Submitted by Bozzooo t3_120yder in Washington
Comments
EmergencySandwich898 t1_jdkaubt wrote
Donāt worry they will lower the threshold pretty quick.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdkbss1 wrote
Thatās always the scare-the-poors tactic thatās used.
Iām pretty far from being worried about making $250k/yr in capital gains so my level of concern about ever being impacted is very, very low.
Jetlaggedz8 t1_jdkcyev wrote
It was originally drafted to be $25K, when people complained, they increased it to $250K. They literally added a zero. Look at any tax, including the federal income tax. Originally it's "tax the rich" and then when the government needs more money they tax everyone.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdkdcur wrote
Iām really not bothers by that kind of logic, Iāve been hearing that scare tactic my whole life.
What they might do someday, maybe isnāt my concern. Fixing our regressive tax code that disproportionately affects lower income earners as a percentage of their income is way overdue.
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdntqoe wrote
They finally got to tax something with the most twisted logic ever. You think they're not coming after you, next?
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnubtk wrote
> They finally got to tax something with the most twisted logic ever. You think they're not coming after you, next?
I think itās highly improbable that Iāor the vast majority of the stateāwill ever be effected by this.
The vast majority of people do not make a significant portion of their income from capital gains. Thx most common types of capital gains that more regular people have exposure to are excluded from this ruling already.
So noā¦ I have very little worry about my risk of paying this tax in the future.
If I have the good fortune to need to worry about it Iām sure my account and lawyer will help me come up with legal work arounds. Whatever Iām not clever enough to hide, shift, or excludeāIāll pay taxes on.
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdnvx79 wrote
>I think itās highly improbable that Iāor the vast majority of the stateāwill ever be effected by this.
Why should that matter? It's against the constitution and the state Supreme Court ruled against it in a twisted manner to make it fit an agenda. You think it's okay to be unconstitutional against some people? Those people aren't people?
And you realize the law was 25,000 until people complained and they added a zero to it to make it 250,000? When you don't notice, it will be 25,000 again. You now know their intent if you didn't know it before.
And now they know they can just redefine property as excise taxes and the state Supreme Court won't care.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnw250 wrote
> Why should that matter? It's against the constitution and the state Supreme Court ruled against it in a twisted manner to make it fit.
> And now they know they can just redefine property as excise taxes.
Weāre in a logical loop here.
I donāt share your fear of this possible future.
In the meantime Iām okay with letting the wealthy fight their own fightāthey clearly have the resources to do so and they donāt need me to carry their water for them for free.
> > And your realize the law was 25,000 until people complained and they added a zero to it to make it 250,000. When you don't notice, it will be 25,000 again.
That element of the comment has been addressed elsewhere in the comments a few times already.
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdnxkrc wrote
You're okay with removing constitutional protections against some people because of their class status.
Think about that.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdny0xu wrote
> You're okay with removing constitutional protections against some people because of their class status.
> Think about that.
Iām pretty sure the wealthy can afford to fight their own fight.
Shift that mental energy to issues that have a higher probability of affecting you and your family instead.
Thereās lots of them, take your pick based on probability of occurrence and impact on your rational best interest.
In the meantime the wealthy will be okay sorting this issue out in their own.
Orā¦ carry their water for them for free because what impacts their rational best interests might, maybe, someday impact yours.
Itās too bad the wealthy donāt have the same concern for you, honestly.
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdnzzyx wrote
You think removing protections about so-called wealthy people by redefining the Constitution's meaning is okay because people can afford it. This class warfare has been used before and it will be used again.
The constitution should apply to everyone, not just some people.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdo0hn3 wrote
> You think removing protections about so-called wealthy people by redefining the Constitution's meaning is okay because people can afford it. This class warfare has been used before and it will be used again.
> The constitution should apply to everyone, not just some people.
Weāre in a logical loop here.
Iām sure the wealthy really appreciate your concern for them and their rational best interests.
Too bad they donāt feel the same way about you and your rational best interests.
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdo1iif wrote
If you don't agree with the constitution, we will be in a loop. But at least we can agree the Supreme Court's interpretation is twisted and against the meaning of the constitution.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdovwvj wrote
Rinse and repeat.
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdoxt7b wrote
I don't know what that means.
barefootozark t1_jdpphlg wrote
If WA capital gains tax stands, lawmakers will be after more than the wealthy next
> In fact, a bill has already been proposed this year (SB 5335) that would not only increase the capital gains income tax rate but repeal the value exemption, applying the tax to all Washingtonians with capital gains income.
.
> that disproportionately affects lower income earners as a percentage of their income is way overdue.
This doesn't change the taxes that the lower income earners are paying. They will still be paying the same taxes. If you were really concerned about the taxes that they are paying you would be working to reduce their taxes. You're not.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdpqtn4 wrote
> If WA capital gains tax stands, lawmakers will be after more than the wealthy next
> In fact, a bill has already been proposed this year (SB 5335) that would not only increase the capital gains income tax rate but repeal the value exemption, applying the tax to all Washingtonians with capital gains income.
> that disproportionately affects lower income earners as a percentage of their income is way overdue.
> This doesn't change the taxes that the lower income earners are paying. They will still be paying the same taxes. If you were really concerned about the taxes that they are paying you would be working to reduce their taxes. You're not.
Your link is behind a paywall.
Besides, Op-Eds are opinions and people can say whatever they want no matter how close to or far from reality it is.
As for 5335ā¦ that bill has been parroted by four different folks all making almost identical points.
5335 has NOTHING to do with this tax, itās about a health care bill and income based eligibility criteria.
Bots? All getting the same op-ed conservative radio talk show? Way too much to be just a coincidence, whatever it is.
> If you were really concerned about the taxes that they are paying you would be working to reduce their taxes. You're not.
What a sad straw man and ad hominem hybrid your tried there. Itās cute that you thought you were being clever though. What a āgotcha.ā š¤£
barefootozark t1_jdpsdpr wrote
> What a āgotcha.ā
The state is increasing the disproportional tax on low income people. Your fix... tax the wealthy. Brilliant, you fix nothing. State increases tax more on low income people... now what? Raise taxes more. It endless insanity.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdpsjpl wrote
> The state is increasing the disproportional tax on low income people. Your fix... tax the wealthy. Brilliant, you fix nothing. State increases tax more on low income people... now what? Raise taxes more. It endless insanity.
More sad ad hominems and straw man arguments?
More projections and complete fabrications?
Youāre a goof! š¤£š š
barefootozark t1_jdqwtfr wrote
I corrected you. You're the fool.
What school teaches redditters when you're caught lying to auto launch into :
> More sad ad hominems and straw man arguments?
> More projections and complete fabrications?
... and no longer addressing the underlying arguement?
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jds1lig wrote
> I corrected you. You're the fool.
> What school teaches redditters when you're caught lying to auto launch into :
> More sad ad hominems and straw man arguments?
> More projections and complete fabrications?
> ... and no longer addressing the underlying arguement?
You posted your projections and wild numbers.
Itās been interesting to see what you seem to think is a well reasoned position though, u/barefootoxark. š¤£
barefootozark t1_jds23jt wrote
You don't contest anything.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jds2hzb wrote
> You don't contest anything.
Thereās nothing to contest. Your posts offer up their own built in rebuttal.
barefootozark t1_jdqx5jv wrote
> Your link is behind a paywall.
No, it is not.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jds0uz1 wrote
> No, it is not.
What a cognizant and well thought out response to my comment. š š
barefootozark t1_jds570y wrote
> Iām really not bothers by that kind of logic, Iāve been hearing that scare tactic my whole life.
So when the original 25/50K 9% proposal came out you weren't bothered "by that kind of logic, because you've been hearing that scare tactic your whole life," right? But now that its true...
You're a living "This is fine" meme.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jds5lwp wrote
> Iām really not bothers by that kind of logic, Iāve been hearing that scare tactic my whole life.
> So when the original 25/50K 9% proposal came out you weren't bothered "by that kind of logic, because you've been hearing that scare tactic your whole life," right? But now that its true...
> You're a living "This is fine" meme.
Your posts are like the Reddit version of someoneās drunk uncle spouting nonsense at a BBQ. š
[deleted] t1_jdlez1z wrote
[removed]
TormentedTopiary t1_jdlmuh7 wrote
You can simp for the billionaires all you want; but they aren't going to invite you to join their club.
You have more in common with a homeless person wondering if they're going to get swept from their campsite than you do with Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. But you're ashamed of the fact that you are that weak in society.
[deleted] t1_jdmmqlq wrote
[removed]
TormentedTopiary t1_jdreaj6 wrote
I choose to believe that you mean that as high praise.
Thank you /r/Peanut09274
[deleted] t1_jdrga8k wrote
[removed]
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdlfi4u wrote
> Incredible short sightedness on your part. Washington has an $8B surplus. Why are we being taxed more exactly?
If youāre making $250k/yr+ in capital gains and have something tk worry about why are you wasting your time on Reddit arguing about it with people like me? š¤·āāļø
Iām super flattered that one of the ā1000 people in the state that have exposure to this tax has taken the time to care about me! š¤£
barefootozark t1_jdpng0b wrote
> ām super flattered that one of the ā1000 people in the state that have exposure to this tax
It's estimated to raise 500M/year. If your 1000 people is true (it's not) each would pay on average $500,000 of capital gain tax. $500,000 is 7% of $7,142,857. THAT's FANTASTIC!! Suggesting that there are 1000 people in WA that average $7.4M in capital gains every year is not even ball park close.
There are ~ 7000 household affected. Household include more than 1 person.
The original $25K/$50K theshold capital gains tax affected 58,000 households. We'll be there within 2 years.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdpqdbx wrote
Thank you for correcting me so Iām accurate.
Itās 1 in 1000 that are expects to pay, not 1000 people in total.
So, 99.9% of the citizens of the state donāt have anything to worry about. Not even the guy I was responding to because he claimed to be nearing $250/yr as a coupleāstill less than 1/2 the limit for a couple.
Anyway, thank you for helping me to make sure I am precise and recognize that it is ā0.1% of the population of the state with increased tax risk, not ā0.000013% of the population.
And yes, Iām ignoring the ābut the original number wasā¦ā comment that several responders seem quite fond of mentioning as if that was the actual law that got passed. I know ābut could a beenā and ābut in the futureā arguments are popular with some, but Iām trying to stay tethered in reality not imagination.
barefootozark t1_jdproyk wrote
Sure, you can count all resident to make it look like the tax affects fewer people, but children don't pay taxes. Fewer than 1/2 of the citizens are taxpayers. Assuming that 7,000,000 state residents are taxpayers is absurd. It's probably closer to 3,000,000 taxpaying citizens.
So, it really closer to 0.2% of taxpayers will pay the cap gains tax with it at $250K, and it would have been closer to 2% of taxpayers if it was at 25/50K. If it gets lowered to 15K, 4% of taxpayers.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdprye5 wrote
> Sure, you can count all resident to make it look like the tax affects fewer people, but children don't pay taxes. Fewer than 1/2 of the citizens are taxpayers. Assuming that 7,000,000 state residents are taxpayers is absurd. It's probably closer to 3,000,000 taxpaying citizens.
> So, it really closer to 0.2% of taxpayers will pay the cap gains tax with it at $250K, and it would have been closer to 2% of taxpayers if it was at 25/50K. If it gets lowered to 15K, 4% of taxpayers.
Thatās impressive, you just mentally pretzeled yourself into thinking instead of everybody and their dog but not the kids is going to be paying this tax!
Iām not even mad, thatās just damned impressive!
š¤£š ššš¤£
[deleted] t1_jdlfr5t wrote
[removed]
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdlgxkc wrote
> I see you have tons of glib comments on here about this, itās quite funny how you laugh at peoples opinions but never seem to answer questions.
> Must be nice to have nothing in this world to hold on to.
> That being. Said my wife and I do get close to the 250K in stock options a year. Iām not so worried about paying 7% on that, but Iād be more worried that theyād drop below that and now start working on income taxes. You of course, have a smooth brain and just post glib comments so we know you arenāt worried.
Your sad ad hominem commentary aside, itās too bad you donāt have access to the internet.
If you did you would know that youāre still WAY BELOW the threshold despite doing great financially, u/Peanut09274.
So it looks like youāre going to need to more than double your tax exposure before you have to get your accountants and lawyers involved.
Edit to add:
You donāt have to worry about the $250k/yr EACH being less due to inflation because this limit is adjusted for inflationāand doesnāt include selling a family business.
āA standard deduction of $250,000 per year per individual, married couple, or domestic partnership. This amount is adjusted for inflation annually.ā
āThe long-term capital gain from an individualās sale of all or substantially all of a qualified family-owned small business.ā
wyecoyote2 t1_jdml9i2 wrote
Don't feed the trolls.
Jetlaggedz8 t1_jdkeabz wrote
RemindMe! 1 year
[deleted] t1_jdkegik wrote
[removed]
RemindMeBot t1_jdkecqd wrote
I will be messaging you in 1 year on 2024-03-25 00:54:42 UTC to remind you of this link
1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
| ^(Info) | ^(Custom) | ^(Your Reminders) | ^(Feedback) |
|---|
Jetlaggedz8 t1_jdkf9tl wrote
I guess that I don't need to wait a whole year to "scare" you with "that logic."
See you in a year when this passes! Have fun paying a flat % excise tax on your wages. You sure showed the rich who's boss.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdkfdrx wrote
> I guess that I don't need to wait a whole year to "scare" you with "that logic."
> See you in a year when this passes! Have fun paying a flat % excise tax on your wages. You sure showed the rich who's boss.
Oh no!!!!
Panic!!!!
So scared!!!!
Oh, waitā¦ your linkās link has nothing to do with this and you were so desperate to prove your point that you linked a health care bill thatās gone nowhere. Wowā¦ you really got me with that one, u/Jetlaggedz8. š
š¤£š šš„²šš š¤£
Jetlaggedz8 t1_jdmcngl wrote
Do yourself a favor and open the health care bill that you linked and read it (since you haven't). Or save yourself some time and search through it for "capital gain". The funding mechanism for the bill is as an expansion of the capital gains tax. You are so quick to try and win an internet argument and dunk on me but I've done my research and actually know what I'm talking about, you clearly read the title of the bill only.
"Capital gain" is mentioned in the bill that has "nothing" to do with capital gains 34 times. š¤£
This biennium legislative cycle will pick up again next year, this bill wasn't moving because the state legislature was waiting for the WA State Court's opinion. They didn't want to pass this if the bottom falls out of the capital gains tax. Now that this opinion has been published, they are free to push this through.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdmgwgv wrote
I saw that people that have FEDERAL capital gains exposure submit information.
Youāll have to point out not the volume of times that ācapital gainsā is mentioned but the nexus between your linked bill and the lowering of the STATE capital gains limit that is being discussed.
Iām happy to let you be the smart guy here, please show me in the bill where your allegation is supported. As it is right now it simply looks like youāre conflating two separate issues. Please, prove me wrong.
Jetlaggedz8 t1_jdmk5yv wrote
The original bill that imposes the state excise tax on capital gains which you support uses the same language. "Federal" is used extensively. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5096&Initiative=false&Year=2021
The state imposes its capital gains tax using the amount of capital gains reported on the federal income tax return. The state then allows certain additional deductions or exclusions. That's why there are references to the federal capital gains tax, it's the starting point for computing whether you need to file a state return.
Your proof is right here: NEW SECTION. Sec. 309. PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE A STATE RETURN. 33 (1) Only individual and joint taxpayers with federal net long-term 34 capital gains or net earnings from self-employment of sole 35 proprietors in excess of $15,000 on their federal tax return are 36 required to file a capital gains tax return with the department.
The capital gains tax return is the WA state excise tax return, and the Department is the WA state Department of Revenue. The WA State legislature has no authority over federal capital gains taxes.
This draft bill lowers the threshold from $250K to $15K.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdmkwsg wrote
> The original bill that imposes the state excise tax on capital gains which you support uses the same language. "Federal" is used extensively. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5096&Initiative=false&Year=2021
> The state imposes its capital gains tax using the amount of capital gains reported on the federal income tax return. The state then allows certain additional deductions or exclusions. That's why there are references to the federal capital gains tax, it's the starting point for computing whether you need to file a state return.
> Your proof is right here: NEW SECTION. Sec. 309. PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE A STATE RETURN. 33 (1) Only individual and joint taxpayers with federal net long-term 34 capital gains or net earnings from self-employment of sole 35 proprietors in excess of $15,000 on their federal tax return are 36 required to file a capital gains tax return with the department.
> The capital gains tax return is the WA state excise tax return, and the Department is the WA state Department of Revenue. The WA State legislature has no authority over federal capital gains taxes.
> This draft bill lowers the threshold from $250K to $15K.
Youāre conflating two different issues:
-
The state capital gains that was just upheld by the SC of WA. And
-
The proposed health care accounts that get funding through wagesāand yes, capital gains are factored into the liability for how much that income level is.
To be clear:
Your allegation that the capital gains tax is being lowered to the point that regular citizens in WA have to worry about it is not supported by your pasted section.
just-cuz-i t1_jdkkzgo wrote
āBe afraid of taxes!!!1! taxes are coming to get you!!1!!1ā
-poster that claims he is not fear mongering
AdventureBum t1_jdnd5u9 wrote
Honestly, I'd love to be making $25K or more in capital gains a year. If I were I think I could afford to pay a little tax on whatever I make more than that.
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdntslj wrote
Why not voluntarily pay a little more on what you make now? Or advocate a little more for people who make your bracket of money?
AdventureBum t1_jdo283x wrote
I donāt have any capital gains, and I think itās bullshit that theyāre taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdotr3p wrote
Capital gains come with risks. Many people lose money when investing their money. Encouraging investment in companies is what makes humans flourish rather than squirreling the money away in a mattress.
AdventureBum t1_jdoucyr wrote
Itās also how the rich make the bulk of their wealth, which they then use to leverage non-taxable loans.
Allmyfinance t1_jdlewmc wrote
They are trying to lower it already to 15k fyi. Section https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/Biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5335.pdf
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdlf5nc wrote
> They are trying to lower it already to 15k fyi. Section https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/Biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5335.pdf
u/Allmyfinance, you linked a bill related to health care. Where is the $15,000 level you reference in the bill you linked.
You donāt just blindly post a link without knowing what was in it, did you? š¤·āāļø
Allmyfinance t1_jdlfim1 wrote
Section 309 āNEW SECTION. Sec. 309. PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE A STATE RETURN. 33 (1) Only individual and joint taxpayers with federal net long-term 34 capital gains or net earnings from self-employment of sole 35 proprietors in excess of $15,000 on their federal tax return are 36 required to file a capital gains tax return with the department..ā
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdlfruy wrote
> Section 309 āNEW SECTION. Sec. 309. PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE A STATE RETURN. 33 (1) Only individual and joint taxpayers with federal net long-term 34 capital gains or net earnings from self-employment of sole 35 proprietors in excess of $15,000 on their federal tax return are 36 required to file a capital gains tax return with the department..ā
Do you understand the difference between FEDERAL taxes and STATE taxes? š¤·āāļø
The current law at the WASC has a $250k/yr+ trigger for STATE taxes. Your section above does not counter that.
The bill you linked and cited is all about healthcareāit has fāØk all to do with the STATE capital gains tax that is being discussed.
Some rich guyās PR team is doing a great job of getting the people that wonāt pay the capital gains scared of this tax though.
sarhoshamiral t1_jdl1yzv wrote
By that logic, we shouldn't have any laws or taxes but that would be stupid now isn't it?
Obtersus t1_jdmnwre wrote
>we shouldn't have any laws or taxes
Yes.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnezjt wrote
Extremist libertarians still call 911 when their house is on fire though. š¤£
pa_jamas360 t1_jdkvpuw wrote
Jokes on you, they couldn't lower it quick enough to impact probably like 80% or more of the states population.
just-cuz-i t1_jdkkqms wrote
You think you arenāt already subject to capital gains tax for some reason?
JackAlexanderTR t1_jdtzvcn wrote
I voted for Democrats past few elections and I will 100% not vote for them again at local/state level. What people don't understand is that this will trigger an exodus of wealthy people and large corporations and the state will lost a lot more money than what it will make from this. Look at Portland Oregon chasing away all those "big and evil" corporations and then rich people, and now just regular middle class people because of all the taxes on top of taxes.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdu08c1 wrote
> I voted for Democrats past few elections and I will 100% not vote for them again at local/state level. What people don't understand is that this will trigger an exodus of wealthy people and large corporations and the state will lost a lot more money than what it will make from this. Look at Portland Oregon chasing away all those "big and evil" corporations and then rich people, and now just regular middle class people because of all the taxes on top of taxes.
Who cares? š¤·āāļø
Theyāre not paying taxes so itās no fiscal loss.
Enjoy living on Wyoming or wherever. š
JackAlexanderTR t1_jdu0hpw wrote
Portland said who cares too, they hate the rich too. Except the rich quickly became upper middle class, than middle class homeowners, and now basically everyone who is making average income.
And now Portland is losing population year and year, with many of them moving across the river in WA actually..
If you chase away all the money, eventually you have just poor money and no tax base. When everyone's too poor to pay taxes how will the government be funded and how will the services be provided??
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdu0sug wrote
> Portland said who cares too, they hate the rich too. Except the rich quickly became upper middle class, than middle class homeowners, and now basically everyone who is making average income.
> And now Portland is losing population year and year, with many of them moving across the river in WA actually..
> If you chase away all the money, eventually you have just poor money and no tax base. When everyone's too poor to pay taxes how will the government be funded and how will the services be provided??
You didnāt seem to understandā¦
I donāt give a sāØt if I ex-OR residents moved to WA to avoid taxes will have to move out of WA to some other state to avoid taxes.
Why?
Its no fiscal loss to the state
I might care if their $500m/yr in taxes left. But they would have to pay that to the state in the first place make it a loss to the state after they move.
JackAlexanderTR t1_jdu11h0 wrote
It absolutely is. They make lots money and buy lots of (expensive) stuff. So lots of sales tax loss which is the main way the state budget is funded.
Also small businesses already pay lots of taxes (big businesses too), and their owners are more likely to move out too.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdu18kl wrote
> It absolutely is. They make lots money and buy lots of (expensive) stuff. So lots of sales tax loss which is the main way the state budget is funded.
> Also small businesses already pay lots of taxes (big businesses too), and their owners are more likely to move out too.
You convinced me, Oregon had it right.
No sales tax, all income tax.
Wwwhhhaaattt?!?!
They figured out they pay LESS tax in WA with sales tax on ātheir expensive stuffā than they did in OR with income tax and no sales tax. Thatās why they moved in the first place.
Income tax is a more fair way to tax people as a percentage of their income than sales taxes anyway. So yeahā¦ letās do it!
Good job, u/JackAkexanderTR, youāre a great salesman! š
JackAlexanderTR t1_jdvl54g wrote
If you think Oregon has it right than you're not being very realistic. Oregon had so much potential and it's completely wasted because of implementing lots of bad ideas on top of bad management. It went from being a destination state to being a exodus state.
I have nothing against income tax if all other states implement one. Otherwise it's just much too simple for those actually paying majority of these taxes to move to a no income tax state.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdxslyy wrote
> If you think Oregon has it right than you're not being very realistic. Oregon had so much potential and it's completely wasted because of implementing lots of bad ideas on top of bad management. It went from being a destination state to being a exodus state.
Oh no! Theyāre not kidding the butts of the wealthy enough! They ran to Washington! Boo hoo! š
Oh waitā¦ I donāt care.
In the laboratory of real life the wealthy determine that WA had lower tax exposure than OR according to your post.
If WA because less off a tax haven for the wealthy and the decide to move againā¦
I. Do. Not. Care.
> I have nothing against income tax if all other states implement one. Otherwise it's just much too simple for those actually paying majority of these taxes to move to a no income tax state.
I agree. All income tax, including capital gains and wages at the same rate and no sales tax for all US citizens.
Not a U.S. citizen? No sales tax exemption.
barefootozark t1_jds6931 wrote
You never will.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jds6o6z wrote
> You never will.
Me and 99% of the population. Andā¦ most likely you either. What a zinger from you!
š š
BostonFoliage t1_jdl0s65 wrote
Hyperinflation will make your aspiration a reality soon enough.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdl0w22 wrote
Oh noez!! The fearz!!!! Paniczzz!!! š¤£
BostonFoliage t1_jdl90g2 wrote
You like paying more money for everything?
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdlcgjr wrote
Youāre not going to be paying any of this tax š š
BostonFoliage t1_jdn4yxe wrote
I hope you're right boss.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdn5anj wrote
There are ā1000 people in this state that need to worry about this. If youāre not one of them then youāre not paying this tax.
BostonFoliage t1_jdnhdf6 wrote
I'm talking about 5 years from now the way inflation is going. It's hard to pay rent and buy groceries as is today.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnijy7 wrote
The bill addresses inflation.
Unless you are making $250k/yr ($500k/yr for a couple)āadjusted for inflationāthen this capital gains tax is not something you need to worry about.
BostonFoliage t1_jdnjt46 wrote
Official inflation is 6% but my groceries and rent are 30-50% higher. Anyhow, hope you're right about it. Wish I could say I trust our leaders as much as you do.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnk78k wrote
I cited my comment elsewhere, itās literally part of the FAQs on the law.
The $250/yr per person is adjusted for inflation.
BostonFoliage t1_jdnptjk wrote
Adjusted for official inflation numbers. I think official numbers are deceptively lower than the reality.
Don't you feel like you money is buying you less and less? Maybe it's just me.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnqpz9 wrote
> Adjusted for official inflation numbers. I think official numbers are deceptively lower than the reality.
> Don't you feel like you money is buying you less and less? Maybe it's just me.
Weāre going in circles here.
The most likely outcome is that itās highly unlikely that either of us will ever need to worry about this capital gains tax.
BostonFoliage t1_jdoqsk3 wrote
Let's hope so. Prices will come back down & wages will come up. Fingers crossed you're right.
nanobitegamer t1_jdk62so wrote
Can someone explain this to me like im a child, please?
rosesandpiglets t1_jdk843k wrote
The state constitution prohibits an income tax, the supreme court was deciding if taxes on capital gains (like selling stock) count as income tax
MetallicGray t1_jdlq9ad wrote
Thatās interesting. Aside from where you stand, I donāt see how selling capital gains is not an income. Investments sole purpose is to generate more money off your moneyā¦ so how is money generated not considered income.
UncommonSense12345 t1_jdlyjyw wrote
Every tax group/gov in the world says capital gains are incomeā¦.. WA state basically just bucked common sense so they could ram through this tax. Much like how they ignore the Bruen decision on their gun lawsā¦.. WA state has been 1 party run so long there are 0 checks and balances on what the gov can doā¦. People keep voting for the dems tho so what can you do ā¦.
[deleted] t1_jdm32k4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdmipf2 wrote
[removed]
wyecoyote2 t1_jdnab3c wrote
>the GOP has held the state senate in the last 10 years
Oops, this doesn't say decade does it.
[deleted] t1_jdnax4e wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdnbii9 wrote
[removed]
rosesandpiglets t1_jdnbx5o wrote
Thanks for confirming you donāt know what āinā means
Again, I said they controlled the state senate IN the last 10 years.
Have a nice life
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdnu0mi wrote
Exactly. This is a twisted ruling based on politics, not the state constitution.
CraftyFellow_ t1_jdsevbt wrote
So you be okay with taxing capital gains at the same rates as income federally? You know since obviously capital gains are income.
MetallicGray t1_jdt8ise wrote
Um. Yes? Seems pretty obvious and consistent with my statement.
Also short term capital gains tax is the same rate as federal income tax rates.
Iām guessing itās the long term rates your thinking of.
Idk why you worded that comment like it was some kind of gotcha lol
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdkch29 wrote
If youāre making more than $250k/yr in capital gains Iām sure your accountant and lawyer have already explained your potential liability here.
wyecoyote2 t1_jdmitq9 wrote
I'm sure if you are making that a year on the sale of stock. You will simply take a loan on the stock and not pay a tax.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdmjd8x wrote
Right?! Their accountants and lawyers will point out plenty of legal ways to help their clients lower or avoid the additional tax liability. Itās not like people with $250k/yr in capital gains donāt have resources for specialized assistance.
[deleted] t1_jdmzymg wrote
[deleted]
JackAlexanderTR t1_jdvlkcb wrote
Yes if you make that much every year. But for people who that might be a one in a lifetime deal, or once every few years at best, they can't afford the big boy tricks. And so it will hit the most those who can afford it the least. As always.
wyecoyote2 t1_jdw4n4i wrote
Absolutely true. Who else was this made for. Not to mention now all income can be considered an excise tax.
[deleted] t1_jdl76qh wrote
[deleted]
mjarrett t1_jdkczvo wrote
<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>
etcpt t1_jdkjv3v wrote
>Due to a quirk of Washington's constitution, we can't charge income tax.
More precisely, there is case law from 1933 (Culliton v. Chase) in which the State Supreme Court held that income is property and thus can only be taxed at a flat 1%. There is an argument that the court got it wrong in Culliton by misunderstanding the prior holding in Aberdeen Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Chase from 1930, as laid out here. If that argument holds water, legislative or initiative action to instate an income tax may prevail.
OdieHush t1_jdl7tq5 wrote
Canāt wait for the initiative to fail spectacularly and then for the legislature to pass it anyway.
FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdnu5bo wrote
>Due to a quirk of Washington's constitution
It's not a quirk. It's an intentional part of the constitution.
[deleted] t1_jdnis8d wrote
[removed]
nanobitegamer t1_je2h6f1 wrote
So it's a very good thing then? I could've sworn I saw a good amount of people complaining about this like it's bad
mjarrett t1_je2whn2 wrote
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.
Old-AF t1_jdk8bp6 wrote
Itās a tax on rich people that will raise $500M a year to help fund schools and social programs for poor people.
wyecoyote2 t1_jdmjai6 wrote
So it will join the lottery money, the alcohol and tobacco taxes, the Marijuana taxes all for the schools. Man the schools must be so well provided for there is no shortage of money with all the taxes going to the schools.
[deleted] t1_jdl2tvo wrote
[deleted]
Librekrieger t1_jdkzj6o wrote
This explains virtually nothing.
d3ming t1_jdlj30y wrote
So far no one on this thread actually explained how this tax works. ie in what case would I be taxed due to this vs how it was before?
Edit: answering my own q after some research - cap gains over 250k would be taxed at 7%. examples:
- 249k of gains would have no tax
- 250100 would have 7 dollar of tax (7% of 100 which is over the 250k limit)
ew73 t1_jdlkzuy wrote
Capital Gains taxes are pretty simple.
Capital gains is just a fancy way to say "profit" when you're talking about stocks. It's the amount that some asset increases since you bought it. It's only calculated when you sell the asset. So if you buy something for $10, and sell it for $100, your "capital gains" is $90.
The Washington law taxes capital gains, but only amounts over $250,000, at 7%.
The Washington Supreme Court decdied that the capital gains tax law as an "excise tax".
An excise tax is one that is often levied on some some good, or activity. Cigarettes and alcohol are often subject to additional excise taxes, for example. Gasoline is another common item subject to excise taxes.
So, along with cigarettes, gasoline, alcohol, and some other things, capital gains are also subject to an excise tax.
nanobitegamer t1_je2gjn0 wrote
Thank you
Top-Cantaloupe-917 t1_jeaam29 wrote
The WA constitution prohibits an income tax above 1%ā¦ capital gains have always considered income but the court wanted the tax to go through so they just decided to call it an excise tax instead. Basically if the constitution outlaws doing something just do that thing but call it something else and your good to go as long as the court agrees with the policy your trying to enact.
[deleted] t1_jdjyj4m wrote
[removed]
Riversmooth t1_jdktv2c wrote
The article makes it sound likes itās a tax on stocks and bonds or is this a new tax on all income over 250k a year?
EugeneMeltsner t1_jdlbqnc wrote
Capital gains is a tax on only the profit portion after selling investments
Competitive-Bit5659 t1_jdl77dl wrote
Guys like Jeff Bezos will be able to avoid this tax by making sure any capital gains over the limit count in another state.
This is really a tax on small business owners when they sell their businesses in order to retire.
ununonium119 t1_jdl989y wrote
The easiest way for the rich to get out of paying taxes is to not have any taxes for them in the first place.
jrodicus100 t1_jdn0hn2 wrote
Yeah youāre not wrong. Like most of those taxes aimed at the rich, they really only affect the upper middle class - the rich still avoid them completely with their armies of lawyers and accountants.
Everyone wants a fair and no -regressive tax, but this is just another kind of regressive tax that further divides the wealthy from the middle class.
JackAlexanderTR t1_jdu07im wrote
I voted for Democrats past few elections and I will 100% not vote for them again at local/state level. What people don't understand is that this will trigger an exodus of wealthy people and large corporations and the state will lost a lot more money than what it will make from this. Look at Portland Oregon chasing away all those "big and evil" corporations and then rich people, and now just regular middle class people because of all the taxes on top of taxes.
UncommonSense12345 t1_jdlz3gk wrote
Yep. Reddit people donāt care about logic tho so you will be downvotedā¦. Just like how the new gun laws wonāt be followed by criminalsā¦. Law abiding people will again have their rights stripped to keep wealthy Seattle folks āfeeling safeāā¦ who live in gated communities with well funded PDsā¦.
Competitive-Bit5659 t1_jdm2u35 wrote
Given how much Washingtonians hate small businesses, Iām surprised there werenāt more downvotes. Lol
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnjoji wrote
Worry about how bad the wealthy have it when youāre one of them. In the mean time youāre carrying their water for nothing.
UncommonSense12345 t1_jdnk1bk wrote
This tax will have its threshold lowerred gradually. Always happens. Gov uses rich as boogeyman to get tax passed, then over time makes the tax more and more broad. This tax will have an effect on a lot of people who you and me would say are well off but certainly not rich rich. People who have owned small businesses for their whole careers and sell them for their retirement will now be hit with an additional 7% taxā¦. that is theft
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnknl6 wrote
> This tax will have its threshold lowerred gradually. Always happens. Gov uses rich as boogeyman to get tax passed, then over time makes the tax more and more broad. This tax will have an effect on a lot of people who you and me would say are well off but certainly not rich rich. People who have owned small businesses for their whole careers and sell them for their retirement will now be hit with an additional 7% taxā¦. that is theft
Standard issue tax scare tactics that many libertarians have bought into wholesale and blindly.
The wealthy have been very good at scaring the lower classes into thinking that theyāll be impacted by tax increases that specifically target the wealthy.
Honestly, Iām impressed with how effective the wealthy have been at selling this narrative to people that will never be impacted
For example, family businesses are specifically exemptedābut youāre arguing like theyāre not.
UncommonSense12345 t1_jdnm44m wrote
Exempted for nowā¦. And letās revisit this in 2 years time. We will see who is right. Why canāt government just spend within their means ?
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnmpuz wrote
> Exempted for nowā¦. And letās revisit this in 2 years time. We will see who is right. Why canāt government just spend within their means ?
Againā¦ standard issue libertarian taxes are theft arguments.
Theyāre stealing your money and wasting it on things you donāt like! But donāt worry, things you do like donāt count. And donāt forgetātaxes on the wealthy are something your going to pay tooāsomeday, maybe.
Hopefully youāve never taken any school grants or educational payoffs because that would be a bit hypocritical to complain about government ātheftā and also take it when it benefits you, u/UncommonSense12345.
UncommonSense12345 t1_jdnobzu wrote
Well I have paid my way through both undergrad and grad school. I donāt get why you are slamming me so hard for critiquing the state for not following its own constitution and the precedent of 49 other states, the irs, and most other countries on earth. Capital gains taxes = income taxes, which are outlawed by the WA state constitution. Please look it up and see it for yourself. This is a favorite thing of the dems of this state to ignore the constitution if it is for things they donāt like (conservatives do this to, still wrong when they do it as well). Not sure their is much to argue here.
Edit: since you are so concerned with my finances, I used my own money, merit based aid, and private loans (non subsidized) so there you go. I do practice what I preach, and I will not be filling for student loan forgiveness, I will pay the debt I signed up for, other people should not subsidize my debt just like how I shouldnāt theirs.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnpy07 wrote
> Well I have paid my way through both undergrad and grad school. I donāt get why you are slamming me so hard for critiquing the state for not following its own constitution and the precedent of 49 other states, the irs, and most other countries on earth. Capital gains taxes = income taxes, which are outlawed by the WA state constitution. Please look it up and see it for yourself. This is a favorite thing of the dems of this state to ignore the constitution if it is for things they donāt like (conservatives do this to, still wrong when they do it as well). Not sure their is much to argue here.
Iām not slamming you, Iām just not accepting your comments unchallenged.
Your comments follow libertarian talking points near 1:1, I have no idea if you consider yourself a libertarian or not. It just that they talking points are easy to recognize wherever you sourced them from.
As for school, I have no idea if you went to college or how you paid for it. If you went to school and didnāt have family money paying your way (and good for you if you did!), I based my comment on most people using federally subsidized loans when they do from that āall taxes are theftā money.
And I donāt know if you got grants or loan forgiveness for your schooling costs based on qualifying for some tax payer funded program or not. But most people who do benefit from such government programs do from that āall taxes are theftā money.
Libertarian logic tends to excluded āall taxes are theftā logic for popular programs and instead spend a lot of time pointing out unpopular elements with their core audience. This creates division effect among people that have more in common with each other than not. Then they align aspirations with things that benefit a group that must will never be a part of.
Again, I donāt know if youāve accepted government money to pay off your schooling. I am saying that doing so is inconsistent with āall taxes are theftā thinking unless your okay with taking stolen property if it benefits you.
As I said, none of this it was based on you as a individual because I donāt know you as a individual. I addressed the most common patternāand you recognized elements that seemed to resonate with your situation and then thought I was putting you in blast.
Again, I was challenging your concepts because they were not unique to you.
UncommonSense12345 t1_jdnqef3 wrote
Fair enough. But have you looked into the constitutionality of the new income tax? It is concerning when the state and courts both ignore the constitution, no? What will you say when politicians who you donāt align with start ignoring the constitution? Will it matter then? I think lots of people donāt understand how dangerous it is to have a one party system that ignores the rule of lawā¦.
Today they came for my enemy I said nothing, tomorrow they may come for my friend, and the next day for meā¦ most people donāt get the concept that abridgments of the law and your constitutional rights is something that should be VERY VERY alarming to everyoneā¦.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdns09l wrote
Iām aware of the WA constitution arguments, Iām not sure theyāre accurate here. The SCoWA ruling appears to indicate the judges didnāt think it was valid in this case on this topic.
UncommonSense12345 t1_jdns7h6 wrote
How is a capital gains tax not a tax on income? The irs has ruled it to be so, along with every other stateā¦. Itās political pretzel twisting to get a tax they want passed regardless of whether it is legal or not
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnsxiz wrote
My basic understanding is that the SCoWA ruling determined that The tax is a excise on the sale capital assets and not the assets or gains themselves.
Basically itās effect is the sand as a capital gains tax but itās a excise taxāon capital gains.
For ā1000 people in this state, that subtle difference matters. For everyone elseā¦ itās business as usual.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnjfox wrote
He would do that either way. Iām sure heās working every tax loophole that exists already.
As for small business ownersāthat is largely a non-issue because family businesses are excluded.
DivinusVox t1_jdlzfve wrote
Very happily surprised by the court's decision. Making the state's tax code more fair and funding early education and childcare? Win-win!
holytoledo760 t1_jdozo4d wrote
I'm not a huge fan of taxes, I believe there shouldn't be any double dipping, but sweat based income is taxed, so under such a system, why shouldn't this?
Daddy_Thick t1_jdjo51t wrote
To the US Supreme Court we go!
triplebassist t1_jdk5lo6 wrote
Nope! Since this is a question about the state constitution, the state supreme court had the final say. Costello v. Carter confirmed that explicitly last year when the US Supreme Court told Republicans they couldn't appeal the PA Supreme Court's ruling on redistricting since it relied on state law
Daddy_Thick t1_jdkklxw wrote
Maybe, maybe not.
As was stated in the article capital gains has always been taxed as income taxā¦ itās recognized by the federal government and all 41 state governments that tax it as income tax. The mental gymnastics involved to not consider it income tax is what can get it to the US Supreme Court. If there is a will there is a way.
Squirrels_Gone_Wild t1_jdkq3ey wrote
Uh no, it doesn't matter what any other state calls it. That's the whole point of having states.
MRmandato t1_jdl1eai wrote
The US Supreme court considers the US constitutional question. This is not a federal constitutional issue.
Its done
Daddy_Thick t1_jdl5zmc wrote
āThis is not a federal constitutional issueā Words that many have eaten time and time again.
MRmandato t1_jdl72c8 wrote
No, the question is whether this violates the WA State constitution. SCOTUS is not an expert on state constitutions; the only angle is if the platiniffs case was the WA state constitution was itself violating the US constitution. But that still wouldnt help in this case because all they could do is throw out the WA constitutional provision entirely and that wouldnt help the plaintiffs.
Tldr: even according to the plaintiffs theres no federal issue here and SCOTUS has no standing
just-cuz-i t1_jdkl7mh wrote
āDonāt worry! Wealthy people that have power will find a way to legally rationalize why they donāt have to pay their fair share, like they always do, no matter how unethical, immoral, or illogical!ā
wyecoyote2 t1_jdmjpvk wrote
The easiest way is simply take a loan against the stock. Now you do not pay a tax as there is no sale. In the end do a 1031 tax exchange for out of state property or retire out of state. Then no tax paid.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnj53m wrote
They would do that either way. I donāt care if they retire out of state if theyāre not paying a fair percentage of their benefit of the economic system while theyāre here anyway.
phogster1 t1_jdjqrdl wrote
Itās over men, Wormer dropped the big one.
The Supreme Court doesnāt have any jurisdiction over this case.
Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdk9afz wrote
Oh no! I aspire to be impacted by that someday! š¤£