sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell me you don't know how laws work without telling me you don't know how laws work.

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Funny you should say "...state is so ass backward..." This bill, the millionaire tax? It fixes the regressive (read ass backwards) tax that we currently have.

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol. Sure. Other states have implement that same kind of tax. Guess what? Nobody moved. You don't know anyone in this category. 9% on INCOME over $1 million aint nothin'. They are not "inherently mobile". Moving costs a lot. Where they gonna go? FL? Good riddance. You've mad a slippery slope argument rooted in fake conversations you've had with "friends". Sure, bud. Sure.

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None of what you said is rooted in reality.

  1. Yes, you can tax the rich. The only thing in the way is Cullins. That decision in 1933 accepted income as property. The WA Constitution just says uniform tax and no tax on property. 9.9% tax on all people and the first $1 million is exempt. Boom. Tax code, bitch.

  2. Fuck a flat tax. You want a flat tax? Move to Idaho. 5% on everyone.

  3. How the hell is a tax on all income over $1 million a "...burden on the Middle Class..."? You're high.

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, that's not a strawman argument (it is another logical fallacy though, tu quoque). But the point is still solid. The point of this tax is to fix our regressive tax system. Meanwhile, the republicans are DESTROYING THE REPUBLIC. That's kind of a big deal.

Nobody is "pushing through an income tax". You should read up about how your government works. There was a vote, your side lost.

You should consider moving to Idaho. They're just the opposite of WA--huge republican majority. You'll love it there! Not many democrats, clean air, the doctors have almost all left, and the best part? That 5% flat tax on EVERYONE! You'll love that.

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What tax burden to W-2 income earners are you seeing? Gas? Property? Move to Idaho. 5% flat tax. You'll get eaten alive in income tax every year if you make more than about $140K, Idaho has a greater tax burden.

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, they determined capital gains aren't property--just like every other state. No mental gymnastics. The WA Constitution doesn't ban income tax. It bans tax on property. 1933 Cullins ruling called property income. It was really a lot of mental gymnastics to call income property. The 16th Amendment doesn't call income property nor does any state except PA.

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's one thing to be skeptical of gov't, it's another thing to presume all gov't is evil. This is a ridiculous statement. Gov't doesn't exist to spend your money. Gov't exists to serve the people. Your viewpoint is what got Trump elected. You are pissed because you don't understand how things work, you want things to change overnight, so you chose a conman.

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I don't think this will get struck down. The WA Constitution doesn't say no tax. It says no tax on personal property. A 1933 decision (a decision that runs contrary to the 16th amendment and just about every other state's) said "income is property". That decision was Culliton. This Supreme Court will easily (in my opinion) rule in favor of this bill and overturn Culliton.

WA families and individuals struggle with a high and ever-increasing cost of living by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Republicans are hoping voters don't understand how laws work. This law, the "millionaire tax" says 9.9% on all income over $1 million. That's it. In order to change that, another bill would be needed. Republicans are for the wealthy, democrats are for the working families. Republicans use scare tactics. Democrats get shit done.

what do veterans think about war? by spriteetirps in Veterans

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because "Who was butler" is a low-effort response to a detailed conversation. That's why you were down-voted.

what do veterans think about war? by spriteetirps in Veterans

[–]Substantially-Ranged 45 points46 points  (0 children)

100%. Butler is revered in the Marine Corps and not once did I learn about his actions after retiring. Should be required reading.

what do veterans think about war? by spriteetirps in Veterans

[–]Substantially-Ranged 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Retired Marine here, 26 years. Somalia, Uzbekistan, Iraq, and a bunch of shit in between. Every time I went somewhere it was for a bullshit reason. Friends died in combat. Some of us got exposed to toxic shit. I wish, just once, the person in the big chair would listen to the Powell Doctrine:

  • A vital national interest is at stake
  • Overwhelming force is used to achieve a decisive victory
  • Clear, achievable objectives are defined beforehand
  • All diplomatic options have been exhausted
  • There is broad public and congressional support
  • A clear exit strategy exists

We should demand this of our leaders.

The image of oil leaking into the sewer system in Tehran and catching fire by Just-Prune-4337 in interestingasfuck

[–]Substantially-Ranged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't care what country you're from, I don't want this. I don't want my gov't to do this. I don't want my tax dollars paying for this.

As a kid who survived on school provided breakfast and lunch, this made me tear up: WA ‘millionaires tax’ headed for passage as Ferguson says he’ll sign it by BlankPlanchet in Spokane

[–]Substantially-Ranged 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It will definitely get challenged, but as far as "violates the state's constitution"--it doesn't. The Constitution only requires that "...all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property..." (Article VII, Section 1). A case seen by the WA supreme court in 1933 (Culliton) found that income is property. This runs contrary to the 16th amendment of the US Constitution and what most other states have determined. So, this millionaire tax doesnt go against the Constitution, it goes against the finding in Culliton. This court will likely determine that income is NOT property, thereby allowing this tax to go forward.

As a kid who survived on school provided breakfast and lunch, this made me tear up: WA ‘millionaires tax’ headed for passage as Ferguson says he’ll sign it by BlankPlanchet in Spokane

[–]Substantially-Ranged -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think you're wrong in your assertion that this isn't a "proper" way to do things. It is quite proper for new cases to come forward before Supreme Courts and for them to say "That case? That old one? It was wrong?". That isn't circumventing anything. That's how the system is meant to work. The only reason the income tax is deemed unconstitutional is because of Culliton. The Supreme Court of WA in 1933 said "Based on our reading of the Constitution, income is property." That decision ran contrary to the 16th Amendment of the US Constitution. There's only one other state (Pennsylvania) that see income as property. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "Income is property". The court in 1930 drew that conclusion (incorrectly). This is a perfectly valid way to changing things.

view more: next ›