Facts vs. interpretations in Seattle |

Facts vs. interpretations in Seattle

George Will
In this April 1, 2015, file photo, students and other supporters protest on the University of Washington campus in Seattle, in support of raising the minimum wage for campus workers to $15 an hour. Seattle's $15-an-hour minimum wage law has cost the city jobs, according to a study released Monday, June 26, 2017. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)


In this city, a petri dish of progressivism, a prevailing theory is that when you raise something’s price, people will buy less of it, except when they do not. A related theory is that constitutional and statutory texts should be construed in the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche: There are no facts, only interpretations.

The city council has voted to impose a tax, effective next year, on sugary soft drinks, raising the price of a 2-liter bottle of soda about $1.18. Presented as a measure to combat obesity, the tax is projected to generate about $15 million a year.

Three years ago, the city council voted — unanimously, of course — to increase the city’s minimum wage incrementally from $9.47 to $15 an hour. It rejected the contention that employers buy less entry-level labor when its price increases. The city commissioned a study from six University of Washington economists ranging from left to right, presumably expecting findings congruent with other studies purporting to show that demand for such labor, unlike demand for sugary sodas, is price-inelastic.

The UW study, however, concluded that the costs to low-wage Seattle workers have been three times larger than the benefits, costing more than 5,000 jobs, and that workers whose wages were increased to comply lost an average of $125 a month as employers reduced their hours. Total restaurant employment did not decline, but employers replaced less-skilled, low-productivity workers with others able to produce higher-value work products. As one of the study’s authors said, “Basically, what we’re doing is we’re removing the bottom rung of the ladder.”

Forewarned about the six economists’ conclusions, the city sought more congenial findings from some University of California, Berkeley, economists known for research that supports the national “Fight for $15” movement.

In July, Seattle’s council enacted — unanimously, of course — a city income tax, setting the rate on incomes below $250,000 at zero, and at 2.25 percent on individuals’ incomes above $250,000 and household incomes above $500,000.

Washington, which has no state income tax, has a law that says: “A county, city or city-county shall not levy a tax on net income.” The council claims it is taxing “total income” as defined on IRS 1040 forms. But that is net income, after deductions and exclusions.

The state’s constitution says: “All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property.” Twice the state Supreme Court has held that a graduated income tax is unconstitutional.

A suit challenging the tax notes that cities have only taxing authority expressly granted by the state Legislature. And the tax is explicitly designed to “test the constitutionality of a progressive income tax.”

The council must hope that Washington’s very liberal Supreme Court can be persuaded, in a third consideration of unchanging language, to say that constitutional and statutory facts can be made to disappear in a mist of interpretations.

In 2010, advocates submitted a progressive income tax for a referendum. It lost almost 2-to-1. It lost even in King County, home of Seattle and its Nietzschean city council.

George F. Will is a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.