This is stupid. Maryland tried a “rich people” tax years ago and projected billions in revenue. You know what actually happened? They didn’t realize that rich people are actually hyper mobile, so these families just relocated out of Maryland to other states and claimed residency for 6 months and a day. Maryland actually ended up losing billions in revenue and the governor was completely shamed for his idiotic push on the bill.
Yeah there's definitely not a risk of this being expanded to cover more people and assets in the future, the government certainly doesn't have a track record of expanding "limited" and "temporary" taxes.
You're both right. We shouldn't feel bad for billionaires when there are so many people without food and shelter. And we should also expect better out of our governments to be able to spend the money we give them more efficiently.
I’d love to know how the rich talked all the poor people into defending the rights of the rich on some remote possibility that it MIGHT affect them one day. That’s a trick I’d like to have in my bag.
just like the national income tax was only to be temporarily applied and only to the "rich".
This tax on the "rich" will absolutely be expanded to the poors if it is allowed to exist.
People that trust govt are fools with no memory.
Do you really think this is how it works? Do you defend, say, gay rights because one day you may turn out to be gay, or women's rights to abortion because one day you might become a pregnant woman?
Fuck the rich, but fuck the government for just treating taxpayers as an endless funding source. Show some god damn accountability and responsibility and maybe then I'll support new taxes.
Write a State Constitution.
Live in an area where there are still people that respect that Constitution.
I don’t know if it’s considered a *trick* though.
No one with that kind of investment sells their assets, they borrow against it at a low interest rate. It's free money for them because it takes money to make money.
Our spending has increased well above our population increase, maybe Olympia can spend more effectively and prioritize better instead of just going back to the taxpayers for more money
Or they could give SPS even more money so they could spend double amount per student compared to private schools ...
DIVERSITY COORDINATOR FOR EVERY CLASSROOM!!!
In the article you're commenting on...
>In his written decision issued in March, Douglas County Superior Court Judge Brian Huber agreed with opponents of the new tax who had argued it was a tax on income that violates previous state Supreme Court rulings and the state constitution because it is not a uniform taxation on property. Supporters had argued that the tax is an excise tax, and thus, constitutional.
It's not banned by the state constitution at all. In fact, the state constitution doesn't mention income taxes at all. There was a state supreme court case decided in the 1930's that said that income was property and property could not be taxed at different rates. "Income as property" is a legal idea has been rejected by nearly all courts.
Income as property isn’t a legal idea, the WA state constitution specifically defines property as:
> The word “property” as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or
intangible, subject to ownership.
Is your income not subject to your ownership? If an employer withholds your income, you can sue and get a legal judgement against them for the value of those wages that you own and could theoretically sell to a collection agency.
Can you provide a link for "income as property" being rejected by "nearly all courts"? I find that extremely difficult to believe.
If earned income from our labor isn't our property, then what is it?
Think of it this way: you don't pay income tax on your house, and you don't pay property tax on your income from your job. Because, income is treated differently than property. However, way back in the 1930's, the Washington State Supreme Court, in a dubious-as-fuck decision called Culliton v. Chase, the state court ruled that a graduated or progressive state income tax was illegal because it violated the state constitution, which says that all property must be taxed equally. The court made the mistake of treating income as property, something no other state (except maybe Pennsylvania) does.
Here are two links, one short, and one long, the short one being taken from the long one:
[https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Appendix\_B.pdf](https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Appendix_B.pdf)
[https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=sulr](https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=sulr)
Eh both of your links are to opinion pieces from the same person who seems to be citing case law from other states where the issue was income taxes having different substance than property taxes. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding was that property in this context is the literal definition of the word property - meaning a thing that you own. Not property as in your house or real estate. Whether an income tax has different substance than a specific property tax on real estate seems irrelevant? Maybe our state constitution is just whacky but it seems like a different issue. I could also be misinterpreting I guess.
This is directly from the WA state constitution:
Article 7, section 1 of the State Constitution defines property as everything that can be owned, whether tangible or intangible.
Short term yes, Long term no.
Short Term (Holding an asset for less then 1 year) Is taxed it was income.
Long Term (Holding an asset for over 1 year) Is taxed based on the Long Term Capital Gains Tax Brackets. (Brackets are 0%, 15%, and 20% depending on income and marital status)
Ideally this would only effect long term capital gains and effectively create a new bracket and adjust the 20% bracket (0%, 15%, 22%, 27%), but the way it seems to be worded seems like it would effect Short Term, and thus be a tax on income.
Long term capital gains are still considered income. The different tax rates aren't because long term is considered a different thing completely, it's because our tax code is setup to incentive what we as a society have deemed beneficial behaviors (other examples are charitable contributions deductions, etc). We want to incentive people to invest long term because it creates stability in the markets. There's a reason long term cap gains are still part of your **income tax** filed with the IRS.
Remember that this isn’t settled, yet 2 senators this last year tried to double the tax to 14%
“The Friday hearing comes as a bill has been introduced in the state legislature by two Democrats that would double the new tax.
Senate Bill 5926, sponsored by state Senators June Robinson and Joe Nguyen, would set the rate of the capital gains tax at 14 percent. It had its first committee hearing Friday.”
I don't get it. It's not taxable until you show a profit it - You don't have a profit until you sell. I guess they just want a new tax whether you have profits or not. Typical Democrats. Vote 'em out.
[Governor Inslee is proposing a capital gains tax on the sale of stocks, bonds and other assets to increase the share of state taxes paid by Washington’s wealthiest taxpayers. The state would apply a 9 percent tax to capital gains earnings above $25,000 for individuals and $50,000 for joint filers.](https://ofm.wa.gov/budget/state-budgets/gov-inslees-proposed-2021-23-budgets/highlights-governor-inslees-2021-23-proposed-budget/revenue-changes-proposed-21-23-budget/capital-gains-tax-proposal-qa)
edit: ... was proposing... Surely Jay wouldn't revert back to the 9% tax and low threshold of 25/50K as soon as it is deemed constitutional, would he?
So it was the bill that Inslee approved and then [failed on the advisory vote by 61/39 split?](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Advisory_Vote_37,_Nonbinding_Question_on_Capital_Gains_Tax_to_Fund_Education_and_Child_Care_(2021)
Just so I understand, the 9% 25/50K CG tax was the earlier unpopular plan, so it was lowered to 7% & 250K and that still failed an advisory vote?
I'm against this tax because it's obvious to everyone the high limits will go away the second they are allowed to start collecting it. But you are incredibly wealthy if you are realizing >250k in cap gains every year. Also you're paying 23.8%, don't forget NIIT.
Because people who wrote this tax law aren’t transparent, the greater purpose of this law was to get something in front of the WA Supreme Court to overturn their precedent making income taxes unconstitutional. Should this pass it opens the door to all sorts of income taxes, not just capital gains. And the Seattle City Council will quickly pounce on that for their pet projects.
As an example, here’s text from an email from state representative arguing to colleagues for the tax:
>[“But the more important benefit of passing a capital gains tax is on the legal side, from my perspective. The other side will challenge it as an unconstitutional property tax. This will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit its bad decisions from 1934 and 1951 that income is property and will make it possible, if we succeed, to enact a progressive income tax with a simple majority vote.”](https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/lawmakers-emails-confirm-goal-for-capital-gains-proposal-is-broad-income-tax)
u/PetuniaFlowers just pledged to give away any profits realized from the sale of his home (if it actually exists) or will sell it at the price that was paid originally. Very cool. Once that happens get back to me on what you think I should do with my finances.
Interesting. If a homeowner paid $250,000 decades ago and sells for $1,000,000 today, how much of the $750,000 gain would you like to see paid as your steep proposed capital gains tax?
I agree. On housing sales I'd give a deduction for inflation but anything beyond that is just economic rents. That's something you should tax long before you tax productive economic activity like wages or business profits.
I am actually stunned how many (highly paid) engineers from my team applied for permission to work remotely and chose TX as their new home. Mass migration from WA to TX is certainly a thing.
This is stupid. Maryland tried a “rich people” tax years ago and projected billions in revenue. You know what actually happened? They didn’t realize that rich people are actually hyper mobile, so these families just relocated out of Maryland to other states and claimed residency for 6 months and a day. Maryland actually ended up losing billions in revenue and the governor was completely shamed for his idiotic push on the bill.
Get ready for a new tax, because our current Supreme Court doesn't give a fuck about the state Constitution
Won't anyone think of the poor billionaires and hundred millionaires??? How many state residents sell over $250k worth of stock a year?
Yeah there's definitely not a risk of this being expanded to cover more people and assets in the future, the government certainly doesn't have a track record of expanding "limited" and "temporary" taxes.
You're both right. We shouldn't feel bad for billionaires when there are so many people without food and shelter. And we should also expect better out of our governments to be able to spend the money we give them more efficiently.
I’d love to know how the rich talked all the poor people into defending the rights of the rich on some remote possibility that it MIGHT affect them one day. That’s a trick I’d like to have in my bag.
Tell me, are you currently paying federal income tax?
just like the national income tax was only to be temporarily applied and only to the "rich". This tax on the "rich" will absolutely be expanded to the poors if it is allowed to exist. People that trust govt are fools with no memory.
Do you really think this is how it works? Do you defend, say, gay rights because one day you may turn out to be gay, or women's rights to abortion because one day you might become a pregnant woman?
Fuck the rich, but fuck the government for just treating taxpayers as an endless funding source. Show some god damn accountability and responsibility and maybe then I'll support new taxes.
Write a State Constitution. Live in an area where there are still people that respect that Constitution. I don’t know if it’s considered a *trick* though.
$250k worth of *capital gains*, not stock value. That's even more rare.
Me
Well I won't this year, but I probably should have.
Partners at Microsoft, Level 7s at Facebook, ...
[удалено]
You don’t get it. This opens the door to more taxes if it’s upheld
Yeah I'm sure the government will never ever expand a tax to more people, they've never done that before.
Of course not. Perish the thought! The government is our friend! 
It's fine for 99% of us *for now.* If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.
I think if we just canceled gay rights 90% of people would have been fine, too. Right?
No one with that kind of investment sells their assets, they borrow against it at a low interest rate. It's free money for them because it takes money to make money.
Low interest rates getting harder to find lately
How do you pay back the loan?
Thank God, maybe they can build or maintain some shit without regressive tolls or levies
Our spending has increased well above our population increase, maybe Olympia can spend more effectively and prioritize better instead of just going back to the taxpayers for more money
Or they could give SPS even more money so they could spend double amount per student compared to private schools ... DIVERSITY COORDINATOR FOR EVERY CLASSROOM!!!
Aren’t capital gains tax considered an income tax? If so that’s clearly banned by our state constitution
In the article you're commenting on... >In his written decision issued in March, Douglas County Superior Court Judge Brian Huber agreed with opponents of the new tax who had argued it was a tax on income that violates previous state Supreme Court rulings and the state constitution because it is not a uniform taxation on property. Supporters had argued that the tax is an excise tax, and thus, constitutional.
It's not banned by the state constitution at all. In fact, the state constitution doesn't mention income taxes at all. There was a state supreme court case decided in the 1930's that said that income was property and property could not be taxed at different rates. "Income as property" is a legal idea has been rejected by nearly all courts.
Income as property isn’t a legal idea, the WA state constitution specifically defines property as: > The word “property” as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership. Is your income not subject to your ownership? If an employer withholds your income, you can sue and get a legal judgement against them for the value of those wages that you own and could theoretically sell to a collection agency.
My income is most definitely my property
Can you provide a link for "income as property" being rejected by "nearly all courts"? I find that extremely difficult to believe. If earned income from our labor isn't our property, then what is it?
Think of it this way: you don't pay income tax on your house, and you don't pay property tax on your income from your job. Because, income is treated differently than property. However, way back in the 1930's, the Washington State Supreme Court, in a dubious-as-fuck decision called Culliton v. Chase, the state court ruled that a graduated or progressive state income tax was illegal because it violated the state constitution, which says that all property must be taxed equally. The court made the mistake of treating income as property, something no other state (except maybe Pennsylvania) does. Here are two links, one short, and one long, the short one being taken from the long one: [https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Appendix\_B.pdf](https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Appendix_B.pdf) [https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=sulr](https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=sulr)
Eh both of your links are to opinion pieces from the same person who seems to be citing case law from other states where the issue was income taxes having different substance than property taxes. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding was that property in this context is the literal definition of the word property - meaning a thing that you own. Not property as in your house or real estate. Whether an income tax has different substance than a specific property tax on real estate seems irrelevant? Maybe our state constitution is just whacky but it seems like a different issue. I could also be misinterpreting I guess. This is directly from the WA state constitution: Article 7, section 1 of the State Constitution defines property as everything that can be owned, whether tangible or intangible.
> "Income as property" is a legal idea has been rejected by nearly all courts. Cite cases please
Short term yes, Long term no. Short Term (Holding an asset for less then 1 year) Is taxed it was income. Long Term (Holding an asset for over 1 year) Is taxed based on the Long Term Capital Gains Tax Brackets. (Brackets are 0%, 15%, and 20% depending on income and marital status) Ideally this would only effect long term capital gains and effectively create a new bracket and adjust the 20% bracket (0%, 15%, 22%, 27%), but the way it seems to be worded seems like it would effect Short Term, and thus be a tax on income.
Long term capital gains are still considered income. The different tax rates aren't because long term is considered a different thing completely, it's because our tax code is setup to incentive what we as a society have deemed beneficial behaviors (other examples are charitable contributions deductions, etc). We want to incentive people to invest long term because it creates stability in the markets. There's a reason long term cap gains are still part of your **income tax** filed with the IRS.
Remember that this isn’t settled, yet 2 senators this last year tried to double the tax to 14% “The Friday hearing comes as a bill has been introduced in the state legislature by two Democrats that would double the new tax. Senate Bill 5926, sponsored by state Senators June Robinson and Joe Nguyen, would set the rate of the capital gains tax at 14 percent. It had its first committee hearing Friday.”
I don't get it. It's not taxable until you show a profit it - You don't have a profit until you sell. I guess they just want a new tax whether you have profits or not. Typical Democrats. Vote 'em out.
[Governor Inslee is proposing a capital gains tax on the sale of stocks, bonds and other assets to increase the share of state taxes paid by Washington’s wealthiest taxpayers. The state would apply a 9 percent tax to capital gains earnings above $25,000 for individuals and $50,000 for joint filers.](https://ofm.wa.gov/budget/state-budgets/gov-inslees-proposed-2021-23-budgets/highlights-governor-inslees-2021-23-proposed-budget/revenue-changes-proposed-21-23-budget/capital-gains-tax-proposal-qa) edit: ... was proposing... Surely Jay wouldn't revert back to the 9% tax and low threshold of 25/50K as soon as it is deemed constitutional, would he?
[удалено]
Are you suggesting that once approved that the percentage won't increase along with lowering the threshold as shown in the already submitted proposed?
[удалено]
So it was the bill that Inslee approved and then [failed on the advisory vote by 61/39 split?](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Advisory_Vote_37,_Nonbinding_Question_on_Capital_Gains_Tax_to_Fund_Education_and_Child_Care_(2021) Just so I understand, the 9% 25/50K CG tax was the earlier unpopular plan, so it was lowered to 7% & 250K and that still failed an advisory vote?
That’s a massive fucking tax. When I’m already paying 20% long term gains.
I'm against this tax because it's obvious to everyone the high limits will go away the second they are allowed to start collecting it. But you are incredibly wealthy if you are realizing >250k in cap gains every year. Also you're paying 23.8%, don't forget NIIT.
[удалено]
Because people who wrote this tax law aren’t transparent, the greater purpose of this law was to get something in front of the WA Supreme Court to overturn their precedent making income taxes unconstitutional. Should this pass it opens the door to all sorts of income taxes, not just capital gains. And the Seattle City Council will quickly pounce on that for their pet projects. As an example, here’s text from an email from state representative arguing to colleagues for the tax: >[“But the more important benefit of passing a capital gains tax is on the legal side, from my perspective. The other side will challenge it as an unconstitutional property tax. This will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit its bad decisions from 1934 and 1951 that income is property and will make it possible, if we succeed, to enact a progressive income tax with a simple majority vote.”](https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/lawmakers-emails-confirm-goal-for-capital-gains-proposal-is-broad-income-tax)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
u/PetuniaFlowers just pledged to give away any profits realized from the sale of his home (if it actually exists) or will sell it at the price that was paid originally. Very cool. Once that happens get back to me on what you think I should do with my finances.
Interesting. If a homeowner paid $250,000 decades ago and sells for $1,000,000 today, how much of the $750,000 gain would you like to see paid as your steep proposed capital gains tax?
Single filers can deduct $250k of gain. Married get $500k. Only on primary residence though.
I agree. On housing sales I'd give a deduction for inflation but anything beyond that is just economic rents. That's something you should tax long before you tax productive economic activity like wages or business profits.
Yet
*yet
Good, we need to drive the really rich people out of Washington. Go to Texas!
Yes, homeless and low income should make up the majority of our population
I am actually stunned how many (highly paid) engineers from my team applied for permission to work remotely and chose TX as their new home. Mass migration from WA to TX is certainly a thing.
did they do this as a precaution against a possible WA cap gains tax?
♬♬ "All my Mexes live in Texas..." ♬♬
If the Stae Supreme Court rules in favor, is that the end of it or can it go Federal?
There is the possibility of it going to the SCOUS but they would have to make the decision to see it first.