It's a matter of (perceived) fairness.

There is indeed the law, and at the end of the day that is what determines what you must pay.

The very wealthy have long supported income tax structures that treat capital gains very differently than employment income, with much higher rates being applied to employment income. For the most part, the very wealthy do not receive much employment income. This means that as a percentage of income (all types added together), people who primarily earn via capital gains pay far less tax than those who primarily earn via employment.

It is an understandable position to say that this tax structure is unfair and that the very wealthy are not paying what they should pay. You can disagree with it but it is not a difficult position to understand.

That's true, but in this case, Washington State has no income tax. The capital gains rate here isn't an unfair rate that privileges the wealthy, it's an additional tax burden on the wealthy.

It's an understandable position yes.

It's not quite so understandable to me that somebody would believe that position to be an inherent truth ("truly owe") rather than just a position.

Capital gains taxes have historically been lower to encourage the investment of capital. This might be good or bad policy. Many economists say it's good policy.

It's stating opinion as fact.

Whether it's good and whether it's fair are different criteria. It would be incorrect to say low capital gains taxes are bad, but that's not what the previous commenter said. They said they're not fair and I cannot think of a legitimate defense to low capital gains taxes being fair. For example, it may or may not be good to steal all the money from the richest man in the world and give it to the poorest, but it's absolutely not fair.

The discussion is about the quote in the article, not about what the previous commentator said.

Well it is an opinion piece. Clearly says so at the top.

I didn't quite speak clearly and so let me try to clarify. It's the opinion presented as opinion containing opinion presented as fact :).

In examples:

- "summer is the best season" is an opinion

- "summer has the highest temperatures" is a fact

- "summer is the best time to have romantic encounters" is an opinion

- "summer is the best season because romantic encounters truly only happen in the summer" is a weird amalgamation. It clearly presents an opinion, and says that opinion is based on a true fact, but in fact, the true fact the opinion relies on is not a fact at all, but merely another opinion.

>Capital gains taxes have historically been lower to encourage the investment of capital.

That's nonsense. They have historically been lower because rich people make (or at the very least, heavily influence) the rules and so they tipped the tax scales in their favor. The 'encouraging investment' bit is just the nice sounding excuse they use.

Seems specious. Democratically elected representatives said it was to encourage the investment of capital as they wrote the laws, and then got reelected by the voters. You can say the representatives were lying and the voters didn't care / are dumb - but where's the evidence?

I think the simplest explanation for why representatives vote the way they do is the public statements they themselves make before and after their votes. If you want to make a more convoluted argument and assert a conspiracy, you should bring some evidence.

"economic elites and organized interest groups play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence."

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...

Democracy denied with citizens united. everyone is paid for now and you are not allowed to find out by who.

interesting then in Washington State that employed people are not paying their fair share and the capital class should use their influence to do something about that, by your logic

Its also not difficult to understand that

"7% over $250,000" is just as arbitrary as 1% or 15% or 37.9%

and that this arbitrariness and vagueness is the crux of the fair share rhetoric. it has no base unit, it has no understanding of the existing tax environment, it has no ability to comprehend anything except an exemption from questioning why we are being screwed at all, only requesting that we are all being screwed equally, which is not a goal remotely supported by any form of consensus in legislatures.

I agree: the word “owe” is a problem here. The thrust of the article is that the tax structure has historically charged a lower rate of tax on the wealthy than the poor. By definition that means the wealthy could pay exactly what they owed without paying a reasonable share, and now with this change they owe more which makes it more fair.

But saying people didn’t pay what they owed and also calling them tax-dodgers implies they are criminals, which is likely incorrect for most of them and an unhelpful misdirection. If obeying the law isn’t “good enough” the fault is with the law, not the citizens.

It's the kind of silly moralizing language used by partisan hacks. You owe what the law says you owe and not a penny more (or less). Most people, regardless of socioeconomic status, pay what they owe, or at least what their CPA/H&R Block/TurboTax tells them they owe.

The law is a product of ethical considerations.

Just because you found a tax loophole doesn't mean you're fulfilling the ethical obligations that motivated the law.

A state charging 0% capital gains on top of what the federal government already charges is not "finding a tax loophole." It's following tax law as it is written.

What tax deductions or exclusions do you qualify for that you are avoiding in order to not accidentally "find a loophole?" You are free to donate more of your money to the state or federal government should you choose to.

It might be better worded as "have gotten out of paying their fair share of state and local taxes."

Depending on your definition of fair, of course.

What you truly owe = author doesn't think some people pay what he thinks they should

I think the word “truly” is doing the heavy lifting here.

Laws are constrained by what kind of legislation is ethical and practical to enforce.

It cannot come as a surprise to you that lots of efforts go into finding loopholes and technicalities that lets rich people pay much less tax than the lawmakers intended.

The difference is the "spirit" of the law versus its practical application.