[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.