5 ms·

WA income tax clears House after 24-hour debate

61 points by garbawarb 7mo ago

seiferteric 7mo ago
I think I don't like income tax as it disincentivizes labor and also makes it harder for working people to build up wealth. Making a million a year sounds like a lot, but who knows how long someone might be making that kind of money? Meanwhile already wealthy people are mostly untouched. Would rather see majority of taxes come from corporate taxes and capital gains.
- makestuff 7mo ago
  How do you deal with a corporation just moving their HQ to another state though? It is hard because you cannot just say oh we should only have a federal income tax because then states would just rely on the federal government for funding. At the same time the wealthy people/corporations can easily move to another state leaving the middle class to make up for lost revenue.
  - soco 7mo ago
    You just... deal? You think about it then make a law in a way or another, instead of this decision paralysis. I also assume all states will think about it (rather sooner than later) so it's all a matter of concern and will - if there's one, because in a world ruled by corporations and billionaires, if it's all left to them, the only ones paying for roads, military or community services will be you, me and our likes (I assumed there aren't many billionaires on HN and also won't be any time soon). The tax breaks trend seems to only increase, right?
  - pc86 7mo ago
    You deal with it by competing with other states, which is what happens now, and what is intended based on the very architecture of the federal and state governments. This will make Seattle less attractive to the type of person who makes a LOT of money almost entirely from W2 income. Private practice physicians, specialty attorneys, that kind of thing. "Working people" who happen to be very highly compensated. If I was in that type of role and I could routinely expect to make $1.5-$2M/yr it would absolutely make me consider places like Florida or Texas more, especially with the marriage penalty mentioned in the article (although I'm curious how many households have two people both earning more than $1M/yr).
- 46493168 7mo ago
  > but who knows how long someone might be making that kind of money? Would you mind saying a little bit more about your thinking here? A million a year doesn’t just sound like a lot, it is a lot. FRED reports the median income in Washington at just shy of $100,000 [0]. We’re talking about households that make 10x the median. Also, what does it matter the length of time they earn it? If they don’t earn more than $1m, they don’t pay it, right? [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSWAA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSWAA646N
  - thewebguyd 7mo ago
    > If they don’t earn more than $1m, they don’t pay it, right? Correct, and for the times they do earn more than $1m, with this tax they are only taxed on the income over $1m and pay nothing for income of $999k and below. If you make a million and one dollars, you owe 10 cents.
  - seiferteric 7mo ago
    There are plenty of ways that you might make a large income in a single year like selling a business you have spent years or decades building up. Your "income" for that year might be several million that year, but it took you years to "earn" it. In general I don't think taxing people that actually have to work for a living is a great thing, all you are doing is prolonging the amount of time they have to work to save enough to either retire or start their own business. I would prefer to shift taxes to cap gains (why do long term cap gains rates exist???) and corporate taxes as well as sales tax.
collabs 7mo ago
I don't understand how anyone in good conscience can vote against this tax. As a reminder, this tax does not affect income under a million US dollars. From the article, if you earn a dollar over a million dollars, you owe 9.9% so you need to pay a dime in income tax.
- changoplatanero 7mo ago
  I think you can in good conscious be opposed to new taxes. This tax is being introduced in a way that only affects the most privileged portion of the population but that's how the Federal income tax was introduced many years ago too. People who oppose the tax are looking forward to a future where the tax burden in Washington might be as oppressive as it is in California or New York.
  - ambicapter 7mo ago
    States with massive, growing populations? Must not be as oppressive as stated.
    - cma256 7mo ago
      Both California and New York have shrinking populations according to Wikipedia. And even if the estimates are wrong and they do have growing populations you still need to consider the fact that the Southern states are growing much faster. Federal power is shifting south. If you like the politics of New York and California that's a long-term problem that needs to be resolved.
      - ambicapter 7mo ago
        California has a "Neutral Decrease" in population and New York has a "Neutral Increase" according to Wikipedia. I'm gonna go with the 5 year trendline, which is up. > And even if the estimates are wrong Nice, covering all your bases. > Southern states are growing much faster Yeah, smaller states grow faster than larger ones.
Neil44 7mo ago
In principle it sounds like a reasonable idea but the obvious problem is that people can become domiciled elsewhere, or structure their income to avoid this. It would be interesting to know what's been planned to mitigate that.
- Jemaclus 7mo ago
  how can i structure my income to avoid income tax? asking for a friend.
  - drdec 7mo ago
    A popular technique is to be compensated in options. Don't exercise the options, but take out loans against them.
    - pc86 7mo ago
      This is incredibly tech-specific, where most workers make a small fraction of $1M a year. Physicians don't get options, attorneys don't get options. This is a fairy tale answer not grounded in reality.
      - drdec 7mo ago
        So what is your answer then?
        pc86 7mo ago
        I don't need an answer to point out that your response is relevant to probably 3 or 4 people every year who: - live in Washington State; AND - are compensated at least in part in options; AND - are compensated in excess of $1M a year; AND - are compensated far enough in excess of $1M a year that they are willing to spend time and money lowering that tax liability But the answer is "you can't, at least not legally" for everyone except those few people.
  - deleted 7mo ago
garbawarb 7mo ago
When I was a new grad moving to the US and deciding where to live and work, the biggest draw of Seattle was its lack of income tax. Of course this particular $1 million threshold wouldn't apply to me until I'm very late in my career, or have a lucky year, or get married to a high-income person (the $1 million threshold applies to married couples, not just individuals) but Seattle loses a lot of its appeal if it's not financially advantageous. Of the other tech hubs, SF beats Seattle on weather and jobs and New York beats it on urban lifestyle. Or if you want to avoid income taxes, why not go to Florida or Texas. I wonder if introducing income taxes will impact Seattle's tech hub status going forward. Sometimes people talk about how much these measures will lead to rich people moving away, but discouraging high-income people from moving there I think is a bigger long-term impact.
- ambicapter 7mo ago
  The assumption of course being that high-income people moving in is good for everyone.
  - garbawarb 7mo ago
    Who are the "good" immigrants? It's a topic that's been talked about a lot recently but most countries, and I imagine states too, prefer that people with more money or income potential move there versus people with less.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - pc86 7mo ago
    If I had to choose I'd probably pick a neighbor who makes 3x what I do than 1/3. But I don't think it matters at all.
    - hectdev 7mo ago
      I'm just being snarky here but wouldn't you be concerned that the 3x neighbor would view you as you view the 1/3rd neighbor?
Simulacra 7mo ago
And the timing is very interesting of the CEO of Starbucks moving out of Washington.
lvspiff 7mo ago
Living in Portland I meet SOOOO many tech people that live across the river in Vancouver just because of the income tax - WA has none - OR has a healthily number of them (5 lines worth of various taxes show up on my paystub). Bigger impact im sure will be Seattle but the impact to Portland is not insignificant. I'm sure the WA tax would be less than the OR one though so I don't see the moves stopping, but probably akin to whats happened in CA where people moved to NV or AZ to escape some of the taxes (not a significant number but ive met enough to wonder). As people retire, they moved away to those places as they think they will be taxed less
- rozap 7mo ago
  These people are literal leeches on society. Like I get it, nobody likes paying tax. But the simple fact is: if society would crumble due to everyone acting the way you act, then you're a leech. Whether it's paying taxes, running scams, or doing crime. It's frustrating to me that people shirk responsibility for their actions when they act in the way that economic models would predict. As if acting like a rational agent within a system voids any responsibility you have as a member of society. See any/all of the following and tell me how often you hear similar lines of thinking among techies: * "Well, I can get rich quick by running this scam, and it's not technically illegal, so, me being a rational agent, I'll run this scam" * "Sure, Facebook may be contributing in large part to the downfall of western society but those RSUs taste so sweet" * "I'll use the Oregon infrastructure but if I live across the river then I don't have to pay for it. And I can buy things without sales tax in Oregon!" In short: "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."
kimbernator 7mo ago
I grew up in WA and as much as I enjoyed the lack of income tax, it's factual that until recently they held the title of #1 most regressive state tax system nationwide (recently bumped to #2 by FL). Income taxes are much better distributed among income brackets than consumption taxes are. I grew up just over the river from Portland, where there is no state sales tax; we got to enjoy the best of both worlds by crossing the state line to OR for large purchases and living in WA. Ironically, my home for the last decade (MO) has recently moved forward with a bill eliminating the statewide income tax in favor of a higher sales tax. This is in a state where the two largest cities are situated on the borders of other states, so it's essentially a guarantee that this will backfire.
- calvinmorrison 7mo ago
  the great thing about sales tax is rich people spend a lot of money on dumb shit
  - mtoner23 7mo ago
    Not relative to their income tho. Sales taxes are regressive and get more money from the poor
    - pc86 7mo ago
      They get less money from the poor but it's a higher percentage of that person's income. There is a difference.
  - kimbernator 7mo ago
    Not enough to make it preferable to income taxes.
  - gwbas1c 7mo ago
    The great thing about sales tax is that everyone can bypass it. You don't need to be the kind of person who can hire a tax expert to coach you; all you need to do is drive over the state line!
- 7mo ago
josefritzishere 7mo ago
Progressive taxation is the most efficient and fair system of taxation. America was it's most prosperous when the top federal income tax topped 90%, 1944-1963. Modern wealth consolidation makes this structure even more logical.
- pc86 7mo ago
  Everyone except the people uncritically repeating this political talking point agrees that a 90% marginal rate is very far on the right side of the Laffner curve.
  - LarsAlereon 7mo ago
    The point of a 90% marginal rate isn't to increase tax revenue, it's to discourage high incomes that are economically and socially harmful. If you don't believe that's a problem then policies to address it won't seem logical.
    - pc86 7mo ago
      Is someone earning $1.1M more economically or socially harmful than someone earning $980,000? Even if it is, and even if your point is true, that's not what the GP said. They said taxing rich people a higher percentage than poor people is "more efficient" (whatever that means in this context) and a "[more] fair system," and immediately followed it up with the 90% anachronism.
- HardCodedBias 7mo ago
  I'm going to assume that you mean progressive INCOME taxation is the most efficient and fair... Classically the ranking is : Least distortionary Land value taxes / recurrent tax on pure land rents Broad recurrent property taxes Broad consumption taxes (uniform VAT / sales tax) Tariffs / trade taxes Personal income / labor income taxes Corporate income taxes Transaction taxes Most distortionary
bettercallsalad 7mo ago
As someone who lives in WA, I despise how bad any state government run program here is. Literally it took me 3 months to get a SSN and I couldn’t get hold of anyone. Also on top of this tax, they have this care tax which also taxes 1% of your income for “long term care”. I would love to pay my taxes if I had seen reasonable outcome. So far all I see is a corrupt state government with no accountability and transparency. Also isn’t this illegal? I thought the state constitution says it is illegal.
- thewebguyd 7mo ago
  > Also isn’t this illegal? I thought the state constitution says it is illegal. The state constitution treats income as property, and states that property taxes must be uniform. So the bill is actually a state-wide, uniform 9.9% income tax but with the first million dollars exempt. It is expected to be challenged almost immediately in probably a long court battle so we will see what the arguments are. I'm in support of the tax, but I'm a bit miffed that they refused to add language that prohibited lowering the threshold.
  - qup 7mo ago
    Do you have anything specific you want the money spent on? Or is it just a punish the rich type of support?
    - thewebguyd 7mo ago
      Yes. Washington desperately needs infrastructure improvements, our state has not kept up with population growth, especially in areas outside of the Seattle metro. Go north into the Skagit valley or Whatcom county, we have two lane roads over capacity with many fatal accidents each year, power lines still above ground that get taken out year, after year every time we have a wind storm (happens a lot, especially in the fall). There's a reason it's a long standing joke that our state bird is the traffic cone. Near where I live there's still remains and pot holes from a landslide a year ago that has not been cleaned up or repaired. I'm not a "punish the rich just for the sake of it" type person, but I do believe that you shouldn't get to move here, use the state's economy to extract wealth, and then not contribute back into it's development, infrastructure and people.
alreadyleftWA 7mo ago
[dead]
Hasz 7mo ago
Vote with your feet. It is very easy politically to target those over the top 2-5% of income, but you better believe those tranches will be expanded in the future.
darknavi 7mo ago
WA = Washington State (USA), not Western Australia
lostmsu 7mo ago
WA has been raising taxes for some time, but the problem I care about the most - the prevalence of drugs in high schools - is getting worse. I voted with my $ and out of WA.
- OnionBlender 7mo ago
  To where?
  - lostmsu 7mo ago
    We settled on Canada for their decent PISA scores. Singapore would have been the top choice, but it has very high immigration barriers.
    - garbawarb 7mo ago
      Are drugs in high schools really a problem in WA? Where are you in Canada and how does it compare?
      - lostmsu 7mo ago
        There's no direct data on high school prevalence, so I am assuming overall drug statistics are a decent proxy. Overdose deaths are really bad in WA even relative to US on average. Canada is significantly better in this regard. We are picking between Ontario and Alberta with a possibility of Quebec if they issue an invitation.
HardCodedBias 7mo ago
Legally this is quite fascinating. The state constitution is quite strange wrt. taxes: https://law.justia.com/constitution/washington/constitution-7.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/washington/constitution-... There is a school of thought that the powers should be enumerated in the constitution. But this is not in favor. Instead this argues that Culliton the ruling that classified income as property was incorrect. And once that door is opened saying that the claims within the existing constitution only apply to property and finally that there is a strong presumption of constitutionality. Seems like a gauntlet. But it seems clear that given the composition of the supreme court that they will pass the gauntlet. A constitution is but paper. It does not hold back the motivated.
_b 7mo ago
Washington State’s constitution limits a tax like this to no more 1% and requires it to be uniform; this law meets neither requirement. I am uncomfortable that supporters of the income tax are so unbothered by it being unconstitutional. So few are insisting we amend the constitution to allow or not do it at all, on the grounds that violating the constitution (or flexibility construing it to match our desired ends) is bad.
- pc86 7mo ago
  Until there are severe personal penalties for an elected official violating their oath of office with regard to unconstitutional laws, they will simply ignore it. This is doubly true in formerly purple but now uniparty states like Washington where the Supreme Court is completely beholden to the party elite. We have the same problem at the federal level in part because SCOTUS will not or cannot provide input or warnings on proposed legislation. How many federal laws would simply not exist if SCOTUS got a veto before it went to the President for signing?
- alkonaut 7mo ago
  Doesn't it just limit property tax to 1% while saying nothing about income tax? Is it this? > the aggregate of all tax levies upon real and personal property by the state and all taxing districts now existing or hereafter created, shall not in any year exceed one percent of the true and fair value of such property in money Asking an AI (I know, I know) it suggests "Courts have ruled that income is property" which to me sounds like ruling up is down. I mean everywhere that has property tax separate from income tax or only one or the other would object... There was initiative 2111 which seems it wouldn't even be necessary if income tax was against the constitution to begin with? Also I assume this law basically nullifies initiative 2111?
  - _b 7mo ago
    Washington's constitution says: "The word 'property' as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership". That is extremely broad, and there is 90 years of precedent affirming income is include here as something intangible and "subject to ownership."
tzs 7mo ago
On Nextdoor here (Puget Sound area but on the other side of the water from Seattle) there are a lot of people who (1) post a lot about how property taxes and gasoline taxes are too high, (2) complain about any cuts to government services, and (3) oppose any effort to tax income even if the threshold is way way way higher than anything they or anyone they know will ever come near on the grounds that at some future time the threshold could be removed.
- mothballed 7mo ago
  > (3) oppose any effort to tax income even if the threshold is way way way higher than anything they or anyone they know will ever come near on the grounds that at some future time the threshold could be removed. This is exactly what happened with the national income tax, which initially only applied to <1% of the population. Of course the snare was set, and after WWI broke out the snare then sprung. It took less than a decade to go from <1% to >33% of households.
- cush 7mo ago
  property taxes are indeed way too high
cush 7mo ago
People are worried about billionaires moving to another state as if it’s a bad thing
silexia 7mo ago
Washington lifer here. Considering our Democrat Governor and AG have said they would prosecute any journalist who wants to look into fraud this is horrifying. The budget has grown massively in the last two decades with nothing to show for it. Howard Schultz just left.
cyprustaxlife 7mo ago
[dead]

61 points by garbawarb 7mo ago

I think I don't like income tax as it disincentivizes labor and also makes it harder for working people to build up wealth. Making a million a year sounds like a lot, but who knows how long someone might be making that kind of money? Meanwhile already wealthy people are mostly untouched. Would rather see majority of taxes come from corporate taxes and capital gains.

makestuff 7mo ago
How do you deal with a corporation just moving their HQ to another state though? It is hard because you cannot just say oh we should only have a federal income tax because then states would just rely on the federal government for funding. At the same time the wealthy people/corporations can easily move to another state leaving the middle class to make up for lost revenue.
- soco 7mo ago
  You just... deal? You think about it then make a law in a way or another, instead of this decision paralysis. I also assume all states will think about it (rather sooner than later) so it's all a matter of concern and will - if there's one, because in a world ruled by corporations and billionaires, if it's all left to them, the only ones paying for roads, military or community services will be you, me and our likes (I assumed there aren't many billionaires on HN and also won't be any time soon). The tax breaks trend seems to only increase, right?
- pc86 7mo ago
  You deal with it by competing with other states, which is what happens now, and what is intended based on the very architecture of the federal and state governments. This will make Seattle less attractive to the type of person who makes a LOT of money almost entirely from W2 income. Private practice physicians, specialty attorneys, that kind of thing. "Working people" who happen to be very highly compensated. If I was in that type of role and I could routinely expect to make $1.5-$2M/yr it would absolutely make me consider places like Florida or Texas more, especially with the marriage penalty mentioned in the article (although I'm curious how many households have two people both earning more than $1M/yr).
46493168 7mo ago
> but who knows how long someone might be making that kind of money? Would you mind saying a little bit more about your thinking here? A million a year doesn’t just sound like a lot, it is a lot. FRED reports the median income in Washington at just shy of $100,000 [0]. We’re talking about households that make 10x the median. Also, what does it matter the length of time they earn it? If they don’t earn more than $1m, they don’t pay it, right? [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSWAA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSWAA646N
- thewebguyd 7mo ago
  > If they don’t earn more than $1m, they don’t pay it, right? Correct, and for the times they do earn more than $1m, with this tax they are only taxed on the income over $1m and pay nothing for income of $999k and below. If you make a million and one dollars, you owe 10 cents.
- seiferteric 7mo ago
  There are plenty of ways that you might make a large income in a single year like selling a business you have spent years or decades building up. Your "income" for that year might be several million that year, but it took you years to "earn" it. In general I don't think taxing people that actually have to work for a living is a great thing, all you are doing is prolonging the amount of time they have to work to save enough to either retire or start their own business. I would prefer to shift taxes to cap gains (why do long term cap gains rates exist???) and corporate taxes as well as sales tax.

collabs 7mo ago

I don't understand how anyone in good conscience can vote against this tax. As a reminder, this tax does not affect income under a million US dollars. From the article, if you earn a dollar over a million dollars, you owe 9.9% so you need to pay a dime in income tax.

changoplatanero 7mo ago
I think you can in good conscious be opposed to new taxes. This tax is being introduced in a way that only affects the most privileged portion of the population but that's how the Federal income tax was introduced many years ago too. People who oppose the tax are looking forward to a future where the tax burden in Washington might be as oppressive as it is in California or New York.
- ambicapter 7mo ago
  States with massive, growing populations? Must not be as oppressive as stated.
  - cma256 7mo ago
    Both California and New York have shrinking populations according to Wikipedia. And even if the estimates are wrong and they do have growing populations you still need to consider the fact that the Southern states are growing much faster. Federal power is shifting south. If you like the politics of New York and California that's a long-term problem that needs to be resolved.
    - ambicapter 7mo ago
      California has a "Neutral Decrease" in population and New York has a "Neutral Increase" according to Wikipedia. I'm gonna go with the 5 year trendline, which is up. > And even if the estimates are wrong Nice, covering all your bases. > Southern states are growing much faster Yeah, smaller states grow faster than larger ones.

Neil44 7mo ago

In principle it sounds like a reasonable idea but the obvious problem is that people can become domiciled elsewhere, or structure their income to avoid this. It would be interesting to know what's been planned to mitigate that.

Jemaclus 7mo ago
how can i structure my income to avoid income tax? asking for a friend.
- drdec 7mo ago
  A popular technique is to be compensated in options. Don't exercise the options, but take out loans against them.
  - pc86 7mo ago
    This is incredibly tech-specific, where most workers make a small fraction of $1M a year. Physicians don't get options, attorneys don't get options. This is a fairy tale answer not grounded in reality.
    - drdec 7mo ago
      So what is your answer then?
      - pc86 7mo ago
        I don't need an answer to point out that your response is relevant to probably 3 or 4 people every year who: - live in Washington State; AND - are compensated at least in part in options; AND - are compensated in excess of $1M a year; AND - are compensated far enough in excess of $1M a year that they are willing to spend time and money lowering that tax liability But the answer is "you can't, at least not legally" for everyone except those few people.
- deleted 7mo ago

garbawarb 7mo ago

When I was a new grad moving to the US and deciding where to live and work, the biggest draw of Seattle was its lack of income tax. Of course this particular $1 million threshold wouldn't apply to me until I'm very late in my career, or have a lucky year, or get married to a high-income person (the $1 million threshold applies to married couples, not just individuals) but Seattle loses a lot of its appeal if it's not financially advantageous. Of the other tech hubs, SF beats Seattle on weather and jobs and New York beats it on urban lifestyle. Or if you want to avoid income taxes, why not go to Florida or Texas. I wonder if introducing income taxes will impact Seattle's tech hub status going forward. Sometimes people talk about how much these measures will lead to rich people moving away, but discouraging high-income people from moving there I think is a bigger long-term impact.

ambicapter 7mo ago
The assumption of course being that high-income people moving in is good for everyone.
- garbawarb 7mo ago
  Who are the "good" immigrants? It's a topic that's been talked about a lot recently but most countries, and I imagine states too, prefer that people with more money or income potential move there versus people with less.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- pc86 7mo ago
  If I had to choose I'd probably pick a neighbor who makes 3x what I do than 1/3. But I don't think it matters at all.
  - hectdev 7mo ago
    I'm just being snarky here but wouldn't you be concerned that the 3x neighbor would view you as you view the 1/3rd neighbor?

Simulacra 7mo ago

And the timing is very interesting of the CEO of Starbucks moving out of Washington.

lvspiff 7mo ago

Living in Portland I meet SOOOO many tech people that live across the river in Vancouver just because of the income tax - WA has none - OR has a healthily number of them (5 lines worth of various taxes show up on my paystub). Bigger impact im sure will be Seattle but the impact to Portland is not insignificant. I'm sure the WA tax would be less than the OR one though so I don't see the moves stopping, but probably akin to whats happened in CA where people moved to NV or AZ to escape some of the taxes (not a significant number but ive met enough to wonder). As people retire, they moved away to those places as they think they will be taxed less

rozap 7mo ago
These people are literal leeches on society. Like I get it, nobody likes paying tax. But the simple fact is: if society would crumble due to everyone acting the way you act, then you're a leech. Whether it's paying taxes, running scams, or doing crime. It's frustrating to me that people shirk responsibility for their actions when they act in the way that economic models would predict. As if acting like a rational agent within a system voids any responsibility you have as a member of society. See any/all of the following and tell me how often you hear similar lines of thinking among techies: * "Well, I can get rich quick by running this scam, and it's not technically illegal, so, me being a rational agent, I'll run this scam" * "Sure, Facebook may be contributing in large part to the downfall of western society but those RSUs taste so sweet" * "I'll use the Oregon infrastructure but if I live across the river then I don't have to pay for it. And I can buy things without sales tax in Oregon!" In short: "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."

kimbernator 7mo ago

I grew up in WA and as much as I enjoyed the lack of income tax, it's factual that until recently they held the title of #1 most regressive state tax system nationwide (recently bumped to #2 by FL). Income taxes are much better distributed among income brackets than consumption taxes are. I grew up just over the river from Portland, where there is no state sales tax; we got to enjoy the best of both worlds by crossing the state line to OR for large purchases and living in WA. Ironically, my home for the last decade (MO) has recently moved forward with a bill eliminating the statewide income tax in favor of a higher sales tax. This is in a state where the two largest cities are situated on the borders of other states, so it's essentially a guarantee that this will backfire.

calvinmorrison 7mo ago
the great thing about sales tax is rich people spend a lot of money on dumb shit
- mtoner23 7mo ago
  Not relative to their income tho. Sales taxes are regressive and get more money from the poor
  - pc86 7mo ago
    They get less money from the poor but it's a higher percentage of that person's income. There is a difference.
- kimbernator 7mo ago
  Not enough to make it preferable to income taxes.
- gwbas1c 7mo ago
  The great thing about sales tax is that everyone can bypass it. You don't need to be the kind of person who can hire a tax expert to coach you; all you need to do is drive over the state line!
7mo ago

josefritzishere 7mo ago

Progressive taxation is the most efficient and fair system of taxation. America was it's most prosperous when the top federal income tax topped 90%, 1944-1963. Modern wealth consolidation makes this structure even more logical.

pc86 7mo ago
Everyone except the people uncritically repeating this political talking point agrees that a 90% marginal rate is very far on the right side of the Laffner curve.
- LarsAlereon 7mo ago
  The point of a 90% marginal rate isn't to increase tax revenue, it's to discourage high incomes that are economically and socially harmful. If you don't believe that's a problem then policies to address it won't seem logical.
  - pc86 7mo ago
    Is someone earning $1.1M more economically or socially harmful than someone earning $980,000? Even if it is, and even if your point is true, that's not what the GP said. They said taxing rich people a higher percentage than poor people is "more efficient" (whatever that means in this context) and a "[more] fair system," and immediately followed it up with the 90% anachronism.
HardCodedBias 7mo ago
I'm going to assume that you mean progressive INCOME taxation is the most efficient and fair... Classically the ranking is : Least distortionary Land value taxes / recurrent tax on pure land rents Broad recurrent property taxes Broad consumption taxes (uniform VAT / sales tax) Tariffs / trade taxes Personal income / labor income taxes Corporate income taxes Transaction taxes Most distortionary

bettercallsalad 7mo ago

As someone who lives in WA, I despise how bad any state government run program here is. Literally it took me 3 months to get a SSN and I couldn’t get hold of anyone. Also on top of this tax, they have this care tax which also taxes 1% of your income for “long term care”. I would love to pay my taxes if I had seen reasonable outcome. So far all I see is a corrupt state government with no accountability and transparency. Also isn’t this illegal? I thought the state constitution says it is illegal.

thewebguyd 7mo ago
> Also isn’t this illegal? I thought the state constitution says it is illegal. The state constitution treats income as property, and states that property taxes must be uniform. So the bill is actually a state-wide, uniform 9.9% income tax but with the first million dollars exempt. It is expected to be challenged almost immediately in probably a long court battle so we will see what the arguments are. I'm in support of the tax, but I'm a bit miffed that they refused to add language that prohibited lowering the threshold.
- qup 7mo ago
  Do you have anything specific you want the money spent on? Or is it just a punish the rich type of support?
  - thewebguyd 7mo ago
    Yes. Washington desperately needs infrastructure improvements, our state has not kept up with population growth, especially in areas outside of the Seattle metro. Go north into the Skagit valley or Whatcom county, we have two lane roads over capacity with many fatal accidents each year, power lines still above ground that get taken out year, after year every time we have a wind storm (happens a lot, especially in the fall). There's a reason it's a long standing joke that our state bird is the traffic cone. Near where I live there's still remains and pot holes from a landslide a year ago that has not been cleaned up or repaired. I'm not a "punish the rich just for the sake of it" type person, but I do believe that you shouldn't get to move here, use the state's economy to extract wealth, and then not contribute back into it's development, infrastructure and people.

alreadyleftWA 7mo ago

[dead]

Hasz 7mo ago

Vote with your feet. It is very easy politically to target those over the top 2-5% of income, but you better believe those tranches will be expanded in the future.

darknavi 7mo ago

WA = Washington State (USA), not Western Australia

lostmsu 7mo ago

WA has been raising taxes for some time, but the problem I care about the most - the prevalence of drugs in high schools - is getting worse. I voted with my $ and out of WA.

OnionBlender 7mo ago
To where?
- lostmsu 7mo ago
  We settled on Canada for their decent PISA scores. Singapore would have been the top choice, but it has very high immigration barriers.
  - garbawarb 7mo ago
    Are drugs in high schools really a problem in WA? Where are you in Canada and how does it compare?
    - lostmsu 7mo ago
      There's no direct data on high school prevalence, so I am assuming overall drug statistics are a decent proxy. Overdose deaths are really bad in WA even relative to US on average. Canada is significantly better in this regard. We are picking between Ontario and Alberta with a possibility of Quebec if they issue an invitation.

HardCodedBias 7mo ago

Legally this is quite fascinating. The state constitution is quite strange wrt. taxes: https://law.justia.com/constitution/washington/constitution-7.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/washington/constitution-... There is a school of thought that the powers should be enumerated in the constitution. But this is not in favor. Instead this argues that Culliton the ruling that classified income as property was incorrect. And once that door is opened saying that the claims within the existing constitution only apply to property and finally that there is a strong presumption of constitutionality. Seems like a gauntlet. But it seems clear that given the composition of the supreme court that they will pass the gauntlet. A constitution is but paper. It does not hold back the motivated.

_b 7mo ago

Washington State’s constitution limits a tax like this to no more 1% and requires it to be uniform; this law meets neither requirement. I am uncomfortable that supporters of the income tax are so unbothered by it being unconstitutional. So few are insisting we amend the constitution to allow or not do it at all, on the grounds that violating the constitution (or flexibility construing it to match our desired ends) is bad.

pc86 7mo ago
Until there are severe personal penalties for an elected official violating their oath of office with regard to unconstitutional laws, they will simply ignore it. This is doubly true in formerly purple but now uniparty states like Washington where the Supreme Court is completely beholden to the party elite. We have the same problem at the federal level in part because SCOTUS will not or cannot provide input or warnings on proposed legislation. How many federal laws would simply not exist if SCOTUS got a veto before it went to the President for signing?
alkonaut 7mo ago
Doesn't it just limit property tax to 1% while saying nothing about income tax? Is it this? > the aggregate of all tax levies upon real and personal property by the state and all taxing districts now existing or hereafter created, shall not in any year exceed one percent of the true and fair value of such property in money Asking an AI (I know, I know) it suggests "Courts have ruled that income is property" which to me sounds like ruling up is down. I mean everywhere that has property tax separate from income tax or only one or the other would object... There was initiative 2111 which seems it wouldn't even be necessary if income tax was against the constitution to begin with? Also I assume this law basically nullifies initiative 2111?
- _b 7mo ago
  Washington's constitution says: "The word 'property' as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership". That is extremely broad, and there is 90 years of precedent affirming income is include here as something intangible and "subject to ownership."

tzs 7mo ago

On Nextdoor here (Puget Sound area but on the other side of the water from Seattle) there are a lot of people who (1) post a lot about how property taxes and gasoline taxes are too high, (2) complain about any cuts to government services, and (3) oppose any effort to tax income even if the threshold is way way way higher than anything they or anyone they know will ever come near on the grounds that at some future time the threshold could be removed.

mothballed 7mo ago
> (3) oppose any effort to tax income even if the threshold is way way way higher than anything they or anyone they know will ever come near on the grounds that at some future time the threshold could be removed. This is exactly what happened with the national income tax, which initially only applied to <1% of the population. Of course the snare was set, and after WWI broke out the snare then sprung. It took less than a decade to go from <1% to >33% of households.
cush 7mo ago
property taxes are indeed way too high

cush 7mo ago

People are worried about billionaires moving to another state as if it’s a bad thing

silexia 7mo ago

Washington lifer here. Considering our Democrat Governor and AG have said they would prosecute any journalist who wants to look into fraud this is horrifying. The budget has grown massively in the last two decades with nothing to show for it. Howard Schultz just left.

cyprustaxlife 7mo ago

[dead]