Journal pudge's Journal: I-1077 is a Distraction and a Waste of Time and Money 10
Liberals have put up Initiative 1077 to give us a massive new income tax for individuals earning over $200,000.
It's nominally an obvious attempt at class warfare, to increase the tax burden on "rich" people while slashing it for everyone else, since it also includes a big property tax cut.
But it's worse than that: it's really an attempt to simply distract people from the terrible job the Democrats have done, and from voting for Republicans.
The bill is obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. And due to its specific severability language, if the unconstitutional part is ruled unconstitutional, the whole thing would be thrown out. The proposed law states unqeuivocally that certain income levels are taxed at different rates, which clearly violates the constitutional prohibition on non-uniform taxes upon the same class of property. The state has found consistently for 80 years that income is property. Therefore, you can't do that.
The initiative gives lip service -- but it's nothing more than that -- to the idea that in 1933 the state Supreme Court ruling "ultimately relied on United States supreme court cases that have long since been overruled." The larger case perhaps did, but the part of the case that ruled income as property did not. That was completely specific to our own state Constitutiuon. They go on to say the ruling "treated Washington's graduated income tax, as then drafted, as a nonuniform property tax," as if to imply this tax is different, but it's clearly not: the very fact that it was graduated -- as this proposed tax is -- was the point.
There's really not much more to say here. It's so obviously unconstitutional -- in terms of the stated text of the State Constitution, and longstanding precedent -- there can really be only two reasons to try: to force a court challenge and change precedent, or to distract people from the elections.
It's most likely both. It will almost certainly fail to overturn precedent, though will waste our time and money in the attempt. Whether it succeeds in distracting us is up to us.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Class warfare? and Constitutionality (Score:1)
I read through the complete text of the initiative -- do you think eliminating the business and occupation tax for 80% of business owners really falls under the umbrella of "class warfare"?
And as for Constitutionality... I've been searching for any legal analysis of the Initiative, and have found none... just blurbs from people on both sides... notably from Bill Gates Sr who expects it to be upheld since the '33 decision was based on 'obsolete legal theory'.
Do you know where people can find bet
Re: (Score:1)
do you think eliminating the business and occupation tax for 80% of business owners really falls under the umbrella of "class warfare"?
I think saying "we're going to cut the majority's taxes while increasing the minority's taxes" is the definition of class warfare.
And as for Constitutionality... I've been searching for any legal analysis of the Initiative, and have found none
You can read this good article [effwa.org]. Here's the article they reference [wa.gov] from Hugh Spitzer that argues the other side.
Bill Gates Sr who expects it to be upheld since the '33 decision was based on 'obsolete legal theory'.
He's completely wrong. It's a nice soundbite but doesn't withstand scrutiny. The argument from the left is very odd: they say that the 1933 case (Culliton) wrongly applied the 1930 case (Aberdeen), because the 1930 case didn't say income was property. But they ignore
Re: (Score:1)
I've read the amendment in question (14). Nowhere does it classify the act of receiving income as property.
I disagree, and think it would be just as valid to say that the only way you can conceive of
Re: (Score:1)
But they ignore the fact that between 1930 and 1933, the Constitution was modified to classify income as property,
I've read the amendment in question (14). Nowhere does it classify the act of receiving income as property.
It says INCOME is property (not explicitly, but as the Court said, it's impossible to read it any other way).
the idea that an event can be considered property is ludicrous
It's not an event. You're question-begging. It's always been ruled property in this state, and NOT an event.
Whether the rate is based on cumulative annual income, or net worth, or anything else is immaterial
Simply wrong. If I were taxed on the act of receiving my paycheck, then you would have to make it specific to that paycheck, not based on how many dollars I've received throughout the year in other paychecks. If you look at past paychecks, you're no longer looking at an event, but existing
Re: (Score:1)
And the same was true of many other states, until they ruled differently.
I point to the 1950s and 1960s in the US as a counter-example.
Re: (Score:1)
And the same was true of many other states, until they ruled differently.
Irrelevant. Other states that didn't have such strong language in their Constitution.
It's never done so before, ever, in the history of mankind. But keep dreaming.
I point to the 1950s and 1960s in the US as a counter-example.
You can point to it, but that doesn't make it a counterexample.
Class warfare exists as a function of class disparity.
False. Classes exist as a function of disparity. Warfare by one class against another is what some assholes choose to do about disparity. There's nothing wrong with disparity, and by itself, it does not cause or represent any problems at all.
Those things that increase class disparity increase class conflict
No. Those assholes who increase class conflict, increase class conflict ... whether disparity is increased or not.
1. it is absolutely clear that the Court's past rulings on this issue were based on an invalid interpretation.
It'
Re: (Score:1)
class disparity
You speak of that as if it's a bad thing. Disparity == Diversity. It would be a boring world if we were all the same. Let's celebrate our differences. Think of it as "multi-economicism".
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, we can focus on the initiative itself, and not get bogged down in the Constitutionality issue, since we have a system set up to rule on that.
That's absurd. Yes, there's a system, but it doesn't always work very well. And even if it did, that's no excuse to purposefully break the rules. It's not just agents of the government who have responsibilities as far as our government goes. For instance, perhaps this phrase seems familiar, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Would you have the same approach if the issue at han
Re: (Score:1)
Yes I care about the rule of law. Which is why I'd defer ruling on the unclear Constitutionality of a law to those people we have assigned the role of determining whether a law is Constitutional. I do not think it is a transgression of the law to posit questions of Constitutionality to those people. As a matter of fact
Re: (Score:1)
Yes I care about the rule of law. Which is why I'd defer ruling on the unclear Constitutionality of a law ...
Except that given what I wrote in my first reply to you, you've not given anyone any reason to think there's anything unclear about the constitutionality of this law.
Further, every legislator -- including citizens who put forth initiatives -- is responsible for upholding the Constitution if there IS a lack of clarity.
As a matter of fact, I wish every law had to undergo Constitutional review by those qualified to do so prior to enactment.
I am qualified to do so.
You're using your words poorly, or you're confused. Every citizen who can think and read is qualified to review the constitutionality of a law. Only the Supreme Court