[_b]

Washington State’s constitution limits a tax like this to no more 1% and requires it to be uniform; this law meets neither requirement.

I am uncomfortable that supporters of the income tax are so unbothered by it being unconstitutional. So few are insisting we amend the constitution to allow or not do it at all, on the grounds that violating the constitution (or flexibility construing it to match our desired ends) is bad.

[pc86]

Until there are severe personal penalties for an elected official violating their oath of office with regard to unconstitutional laws, they will simply ignore it. This is doubly true in formerly purple but now uniparty states like Washington where the Supreme Court is completely beholden to the party elite.

We have the same problem at the federal level in part because SCOTUS will not or cannot provide input or warnings on proposed legislation. How many federal laws would simply not exist if SCOTUS got a veto before it went to the President for signing?

[alkonaut]

Doesn't it just limit property tax to 1% while saying nothing about income tax?

Is it this?

> the aggregate of all tax levies upon real and personal property by the state and all taxing districts now existing or hereafter created, shall not in any year exceed one percent of the true and fair value of such property in money

Asking an AI (I know, I know) it suggests "Courts have ruled that income is property" which to me sounds like ruling up is down. I mean everywhere that has property tax separate from income tax or only one or the other would object...

There was initiative 2111 which seems it wouldn't even be necessary if income tax was against the constitution to begin with? Also I assume this law basically nullifies initiative 2111?

[_b]

Washington's constitution says: "The word 'property' as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership". That is extremely broad, and there is 90 years of precedent affirming income is include here as something intangible and "subject to ownership."

[alkonaut]

So if one has income tax and property tax separate (which I guess happens now) then presumably one has also codified that income is _not_ property (which I guess is the more common state of affairs )?

[_b]

If ordinary laws could redefine words in the constitution, then every constitutional right and protection you care about is undercut.

[alkonaut]

Seems like this would be something for a Supreme Court to try. It was ordinary laws and cases (presumably) that had established the norms of equating income with property.

[rozap]

Agree. The constitution should be amended, then we should pass something like this.