|
Printer Friendly |
I-695 Questions & Answers: State lottery is not as lucrative as people
imagine
I-695 Questions & Answers: State lottery is not as lucrative as people imagine
Do you have questions about I-695? Ask us and we'll try to answer them in
our coverage of the statewide ballot measure between now and Election Day Nov.
2.
I-695 would abolish the state Motor Vehicle Excise Tax and replace it with
a flat $30-per-vehicle fee. It would also require a public vote on future tax
and fee increases by state and local government.
Q: I'm hearing that if we vote yes on
I-695, the state is going to lose all this money. What are we doing with all
the money from the lottery?
- Christine Kropf, Roy
A: The state lottery doesn't generate as much money as most people think.
During the past fiscal year - July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999 - the lottery
brought in more than $450 million in sales. But most of that money went out
in prizes.
About $120 million went to support the state's general fund, including about
$3 million to help pay for Safeco Field and $7.8 million to the soon-to-be-built
Seattle Seahawks football stadium.
The rest went to pay for public schools, prisons, colleges, welfare and other
state programs.
I-695 would cut tax collections to state and local governments by $743 million
in the first year, more in subsequent years.
Q: If I-695 passes on Nov. 2, when will it go into effect - the next day,
when they finish counting the votes or next year?
- Jim Dunn, Enumclaw
A: It would take effect Jan. 1, 2000.
Q: I'm confused about the part of I-695 that says the public has to vote on
all new taxes and fees. Isn't that what we have a Legislature for?
- Susan Mitchell, Summit
A: I-695 would, indeed, require a public vote to approve any new tax, any
tax increase or any new fee or fee increase. (The exceptions would be for college
tuition and traffic and court fines and fees.)
And you're not the only one confused by that provision.
If I-695 passes, there almost certainly will be a legal challenge to clarify
whether the initiative oversteps its bounds by requiring a public vote every
time an elected body wants to raise fees or taxes. It's also likely that the
final decision on that aspect of the initiative will be decided by the state
Supreme Court.
I-695 sponsor Tim Eyman said he included that provision to make it easier
to collect signatures on his initiative petition. Eyman said when he was trying
to collect signatures last year on a similar initiative to repeal the state
motor vehicle excise tax, some people were reluctant to sign because they didn't
think it would do any good to repeal the excise tax. They figured the state
would just impose other taxes to make up for the lost money, Eyman said.
He said he included the provision to require a public vote on new or higher
taxes and fees, and that really helped him collect enough signatures this year
to qualify I-695 for the ballot.
Some lawyers say it's possible the Supreme Court will throw out that part
of the initiative because it's unconstitutional - that is, it takes away the
authority of the Legislature, city councils, county councils, school boards
and other elected officials to set taxes and fees.
On the other hand, Richard Stephens, the Bellevue attorney who helped write
I-695, said the state constitution also says the people reserve powers unto
themselves and what I-695 seeks to do falls within those powers.
Voters won't know the final answer to that question until well after the Nov.
2 election.
* Send your questions to state government and transportation reporter Joseph
Turner at 253-597-8436, joe.turner@mail.tribnet.com or The News Tribune,
PO Box 11000, Tacoma 98411. Please be sure to include your name (spell it, please)
and telephone number so that we can reach you if necessary.
10/11/1999
