For a time the state was socially liberal but still pretty business and tax friendly but there are too many greedy people who want to get their hands on that wealth entrepreneurs are creating.
And to build schools!? I already private tuition and our school could stand for some improvements, and our teachers deserve a bump in salary, but no we’re going to go tear down some perfectly usable elementary school to make a new more environmentally friendly one.
The money from this tax will only fatten the pockets of the bureaucrats, and will do little to nothing for the average person.
Washington in a nutshell.
No, wealth employees are creating and ownership is profiting from.
I’m curious where Washington will end up on the list if this goes into/stays in effect.
A $250K gain because your startup got acquired or IPO’ed doesn’t exactly translate into a high average salary over the many years it took to gain the windfall. (versus, say, working at Microsoft or Amazon, and getting an extra $50-100K per year.)
It's 7%. So if you make a 1.25M (remember how tax brackets work - it's after the threshold) - you pay WA $70k. I think there's literally no way to argue that's regressive.
Willing to bet that the ratio of politicians in Seattle that realize capital gains in excess of $250k/year vs. those that own real estate (especially multiple properties) is heavily favoring the latter group.
That’s below starting salary at Microsoft. You pay an average of $7K per year, and the Microsoft employees pay zero.
It is certainly not a progressive tax. If they time averaged it over ~ five years, it would be.
Another way to look at it is that they say it will affect 7000 households statewide.
It will affect pretty much all startup windfalls, so either there are only 7000 startup employees in the whole state, or they know this is going to be a windfall tax on people that have low average income.
Where are you getting that it only affects startup exits? Is there a source? Guessing?
I didn't state that. No need to subvert my point by suggesting even more money could change my opinion.
By all means, I shall call you a person whose opinion could not change. Is there a term for such a thing?
Alternatively you can, for my edification, demonstrate by way of example -- how should I have phrased my initial point in a more palatable manner in your opinion?