Seattle sez income isn't property...

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Seattle sez income isn't property...

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Fatman’s point is that their constitution should be amended to avoid the mental gymnastics.
The point of the constitution(s) isn't to make it easier/more expedient for bureaucrats to fleece the pockets of taxpayers, though liberals here and elsewhere often think it's a tool of government to do just that.

I'm not an expert in Washington state history or law, but I would guess that this provision was added to prevent them from doing precisely what they're attempting.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: Seattle sez income isn't property...

Post by RiverguyVT »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
fatman wrote:This whole thing seems silly. Some minimal level of Gov't is required, I've yet to see a proposal for how to fund that outside of taxation, income is a natural source for tax collectors to collect against. Sounds like they need to go for a common sense approach and repeal the prohibition on income tax to end this silly debate.

The US Tech industry is heavily concentrated in about 2 dozen cities with heavily educated workforces. The tech industries are powering some pretty powerful income inequality to a point where you've started to see social issues cropping up. Seattle and SF have that problem worse than most.
Is income property?
Fatman’s point is that their constitution should be amended to avoid the mental gymnastics.

To me, earned income is akin to an annuity (t=0) and thus property. But good arguments can be made on each side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No reasonable argument can be made that income isn't property. None. It may be argued, but not well.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Seattle sez income isn't property...

Post by ip_law-hokie »

RiverguyVT wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
fatman wrote:This whole thing seems silly. Some minimal level of Gov't is required, I've yet to see a proposal for how to fund that outside of taxation, income is a natural source for tax collectors to collect against. Sounds like they need to go for a common sense approach and repeal the prohibition on income tax to end this silly debate.

The US Tech industry is heavily concentrated in about 2 dozen cities with heavily educated workforces. The tech industries are powering some pretty powerful income inequality to a point where you've started to see social issues cropping up. Seattle and SF have that problem worse than most.
Is income property?
Fatman’s point is that their constitution should be amended to avoid the mental gymnastics.

To me, earned income is akin to an annuity (t=0) and thus property. But good arguments can be made on each side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No reasonable argument can be made that income isn't property. None. It may be argued, but not well.
That’s not true.

Having it considered property means it’s taxable, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: Seattle sez income isn't property...

Post by BigDave »

ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s not true.

Having it considered property means it’s taxable, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's a confusingly-written article, but my (possibly wrong) understanding is that the problem is that property has to be taxed UNIFORMLY, meaning that if income is property, then you can't have a graduated tax rate (or personal exemptions, etc).
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Seattle sez income isn't property...

Post by ip_law-hokie »

BigDave wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s not true.

Having it considered property means it’s taxable, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's a confusingly-written article, but my (possibly wrong) understanding is that the problem is that property has to be taxed UNIFORMLY, meaning that if income is property, then you can't have a graduated tax rate (or personal exemptions, etc).
that makes sense, thanks.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Post Reply