Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jetlaggedz8 t1_jdkcyev wrote

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

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.

13

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdkdcur wrote

I’m really not bothers by that kind of logic, I’ve been hearing that scare tactic my whole life.

What they might do someday, maybe isn’t my concern. Fixing our regressive tax code that disproportionately affects lower income earners as a percentage of their income is way overdue.

44

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?

2

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 it’s highly improbable that I—or the vast majority of the state—will 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 no… 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 I’m sure my account and lawyer will help me come up with legal work arounds. Whatever I’m not clever enough to hide, shift, or exclude—I’ll pay taxes on.

1

FireAntHoneyBadger t1_jdnvx79 wrote

>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

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.

2

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 5335… that bill has been parroted by four different folks all making almost identical points.

5335 has NOTHING to do with this tax, it’s 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. It’s cute that you thought you were being clever though. What a “gotcha.” 🤣

1

barefootozark t1_jdpsdpr wrote

> What a “gotcha.”

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.

1

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?

You’re a goof! 🤣😅😂

1

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?

1

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.

It’s been interesting to see what you seem to think is a well reasoned position though, u/barefootoxark. 🤣

1

barefootozark t1_jds570y wrote

> I’m really not bothers by that kind of logic, I’ve 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.

1

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jds5lwp wrote

> I’m really not bothers by that kind of logic, I’ve 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 someone’s drunk uncle spouting nonsense at a BBQ. 😅

1

[deleted] t1_jdlez1z wrote

[removed]

−7

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.

15

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 you’re 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? 🤷‍♂️

I’m super flattered that one of the ≈1000 people in the state that have exposure to this tax has taken the time to care about me! 🤣

8

barefootozark t1_jdpng0b wrote

> ’m super flattered that one of the ≈1000 people in the state that have exposure to this tax

An estimated 7,000 households — the wealthiest in the state — are estimated to be affected by the capital gains tax law, according to Invest in WA Now.

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.

1

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdpqdbx wrote

Thank you for correcting me so I’m accurate.

It’s 1 in 1000 that are expects to pay, not 1000 people in total.

It was expected to be paid by 7,000 people — fewer than 1 in every 1,000 residents — and to bring in close to a half-billion dollars a year to help pay for public education in Washington, beginning this year.

So, 99.9% of the citizens of the state don’t have anything to worry about. Not even the guy I was responding to because he claimed to be nearing $250/yr as a couple—still 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 ≈0.1% of the population of the state with increased tax risk, not ≈0.000013% of the population.

And yes, I’m ignoring the “but the original number was…” comment that several responders seem quite fond of mentioning as if that was the actual law that got passed. I know “but could a been” and “but in the future” arguments are popular with some, but I’m trying to stay tethered in reality not imagination.

1

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.

1

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.

That’s 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!

I’m not even mad, that’s just damned impressive!

🤣😅😂😂🤣

1

[deleted] t1_jdlfr5t wrote

[removed]

−15

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdlgxkc wrote

> I see you have tons of glib comments on here about this, it’s 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. I’m not so worried about paying 7% on that, but I’d be more worried that they’d 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 aren’t worried.

Your sad ad hominem commentary aside, it’s too bad you don’t have access to the internet.

If you did you would know that you’re still WAY BELOW the threshold despite doing great financially, u/Peanut09274.

“There are several deductions and exemptions available that may reduce the taxable amount of long-term gains, including an annual standard deduction of $250,000 per individual.”

So it looks like you’re going to need to more than double your tax exposure before you have to get your accountants and lawyers involved.

Edit to add:

You don’t have to worry about the $250k/yr EACH being less due to inflation because this limit is adjusted for inflation—and doesn’t include selling a family business.

“A standard deduction of $250,000 per year per individual, married couple, or domestic partnership. This amount is adjusted for inflation annually.”

“The long-term capital gain from an individual’s sale of all or substantially all of a qualified family-owned small business.”

8

Jetlaggedz8 t1_jdkeabz wrote

RemindMe! 1 year

−19

Jetlaggedz8 t1_jdkf9tl wrote

I guess that I don't need to wait a whole year to "scare" you with "that logic."

https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/10gma45/senate_bill_5335_would_increase_the_captain_gains/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

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.

−20

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdkfdrx wrote

> I guess that I don't need to wait a whole year to "scare" you with "that logic."

> https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/10gma45/senate_bill_5335_would_increase_the_captain_gains/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

> 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, wait… your link’s link has nothing to do with this and you were so desperate to prove your point that you linked a health care bill that’s gone nowhere. Wow… you really got me with that one, u/Jetlaggedz8. 👍

🤣😅😂🥲😂😅🤣

23

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. 🤣

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.

1

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdmgwgv wrote

I saw that people that have FEDERAL capital gains exposure submit information.

You’ll have to point out not the volume of times that “capital gains” is mentioned but the nexus between your linked bill and the lowering of the STATE capital gains limit that is being discussed.

I’m 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 you’re conflating two separate issues. Please, prove me wrong.

2

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.

1

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.

You’re conflating two different issues:

  1. The state capital gains that was just upheld by the SC of WA. And

  2. The proposed health care accounts that get funding through wages—and 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.

1

just-cuz-i t1_jdkkzgo wrote

“Be afraid of taxes!!!1! taxes are coming to get you!!1!!1”

-poster that claims he is not fear mongering

11

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.

0

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?

2

AdventureBum t1_jdo283x wrote

I don’t have any capital gains, and I think it’s bullshit that they’re taxed at a lower rate than earned income.

1

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.

2

AdventureBum t1_jdoucyr wrote

It’s also how the rich make the bulk of their wealth, which they then use to leverage non-taxable loans.

1