I don't know what that means.

Capital gains come with risks. Many people lose money when investing their money. Encouraging investment in companies is what makes humans flourish rather than squirreling the money away in a mattress.

If you don't agree with the constitution, we will be in a loop. But at least we can agree the Supreme Court's interpretation is twisted and against the meaning of the constitution.

You think removing protections about so-called wealthy people by redefining the Constitution's meaning is okay because people can afford it. This class warfare has been used before and it will be used again.

The constitution should apply to everyone, not just some people.

You're okay with removing constitutional protections against some people because of their class status.

Think about that.

>I think it’s highly improbable that I—or the vast majority of the state—will ever be effected by this.

Why should that matter? It's against the constitution and the state Supreme Court ruled against it in a twisted manner to make it fit an agenda. You think it's okay to be unconstitutional against some people? Those people aren't people?

And you realize the law was 25,000 until people complained and they added a zero to it to make it 250,000? When you don't notice, it will be 25,000 again. You now know their intent if you didn't know it before.

And now they know they can just redefine property as excise taxes and the state Supreme Court won't care.

>Due to a quirk of Washington's constitution

It's not a quirk. It's an intentional part of the constitution.

Exactly. This is a twisted ruling based on politics, not the state constitution.

Why not voluntarily pay a little more on what you make now? Or advocate a little more for people who make your bracket of money?

They finally got to tax something with the most twisted logic ever. You think they're not coming after you, next?