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! They’re not kidding the butts of the wealthy enough! They ran to Washington! Boo hoo! 😭

Oh wait… I don’t 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 again…

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.


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.


They figured out they pay LESS tax in WA with sales tax on “their expensive stuff” than they did in OR with income tax and no sales tax. That’s 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 yeah… let’s do it!

Good job, u/JackAkexanderTR, you’re a great salesman! 👍


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 didn’t seem to understand…

I don’t give a s✨t 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.


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.


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? 🤷‍♂️

They’re not paying taxes so it’s no fiscal loss.

Enjoy living on Wyoming or wherever. 👋


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. 😅


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. 🤣


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! 🤣😅😂


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!



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.” 🤣


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 it’s effect is the sand as a capital gains tax but it’s a excise tax—on capital gains.

For ≈1000 people in this state, that subtle difference matters. For everyone else… it’s business as usual.


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.

We’re going in circles here.

The most likely outcome is that it’s highly unlikely that either of us will ever need to worry about this capital gains tax.


Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnpy07 wrote

> Well I have paid my way through both undergrad and grad school. I don’t 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 don’t like (conservatives do this to, still wrong when they do it as well). Not sure their is much to argue here.

I’m not slamming you, I’m 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 didn’t 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 “all taxes are theft” money.

And I don’t 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 “all taxes are theft” money.

Libertarian logic tends to excluded “all taxes are theft” 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 don’t know if you’ve accepted government money to pay off your schooling. I am saying that doing so is inconsistent with “all taxes are theft” 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 don’t know you as a individual. I addressed the most common pattern—and 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.


Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdnmpuz wrote

> Exempted for now…. And let’s revisit this in 2 years time. We will see who is right. Why can’t government just spend within their means ?

Again… standard issue libertarian taxes are theft arguments.

They’re stealing your money and wasting it on things you don’t like! But don’t worry, things you do like don’t count. And don’t forget—taxes on the wealthy are something your going to pay too—someday, maybe.

Hopefully you’ve never taken any school grants or educational payoffs because that would be a bit hypocritical to complain about government “theft” and also take it when it benefits you, u/UncommonSense12345.


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% tax…. 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 they’ll be impacted by tax increases that specifically target the wealthy.

Honestly, I’m 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 exempted—but you’re arguing like they’re not.