News Jan 25, 2023 at 10:18 am

Will the Justices Choose the Idiotic, the Cowardly, or the Bold Path Forward???

Cannot get over the fact that this building is called the TEMPLE OF JUSTICE. powerofforever / GETTY

Comments

1

This is the liberal, Democratic version of a Tim Eyeman scam. He kept raising money for initiatives which would supposedly do the same things as constitutional amendments (e.g. require a 2/3 majority in the legislature to pass a tax increase). These initiatives kept getting struck down because — all together, now — Washington state’s constitution cannot be amended by initiative.

It can’t be amended by a simple law, either. If the Democrats, who control the legislature by large majorities, want to tax income/capital gains, then they should begin the process of amending Washington state’s constitution. Making blatantly dishonest arguments, like calling an income tax an excise tax, just drags them down to Eyeman’s level.

(Oh, and Will? Using incendiary, name-calling language merely alerts the adults amongst your readers that you don’t have a case.)

3

@1 thanks for posting that. Will ignores the obvious solution here in his choices which is for the chicken shit democrats who run the state and have supermajorities in both chambers to pass a constitutional amendment and convince votes this is the right thing to do. Instead they are trying to backdoor this through the court so when the inevitable blowback occurs (votes have continually rejected an income tax) they can point the court and say it wasn't us, it was them. Of course we'll all be paying that income tax within a couple of years.

The most dishonest part of this conversation and why most of in the middle class oppose it is the continued trotting out of income inequality as a reason to pass this tax. There is zero legislative effort to amend any of WA's current tax structure. Property, sales, B&O taxes all remain fully intact. This is treated as entirely new revenue to fund even more grand dreams of our overlords. There is no one that believes if passed this will stay limited to the "rich" unless you consider anyone who makes more the $25K rich. You just need to look at the current session to see that they are already proposing to drop the capitol gains tax from $250K to $15K and raise it to 8.5% and it hasn't even gone into effect yet.

I hope the court does the right thing, reject this tax and admonishes the legislature to do their actual jobs but I think there is a really good chance they'll take the weasel way out and let it go on as is or change the income as property ruling altogether. If not we'll be paying a state income tax and no doubt a city income tax by 2024 but I'm sure that will solve all the problems just like McClearly did for the schools.

4

A capital gain is "income". Period ... end of story.

Thus a tax imposed on a capital gain is a tax on the income...ergo an income tax.

Washington state law does not allow for an income tax. if you want an income tax amend the state constitution and get an income tax.

And finally, if education benefits all, then lets all pay for it by a graduated state income tax. This "stick it to the rich bullshit has to end".... is divisive, tedious and smacks of a very nasty far left agenda.

On the education funding, if they can't educate our kids, then I say, time to change the public education system.... we are turning out dumber and dumber children while funding goes ever upwards.

Time to call bullshitsky on that situation also. Perhaps its time for some meaningful voucher system which allows individuals the ability to choose a better way to educate their kids.... Lets give the flabby Teacher's Union some competition in the education system rather than rewarding abject failure.

6

@3 - Democrats do have sizable majorities in both chambers of the Legislature…. but not the 2/3 supermajorities needed to pass a constitutional amendment

10

The existing ruling that income is property is just bad math. Income is a change in property, not the property itself. What's the difference? If you tax property, then you can end up losing money year-over-year to taxes, and repeat that enough times, and you eventually end up with nothing -- the government has taken all of your money. While it's not entirely a bad idea for a complete layabout to lose some money, I would agree with the constitution that that rate should be limited.

Income is different. No matter how much you tax income, up to 100%, the government can't take away what you already have. If you make $0 and you have a 90% income tax rate, you pay $0. If you start rich, you end up rich, no matter what the tax rate is. The only thing that eats into your wealth is your personal expenses. Morally, it's a completely different beast from property, but conservative judges who just wanted an excuse to get rid of taxes ruled that they're the same thing.

11

@10 --

Def: Income refers to the money that a person or entity receives in exchange for their labor or products.
Def: A capital gain occurs when you sell something for more than you spent to acquire it.

One is well simply the proceeds from an exchange of goods and services. It says nothing as to whether a profit or loss was made.

The other, a capital gain, is the difference between the the sales price and the cost... assuming one receives more than what the thing cost.

Thus a capital gain measure of the gain on the sale of an asset and not AN ASSET IN AND OF ITSELF. Thus a capital gain is NOT PROPERTY - IT IS AN ACCONUNTING CONSTRUCT TO MEASURE A GAIN ON THE SALE OF AN ASSET.

The resulting gain is a measure of net profit made from the sale.

For example:

$2,200 I sell a once ounce gold coin
$,1,000 I bought it in 1979 for $1,000

$1,200 Capital Gain.

The capital gain is not an asset - it is simply a mathematical computation of the gain..

The $2,200 is the asset! The gain is simply how much i made on the sale.

Taxation and definition:

If you levied a tax on the sale proceeds...of $2,200 then you have an excise tax... or sales tax.

If you levy a tax on the capital gain (the measure of the profit made) its called an income tax.

Otherwise the definition of an "income tax is any tax on income, wherein income is simply what you receive and not offset by the cost of the asset....... which means one doesn't need to compute a capital gain at all!

Which begs the question as to why this is called and promoted as a capital gains tax in the first place.,

This is pretty basic stuff here... why this would go to the supreme court is really beyond the pale of reason. The definitions, tax treatment of these transaction has been handed down and ongoing for thousands of years.

12

@9 - Your assertion is completely wrong. Take another look at the table. If you make $48k in CA, you in no way pay 4% of your income to the state. The 4% rate STARTS at $48k. And the table is based on TAXABLE income per your Federal return, not TOTAL income, so that a person with a salary of $48k is not even in that bracket. My recollection from living there was that not only did low-income people not pay state income tax, there was a refundable credit for low-income renters. The state paid me money for a good chunk of the time I lived there (the poor years). Once I started making more than about $60k I started to pay a noticeable amount. But not before that.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.