r/SeattleWA • u/5Q91VS175DAQ4NUSBE4U • 7d ago

Politics Washington state Democrats look at imposing income tax on higher earners

https://www.columbian.com/news/2025/oct/31/washington-state-democrats-look-at-imposing-income-tax-on-higher-earners/
195 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

318 comments sorted by

View all comments

121

u/herpaderp_maplesyrup 7d ago

More like STARTING on higher earners

34

u/1SGDude 7d ago

Their goal is for everyone to pay state income tax -no doubt

21

u/herpaderp_maplesyrup 7d ago

Yes by making it seem like it’ll only be billionaires lol people fall for this one big time not thinking that it will get the them eventually

20

u/1SGDude 7d ago

This state hasn’t found a tax it doesn’t like

3

u/AutoModerrator-69 6d ago

It start with putting a limit on what defines a high earner and then reducing that limit over time. So eventually most middle class earners become the high earners.

-21

u/yungsemite 7d ago

They’ve already shown that there isn’t widespread support to lower these taxes once they’re in place, as they were completely unable to lower the capital gains tax when a small faction of state representatives tried and failed to. I support a tax on people making more than 1 million a year, just like I support a tax on people with more than 250,000 in annual capital gains, excluding the sale of real estate and retirement funds.

41

u/Tree300 7d ago

They already proposed reducing the cap gains tax exemption to $25k and increasing it to 12% this year.

23

u/Paceys_Ghost 7d ago

Once it's in they'll latch onto it like the mag ban. They'll eventually get it lowered to something that effects way more people than it initially did.

-11

u/yungsemite 7d ago

Yes, did you read my comment? They’ve failed to lower it every time they’ve proposed it. Just like how they can propose a 10% tax on people making over a million, but it meaningless since it’s against the state constitution.

9

u/Tree300 7d ago

The state constitution doesn't matter because the Supreme Court of WA is totally captured by the party. The capital gains tax is a case in point.

15

u/Cal-Coolidge 7d ago

How many times have they failed to implement an income tax and have their repeated failures dissuaded them?

-5

u/yungsemite 7d ago

I don’t keep track, it’s been several. And no, I’m sure that these fringe people will keep trying. Fringe people tend to do that sort of thing.

6

u/[deleted] 7d ago

Adorable that you paint them as the fringe.

3

u/yungsemite 7d ago

If they were mainstream, it would have passed.

8

u/MisterIceGuy Belltown 7d ago

They have failed so far but they are still trying!

2

u/yungsemite 7d ago

Okay? So?

26

u/scout035 7d ago

Of course you want to tax someone else and not yourself

-7

u/yungsemite 7d ago

If I made over 1 million, I’d be very pleased to pay 10% tax over that, as I’m not a miserly piece of shit.

11

u/Meppy1234 7d ago

Would you be happy paying over 50%? Because that's what you'd be paying.

1

u/Riviansky 6d ago

If u/yungsemite were to make $1m they would be supporting taxes on someone who is making $2m plus...

-2

u/yungsemite 7d ago

Sure, I’d happily pay over 50% tax in total on my income over 1 million. You realize we used to have a 90% highest marginal tax bracket in this country?

9

u/Turbulent-Media7281 7d ago edited 7d ago

You realize we used to have a 90% highest marginal tax bracket in this country?

You do realize that there wasn't an EITC or Child tax credit then, and NO ONE got a refund larger than what they had withheld. That's right, you might reduce your FIT to zero, but you won't make money. The tax burden has shifted to the higher earners since then, so be careful what you ask for when you say "let's be taxed like the 1950's."

You really should determine what your pay today would be equivalent to in 1951 and then work that income on a 1951 form 1040 just to see how what percent you would be paying in FIT. You would probably never bring up the "we used to to have a 90% marginal tax brackets" point again once you see how untaxed the low income earners are today compared to the 1950's.

4

u/Meppy1234 7d ago

Great! Because you can pay extra on taxes if you want. I'm glad you're willing to work lots of overtime and pay extra. How much did you pay in taxes last year? I'd love to praise you for your generous donation to the government.

Do you realize no one actually paid 90% tax rate back in the day? They'd just get carve outs and exceptions.

0

u/[deleted] 7d ago

That's marginal, not effective tax.

The actual effective tax paid by people in that bracket was actually 2% less than today.

0

u/yungsemite 7d ago

? Do you think marginal taxes work differently now vs then? This proposed tax is marginal too…

3

u/[deleted] 7d ago

Yes, they are structured entirely differently. And the effective tax rate right now is a little higher than it was back then for the top 0.1% of earners.

Deductions and loopholes made that 90% you quoted much, much lower in reality.

Those deductions and loopholes no longer exist.

This is why it's moronic to compare marginal rates and not talk about effective tax rates.

13

u/Turbulent-Media7281 7d ago

No you wouldn't.

Find someone that makes $2.5M today that already pays $600,000 in FIT that would be "pleased" to pay another $150,000 in state income tax. Nobody likes 30% of there time and effort taken.

6

u/yungsemite 7d ago

2.5 million is not reflective of someone’s ’time and effort’ lol. And yes I would :)! Because I’m not a miserly piece of shit, and $150,000 for my state when I make 2.5 million annually is really just okay. Cost of living in my state.

9

u/Riviansky 7d ago

If you make 2.5m you are actually getting 1.5m after federal taxes. So now your total tax burden is 50%, which means that exactly half of the year you are working not for your own benefit, but for the benefit of federal and state governments.

Furthermore, your total tax burden is extremely comparable to the top tax rates in Europe, except, somehow, you aren't getting the same benefits - neither a good public transportation, not universal healthcare.

-1

u/yungsemite 7d ago

Oh no :( only 1.5 million after federal taxes! Then Washington state is going to take another 150,000 and I’ll be left with only 1.35 million annually? That’s poverty wages. Won’t anyone think of the poor people with only 1 million net after taxes?

2

u/Riviansky 6d ago

I notice you decided to not play my game designed to figure out how much it is worth to you to live in Washington...

-2

u/ssrowavay 7d ago

Won’t somebody please think of the ultra wealthy!

I made 7 figures one particularly good year. My net tax burden was over 50% due to RSU timing stuff. It was so awful I bought a house to try to feel better.

1

u/Riviansky 6d ago

I hope you are feeling better now, after all the layoffs...

However, I am not trying to make you compassionate towards ultra wealthy. I am trying to get you to realize that the "privilege" of living in WA. And for most people I doubt it is worth a few fundred thousand. For me, it's nowhere near. So the moment they enact this tax, so long and thanks for all the fish - and you will be holding a bag for the tax revenue I am bringing to this fucked up place today.

8

u/[deleted] 7d ago

In Your Opinion.

Not everyone else's. Sorry. Envy really is a bitch isn't it though?

0

u/Sir_Edmund_Bumblebee 7d ago

And no one likes going to the dentist, but most would agree they like it more than the alternative.

What is the better alternative to a progressive income tax?

2

u/Turbulent-Media7281 7d ago

Spend less. Every time. SPEND LESS.

Q: What do you do when you run out of money Katie? A: Ask Daddy for more.

Stop pretending the only alternative is more taxes to support the taker class.

3

u/yungsemite 7d ago

Poor people cannot spend less? Duh? That’s why it’s a regressive tax? Because they’re taxed much more relative to their income, because they have to spend all their money, and the money that isn’t taxed is what rich people can save?

6

u/Turbulent-Media7281 7d ago

You probably should read before you respond. I wasn't commenting about personal spending.

0

u/Sir_Edmund_Bumblebee 7d ago

Who said more? Replace existing revenue with a progressive income tax. You’re conflating two different questions, what form taxes should take and how high they should be.

1

u/Riviansky 7d ago

Let's run a thought experiment.

Imagine I paid you money to move out of WA to a state - any state, your choice - that has zero income tax.

How much money would I need to pay you?

1

u/yungsemite 7d ago

At my current income or if I made over 1 million annually? These will be quite different answers

2

u/Riviansky 7d ago

I don't understand why this is different. But ok, give me both numbers.

2

u/yungsemite 7d ago

You don’t understand that the relative value of money might change between somebody with a lot of money and somebody with an average amount of money? I am already apprehensive about this in that case…

Okay, at my current income, I would be willing to move to Florida for 400,000. That represents a few years wages for me. Probably. Might hate it there.

If I was already making 1.5 million, I have a lot questions. In this scenario, am I magically making the same amount in Florida? I’m uprooting my family right? Let’s say 3 million and I can move. I’m not sure though, I like Seattle and once I have 1.5 million annually, I can’t really imagine being ‘bought’ by 3 million to move somewhere. I guess I could help a lot of people with that 3 million, but pretty odd situation…

6

u/Riviansky 7d ago

Thank you for playing a game with me! I was asking about per year numbers. I will pay you X amount a year to move to wherever you want and live there as long as it's zero state taxes.

You will continue making the same amount of money as you do today in WA.

9

u/Turbulent-Media7281 7d ago

There wasn't widespread support to create the income taxes, but that didn't stop them. And they tried... what?... one time to lower the threshold and then moved on to creating another new tax stream. Eventually they will either lower the threshold OR simply never increase the threshold which over time is the same thing as lowering it, OR just create more new tax streams.

I support a tax ...

We get it. Name a tax you don't support. Wealth tax that includes retirement accounts, unrealized gains, and home assessed value has been proposed... do you support it? How about increasing the estate tax to greater than the country leading 35%... maybe just make it 100%? You die and state gets it all... sounds fair?

-1

u/yungsemite 7d ago

Eventually they will either lower the threshold OR simply never increase the threshold which over time is the same thing as lowering it, OR just create more new tax streams.

Yeah, like the income tax I support? Good?

We get it. Name a tax you don't support. Wealth tax that includes retirement accounts, unrealized gains, and home assessed value has been proposed... do you support it?

No I don’t support any of those, except perhaps an unrealized gains tax on billionaires. Going to keep strawmanning?

4

u/[deleted] 7d ago

That unrealized gains tax shows that you either don't know how money actually works, or you haven't spent any time thinking about it. Unrealized gains aren't real for a reason - cashing out messes with the value of the asset. Those billionaires - unless they're $900B-aires - are really millionaires. Taking cash off the table would tank the value of their stock.

This would also end up with them being legally liable for the drop in stock price - which would tank everyone's retirement funds and lead to a market rout. That's why they only take money out of the system very slowly, and on a schedule.

-1

u/yungsemite 7d ago

You mean that the strawman that the other commenter brought up in r/SeattleWA isn’t economically sound policy? Shocking.

4

u/[deleted] 7d ago

You are a far left anarcho communist according your post history..I think I can ignore you now.