Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Looking Back: Past opinions provide perspective

Looking Back reviews opinions published in The Spokesman-Review during this week in history.

B&O tax bashed, Sept. 19, 1959

The Business and Occupation (B&O) tax is one of those things that draws consistent complaints, but nobody does anything about. This editorial from nearly 60 years ago criticizes the idea of the city adopting one.

“Three out of five Spokane city commissioners took an initial step yesterday to impose a new form of municipal tax upon the conduct of business operations. The fact that the state of Washington and the city of Tacoma have authorized and collected business and occupation taxes is no excuse for the imposition of this type of injurious and punitive taxation upon the community.

“Even though the proposed tax rate seem to be small, the principle of the B&O tax is almost universally recognized to be unfair. It is a tax upon gross sales, gross receipts or gross income and it is imposed upon business firms, regardless of profits or other costs of doing business.

“Furthermore, this type of tax works an uncommon hardship on enterprises which may do a large volume of business but collect a small margin of profit or none at all. The B&O tax is also unfair because in certain production or marketing processes, the tax can be imposed over and over again.

“There is probably no form of taxation that can retard business enterprise and hinder industrial activity more than a B&O tax.”

Editor’s note: Forty cities in Washington state now levy a B&O tax. Spokane does not.

Seat belt restraint, Sept. 22, 1973

The S-R editorial board supports current seat belt law, as does the majority of the public. But that wasn’t always the case, as this editorial, headlined “The Tyranny of Seat Belts,” demonstrates.

“To begin with, let it be said that the use of seat belts by automobile passengers is a very good thing. The statistics reflect that proper use of the belts reduce injury significantly in automobile accidents.

“At the same time, the tendency of automobile makers to rig the belts with flashing lights and noise makers and even switches that immobilize a car when passengers are not buckled up is carrying a good thing too far.”

It continued: “A national poll reports that 71 percent of persons interviewed are opposed to a law which would enforce seat belt usage. Of the persons interviewed, only three out of every 10 said they had fastened a seat belt last time they were in a car.

“We are told the 1974 cars will have many more devices than earlier models to enforce seat belt usage as a precondition of getting the car to go. It is a reactionary view, undoubtedly, that substituting mechanical authority for human judgment is somehow a disturbing thing.

“Even though we shouldn’t feel that way, in cases where the safety of others is not at stake, the right to make one’s own mistakes is kind of a civil right in itself.”