3 ms·

> For decades, the wealthiest Washingtonians have gotten out of paying what they truly owe in state and local taxes. I don’t know what to make of this statemen

> For decades, the wealthiest Washingtonians have gotten out of paying what they truly owe in state and local taxes. I don’t know what to make of this statement. I pay what the law says I have to pay. Is that not what I “truly owe”?

rlewkov 3y ago
What you truly owe = author doesn't think some people pay what he thinks they should
picometer 3y ago
I think the word “truly” is doing the heavy lifting here.
sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
It's a matter of (perceived) fairness. There is indeed the law, and at the end of the day that is what determines what you must pay. The very wealthy have long supported income tax structures that treat capital gains very differently than employment income, with much higher rates being applied to employment income. For the most part, the very wealthy do not receive much employment income. This means that as a percentage of income (all types added together), people who primarily earn via capital gains pay far less tax than those who primarily earn via employment. It is an understandable position to say that this tax structure is unfair and that the very wealthy are not paying what they should pay. You can disagree with it but it is not a difficult position to understand.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  Its also not difficult to understand that "7% over $250,000" is just as arbitrary as 1% or 15% or 37.9% and that this arbitrariness and vagueness is the crux of the fair share rhetoric. it has no base unit, it has no understanding of the existing tax environment, it has no ability to comprehend anything except an exemption from questioning why we are being screwed at all, only requesting that we are all being screwed equally, which is not a goal remotely supported by any form of consensus in legislatures.
- matthew9219 3y ago
  It's an understandable position yes. It's not quite so understandable to me that somebody would believe that position to be an inherent truth ("truly owe") rather than just a position. Capital gains taxes have historically been lower to encourage the investment of capital. This might be good or bad policy. Many economists say it's good policy. It's stating opinion as fact.
  - chickenpotpie 3y ago
    Whether it's good and whether it's fair are different criteria. It would be incorrect to say low capital gains taxes are bad, but that's not what the previous commenter said. They said they're not fair and I cannot think of a legitimate defense to low capital gains taxes being fair. For example, it may or may not be good to steal all the money from the richest man in the world and give it to the poorest, but it's absolutely not fair.
    - matthew9219 3y ago
      The discussion is about the quote in the article, not about what the previous commentator said.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
    Well it is an opinion piece. Clearly says so at the top.
    - matthew9219 3y ago
      I didn't quite speak clearly and so let me try to clarify. It's the opinion presented as opinion containing opinion presented as fact :). In examples: - "summer is the best season" is an opinion - "summer has the highest temperatures" is a fact - "summer is the best time to have romantic encounters" is an opinion - "summer is the best season because romantic encounters truly only happen in the summer" is a weird amalgamation. It clearly presents an opinion, and says that opinion is based on a true fact, but in fact, the true fact the opinion relies on is not a fact at all, but merely another opinion.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Zanni 3y ago
  That's true, but in this case, Washington State has no income tax. The capital gains rate here isn't an unfair rate that privileges the wealthy, it's an additional tax burden on the wealthy.
RandallBrown 3y ago
It might be better worded as "have gotten out of paying their fair share of state and local taxes." Depending on your definition of fair, of course.
burlesona 3y ago
I agree: the word “owe” is a problem here. The thrust of the article is that the tax structure has historically charged a lower rate of tax on the wealthy than the poor. By definition that means the wealthy could pay exactly what they owed without paying a reasonable share, and now with this change they owe more which makes it more fair. But saying people didn’t pay what they owed and also calling them tax-dodgers implies they are criminals, which is likely incorrect for most of them and an unhelpful misdirection. If obeying the law isn’t “good enough” the fault is with the law, not the citizens.
pc86 3y ago
It's the kind of silly moralizing language used by partisan hacks. You owe what the law says you owe and not a penny more (or less). Most people, regardless of socioeconomic status, pay what they owe, or at least what their CPA/H&R Block/TurboTax tells them they owe.
- geysersam 3y ago
  The law is a product of ethical considerations. Just because you found a tax loophole doesn't mean you're fulfilling the ethical obligations that motivated the law.
  - pc86 3y ago
    A state charging 0% capital gains on top of what the federal government already charges is not "finding a tax loophole." It's following tax law as it is written. What tax deductions or exclusions do you qualify for that you are avoiding in order to not accidentally "find a loophole?" You are free to donate more of your money to the state or federal government should you choose to.
geysersam 3y ago
Laws are constrained by what kind of legislation is ethical and practical to enforce. It cannot come as a surprise to you that lots of efforts go into finding loopholes and technicalities that lets rich people pay much less tax than the lawmakers intended. The difference is the "spirit" of the law versus its practical application.

rlewkov 3y ago

What you truly owe = author doesn't think some people pay what he thinks they should

picometer 3y ago

I think the word “truly” is doing the heavy lifting here.

sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago

It's a matter of (perceived) fairness. There is indeed the law, and at the end of the day that is what determines what you must pay. The very wealthy have long supported income tax structures that treat capital gains very differently than employment income, with much higher rates being applied to employment income. For the most part, the very wealthy do not receive much employment income. This means that as a percentage of income (all types added together), people who primarily earn via capital gains pay far less tax than those who primarily earn via employment. It is an understandable position to say that this tax structure is unfair and that the very wealthy are not paying what they should pay. You can disagree with it but it is not a difficult position to understand.

yieldcrv 3y ago
Its also not difficult to understand that "7% over $250,000" is just as arbitrary as 1% or 15% or 37.9% and that this arbitrariness and vagueness is the crux of the fair share rhetoric. it has no base unit, it has no understanding of the existing tax environment, it has no ability to comprehend anything except an exemption from questioning why we are being screwed at all, only requesting that we are all being screwed equally, which is not a goal remotely supported by any form of consensus in legislatures.
matthew9219 3y ago
It's an understandable position yes. It's not quite so understandable to me that somebody would believe that position to be an inherent truth ("truly owe") rather than just a position. Capital gains taxes have historically been lower to encourage the investment of capital. This might be good or bad policy. Many economists say it's good policy. It's stating opinion as fact.
- chickenpotpie 3y ago
  Whether it's good and whether it's fair are different criteria. It would be incorrect to say low capital gains taxes are bad, but that's not what the previous commenter said. They said they're not fair and I cannot think of a legitimate defense to low capital gains taxes being fair. For example, it may or may not be good to steal all the money from the richest man in the world and give it to the poorest, but it's absolutely not fair.
  - matthew9219 3y ago
    The discussion is about the quote in the article, not about what the previous commentator said.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
  Well it is an opinion piece. Clearly says so at the top.
  - matthew9219 3y ago
    I didn't quite speak clearly and so let me try to clarify. It's the opinion presented as opinion containing opinion presented as fact :). In examples: - "summer is the best season" is an opinion - "summer has the highest temperatures" is a fact - "summer is the best time to have romantic encounters" is an opinion - "summer is the best season because romantic encounters truly only happen in the summer" is a weird amalgamation. It clearly presents an opinion, and says that opinion is based on a true fact, but in fact, the true fact the opinion relies on is not a fact at all, but merely another opinion.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Zanni 3y ago
That's true, but in this case, Washington State has no income tax. The capital gains rate here isn't an unfair rate that privileges the wealthy, it's an additional tax burden on the wealthy.

RandallBrown 3y ago

It might be better worded as "have gotten out of paying their fair share of state and local taxes." Depending on your definition of fair, of course.

burlesona 3y ago

I agree: the word “owe” is a problem here. The thrust of the article is that the tax structure has historically charged a lower rate of tax on the wealthy than the poor. By definition that means the wealthy could pay exactly what they owed without paying a reasonable share, and now with this change they owe more which makes it more fair. But saying people didn’t pay what they owed and also calling them tax-dodgers implies they are criminals, which is likely incorrect for most of them and an unhelpful misdirection. If obeying the law isn’t “good enough” the fault is with the law, not the citizens.

pc86 3y ago

It's the kind of silly moralizing language used by partisan hacks. You owe what the law says you owe and not a penny more (or less). Most people, regardless of socioeconomic status, pay what they owe, or at least what their CPA/H&R Block/TurboTax tells them they owe.

geysersam 3y ago
The law is a product of ethical considerations. Just because you found a tax loophole doesn't mean you're fulfilling the ethical obligations that motivated the law.
- pc86 3y ago
  A state charging 0% capital gains on top of what the federal government already charges is not "finding a tax loophole." It's following tax law as it is written. What tax deductions or exclusions do you qualify for that you are avoiding in order to not accidentally "find a loophole?" You are free to donate more of your money to the state or federal government should you choose to.

geysersam 3y ago

Laws are constrained by what kind of legislation is ethical and practical to enforce. It cannot come as a surprise to you that lots of efforts go into finding loopholes and technicalities that lets rich people pay much less tax than the lawmakers intended. The difference is the "spirit" of the law versus its practical application.