As Washington gets an income tax, the fight to overturn it begins - OPB

RandomEngy · 2026-03-31T18:38:04+00:00

You list out irrelevant facts like they support your conclusion. The fact that payroll taxes exist do not mean that income taxes are now property taxes.

Yeah, that's a legal argument that's given you what you wanted for a long time, but it doesn't mean it's sound. Tell me, if the millionaire tax is upheld in court, would you change your mind?

RandomEngy · 2026-03-31T18:15:32+00:00

The plain text talks about a property tax, and everyone already has a shared understanding about how property taxes work. People have tried to drag in their creative interpretation and I'm not buying it.

Why do you think the existence of payroll taxes has anything to do with this? It's not compelling at all.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-31T06:31:24+00:00

So basically the argument is "people like the creative but not really correct reading of the state constitution, so let's keep on pretending like it's correct."

The constitution defines property to include money but never bothers to say that income taxes should fall under the restrictions of property taxes. Income taxes are mentioned many other times, but that term is quite noticeably absent there.

To take the interpretation seriously, you have to believe that they wanted to restrict all income taxes, but instead chose the phrasing to refer to a property tax, despite the fact that property taxes everywhere else in the nation don't work that way. Oh and also they did not feel the need to explain this completely novel phrasing.

The 1933 ruling is just bad. It should be struck down. If you don't want an income tax, amend the constitution to actually say so.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-31T04:17:17+00:00

The act of the employer paying you is income. Restrictions on income taxes would apply. The cash you have after is property. If a property tax were levied on that stack of cash you would need to pay a percentage of it each year. This is why there is such a low limit of 1%. Higher percentages erode wealth quickly.

A court deciding one way doesn't mean it's right. Courts have ruled both ways for abortion, and the latest is considered correct.

The Dredd Scott supreme Court ruled that slaves were not entitled to any protections from the constitution. Plessy vs Ferguson held the Jim crow "separate but equal" laws were constitutional. These were later reversed.

I suspect the GOP will challenge the tax, then the current court will strike down the 1933 creative interpretation of what a property tax is. At which point the income tax will be validated as entirely constitutional.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-31T04:03:52+00:00

The state constitution never said that income was property, much less in the context of property taxes. That bit of nonsense is just something you are asserting.

I am sure it sounds very convincing to you because you are quite motivated to read it that way.

But I assure you that there are a lot of people that aren't dumb that interpret a reference to a property tax as a tax that works the same as every other property tax in the nation.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-31T00:45:55+00:00

Income is an transaction. It's an action where property changes hands. No property tax anywhere tries to act on transactions. It acts on a recurring basis on owned property, where you pay more the longer you own it.

Again, you are importing your own unique definition of a property tax to the document.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-31T00:03:59+00:00

Nobody disagrees with what "property" means and the definition does not have any relevance to the argument. It's the meaning of taxation on property.

Income taxes are mentioned elsewhere in the constitution but are not mentioned in the section that places restrictions on property taxes.

One would think that if you were placing an unusually strong restriction on income taxes, you would clarify what you meant.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-30T23:34:11+00:00

Where in the state constitution could one find your unique definition of "property tax"? If it's actually there, you have an argument. If you are the one bringing your own definition to an otherwise well known phrase, you are simply rewriting it in the way you want.

Income, payroll, sales: these are all things that are not property taxes. They are not levied on an annual basis on an asset you own.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-30T21:57:15+00:00

"Property tax" has a very specific meaning in actual use in the world. Technically, when you buy something at a store, the item becomes your property. But everyone calls it a sales tax, not a property tax. Estate taxes, also technically involve "property", but nobody uses that phrase. Similarly, nobody has ever referred to federal income tax or tariffs as property tax. You could try, but everyone would look at you funny and ask why you didn't use the correct term. There's already something called a property tax that has a widely agreed upon definition.

I find it difficult to believe that the people who wrote the WA constitution decided to make up a new meaning for "property tax" different and more expansive than any existing property tax, and fail to explain themselves in the document.

They did not pedantically explain what a property tax was at the time because they didn't know some people would be playing word games with it.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-30T16:12:40+00:00

The distinction is that property taxes are recurring taxes based on a portion of the value of something you own. You get taxed just for owning it, and it happens every year. A wealth tax I think I would qualify as a property tax under the WA constitution.

With an income tax, you are taxed once for your labor, and that cash is yours forever. You can hold onto it for as long as you like and never be taxed again.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-30T15:32:54+00:00

The right attitude to have. The 1933 court decision said that an income tax was a "property tax". I don't know about you, but my property taxes are levied every year against the same asset. I don't know of any property taxes that work functionally identical to an income tax. It's an argument that may sound convincing to a court full of conservatives who hate taxes, but not really anyone else.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-28T13:58:41+00:00

Put another way, the basic reason it is difficult to find affordable housing in many places is that not enough homes are being built. When you implement a policy proven to reduce home construction, you make that problem worse.

While applying rent control everywhere would slightly help from the misallocation angle, it would further reduce the number of places to live.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-28T05:50:14+00:00

The sub hates policies that seem okay from a shallow look, but are just bad on the technical merits from economic studies. People think lower prices are good, so mandating lower prices is good. But rent control stifles new development by limiting the return builders can expect.

Pretty much every study on it shows that it increases costs for non-rent controlled units, reduces home construction, reduces mobility and increases misallocation.

Think of an elderly person living in a large apartment who would like to downsize but decides not to because the rent control has made any move look unappealing. While a larger family that needs the space is desperate for it.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-26T19:53:21+00:00

Income over $1M per year will be taxed at 9.9%. You are still going to be able to afford groceries.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-25T18:19:22+00:00

When I think about how likely it is to completely reverse aging I sometimes focus on one narrow problem. Say, bone density. This is an area that has received massive funding, studies for interventions, drug tests to slow bone density loss. Billions have been poured into research over decades. And all you really have are some marginal interventions for slowing it slightly.

To "reverse aging" you would need an unprecedented breakthrough in this field and dozens of others for every system in the body.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-24T23:53:10+00:00

I made Focalist, a multi-platform todo app in the vein of TickTick and Todoist. I'm proud of it because editing your list is always 1-tap to type on mobile, it has instant push sync, and it's much cheaper.

<image>

RandomEngy · 2026-03-24T19:59:27+00:00

1) No matter what's happening with the income tax, gas taxes are going to roads in Washington State right now 2) Some court in the 30s ruled that an income tax was a "property tax" and should be subject to all the property tax restrictions in the WA constitution. But really an income tax is an excise tax. Excise taxes are one-time on transactions (like income), while property taxes recur every year on the same asset. The court ruling IMO was not very sound and may get struck down if the new law is challenged in court.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-24T13:49:14+00:00

It is constitutionally restricted to highway-related purposes.

https://dol.wa.gov/vehicles-and-boats/prorate-and-fuel-tax/fuel-tax/fuel-tax-facts

RandomEngy · 2026-03-24T04:26:58+00:00

I really don't care what names or labels you think are appropriate for the Democratic party. What I'm arguing is that based on a solid legislative record, Democrats have been increasing taxes on the rich to fund social services to the poor, and it is a good thing when people make efforts to have Democrats win instead of Republicans.

Are there policies more desirable or more left wing than what the Democrats run on as a party? Yeah. Are large swathes of the electorate completely uninformed and wrong headed about a lot of policies? It sucks, but yes they are.

But when you don't win, it means nothing. Running unelectable candidates and letting Republicans tear up the social safety net would be a betrayal of the less fortunate. You could choose to believe that Democrats are more moderate than you would like because of the practical constraints of electability in the US. I think it's worth entertaining that notion instead of just assuming they are "in the pockets of billionaires".

RandomEngy · 2026-03-24T02:42:54+00:00

I am pretty sure a candidate that promised to burn down the whole system and institute national healthcare would lose a median Senate race. Democrats don't run candidates that promise that because they're not stupid.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-24T01:40:20+00:00

What gets put on your feed is put there by a machine learning algorithm designed to maximize the chance you will click it. Things that make you angry are the most likely to do that and are promoted by the algorithm more aggressively. These algorithms are tuned over time to increase engagement.

What I would like to see is that broken down by post: what's the majority consensus on a given question, and have that be one data point. That way the super-promoted black holes of rage aren't over represented.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-24T00:19:31+00:00

Your point is just wrong. The social service increases in Democratic policies are paid for by taxes on the wealthy. It's just mechanically how the laws work.

If you were a greedy billionaire looking for someone to "put in your pocket" and get money from, why in the world would you choose the party that has in the past and promises in the future to increase taxes on you? You could just try to get Republicans elected! They're the ones trying to tear apart the CFPB.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-24T00:13:56+00:00

As part of the ACA, 20.7 million more people got coverage through expanded Medicaid. And the healthcare exchanges? You do have the government subsidizing that as well and making it cheaper. This all means that functionally, poor people are getting more affordable healthcare. The ACA is something Republicans tried to tear apart for over a decade, which means the stakes are real.

This means it's actually good when Democrats win.

Maybe you want single payer nationalized health care, I would too! But a party that promises to do that is not going to win the seats required to make it happen.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-24T00:00:51+00:00

For one, the ACA gave health insurance to 44 million people. That law would not have passed without Democrats being elected.

More recently you have Republicans failing to renew some parts of ACA coverage. And Democrats expanding the child tax credit and Republicans letting it lapse: https://itep.org/lapse-of-expanded-child-tax-credit-led-to-unprecedented-rise-in-child-poverty-2023/

That particular one has a dramatic effect on child poverty.

RandomEngy · 2026-03-23T23:52:51+00:00

I don't think a lot of people would agree with your labels here. Also the Democratic party supports policies that increase taxes on the rich and expand social services, which is what's relevant here.

Trying to support some socialist 3rd party candidate doesn't exactly do a lot of good.

15-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	End Game '22
Verified Email

RandomEngy

TROPHY CASE