Recent comments in /f/Washington

Allmyfinance t1_jdlfim1 wrote

Reply to comment by Unique_Engineering_3 in Washington Supreme Court upholds new capital gains tax by Bozzooo

Section 309 “NEW SECTION. Sec. 309. PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE A STATE RETURN. 33 (1) Only individual and joint taxpayers with federal net long-term 34 capital gains or net earnings from self-employment of sole 35 proprietors in excess of $15,000 on their federal tax return are 36 required to file a capital gains tax return with the department..”

−4

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdlfi4u wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Washington Supreme Court upholds new capital gains tax by Bozzooo

> Incredible short sightedness on your part. Washington has an $8B surplus. Why are we being taxed more exactly?

If you’re making $250k/yr+ in capital gains and have something tk worry about why are you wasting your time on Reddit arguing about it with people like me? 🤷‍♂️

I’m super flattered that one of the ≈1000 people in the state that have exposure to this tax has taken the time to care about me! 🤣

8

Unique_Engineering_3 t1_jdlf5nc wrote

Reply to comment by Allmyfinance in Washington Supreme Court upholds new capital gains tax by Bozzooo

> They are trying to lower it already to 15k fyi. Section https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/Biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5335.pdf

u/Allmyfinance, you linked a bill related to health care. Where is the $15,000 level you reference in the bill you linked.

You don’t just blindly post a link without knowing what was in it, did you? 🤷‍♂️

6

theboz14 OP t1_jdlb1qf wrote

Reply to comment by doktorhladnjak in PFML denial for Military Reserve deployment by theboz14

You are also referring to someone who is active duty. They are always doing the military thing as thats their main job.

My wife works a civilian job monday to Friday and has her hours to be structured so she can take the kids to and from school. My job prevents me from doing that daily.

Yes, my wife being called to active duty is all PFML requires Reservist to be covered.

If you are active Military 24/7, then you must be overseas to be covered under PFML.

I also said I had PFML in 2001, and I had it 4 times for no more than 3 weeks at a time for when she went to California as her orders stated as such for training.

Also, in my denial letter, they stated I would be approved for 12 weeks and told me how much I would have received. Knowing how much you would get after you are denied is a little tough to take. Basically they are saying well you are denied, but hey if you weren't you would have recieved $1200( not the exact amount) per week for 12 weeks, oh well better luck next time, lol.

Also, the denial letter stated I was denied because I didn't meet the requirements for a severe medial issue, I never put in for a medical.

But, the thing is, even if they need to go overseas, She IS. She is just going to California for pre-deployment, because they need training prior to going overseas since she is just a weekend warrior and not full time Active Duty.

She is going to Africa for 7 dam months.

1

doktorhladnjak t1_jdl9j46 wrote

Reply to PFML denial for Military Reserve deployment by theboz14

You can read the documentation from DOL on FMLA for what’s considered a military exigency where you can get PFML. Ongoing, routine care of your kids is not covered. When your spouse is inside the US, it’s also not covered. You also mention you’ve done this many times before. It maxes out at 12 weeks within the last 12 months.

A couple sections that seem relevant to your situation > For members of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces (members of the National Guard and Reserves), covered active duty is duty during deployment of the member with the Armed Forces to a foreign country under a call or order to active duty in a contingency operation.

> Deployment to a foreign country means deployment to areas outside of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any Territory or possession of the United States. It also includes deployment to international waters.

> Certain childcare and related activities arising from the military member’s covered active duty, including arranging for alternative childcare, providing childcare on a non-routine, urgent, immediate need basis, enrolling in or transferring a child to a new school or day care facility.

1

MRmandato t1_jdl72c8 wrote

Reply to comment by Daddy_Thick in Washington Supreme Court upholds new capital gains tax by Bozzooo

No, the question is whether this violates the WA State constitution. SCOTUS is not an expert on state constitutions; the only angle is if the platiniffs case was the WA state constitution was itself violating the US constitution. But that still wouldnt help in this case because all they could do is throw out the WA constitutional provision entirely and that wouldnt help the plaintiffs.

Tldr: even according to the plaintiffs theres no federal issue here and SCOTUS has no standing

6