> For decades, the wealthiest Washingtonians have gotten out of paying what they truly owe in state and local taxes.
I don’t know what to make of this statement. I pay what the law says I have to pay. Is that not what I “truly owe”?
I don’t know what to make of this statement. I pay what the law says I have to pay. Is that not what I “truly owe”?
There is indeed the law, and at the end of the day that is what determines what you must pay.
The very wealthy have long supported income tax structures that treat capital gains very differently than employment income, with much higher rates being applied to employment income. For the most part, the very wealthy do not receive much employment income. This means that as a percentage of income (all types added together), people who primarily earn via capital gains pay far less tax than those who primarily earn via employment.
It is an understandable position to say that this tax structure is unfair and that the very wealthy are not paying what they should pay. You can disagree with it but it is not a difficult position to understand.
"7% over $250,000" is just as arbitrary as 1% or 15% or 37.9%
and that this arbitrariness and vagueness is the crux of the fair share rhetoric. it has no base unit, it has no understanding of the existing tax environment, it has no ability to comprehend anything except an exemption from questioning why we are being screwed at all, only requesting that we are all being screwed equally, which is not a goal remotely supported by any form of consensus in legislatures.
It's not quite so understandable to me that somebody would believe that position to be an inherent truth ("truly owe") rather than just a position.
Capital gains taxes have historically been lower to encourage the investment of capital. This might be good or bad policy. Many economists say it's good policy.
It's stating opinion as fact.
In examples:
- "summer is the best season" is an opinion
- "summer has the highest temperatures" is a fact
- "summer is the best time to have romantic encounters" is an opinion
- "summer is the best season because romantic encounters truly only happen in the summer" is a weird amalgamation. It clearly presents an opinion, and says that opinion is based on a true fact, but in fact, the true fact the opinion relies on is not a fact at all, but merely another opinion.
That's nonsense. They have historically been lower because rich people make (or at the very least, heavily influence) the rules and so they tipped the tax scales in their favor. The 'encouraging investment' bit is just the nice sounding excuse they use.
I think the simplest explanation for why representatives vote the way they do is the public statements they themselves make before and after their votes. If you want to make a more convoluted argument and assert a conspiracy, you should bring some evidence.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...
But saying people didn’t pay what they owed and also calling them tax-dodgers implies they are criminals, which is likely incorrect for most of them and an unhelpful misdirection. If obeying the law isn’t “good enough” the fault is with the law, not the citizens.
It cannot come as a surprise to you that lots of efforts go into finding loopholes and technicalities that lets rich people pay much less tax than the lawmakers intended.
The difference is the "spirit" of the law versus its practical application.
Depending on your definition of fair, of course.
Just because you found a tax loophole doesn't mean you're fulfilling the ethical obligations that motivated the law.
What tax deductions or exclusions do you qualify for that you are avoiding in order to not accidentally "find a loophole?" You are free to donate more of your money to the state or federal government should you choose to.