""It was determined that work activities in the immediate area were likely mistaken for gunshots,"
America, am I right?
"The Tacoma woman who torched five police cars in May 2020 during Seattle protests following George Floyd's murder pleaded guilty, and a judge sentenced her to five years in federal prison."
Geez she should've just tried to overthrow the federal government, she'd be spending way less time in prison
Explain to me how being taxed on your earnings from the sale of stocks, capital (the capital gains tax) is actually an excise tax? That argument makes no sense (from the IRS):
“What is meant by excise tax?
Excise taxes are taxes that are imposed on various goods, services and activities. Such taxes may be imposed on the manufacturer, retailer or consumer, depending on the specific tax.
https://www.irs.gov › businesses › e...
Excise Tax | Internal Revenue Service
What is an example excise tax?
An excise tax is a tax imposed on a specific good or activity. Excise taxes are commonly levied on cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, soda, gasoline, insurance premiums, amusement activities, and betting, and make up a relatively small and volatile portion of state and local tax collections.”
I freakin’ love Sticker Patrol.
@2 The "activity" is selling an asset for more than it cost at purchase. That was easy.
If you're going all according to websters, its certainly not "income". That word refers to pay for work. And IRS doesnt tax it as such.
@4 except they are not taxing the transaction but the profit you made from the sale of the asset. That my friend is income. Now if the tax was leveled on the entire amount or was a fixed dollar amount you may have an argument but as constructed taxing “gains” is income. The federal government and every state that has such a tax classifies it as such. No worries though this charade was all part of the plan and the Dems were counting on it getting thrown out so they can get to the Supemes.
jackkay- You make over $400K?
Who gets to be Smithers?
@9 So were we a Socialist Nation in the 1950s and 1960s when a top marginal income tax rate of greater than 90% allowed the federal government to build a vast interstate highway system while also going to the Moon?
I thought it was a pretty good speech and it gave me hope that the Democrats can hold the center and stave off defeat in the midterms.
@6, 9, fine, let's not raise taxes, let's eliminate government bloat and waste and use the savings from that to fund better things.
Hmm, how about we start with DHS? It's cost us about a trillion dollars since it's inception and it couldn't stop a bunch of domestic terrorist rednecks from storming the Capitol. It's best ideas to fight terrorism were to limit how much shampoo you could bring on a plane and fondle your genitals.
What about DoD? Nearly a trillion A YEAR and we can't win a war.
What about the DEA? Three billion a year and we all know how successful they've been fighting drugs.
With all that savings it would be way harder for the voices in your head to tell you your pocket is being picked.
Just a minor point, but, there is no Russian embassy in Seattle. There is, however, a consulate.
Jacckay: You make $4000 a year and you are opposed to social safety net and taxing the rich because why? Other than your stated fear that your corporate overlords dont like it. How did the rich people tax cuts from Trump help anything other than stock buy back strategies? Profits are through the roof and how is that helping you? Are they using all that money to make a better product? Pay their employees are fair and equitable wage? Yeah right. Tax away. And fund the IRS to go get those dogs. Especially now that the US will look like less of a tax haven for some evil bastards given there are some limits to what you can do and still maintain access to your stashed ill begotten gains (looking at you Vlad). Watch what happens to the trust economy in Dakota unless they beat mean old Putin back and all the rich can keep stealing from us and hiding it so noone knows where the fruits of their labor went.
"Let's not defund the police, let's FUND the police" was a stupid line.
@14 Yes! Thank you.
@17: Is it really? Logic is not stupid.
It's the poorer communities that suffer most because the most vulnerable are easy pickings. I guess you're one of those white latte liberals Reverend Al Sharpton keeps referring to.
Nice to see that one of the arsonists from 5/30/20 is going to do hard time. She deserves every hour of five years in prison.
@5 My point is that semantic hair-splitting is pointless because one can construct an argument around some combination of technical and vernacular definitions of words that breaks either way. But this is a political determination.
The state constitution doesn't say "no income tax". Rather, it forbids a graduated tax - that's the uniformity clause. But there's nothing graduated about capital gains.
@22 yes there is. It only applies to amounts above $250k so there are two tiers which is the definition of graduated. I agree about the uniformity clause which is why the judge threw it out but the constitution also limits the tax to 1% and this is at 7%.
I think the construction of this tax is moot though. It was designed for one purpose and one purpose only. To get challenged and give the supremes an opportunity to reverse the 1930s ruling that income is property. Anything else is just window dressing. On that regard it’s doing exactly what it was designed for and now we just need to wait until the court weighs in. For my part I hope they turn down the case. The legislature are being chicken shits with this amd trying to get the court to do their dirty work.
Turn the Russian Consulate into a homeless shelter.
"let's FUND the police"
it had 'repubs' on their feet
it's what Dems
do not DO.
he also said: 'let's Train them.'
Not to beat the Citizenry'd
be a Good place to start
You continue to confuse a crisis of mental health and addiction with a crisis of economics.
The cost of living in Seattle has nothing to do with the homeless situation.
You could charge $100 for a 1 bedroom apartment and the individuals who live in the tent encampments would still be unable to afford it or maintain a residence.
These are individuals who need to be institutionalized, some in mental health care facilities, others in correctional facilities.
The roots of the problem comes from decades of de-institutionalizing spurred by both supply-side tax cuts, and the increased difficulty in enforcing civil commitment.
The solution has nothing to do with providing affordable housing. The solution involves increased funding for inpatient mental health care combined with an easier path to force the mentally ill to take into institutions whether they want to go or not.
And before you go on some rant about how we’ll pay for it, we pay for it through taxes.
The de-institutionalizing of mental health is indeed a blemish on Reagan's legacy. He was poorly advised.
@28 While Reagan shoulders much of the blame the ACLU is equally responsible because of the lawsuits that made it harder to carry out civil commitments.
And of course there's the Venn diagram of the homeless of those who by no fault of their own fell on hard times, couch surfed, got addicted and are now chronic homeless. Hell, if I was homeless on a cold and rainy night I just might want to be methed up myself.
To be fair, de-institutionalizing the mentally ill preceded Reagan. The 1975 Donaldson decision by the Supreme Court, while just, gave the states (including ours), an excuse to empty out their mental health facilities. I don't recall any of the states stumping up the funding needed to provide care to those they turned out onto the streets.
@17 is correct.
@36: Thank you!
@34 "There are lots of scary and dangerous people on the streets, but this is all the more reason to have compassion for those who live among them who are not scary or dangerous."
You show compassion for the victims of the scary and dangerous people on the streets by incarcerating the scary and dangerous ones.
Making excuses for criminals, supporting candidates who want to stop prosecuting criminals, and promoting the elimination of the police does not show compassion for crimes victims. The abolitionist movement is a big Fuck You to every person victimized by a violent criminal.
If homeless advocates, like yourself, really cared about those living on the streets you would be demanding the most draconian methods be used against the criminals. Instead you defend and make excuses for even the most vile amongst them.
Drop if you fell on hard times you'd probably see it coming a few months in advance and start taking steps to mitigate the damage.
Hell you might even move to someplace less expensive.
I highly doubt you'd just wake up one morning homeless and decide to head down to Third Avenue and crash out in a storefront.
@40: For most of us, but not for all. Fate can deal us a nasty blow at any time, and not all are in a position to absorb it and recover.
Nevertheless, your second paragraph is correct. (It would be quainter in Pioneer Square.)
@36 Toe Tag: Holy SHIT--!!!--the Donaldson decision was signed into law 47 years ago! WTF was the U.S Supreme Court thinking back then? This miscalculation has been further exacerbated by the rise of slasher movies largely following Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho from 1960, spawning the Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Friday the 13th franchises in the 70s and 80s into the present day. In addition, unaddressed mental health issues are only getting even worse, exponentially with the growing number of addicted homeless people now. This dystopian nightmare cannot be our future.
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.