Submitted by Bozzooo t3_120yder in Washington
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 tax… it’s 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
“This is not a federal constitutional issue” 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
“Don’t worry! Wealthy people that have power will find a way to legally rationalize why they don’t have to pay their fair share, like they always do, no matter how unethical, immoral, or illogical!”
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 don’t care if they retire out of state if they’re not paying a fair percentage of their benefit of the economic system while they’re here anyway.
phogster1 t1_jdjqrdl wrote
It’s over men, Wormer dropped the big one.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have any jurisdiction over this case.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments