Washington joined the ranks of states like Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine in enacting a so-called millionaires tax. It places a 9.9% levy on households earning more than $1 million per year. The tax doesn’t apply to the first $1 million of income — only the income beyond that threshold.
Supporters of the tax argue that it affects only a sliver of households in the state, while opponents warn it threatens opening the door to a broader statewide income tax.
Let’s Go Washington, a political action committee sponsored by hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, put forward the repeal measure. “We are proud to lead the fight to protect families and small businesses from Olympia expanding their state income tax on all Washingtonians,” he said in a statement July 15, when its initiative met the signature threshold for appearing on the ballot.
Meanwhile, a campaign urging voters to reject the repeal bid has won the backing of some high-profile Washingtonians, including travel writer Rick Steves and “Jeopardy!” winner-turned-host Ken Jennings.
Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed the bill creating the tax in March. It takes effect in 2028, with the first taxes due in 2029.
11 Comments
specialseaweed@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 32d
I just don't get it. Federal income and capital gains taxes are at generational lows and people still bitch about state taxes. They'll never not attack any form of tax, so feel free to completely ignore them and work towards building the city and state that we want.
fuck those guys
and yea, i make good money. fuckin tax me.
Nshrubs@mstdn.social · 4 pts · 32d
@specialseaweed @velma I WANT to be taxed to pay for libraries, parks, transit, schools, & for ALL kids to be fed free breakfast & lunch at school. I want millionaires & billionaires who inherited their wealth & assets and/or who take advantage of all that our working population provides to pay their fair share in the capital gains tax.
tidderuuf@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 32d
If this repeal goes through, couldn't the legislature just write the same law but with added language about how the threshold won't be lowered? That seems like what most people are upset about.
Either way even if it does pass I'm sure the courts will find something wrong with it or it's process and it will be ignored like other initiatives.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 32d
I'm curious how they're going to square it with our state constitution's restrictions on income tax.
Our taxes are already extremely regressive here. I'm not sure why people are freaking out over this income tax being applied to middle and low income households when they're already taxed more than rich households.
IamSparticles@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 32d
There's technically no constitutional restriction on income tax, per se. The 1933 ruling in Culliton v Chase held that income is property, and the state constitution doesn't allow graduated taxes on property. Meaning any income tax would have to be a flat rate (regressive). We're trying to get around that, and the ruling that income is property could be overturned.
It would be nice if we could have a tax system in this state that doesn't punish poor people for being poor.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 32d
It would be SO nice!
Thanks for explaining the income tax limitations in more detail. That makes sense!
IamSparticles@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 32d
Sure thing! For some more info: the reason they're more confident about overturning that ruling now is that the 2023 ruling on the capital gains tax said that it's an excise tax on a transaction, not a tax on property.
tidderuuf@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 32d
I'm not really freaking out because Ferguson said he would veto anything that goes below $1M. And he's already on thin ice with most voters.
What I'm worried about and this seems to be what most supporters of this initiative are pointing out is that there were amendments proposed to make sure the tax never gets lowered or it would adjust with inflation, etc. but they were shutdown very quickly.
MAGAs like Heywood wouldn't have any standing if that language was in there.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 32d
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were freaking out. I was referring more to some of my conservative coworkers that had very interesting fits about this haha.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 31d
Any law locking down thresholds could later be repealed with no more effort than just changing the thresholds, so it'd just be performative bullshit to include that wording.
kalkulat@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 31d
The ballot should have 3 choices: