State Senate President Pro Tem Rosa Franklin (D-Tacoma) posted an op-ed in last Thursday's News Tribune pimping her bill, SB 5150 which would introduce a Marxist progressive income tax to Washington state.

Now, I'm not going to argue that Washington state has the optimally configured tax system-it doesn't-but Sen. Franklin's bill wouldn't improve it. And her arguments are mostly class-warfare garbage. Let's take a look.

With our tax structure so heavily dependent on the sales tax, we have a double-edged sword. When times are flush, as they are now, we grow a reserve. When times turn lean – and make no mistake, they will someday – we face daunting budget choices.

Now, Senator, this problem is 100% caused by you and your collegues in the state legislature. If ya'll could show a little self control in the good times, we'd have a reserve that could be used in the lean times. But the legislature, when presented with higher than expected revenues, has about as much self control as a bunch of frat boys given a free keg of beer. The same goes for the current governor-just look at her proposed budget. So every time revenes dip, there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over which bloated programs to cut.

Look, too, at what this means for families. Remember that the sales tax rate is the same for you and me and for everyone else in Washington, with very slight variations for local jurisdictions. Right now, those who earn less than $20,000 a year pay nearly 16 percent of their income in state and local taxes. On the other hand, those making more than $150,000 pay roughly 4 percent.

It’s unfair that those who are least able to afford to pay are paying at a higher rate than those who can. It was unfair 20 years ago, and it will still be unfair 20 years from now. I’m not the first one to point this out, but I’d sure like to be the last. Fairness aside, doesn’t it make logical sense to tax according to income and not consumption?

Of course, if you factor in federal taxes, where a family whose income is $20,000 will pay virtually nothing at all, while those in the top 10% income wise pay 69% of the taxes, it all evens out.

And talking about taxing income vs consumption ignores one critical piece of information: what people do with the income they're not spending. What they do is simple: they invest it-in their own business, or instocks, bonds, and just plain old savings accounts. In any case, they're doing something with the money that helps create more jobs and more wealth. When you tax consumption, it reduces the incentive to consume (by increasing the cost) and makes investmentmore attractive. Taxing income reduces the incentive to invest.

In a nutshell, this year’s measure, Senate Bill 5150, would lower the state sales tax to 3.5 percent. It would eliminate the state’s share of the property tax. And it would impose a graduated income tax on personal income of individuals, estates and trusts.

Lower the sales tax? Cool. Eliminate the state portion of the property tax? Also cool. Graduated income tax, estate (death) tax, and trust tax? Marxist class warfare, not cool.

Taxes are necessary to fund required government activities. The problems come when those in power try to use the tax structure to further their vision of an ideal society-i.e., they practive social engineering through the tax code. Ideally, the tax structure should provide revenue to the state as efficiently as possible, while minimizing artificial distortions of the economy. A flat tax on income would do this; graduated taxes do not. Likewise, taxes on estates and trust also produce distortions, by penalizing to saving and investment. (And weren't Democrats just screeching about a recent report showing low savings rates as proof that the economy is going to hell in a handbasket?)

To build soundness and preserve equity in the new tax structure, the constitutional amendment would require that any tax changes, including exemptions, credits, preferential rates and exclusions, receive a 60 percent majority vote of the Legislature. It would take effect on Jan. 1, 2009.

Once again, introducing artificial distortions in the name of social engineering. How about a standard deduction for all, and no "exemptions, credits, preferential rates and exclusions?" Once you introduce those kinds of things into the tax code, the code becomes a playground for lobbyists and special interests (witness the current grotesquely bloated federal code.) And those same groups pour ever increasing amounts of money into election campaigns, in order to protect their interests and gain favors. Wasn't it your party that's been decrying the influence of 'special interest money' in state campaigns? So how about putting into the constutitional amendment a provision barring "exemptions, credits, preferential rates and exclusions?"

If you're serious about tax reform-and producing a tax structure which maximizes revenues while minimizing distortions of the economy-I'm all for it. But this bill sure isn't it.