There's room for rational debate on either side, but I think the evidence points pretty broadly to this being good so far.

I've generally seen two complaints:

a) Taxing the rich is bad. If we leave the rich all of their money, they will use it to generate a better economy for everyone. If we tax the rich, they'll move themselves and/or their money away.

Trickle-down economics is pretty much bull****. The fraction of the profits going into the working class jobs versus into billionaires' literal rocket ships are exceedingly small and shrinking. The threats of capitalists leaving Washington are real, but widely overblown.

b) A $250,000 threshold this year will become $2500 next year, and next we basically have State income taxes like all those other shmucks.

Given the assumption that income taxes (favor the poor) are better than sales taxes (favor the rich), I'd rather tax money come from income taxes. But the risk comes down to the government saying "Why not do both?", and wasting the money on stupid stuff. It's Washington, so it could happen.

<oversimplification>

Due to a quirk of Washington's constitution, we can't charge income tax. So we tax in a bunch of other ways that mostly punishes poor people, while constantly getting in trouble for not paying for our schools.

Some clever politicians found a way to tax rich people on their stonks, by not calling it an income tax. This argument is mostly gibberish, but because believing it means taxing a bunch of local tech executives, people are playing along

The state supreme court, being people, also agreed. Now the State can start sending out bills to about 7000 rich people.

</oversimplification>

There's no tax benefit to using a WA specific plan, so definitely shop around.

Personally, I use Fidelity's UNIQUE savings plan. Rate of return is decent, but more importantly, Fidelity's investment portal is excellent.

Yes, the law is to come to a complete stop, then execute the turn when it's safe.

A mitigation hearing is a bad idea - I don't think they are allowed to dismiss it during a mitigation hearing, only reduce the fine.

If you want to dispute it to get it dismissed, then you want a contested hearing. Honestly it may be easier to just pay the fine.

If it's a moving violation you may be able to request a deferral depending on the city. You still pay a fine, but it keeps it off your record (and thus out of view of insurance).

I wasn't in HR so I can't know for sure if they did or not. But if they ever checked my background in the 11 years I was there, they certainly didn't tell me about it.

My friends supporting government contracts all needed US security clearance anyways, which is constantly checking up on you in extreme detail.

At worst the landlord could be forced to provide a $20 space heater, and even that could be debatable.

The point is that the landlord has plenty of very cheap remedies that avoid responsibility for breaking the lease, and holding the tenant responsible until it's re-rented.

Context: former Microsoft FTE on an H-1b visa.

1. I'm not sure a simple arrest will even turn up in a background check if charges were never filed. Microsoft shouldn't see it.

2. Even if Microsoft says they can, I doubt they are re-checking background yearly. And even if they do, they don't necessarily care about every possible crime. It's unlikely they'd take an H-1b for any role with a higher security standard anyways.

3. An arrest DOES matter for immigration, and they will have to declare it at their next filing. But this isn't a deal breaker. They have the opportunity to explain, and make an argument that they are of good moral character. If charges were not filed, it should be easy enough to explain away.

If there was no built-in heat source when you signed the lease, you're probably out of luck. You knew what you were agreeing to. As long as there's some safe way to heat the room (like an electric heater), it's habitable.

This may not be the bill Seattle wants, but it's what they so greatly deserve, right in their entitled multi-million-dollar nimby faces.

Everywhere else in the State... carry on.

If this was King County, I'd say suck it up and take the deferral. They have their ticketing business fully optimized, and even the best lawyers struggle to dismiss tickets.

But this is Snohomish County. Contest it. Your odds of winning outright are much better here. I've only ever contested with lawyers, but you could try yourself if you're feeling bold.

There are good areas and bad areas anywhere. But I'd take the worst part of any of those cities over the best parts of Seattle or Everett city limits any day, in terms of safety. They are all incredibly safe (and Seattle, lately, is definitely not).

Most of the Eastside services tech workers, so it's all pretty gentrified. Some good food, but you won't find much nightlife.

To be fair, back in the "good old days", tenants could also actually afford rent.

About as binding as your sublease was. :p

The distinction doesn't matter much though. The remedy if your tenant doesn't vacate when they agreed is eviction. The remedy for getting a tenant out for not paying is eviction. Either way, the tenant doesn't get the cash and gets an eviction filing on their record, which they presumably want to avoid.

Hopefully you weren't asking in the other direction. But yes, if your check bounces, they could come after you in court for the money, or even for damages for an illegal eviction.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (in any State). I've been a landlord for the past ten years in Washington state, but have never had to go through with an eviction.

If your subtenant is living there, and paying you rent, you have a lease, and the written agreements would reinforce that. That means you would have to follow Washington state law similar to a landlord.

What you are describing is commonly referred to as a "cash-for-keys" agreement. If you Google it, you should find plenty of sample templates online. Honestly, if the price is right, I think this is the right option for you. The promise of a payout gives your subtenant motivation to follow through.

The alternative is to start the eviction process, and if you think your subtenant is trouble now, think how much worse they'll be once you serve them an eviction notice? Especially if the trouble results in your landlord getting involved; if your landlord wants to deal with this more conclusively, they'd have to evict YOU to get rid of the subtenant!

The unfortunate reality is that the friend is likely a tenant at this point, and the OP thus has similar duties to a landlord.

And yes, it is a scam, and it is unfair. But as landlords, we frequently have to resort to cash-for-keys to get unwanted tenants out. Writing a check to get a tenant out is in most cases both cheaper and safer than waiting out an eviction process while a now aggrieved tenant does everything in their power to punish your home for the next few months.

Are you a renter yourself, or do you own your home? If a renter, was your friend allowed to stay, are you allowed to sublet?

Does your friend have a written lease with you? Were they paying any rent?

It's a good idea. University of Washington is a great school, and you have a ton of top tech employers in the area. Cost of living is high but not as bad as Silicon Valley.

But honestly I'd say keep your options open. Find the programs and professors that interest you first, and see where you get the best match. You'll only be in the program for a few years, so you're not making a lifetime commitment to a region.

Considered any schools internationally?

... or get a job where employer will help pay for the masters.

Splintered Wand in Seattle.

https://explorewashingtonstate.com/a-visit-to-the-splintered-wand-in-seattle/

Takes awhile to get a reservation but worth it. All the magic/fantasy atmosphere, plus the food is actually really good!

Try Cafe Juanita in Kirkland.

Beautiful venue (don't let the front fool you), and at least the last I was there, a delicious northern Italian inspired menu. Haven't tried their new post-COVID menu, but I expect good things from this chef.