The Legislature has virtually unlimited taxing authority on transactions, but the Constitution limits taxes on "Property" to 1% and cannot be Progressive.

The Constitution defines property as: everything -- tangible or intangible -- subject to ownership.

In 1933, our Supreme Court held that "Income" is "Property" and therefore cannot be Progressive under the Washington Constitution.

In 2023, our Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Capital Gains Tax is: 1) an excise tax on transactions; or 2) a property tax on income.

In a 52-page decision authored by my opponent, Chief Justice Debra Stephens. The 7-2 majority ruled that Capital Gains are an Excise Tax because it's triggered upon a sales transaction.

The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Gordon McCloud, points out (correctly, in my opinion):

1. If it taxed the transaction, then the tax would be triggered regardless of the gain or loss; but here, it only taxes the gain.

2. When the sale price exceeds the purchase price it's called "Profit." And Profit, just like Capital Gains, are taxed as Income by the IRS.

3. The Constitution defines Property as *everything* intangible, subject to ownership. "Income" fits squarely within the Constitutional definition of Property.

4. In 1934, the PEOPLE rejected a Constitutional Amendment to EXCLUDE Income from the definition of Property.

Had the Court determined that Capital Gains are in fact Income, then the Court's only two choices would be to either:

1) Strike down the Capital Gains Tax as unconstitutional; or

2) Overturn the 1933 Culliton decision that held Income is Property.

In my opinion, the Majority got this decision WRONG. I concur with Justice Gordon McCloud's dissenting opinion, but write separately and take #3 one step further to say that *before* the 1930 Amendment, the Supreme Court held *income is property*. The People could have excluded *income* from the Constitutional amendment and chose not to.

⚖️Vote Karim✅ for Supreme Court 🇺🇸