[_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.