One of the most important decisions voters will make in November is whether or not to establish a state income tax.

Let’s say this simply: “Vote No.”

The measure, I-1098, would tax adjusted gross income above $200,000 for individuals and $400,000 for joint-filers. It also says it will lower the property tax and direct any increase in revenue to education and health.

Unless you’re particularly well-off financially, this can sound good. But this is not a “stick it to the rich” measure. An income tax could – and we think would – soon apply to all taxpayers in our state.

The problem with I-1098 is that the Legislature can change the initiative within two years with a two-thirds majority vote. Granted, that might be hard.

However, the Legislature only needs a simple majority vote to make changes after two years.

Ask yourself this: Do you really believe the politicians will keep their hands off your money when they can easily make an income tax apply to all?

We don’t.

State government’s problem isn’t a lack of money. The problem is that politicians refuse to prioritize spending. Their answer to everything is “give us more money.”

Again, the answer should be “No.”

It’s also a mistake to believe that other taxes will dramatically fall if an income tax is put in place. Yes, the state will cut part of the property tax, but only its share, which amounts to only about 20 percent of the total.

And what about all that increased revenue going to education and health programs? In fact, the Legislature can spend the money on anything it pleases – and probably will.

I-1098 doesn’t solve anything and likely will make things worse. Vote “No” on I-1098.

‘Yes’ on I-1100, ‘No’ on I-1105

Two initiatives on the ballot deal with state control of liquor sales. Only one of them deserves support.

As it stands now, the state is the only entity that can sell hard liquor. It does this in a relatively few state liquor stores or contract stores. Both initiatives would change this, which is good.

There’s no rational reason that the state should be in the retail liquor business. That’s not the case in most states and life functions just fine there.

What the state should do – and still would under both initiatives – is enforce liquor laws to prevent underage drinking.

The state also is inconsistent in that it allows the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores and other outlets everywhere. If alcohol is alcohol, then why the difference?

The reason is money. The state marks up hard liquor by 51 percent. That’s in addition to imposing the highest liquor taxes in the nation.

The answer is to let private enterprise handle hard liquor sales, just as it does with been and wine. I-1100 would let retailers buy directly from manufactures.

This is where I-1100 and I-1105 differ.

I-1105 would keep the middle-men in liquor sales – the distributors – in place, along with the costs they add to the price.

Some argue that distributors help the state’s small wineries get their wines in stores. In fact, many wineries – large and small – already do that. The state doesn’t need an expensive distribution system to protect what amounts to a alcohol cartel. And it doesn’t need to be in the retail sales of alcohol at all.

Vote “Yes” on I-1100 and “No” on I-1105.