking within reason while you choose the absurd. However, the states that have raised minimum wages have been carefully tracked and businesses haven't been harmed in them. We have real life examples and that's what I base my comments on. As to paying $159 and $250k. It's amazing what percentage of salaries are tied up in the highly paid and executives vs. the low paid.

What you consider logical others consider absurd and vice versa. I don't understand why people think the govt needs to control this. Why not let the markets take their natural course.

You want the govt to ensure everyone is well-paid, pay everyone $100K/year.
Make it the law, everyone will be happy except the businesses that can't afford it and go under and all the people who end up unemployed because nobody can afford to pay them $100k. Here's my view, tell me how I am wrong.

Someone needs a fulltime dishwasher. Without one they can't run their business. They offer $10/hr, nobody bites. They keep raising till someone agrees to $13. If govt mandates $20 they can't afford it and both the business and the worker lose. If the business and the worker agree that $13 works for both of them, where is the harm in that? You can't legislate people out of poverty unless you really want socialism/communism. Socialism is great till you run out of other people's money

 

[Steve DAntonio]

There is absolutely no evidence it cuts jobs or increases automation. If we had good options for more automation, they'd make sense regardless whether labor was $8 or $15 an hour. If employers were inclined to cut jobs, they'd do so regardless, whether labor was $8 or $15 an hour.

Your efforts to afford your employees a wage suitable to allow them to live alone and comfortably are admirable, truly.

However, to say there is absolutely no evidence that a minimum wage cuts jobs or increases automation is questionable at best. I ran a boat yard for years, as a small yard operator, if I had to increase the pay, doubling in some cases, of my least skilled workers, the men and women who wash and paint boat bottoms, then I would have to raise the pay scale for everyone, and this is true of many small businesses. If you think that would have a negligible effect on the cost of having your boat worked on, think again.

All of your examples are for large corporations, Wal-Mart, Cigna, Charter, Disney, Starbucks etc., their math may work for Wall Street, when spread out over millions of customers, but not so for Main St. My wife owned a small clothing boutique for 8 years, if she was forced to pay staff $15/hr. she would either have to work more hours herself, or reduce staff, or both, or close shop.

Another example, for better or worse, the low wages paid migrant farm labor thwarts mechanization. Raise the wages and the economic incentive to mechanize becomes more attractive.

But don't take my word for it...

"But a new study from researchers at the University of Washington should provide sobering evidence for minimum wage proponents. It shows that Seattle’s minimum wage policy thus far has been a failure in terms of actually increasing the average earnings of low-wage workers.

Again, this is hardly surprising given the volume of existing academic research finding minimum wage hikes negatively affect the employment prospects for low-skilled workers. While the most productive workers may gain from a higher minimum wage, less productive workers (typically young workers first entering the workforce with minimal experience) lose out on jobs and/or hours worked. The University of Washington study concludes the losses offset the gains." U of W, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/seattle-s-failed-minimum-wage-experiment

This study was criticized by some for excluding the larger employers, Amazon, MS and Boeing, but I believe it was correct to do so, as those larger players can absorb and spread out increased labor costs unlike small business. In the Seattle case, labor activists were calling for tax forgiveness or abatement, or other city-funded "incentives" for small businesses to enable them to afford the higher wages, but that simply shifts the wage burden to the tax payer, and masks the effect of the higher mandated wages.

Again, your efforts are to be applauded, but I don't believe they are universally applicable to all businesses, particularly small ones.

 

[BandB]

My wife owned a small clothing boutique for 8 years, if she was forced to pay staff $15/hr. she would either have to work more hours herself, or reduce staff, or both, or close shop.

.

I respect your view, but will just respond to this one example. If everyone in the clothing business raised to $15 an hour then she'd be on the same footing competitively she is now and, yes, prices would go up slightly. That's much different than her trying to raise while others don't.

Now, I might also point out that in a competitive market, one might raise even if competition doesn't and find that by being able to select the best hires and pay well, they get more productivity, more loyalty, less turnover and increase revenues and profits. That was our experience with clothing stores.

 

[backinblue]

One more thing to add. Not only are they not applicable to all businesses, but why think they are equally applicable is all places? Why not let the states set the minimum wage that is best suited for them? We know that wages and cost of living can vary greatly from one state to another. Why should the federal govt get involved with one wage for all? Some states are already at or above the minimum wages being proposed in congress. Makes no sense to me that everyone in every part of the country should earn the same wage. That will surely cost jobs for some that may be happy with their current situation.

 

[JLD]

The reason we need most federal moves, that states are waiting for the federal government and not moving on their own. The Federal is considered the absolute minimum and states encouraged to go higher. Even the most aggressive plan moves the Federal to $15 over a number of years.

For students under 18 perhaps make it less if people wish. We're not talking to support a family. We're talking one person wanting to live alone in a small apartment and working 40 hours a week. Perhaps in some states it could be less than $15 and still work but then those are also the states with the most poverty and the greatest need for more taxpayers. At $15 per hour you become a taxpayer and no longer one depending on government assistance unless you're single with children.

There is absolutely no evidence it cuts jobs or increases automation. If we had good options for more automation, they'd make sense regardless whether labor was $8 or $15 an hour. If employers were inclined to cut jobs, they'd do so regardless, whether labor was $8 or $15 an hour.

I don't claim $15 is adequate everywhere. Some areas require more, some as much as $20. Some may be ok as low as $13. Easy enough to establish it based on community levels as we already have poverty levels established for every community as well as income restricted housing rates. $7.25 is just a disgrace.

What would happen with no minimum wage? Those who could least afford to be taken advantage of would be. Those who hadn't yet developed skills or received training wouldn't make enough to have housing. Overall wages would drop. And as more are below a subsistence level, they resort to other options including government aid and not working and including illegal activity.

The naivety of saying "Companies can not take advantage of workers anymore." They do so all the time. Look at the food processors, especially during the pandemic. Look at small businesses not paying for overtime or even full hours worked. Even look at large companies cited for wage and hour law violations.

Great post!


Sitting in my big comfy chair this morning with a coffee in hand, I wonder if the federal government has ever considered a minimum pay structure with multiple components like how federal employee pay is computed. It could have two components, a basic pay and a locality pay. Higher cost areas could have a higher locality pay, whereas lower cost areas would have a lower locality pay.


Jim

 

[BandB]

Great post!


Sitting in my big comfy chair this morning with a coffee in hand, I wonder if the federal government has ever considered a minimum pay structure with multiple components like how federal employee pay is computed. It could have two components, a basic pay and a locality pay. Higher cost areas could have a higher locality pay, whereas lower cost areas would have a lower locality pay.


Jim

Easy to do as they have all the information needed already in their system.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

Great post!


Sitting in my big comfy chair this morning with a coffee in hand, I wonder if the federal government has ever considered a minimum pay structure with multiple components like how federal employee pay is computed. It could have two components, a basic pay and a locality pay. Higher cost areas could have a higher locality pay, whereas lower cost areas would have a lower locality pay.


Jim

Just the thought of the federal government "managing" this makes me shudder.

Re. paying more than the going rate and reaping the benefits, when managing a boat yard that was a necessity for highly skilled staff, we recruited nationwide, paid higher than average wages, paid moving costs, paid for healthcare and had a 401k program. In a rural area a mechanic getting $25-$30 before OT and hour was doing well (this is why regulating this even by state doesn't work well, living in the city vs. country is far different as it relates to cost of living), he could own a home, take vacation, take time off during hunting season, and buy a new truck every few years. We had very good retention. But you are missing the point, elevating the bottom painters to $15/hr. would mean elevating the mechanics to $40/hr, which would necessitate raising rates for customers, which would drive some owners to other pursuits that cost less than boat ownership, which would mean less business for us, which would mean fewer paid positions...

BTW, we had bottom painters graduate to higher skilled positions, techs, varnishers etc., one went literally from cutting the grass, at min wage, to being one of the best Awlgrip applicators on this coast, and very well paid, in about 5 years, he was my poster child for the opportunity that can be found in boat yards for those who are motivated. If he started at $15 an hour, would he have had the incentive to move up?

 

[BandB]

Just the thought of the federal government "managing" this makes me shudder.

Re. paying more than the going rate and reaping the benefits, when managing a boat yard that was a necessity for highly skilled staff, we recruited nationwide, paid higher than average wages, paid moving costs, paid for healthcare and had a 401k program. In a rural area a mechanic getting $25-$30 before OT and hour was doing well (this is why regulating this even by state doesn't work well, living in the city vs. country is far different as it relates to cost of living), he could own a home, take vacation, take time off during hunting season, and buy a new truck every few years. We had very good retention. But you are missing the point, elevating the bottom painters to $15/hr. would mean elevating the mechanics to $40/hr, which would necessitate raising rates for customers, which would drive some owners to other pursuits that cost less than boat ownership, which would mean less business for us, which would mean fewer paid positions...

BTW, we had bottom painters graduate to higher skilled positions, techs, varnishers etc., one went literally from cutting the grass, at min wage, to being one of the best Awlgrip applicators on this coast, and very well paid, in about 5 years, he was my poster child for the opportunity that can be found in boat yards for those who are motivated. If he started at $15 an hour, would he have had the incentive to move up?

I will point out that Rybovich pays all employees at least $15/hr. This even includes the Busser in their cafe and the counter clerk in the ship store.

 

[SteveK]

I will point out that Rybovich pays all employees at least $15/hr. This even includes the Busser in their cafe and the counter clerk in the ship store.

Brett, This is where you can expand on to prove our point. Ryboyich pays all employees $15/hr. That should have been full stop, but you go on.

Saying even the Busser and clerk, you opened the door to the question why did you single those two out. It sounds like you agree they should not be paid as much as the others, it seems those getting to grade 8 get paid the same as those finishing high school, never mind those that went to college.

 

[BandB]

Brett, This is where you can expand on to prove our point. Ryboyich pays all employees $15/hr. That should have been full stop, but you go on.

Saying even the Busser and clerk, you opened the door to the question why did you single those two out. It sounds like you agree they should not be paid as much as the others, it seems those getting to grade 8 get paid the same as those finishing high school, never mind those that went to college.

I singled them out because generally they are the lowest paid.

 

[SteveK]

I singled them out because generally they are the lowest paid.

Exactly, and with a new minimum those previously paid higher will get the same pay, unless they were already getting the new minimum, may cost employer money to bump them a bit above. everyone gets a participation award.

 

[DDW]

But from the perspective of a non-resident, as I am, it's tough as a boater. In fact, I and hundreds of other non-residents (and some residents) lean towards keeping out boats in BC, and spending our boat bucks there rather than in WA. Why? It's 90% because of the ~10% sales/use tax. The annual excise tax has an impact too, but not as much. And for a non-resident, the taxes are not offset by no income tax.


I'm 100% convinced that WA would experience a boom in the marine economy, and a boom in tax receipts if they capped the use tax as other coastal states have done. I think hundreds of checks, including one from me would show up at the capital the next day paying a capped use tax. And hundreds of boats would be repatriated to WA from Canada. Yes, it's less than the full 10%. But the nature of boats, especially higher value boats, is that they are mobile. So instead of getting a capped tax, the state gets zero tax. Which is better? Something less than 10%, or zero? It's looked at by many as a discount in taxes for boaters, and that doesn't go over well publically. But it's really opening up a new tax revenue stream.

Count me in. I don't use the boat much in Washington, I go north after it is launched each season. But I'd be happy to store it there off season, and spend my storage and maintenance dollars there, but for the 10% up front cost of doing so. So instead BC gets my money.

For non-residents, if they allowed 60 days use each year without the tax then I'd be there. I'd even pay a lower one time tax. Not doing 10%. Arguably the statute is actually written this way, but not interpreted that way by the enforcers. The boat would be stored, not used, the rest of the time.

Sorry for the diversion back to on-topic. Now carry on with the hijack.