Election 2020: Brian Thompson, candidate for Washington State Legislature, District 21, Position 1

Brian Thompson

To help voters learn more about local candidates for Washington State Legislature, My Edmonds News sent a questionnaire to each candidate for state representative appearing on the Nov. 3 general election ballot. We are posting these are we receive them. 

Brian Thompson, a Republican, is a Washington native and Edmonds resident campaigning for the 21st District Position 1 seat, running against incumbent Rep. Strom Peterson, a Democrat and also an Edmonds resident. For 14 years, Thompson has owned and operated a local small business specializing in professional building and fire code design and consulting. He was appointed to Society of Fire Protection Engineers’ community outreach and advocacy committee and public policy task group, with members around the globe.

Thompson was previously elected state representative for architects and engineers on L&I Elevator Safety Advisory Committee; and was a former representative on Technical Advisory Groups to the State Building Code Council.

Q: Tell voters a little bit about yourself. How long you’ve lived in the district you’re hoping to represent, a general idea of what platforms/issues you’re running on, and other general information about yourself to let voters get to know you better.

My wife and I are native Washingtonians. We have lived, worked and played in District 21 for the past 14 years. We bought a home, started a small professional engineering consulting business, and are raising our four children here. A few years ago, I was an award recipient by Consulting-Specifying Engineer, who annually recognizes 40 engineers across the country under the age of 40 based on the individual’s “commitment to excellence in their academic, professional, personal, and community involvement.” The integrity, tenacity, and dedication I have honed as a small business owner in the Puget Sound are characteristics I will bring with me to Olympia as your state representative.

I entered this race in response to the call for citizen representatives to take a stand, having been equipped by my experiences and education for such a time as this. Among many meaningful things said by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “The measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort and convenience, but where he stands during times of challenge and controversy.” I appreciate the responsibility I will bear as your representative.

As a father, concerned citizen, and a resident of City of Edmonds, I have attended Edmonds City Council meetings and stood at the podium to offer public comment on the record. When it came to adopting FCC rules for allowance of 5G antennae sites, the city attorney instructed the council as to the allowable limits of their rulemaking prior to acceptance of public comment. In response to his statements, I adapted my presentation in that moment to more effectively communicate my concerns in a manner such that they would be actionable by the Council. The language ultimately adopted by the council went beyond that offered by city departments and incorporated my comments. My effective listening skills and ability to speak toward mutually acceptable language support my ability to work successfully with all parties in Olympia as your representative from Legislative District 21.

In my engineering practice, it is essential that I think critically and consider the consequences of my actions. That skill set is critical as a legislator in Olympia. With recent legislation, it seems our legislators have failed to fully consider the consequences of their actions. It is time to elect new leadership.

For example, when it came time for a final vote on allowing facial recognition technology earlier this year, our representatives approved it for Washington. But last year, studies reported the software to be “fraught with racial and gender bias.” It is all too convenient now in the wake of rising racial tensions for our out-of-touch career politicians to now claim to care about minorities.

With regard to comprehensive sex education (CSE), our representatives, from the comfort of their chairs in Olympia, voted to approve this legislation last year. Strom has said there is nothing offensive in the bill. Pardon me while I take offense to the blank check effectively written to OSPI which paved the way for a curriculum that imposes unhealthy conditioning, beginning in kindergarten, and explicit material in older grades. Yes, it is important for our children to practice being respectful of others. That has long been accomplished in an environment where it was still okay for you to be you. However, CSE opens the door for schools, where our children spend a substantial portion of their time, to lead them to life-altering decisions without the involvement of their parents. Having heard of bad experiences of female relatives involving males in our public school bathrooms, which if you were unaware are effectively open to use by either biological gender, demonstrates that students are not learning that respect is a two-way street. I fear some adults are forgetting this as well, and vow to promote the two-way street of respect in Olympia.

Q: What experience would you bring to the position you’re running for? Are there any issues in particular you are passionate about or plan to prioritize if elected?

I am currently serving an appointment with the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (LNI) as a member of the Elevator Safety Advisory Committee where I represent registered architects and professional engineers throughout Washington state. I have twice been appointed by our State Building Code Council to serve as a member of Technical Advisory Groups in the triennial adoption of the State Building and Fire Codes. In the most recent adoption cycle, I stood up as an individual for public safety and petitioned the council for reconsideration of a particular proposed code amendment. I appeared at multiple public hearings in Olympia where I provided oral public testimony in addition to persuasive written testimony. My stated position received the written support of fire department officials in two area jurisdictions. Ultimately, my petition was granted, preserving the level of fire and life safety established by our codes.

In the previous legislative session, I helped our District 21 Senator Marko Liias (D) amend the text of a bill that had not been successful in prior years. Following my contributions, the Greg “Gibby” Gibson Fire Safety Act was passed in 2019. As your representative, I will continue to work with all parties toward the best outcome.

With the imminent introduction of a vaccine for COVID-19, I am prioritizing support for HB 1976 concerning vaccine safety. We have seen that even before Governor Inslee imposed his Stay Home order, the retransmission rate had dramatically dropped from where it was in February to a level at or below the target threshold, and while there was a rise in positive cases this summer, the limited number of hospitalizations and deaths during that time reveal that drastic intervention, such as compelling Washingtonians to receive an injection, is no longer warranted.

Q: The state budget is facing a budget deficit of nearly $9 billion including a $4.5 billion shortfall from the 2019-21 budget and another $4.3 billion shortfall from 2021-23 is anticipated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Legislators have proposed several options like implementing a state income tax, a capital gains tax, new taxes on business or making cuts in the budget. What are your ideas for addressing the budget shortfall?

I take issue with the assertion that the anticipated budget shortfall is “a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.” This suggests that some tiny microbe came and took our money. The virus did not take our money. Gov. Jay Inslee imposed, and continues to impose extreme and sweeping measures as he claims to be “following the science.” I have a master’s degree in science and cannot explain how his proclamations are supported in science; they are not. To be clear, it is our leadership’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic that is the cause of our budget woes.

Recognizing that we all must make do with less, I am refusing to accept more than $500 from any single donor for my campaign and am limiting my campaign revenue to maximum $5,000. We all need to spend wisely and vote wisely.

I will vehemently oppose a progressive tax or state income tax, or other new taxes. My opponent, Strom, owns Cheesemonger’s Table in Edmonds, and has no problem taking money from other businesses. He voted for a 20% increase in taxes to professional businesses last year. Now is not the time to increase taxes on businesses or individuals.

Predictability is crucial to businesses’ ability to forecast and grow, and to individuals and families planning for their future. Therefore, when it comes to taxes, we should foster an environment where each business and household can be more confident in its income, and thereby promote spending which would inherently improve the amount of taxes collected. 

Recognizing there is an existing shortfall imposed by Gov. Inslee, I favor reductions in government spending as the means to address the budget shortfall.

Q: If you favor budget cuts, what areas would you prioritize funding for and areas would you propose cutting?

I would prioritize funding for essential services. Due to the magnitude of cuts facing the state, the 15% currently contemplated by some departments may be insufficient. I would look for opportunities to eliminate redundancy, both within government as well as by reducing spending where that redundancy is found in private-sector and nonprofits already offering the same or better social services.

Q: Washington state, specifically Snohomish County, was the first place in the country to have a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Some have said the federal government was not prepared for the pandemic, forcing state and local officials to come up with their own plans. Do you have ideas for ensuring the state is prepared to resolve this (and future) pandemic crisis, regardless of federal government action?

Our state has the benefit of renowned medical researchers. Findings from University of Washington published in May revealed that the reinfection rate fell sharply in February and March, reaching the acceptable threshold level on or before Gov. Inslee’s “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” proclamation took effect.

State Department of Health (DOH) statistics have shown that the hospitalization and death rates which followed the positive cases when they peaked in March, have ceased to rise this summer when positive cases rose again.

Our state was and is prepared with experts capable of compiling data. Unfortunately, the governor’s extreme response to the data is an overreaction to the limited risk presented by COVID-19.

Q: Our nation is currently in the middle of a polarizing conversation about racism, particularly with regards to over-policing in communities of color. There have been calls for police reform, including but not limited to defunding the police and reallocating funds to other services that would replace a police response with social services. What are your opinions on this issue and what plans do you have to work on improving relations between police and communities of color?

I believe Washingtonians, by-in-large, are colorblind. In the absence of inflammatory news stories, we saw the majority of Washingtonians vote 20 years ago to abolish affirmative action, and sustained this position last November. Washington State Patrol employs a diverse population. Relations between police and the communities they serve are best handled at the local level.

Q: Additionally, if you do support defunding the police, how would you go about doing that? If not, what other plans do you have for police reform to ensure people and communities of color are treated equally?

We are safe when law and order is upheld. A solid police presence is a strong deterrent to criminal activity. Recent events have shown that full-length audio and video recordings of encounters with police can tell a different story than an excerpt of the same event posted by an individual. Employing technology on officers and their patrol vehicles to record their encounters can help protect the officer, the department and all citizens, by creating a clearer picture of what happened.

Q: Homelessness is considered one of the biggest issues in Washington state. What solutions do you have for resolving homelessness in your district as well as the root problems that often cause homelessness, like mental health, substance abuse and a lack of affordable housing?

I perceive homelessness to vary by individual locality, and therefore find it impossible for the state to provide a blanket one-size-fits-all solution.

Q: Many are concerned about rising housing costs in the region. With Sound Transit’s light rail coming to South Snohomish County in 2024, the area is anticipating population increases. What plans/ideas do you have to ensure there is enough affordable housing in your district for future residents while making sure those who already live here do not get priced out?

At the state-level, I would work to not increase property taxes. This has the result of benefiting homeowners, as well as renters to whom increases in property tax would ultimately be passed onto.

Q: Climate change is considered a priority issue for many. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we have 12 years to make drastic cuts in global warming emissions to avoid worsened climate conditions and extreme weather patterns. Will climate action be a priority once you take office and if so what plans do you have to address it?

In assessing such an important issue with such far-reaching consequences, it is important to obtain the perspective of multiple sources. Unfortunately, there is a lack of independence among climate projection models. An article in Nature Climate Change from January 2019 found that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change employed improper rounding techniques, contributing to errors in its analysis and conclusions.

Therefore, I do not perceive climate action to be a priority.

Q: If elected, how would you work to support LGBTQIA+ voters?

I would not ask personal questions in order to determine a voter’s demographic. I am called to represent our legislative district, and each constituent deserves fair representation.

Q: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted education locally and nationwide. Many school districts were not prepared for the impacts of the pandemic and there is uncertainty about how districts can continue to educate students. How would you work to support education through the current pandemic?

Support for education is best achieved by reopening the schools. Children are our best defense toward achieving natural herd immunity. More education of the limited risks of COVID-19, as well as the effectiveness of safety measures and treatments would help ease concerns of many teachers and families.

Q: Where can voters go to learn more about your campaign?

Visit my website at ThompsonLD21.com. 

25 Replies to “Election 2020: Brian Thompson, candidate for Washington State Legislature, District 21, Position 1”

  1. So, to sum it up: Sex education is bad, vaccines are not necessary to stop a deadly pandemic, racism isn’t really a problem as most of us are “color-blind”, the economic woes are the Governor’s fault, not the pandemics and children should go back to school so we can reach “herd immunity”, which experts predict will kill between 2.5 and 3 million Americans. Got it.

    1. M. Peterson, appreciate your concerns. Please accept the following clarifications:
      1. Comprehensive Sex Education is bad. It is not comprehensive. It omits the devastating consequences of early sexual activity, while delivering content consistent with predatory grooming or minors, wholly inappropriate for the public school classroom. View sample curriculum at https://www.informedparentsofwashington.com/
      2. Vaccines are not magic. There is a measels vaccine, yet vaccinated and unvaccinated people still get measles. Same with other vaccines. Given this track record, and the concern that one’s reaction to COVID-19 may be exacerbated after receiving the vaccine, we must not rely upon a vaccine to free us.
      3. I don’t think racial tension will be solved by focusing on our differences or projecting onto someone else how we think they are feeling. Rather, we should each accept our individual humanness, and demonstrate care for others through our words and deeds.
      4. Many businesses permanently closed and Washingtonians became unemployed because Inslee kept us locked-down. The early model predicting millions of deaths was wrong. Many experts support reopening schools. And rather than the ol’ “smoking or non” question at a restaurant, four example, they could ask “social-distanced or non”, and we could reopen the free market and allow businesses to get back to business more usual.

      1. BT, below I discuss the idea of a flat rate income tax that could be done in a revenue neutral manor, no increase in tax revenues just a shift to reduce some of the regressive nature of our taxes. It also is a way to reduce property and sales taxes. When the attorney general spoke in Edmonds I asked him about the 1930s court decision that allows income to be taxed as property and he assigned his chief of staff to do the research. That research supported the 1930s decision and also supported the opinion of Slade Gorton’s office when he was AG. The current report is that opinion is still the opinion of the current AG.

        Such a shift of taxes away from Sales and Property Taxes would help with the idea of more affordable housing and allow seniors to remain in their current homes a bit longer.

        This would be a more fair way to raise the revenues without adding to taxes. Do you have an opinion on such a change to our tax system? Conservative and fair!

  2. Oh, and I forgot – climate change not a priority because more Conservatives are not writing about it – therefore not an issue.

    1. With regard to climate change, the question referenced a specific study; a study which is flawed. Other resources to consider include a US Senate report https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2008/12/post-d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f and position of many other scientists identified at http://www.PetitionProject.org

      Accordingly, with the lack of consensus on this issue, it should not be a priority as we work to resolve the State’s current budget deficit.

  3. Nothing new or imaginative in terms of actions to solve real problems here; just the usual Party line stuff and, frankly, questions not really answered. Blaming Inslee is one thing, but coming up with something new and original to correct the problems Inslee has, supposedly, caused in his reaction to the Pandemic is another. Just more polarized political, “cut taxes” double talk from this guy. Vote for him if you must, but I guarantee you, he has no real solutions to anything. If just cutting taxes and ignoring Science would solve all our problems, it would indeed already be a perfect Conservative paradise in Washington State and America. (Ref. Trump income tax cuts and “Herd ‘mentality’,” to rev up the economy and solve the Pandemic).

    If you want my vote, you will have to sell me something new and different, that just might work for a change. I have my issues with some of what the Dem.s do, but for the most part they at least aren’t total hypocrites. The R.s just like to make up the rules as they go along. (This Supreme Court thing is their latest “about face” on what is good “for the people.” ) Centrist Republicans, you need to come out of the woodwork. Your present crew are destroying your Party and the country.

    1. Posting this on Brian Thompson’s behalf as he couldn’t get it to go through:

      Mr. Wright, I appreciate your desire for solutions. Please consider, however, that there will be many more issues your representative will be called upon to decide than could possibly be stated in advance. Further, any idea brought forward would likely be met with an alternative solution or amendments presented by others. Therefore, I would submit it is much more important to understand the foundation from which the candidate will approach decision-making. My stance is to abide by our constitutions and support a free market.

      With regard to the Party line, you may appreciate that in the presidential primary I refused to check either box (D or R) on my envelope. When I filed for candidacy, I did so as a third party. I was then invited by the GOP to revise my party preference in order to fall in-step with our 2-party system. I accepted their invitation in order to accomplish my larger goal of making a difference.
      A fresh solution I offer, particularly considering the near-term economic challenges ahead and recent blanket of wildfire smoke that plagued us, is to realize the value of our investment in the land by prudent harvesting of our forests. Support for such a shift in our forest management practices is expressed in a TEDx talk from 2017 by Paul Hessburg in Oregon, “Why Wildfires Have Gotten Worse, And What We Can Do About It,” link below:


      Sue Kuehl Pederson, candidate for State Commissioner of Public Lands, also speaks to this. Her website (https://citizensforsue.com) states, “She believes the Commissioner of Public Lands has a Constitutional duty to responsibly manage timber harvests in a way that will improve forest health, reduce forest fires, provide living wage jobs, and support our public schools.”

      1. With all due respect, Mr. Thompson, I re-read your original article and answers to well put specific questions and I still find your answers and amended responses lacking in much depth and clarity about what you are actually going to do about anything. Maybe you don’t espouse to be an anti-tax; anti-government solve all our problems proponent but that is what you sound like to me. The idea that there is no consensus on climate change is just Right wing, anti-science bunk. For example do you think that California and Oregon residents just need to rake the leaves in their forests to stop the wildfires? That’s our current Republican President’s stance on how to stop the wild fires that are polluting our air and burning down many of our homes. So you “promise to abide by our constitutions and support a free market”. Of course the implication of that statement is that our current “Liberal” politicians aren’t doing that based on your interpretation of how things should be done. I rest my case that you are just another Right wing “taxes bad, government bad” ideologue. Prove me wrong with by presenting some real ideas about how sex education should be presented, how we can get clean air again, and how we can come together as people with common causes and needs and how the free market is going to save us from ourselves and Covid 19. Then I will vote for you.

        1. These “questions” sound like they are very off the wall. For a man who has no children asking about sex-education is creepy. You “rest your case”…. what case? You never pass up a chance to divide with your nonsense. “Nothing new and imaginative”, just the “usual party line stuff”, I agree your comments are repetitive and always the same, always derogatory even when Mr Thompson responded very graciously you continue to be rude.

      2. Thank you, Mr Thompson, your response to several questions has been made perfectly clear. You will certainly have our family seriously consider you. I appreciate that you have taken the time to answer these questions; you are articulate as well as an independent thinker. We need new, younger people representing the voters in Edmonds, District 21.

  4. Hi Clinton, In Washington State we can have an income tax so long as it is a flat rate. Progressives want a graduated income tax but the data shows at a flat rate it would shift the tax burden from lower income to higher income. The studies also show we could dramatically reduce property tax and sales tax if we shifted to a flat rate income tax. If all this were done on a revenue neutral basis we would collect the same amount of taxes but would shift the tax burden to higher income folks.

    Is that a conservative proposal because it raises no more money? Or is a a progressive proposal because it shift taxes to the wealthy? Sounds like an idea that works for both sides?

    1. Hi Darrol. The flat tax is a good conservative idea often touted by well known Conservative Steve Forbes for taxation at the national level. The problem is he can’t even sell it to his Conservative palls because they would have to pay quite a bit of something rather than zero or next to zero by making and manipulating the national income tax laws to their benefit. I suspect you will have the same problem selling that idea to Mr. Thompson and the other so called physical conservatives at our state level for pretty much the same reasons. If you don’t have to pay anything now on income, why would you ever agree to pay anything? Personally I’d vote for a flat income tax in a New York second, if I thought we’d be rid of some sales and property taxes, but we will just end up with all three I suspect. I admire your tenacity but you are preaching to an uninterested congregation I’m afraid. I enjoy your brand of Conservatism because, 1. you try to solve problems with facts and figures and 2. you are not a hypocrite. Can’t say that about most of the other conservative leaning people I know. My liberal friends also have some really bad ideas, like de-funding the police as a prime example. God help us my friend.

      1. Clinton, only 2 reasons for my brand of Conservatism? In SoW we have Sales and Property. Advancing an Income tax of any sort in SoW is not a very conservative idea, it is a very liberal idea for this state. Conservative and Liberal in SoW both use only the “facts” that support whatever they are pushing. By doing so both are Hypocrites. Now we are down to zero reasons for my brand of conservatism.

        Guaranteed income for poor people? Liberal at first glance, but conservative if we look at all give away program programs, take all that money and all the overheads to manage the program and give more money to the poor.

        Lots of ideas can be liberal or conservative based on how they are managed.

      2. Clinton – the “Flat tax” proposal you are referring to is at the federal level – a flat sales tax that is met with eliminating the progressive federal income tax brackets.

        At the state level, there are nine states that have a flat income taxes and they run the gamut of conservative to liberal. Utah, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc.

        The problem that Darrol is alluding to (and I wholeheartedly agree), is that our revenue model is incredibly regressive. As an extreme example, say you make $10 million per year. At the local level, you might spend $200,000 per year on sales tax items (or approx $20k in sales tax spend) and the mansion on the water costs you $25k per year in r/e tax. That persons state & local effective tax rate is 0.35% (or one third of 1 percent).

        That compares horribly to middle class folks who spend a significant portion of their income on state & local taxes. For example, a family making $90k per year that spends $15k per year on sales tax items and has $4k in r/e taxes has a local effective tax rate of 6.1%. Sure, the $10m income earner is contributing “more” in revenue but as a percentage of income, the family making $90k per year is paying a higher tax rate.

        If everyone was taxed at, say, 4% of their income, the $10m earner would pay $400,000 in income tax while family would pay $3,600. That “revenue neutral” system as Darrol alluded to would allow us to reduce both r/e tax and sales taxes (and i’ll add business B&O) and result in a much fairer and less regressive system.

        1. Introduce an income tax and you give Olympia another new tax to increase. Taxes may start out being neutral, but eventually the State will collect more from us than prior to the establishment of an income tax.

  5. “Therefore, I would submit it is much more important to understand the foundation from which the candidate will approach decision-making. My stance is to abide by our constitutions and support a free market.”

    I appreciate your additional statement and I look forward to learning more about you as the election draws closer. Anyone who has the courage in the current political environment to step aside from the Rs or the Ds and strive to stand on their own gets a serious look from me.

    1. I agree Rebecca, Brian Thompson certainly does seem to stand on his own. It tickles me that some question/comments are coming from people who have declared who “their” party is. Brian is of a different mind and certainly has my attention! I will be looking to read more and hear more of his independent thoughts.

  6. I thought I asked Brian a legitimate question above about Washington tax structure and to date he has not responded. Each election is very important for us to consider what all the candidates think about ideas and how they would approach solving problems that come up once elected. I would hope Brian will give some response to my question.

    By way of background I asked 2 State Senators and 4 State representatives about the law. The senators both told me I was wrong and did not fully understand the Washington Supreme Count decision of the 1930. 2 State reps were standing right beside one of the senators and remained silent. Not being a lawyer I decided to check with our State AG. I reported above the outcome of that research. After getting the AG opinion I wrote to the Senator and one of the state rep and Neither has ever responded. I had hoped for a response but they did not have the courtesy to even respond.

    I would hope that Brian will have to courtesy to respond, but at my age I will not be holding my breath.

  7. With the Democrats holding the Governor, House and Senate its a pretty big ask to have the Republicans do anything significant, let alone radically reshape the revenue stream of State government.

    For the record I also favor a straight flat tax since the only truly fair tax system is if everyone pays the same percentage. If you are wealthy the same percentage equals more money, if you are poorer the same percentage equals less. Set the percentage at whatever point is the break even point for the uber wealthy of shielding the money versus paying the taxes. Get rid of the false punish the rich schemes that allow them to manipulate loopholes or cause assets to be listed out of state/country and you will see more actual revenue instead of on paper potential revenue.

    Simplistic example, everyone in the group gets 1 million dollars….

    if there is a 10% tax you owe the government $100,000 and you keep $900,000. Do you employ an accountant to find a way to shield your money for $150,000 letting you keep only $850,000 just so that the government gets none? I would guess this number is going to be low.

    if there is a 40% tax you owe the government $400,000 and keep $600,000. Do you employ an accountant that finds a way to shield your money for $150,000 letting you keep $850,000 (and the state gets a big fat zero). I would guess this number is high, which is what rich people do now. Set the number as extreme as you want, make it 70% or 90% the only thing that is going to change is more people are going to do more to avoid the tax. On paper it will look like government will get more from the group but will not.

  8. AA, It is up to all legislators to make our systems work better and be more fair. Data shows that when we have a blend of taxes from several sources we have a more balanced revenue stream. Given one or two more state election cycles and we will likely have a progressive majority that can move forward with some form of income tax.

    Ron’s point about increasing the tax income because while we may start at revenue neutral politicians find ways to raise taxes in future cycles is interesting. I747 set into place some tax growth models that require super majorities or a vote of the people to increase taxes beyond a specified amount. We could put limits on all three taxes, sale, property and income and control revenue growth.

    The Seattle Times has run articles written by Dick Conway who has written about flat rate income taxes in SoW over the years. The link below are just a couple of his works.


    Kevin’s points above are very valid when we sort out the numbers. The articles above point out that a family at $24k pays 18% of their income in taxes or around $4300. A family making $550k pays 3% for their income or around $16,500. If we had only these two families and wanted to get the same total revenue the tax rate would change to 3.63%. Saves the low income family $3400 and cost the upper income family that much more.

    In reality we do not have a 2 family model, so the real savings and costs would be less than those cited.

    More fair, better revenue flow to state, and can be done to require super majorities or vote of people to change.

  9. I agree its better, how do you convince people that feel the wealthy have to be punished and that the only way to do it is to raise their tax rate, that will not buy into the reasoning of the wealthy actually pay less not more. I could explain the numbers to my heavy blue family members seven ways to sunday and they will never believe anything other than the base tax rate has to be higher for rich people and lower for poor people because its fair. If this candidate proposed your exact system all they would see is typical Republican that wants to give tax breaks to the rich while soaking the middle class. The fact that the rich will pay more not only does not matter but will become a point of anger if pointed out since it goes against what they believe to be true.

  10. I agree with Mr. Wambolt. Pass any sort of income tax and we will have three forms of over taxation, rather than just two.

    Mr. Palmanis, your comments toward me are small minded, unkind and out of line in my opinion. In short, my age, parental status , and creepiness or not, are none of your damn business and inappropriate when stated in a public forum. I’m not attacking Mr. Thompson, you or anyone else here personally. I’m challenging him to present some real information about what he is going to do if I vote for him rather than his opponent. So far he has told me he is opposed to sex education as voted for by his opponent and he doesn’t believe in addressing climate change as a problem. I know what he’s against; I just don’t know what he’s for and how he will bring it about. If that’s divisive, then forgive me for being divisive and I’ll forgive you for being obnoxious toward me for no apparent reason other than to just be a nasty person. Says more about you, than me, I think.

    1. I would ask sincerely, following up on Mr. Wright’s comment, that we all try to be kind to each other. It really is possible to offer opinions without being critical of each other personally and I hope we can strive to do better.

      1. And to that end — I’m going to be the last word in this comment thread because surely everyone else will want to have the last word.

Comments are closed.