Capital Gains Excise and Climate Commitment
Republican operatives know that in order to sell a repeal to the average voter of the Capital Gains Excise Tax (I-2109) and the Climate Commitment Act (I-2117) they must, to put it in the kindest of terms, twist the truth. Brian Heywood, the wealthy venture capitalist who hatched and then funded the signature gathering for the four Greed Initiatives, and Jim Walsh, the Washington State GOP chairman who worked with Heywood to get them on our ballots know that to sell these repeals to the voters they must instill fear. All four of these statewide Greed Initiatives are sold as threats to the earnings and savings of the average voter.
It doesn’t take a brain trust to see that Brian Heywood is most interested in repealing the Capital Gains Excise Tax (I-2109). Heywood is a multimillionaire transplant from California who came to Washington State to “make money” in the money industry, i.e. not by making things but by wheeling and dealing in stocks and bonds to grow wealth in the form of capital gains. For Mr. Heywood a chip of 7% out of that part of his annual capital gain that exceeds $250,000 could still be a substantial sum of money, perhaps enough to curtail an ambition to own a yacht or another race horse, poor fellow. It is tough to drum up sympathy for such ambitions, so Republican rhetoric seeks to focus the voting public on the lie that the Capital Gains Excise Tax is a threat to the personal nest egg of average voter, especially capital appreciation of their home or farm. It’s a lying argument: capital gain on the sales or exchange of real estate (including homes and farms) is exempt. Capital gains made in IRAs are exempt. Even capital gains made on trades and sales of stocks and bonds are exempt up to that indexed $250,000 amount referenced above. The only folks who will pay any money to the State of Washington based on this tax are those like Mr. Heywood who can well afford it.
Call it a lie, misinformation, disinformation, or just appalling ignorance, but here is the sort of argument for repealing the Capital Gains Excise Tax that Republicans put forward:
When it comes to the ahhh income tax, the seven percent tax, think about that. Most people save and work all their life and they have a home. Not everybody has a home but those who have a home, seven percent is going to be taxed before—when you die—I don’t like that, that’s not right, that should be passed on to the kids, the mother earned it, the father earned it, so let’s make sure we’re taking care of everybody.
Those are words spoken by Republican Tony Kiepe in a KPBX Inland Journal interview by Doug Nadvornick of Kiepe and Natasha Hill. Kiepe and Hill are the two candidates vying to represent Legislative District 3 (much of the City of Spokane) to the Washington State Legislature. Mr. Nadvornick asked Kiepe and Hill what their thoughts were on “the four initiatives.” (Start at 21:30 at the link for the full discussion.)
Kiepe either has no clarity at all about the Capital Gains Excise Tax—or he is flat out offering disinformation. First off he calls it an income tax—which the Washington State Supreme Court has declared it is not. He correctly identifies the tax as 7%, but rushes to suggest that it applies to everyone’s home equity—an obvious misreading of the law. Be fearful—be very, very fearful and suspicious! The Gum’mint is after your money!
Natasha Hill says she’ll vote a resounding “No” on all four initiatives—as will I—correctly identifying these four repeal proposals as antithetical to the common good and serving only corporations (especially fossil fuel corporations) and a few of the exceptionally wealthy. Kiepe declares he will vote “Yes” on all four initiatives arguing that with his vote he will be, thereby, protecting “the most vulnerable.” Horse manure.
Vote “No” on all four of these initiatives along with me.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. Republicans selling this repeal to the general public also studiously avoid mentioning that the Capital Gains Excise Tax only applies to certain capital gains above $250,000—and that the exemption is indexed to inflation (specifically, the “consumer price index,” see RCW 82.87.150). For example, for tax year 2023 the exemption from the tax had already risen to $262,000.
P.P.S. Here are the rest of Kiepe’s comments about the other initiatives. Note how he confidently puts dollar values to supposed and often non-existent perils like an imagined, hyperbolic threat to keeping your gas stove. Awww. Such concern for the poor. Is it possible that Mr. Kiepe actually believes his own rhetoric?:
All four initiatives I’m gonna vote yes and I’ll tell you why. The Carbon Commitment Act…the most vulnerable people that live on minimum wage, they have a monthly set income they’re paying forty to fifty cents a gallon it’s a hidden tax on your gasoline. Look at your utility bill, how much more you paying on your utility bill. I mean they don’t show how much more—it’s about forty percent. It should be transparent so you know exactly what you’re paying on your natural gas and electricity on a utility bill
But I want to help everybody, especially those who can’t afford these extra taxes. Can you imagine if we lose our natural gas and we have to change our stove to electric, we have to change our heaters downstairs to electric? What’s that gonna cost for the people who don’t have the money to do that? It’s not the rich people, it’s the poor people that’s going to pay for this. What’s it, twenty thousand dollars, thirty thousand dollars for a new HVAC system? Two thousand to four thousand dollars for a stove? So you’re gonna have to pay for this? So I will vote yes to make sure we’re protecting you.