Skip to content
Chimera readability score 0.5873 out of 100, reading level.

The new tax “is probably one of the biggest changes in Washington state political history since our founding,” says one state representative.
Washington state has beaten California and New York in their race to soak the rich.
On Thursday, the state Legislature passed a "millionaires tax" along party lines. Starting in 2028, households making at least $1 million will be subject to a 9.9 percent income tax. The money raised from this duty will allow the state to eliminate sales taxes on diapers, over-the-counter drugs, and select hygiene products; provide free school breakfast and lunch; and to generally "fund K–12 education, health care, [and] higher education." Unless Gov. Bob Ferguson unexpectedly vetoes the bill, it will automatically become law in April.
In passing this law, the Evergreen State has implemented the most regressive wealth tax in the country, at least for now. In November, Californians will vote on a proposed 5 percent billionaire wealth tax ballot initiative (which Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes). Meanwhile, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has called on state legislators to impose an additional 2 percent income tax on millionaires and is considering proposals to increase the city's corporate tax rates and lower its threshold for death (estate) taxes from $7.1 million to $750,000.
While California and New York have, respectively, the highest and third-highest state income tax rates, Washington's millionaires tax "is probably one of the biggest changes in Washington state political history since our founding," state Rep. Chris Corry (R–Yakima) told Komo News.
As Jared Dillian recently explained for Reason, Washington did not tax any kind of income until 2021, when it passed a 7 percent tax on long-term capital gains above $250,000, which encouraged Jeff Bezos' relocation to Florida. In 2023, the Washington state Supreme Court upheld this law despite the state's constitution explicitly requiring "all taxes [to] be uniform" and "the aggregate of all tax levies…[to] not in any year exceed one percent of the true and fair value of [taxed] property."
Because the state's property taxes must be applied at a uniform rate instead of bracket-specific rates, like the federal income tax, Washington households with a gross annual income of $1 million or more would have to pay a 9.9 percent duty on all their income, not just the income made in excess of $1 million.
This means that a household is better off if it stops working after earning a gross wage of $999,999 per year, unless it expects to earn at least $1,109,877—the point at which the after-tax income would match $999,999, thanks to the new law. This will discourage six-figure income earners from continuing to earn $1 million, so that they don't trigger the flat tax on all their income, or encourage them to work elsewhere.
Seattle Seahawks General Manager John Schneider said the tax is "going to sting from a recruiting standpoint." Starbucks founder Howard Schultz has already left.
On Tuesday, Schultz announced that he and his wife would be relocating to Florida to enjoy their retirement, and expressed their "hope that Washington will remain a place for business and entrepreneurship to thrive." Kristofer Johnson, president of the Association of Washington Business, is not optimistic; he says "this move…will unfortunately cause more small- and medium-sized business owners to seriously consider starting, growing or moving their business to other states with a more stable tax environment."

Facts Only

* Washington state passed a "millionaires tax" on households earning $1 million or more.
* The tax is a 9.9 percent income tax, starting in 2028.
* The revenue will fund K-12 education, healthcare, and higher education.
* Sales taxes on diapers, over-the-counter drugs, and select hygiene products will be eliminated.
* The tax is being implemented by the state Legislature along party lines.
* Gov. Bob Ferguson has not yet vetoed the bill.
* California, New York, and Washington state have high income tax rates.
* Washington previously implemented a 7% tax on long-term capital gains above $250,000 in 2021.
* The Washington state Supreme Court upheld this law in 2023, despite constitutional requirements for uniform tax rates.
* A household is better off if it stops working after earning $999,999 per year.

Executive Summary

Washington state has enacted a significant tax change impacting high-income earners. The new law introduces a 9.9% income tax for households with an annual income of at least $1 million, commencing in 2028. This revenue is intended to fund vital public services including K-12 education, healthcare, and higher education, alongside the elimination of sales taxes on essential items like diapers and over-the-counter medications. The move has been characterized as a significant policy shift by state representatives, aiming to address funding gaps in key areas. Notably, this tax represents the most regressive wealth tax in the country currently, facing competition from a similar proposal in California and ongoing efforts in New York City. While Washington previously implemented a capital gains tax in 2021, a Supreme Court ruling maintains a uniform tax structure, creating a complex situation for high-net-worth individuals. Concerns are being raised by business leaders, including the Seattle Seahawks GM and Starbucks founder, regarding potential impacts on recruitment and investment, suggesting a possible exodus of businesses and individuals to states with more favorable tax climates. The situation is complex and underscores ongoing debates about wealth redistribution and funding public services within the state.

Full Take

The narrative presented is a potent blend of populist aspiration and potentially destabilizing policy, framed through a narrative of “soaking the rich.” The immediate “steelman” argument—that the tax will fund crucial public services—masks a deeper, more insidious pattern: the construction of a grievance narrative against the wealthy. This isn’t simply about taxation; it’s about defining a category (“millionaires”) as inherently culpable for the state’s woes and deserving of punishment. The pattern echoes historical efforts to leverage moral outrage against economic elites, particularly when paired with explicit mentions of relocation (Bezos) and business departures (Schultz). The invocation of the Supreme Court’s ruling – a uniform tax vs. bracketed rates – is a key maneuver of the ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey, deliberately obscuring the core issue: the overall tax burden on income, regardless of bracket. This is a classic attempt to deflect criticism by focusing on a technical detail. The emphasis on discouraging high earners from working to the $1 million threshold (ARC-0024 Ambiguity) reveals a further attempt to manipulate behavior, demonstrating a deep distrust of individual agency. The underlying paradigm driving this narrative is a neo-classical, almost Manichean worldview – a division between the virtuous public sector and the avaricious private sector. The implications extend beyond mere economics; it’s about establishing a moral hierarchy. The root cause appears to be a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the current distribution of wealth and a desire for rapid, radical transformation. It’s worth noting that the framing utilizes "the Evergreen State" (ARC-0017 Rhetorical Framing) – a loaded term designed to evoke an image of stability and growth, directly contradicted by the tax’s disruptive potential. Further scrutiny reveals a systemic attempt to create a narrative of decline and discourage investment.

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The article shows strong human authorship signals, including a distinct voice, specific attributions, and contextual digressions. No significant stylometric or coordination red flags were detected.

Signals Detected
low severity: Moderate sentence length variance with some erratic phrasing (e.g., 'soak the rich,' 'Evergreen State'), but no excessive hedging or transition homogeneity.
low severity: Strong narrative voice with idiosyncratic emphasis (e.g., 'regressive wealth tax,' 'Bezos' relocation to Florida'), not the 'fluent everywhere, passionate nowhere' pattern typical of AI.
low severity: Specific attributions (e.g., Rep. Chris Corry, Jared Dillian, Kristofer Johnson) with direct quotes, reducing template-matching risk.
low severity: No claims attributed to vague sources; historical references (e.g., 2021 capital gains tax, Supreme Court ruling) are verifiable and contextually accurate.
Human Indicators
Idiosyncratic phrasing ('soak the rich,' 'Evergreen State')
Direct quotes with named sources (e.g., Rep. Corry, Howard Schultz)
Narrative digressions (e.g., Bezos' relocation, Seahawks GM comment) that disrupt formulaic structure
Clear editorial slant (criticism of tax structure) inconsistent with AI's neutral tone