Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdnvx79 wrote

Reply to comment by Unique_Engineering_3 in Washington Supreme Court upholds new capital gains tax by Bozzooo

>I think it’s highly improbable that I—or the vast majority of the state—will 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.

1

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.

We’re in a logical loop here.

I don’t share your fear of this possible future.

In the meantime I’m okay with letting the wealthy fight their own fight—they clearly have the resources to do so and they don’t 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.

1

FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdnxkrc wrote

You're okay with removing constitutional protections against some people because of their class status.

Think about that.

1

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdny0xu wrote

> You're okay with removing constitutional protections against some people because of their class status.

> Think about that.

I’m 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.

There’s 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.

Or… carry their water for them for free because what impacts their rational best interests might, maybe, someday impact yours.

It’s too bad the wealthy don’t have the same concern for you, honestly.

1

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.

1

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.

We’re in a logical loop here.

I’m sure the wealthy really appreciate your concern for them and their rational best interests.

Too bad they don’t feel the same way about you and your rational best interests.

1