Democrats in Olympia are once again trying to sell Washingtonians on a 9.9% “Millionaire Tax,” packaging it as a targeted fairness measure. But as Amber Gunn of the Mountain States Policy Center recently explained, the proposal looks far less like tax reform and far more like a classic political bait-and-switch designed to wedge open the door to a permanent statewide income tax.
Washington voters have rejected income taxes ten separate times. That hasn’t stopped lawmakers from repeatedly repackaging the idea with fresh branding and carefully crafted promises that it will only apply to the ultra-wealthy. Gunn warns that history shows these promises rarely hold once government becomes dependent on new revenue streams. What starts as a “tax on someone else” has a funny way of creeping toward the middle class once spending inevitably outpaces projections.
Supporters of the millionaire tax insist wealthy residents won’t leave Washington over higher taxes. Gunn pushes back by pointing to migration trends showing that high earners often relocate to lower-tax states — taking businesses, jobs, and substantial tax revenue with them. Losing even a small number of wealthy taxpayers can create massive funding holes. According to research Gunn cites, replacing the tax contributions of just one millionaire could require dozens of middle-income taxpayers picking up the slack. That reality clashes sharply with the Robin Hood narrative Democrats often use to promote these policies.
Gunn also dismantles the argument that Washington should adopt an income tax simply because many other states have one. Washington already stacks some of the highest financial burdens in the country onto residents and employers, including steep business taxes, high gas taxes, one of the nation’s highest minimum wages, the country’s most aggressive estate tax, and payroll deductions like the WA Cares long-term care tax. Adding an income tax, Gunn argues, wouldn’t replace these costs — it would pile yet another financial burden onto workers and job creators.
The Democrats’ frequent “fair share” argument also comes under scrutiny. Gunn contends the claim ignores the substantial government transfer payments and tax credits many lower-income households already receive, while higher earners shoulder a significantly larger share of the overall tax load. She also raises concerns about what she describes as lawmakers attempting to sidestep constitutional limits by inviting courts to overturn long-standing precedent treating income as property. That approach conveniently bypasses voters, who have consistently rejected income tax proposals at the ballot box.
Ultimately, Gunn argues the millionaire tax isn’t about solving Washington’s budget challenges. State spending has exploded over the past decade, and relying on volatile income taxes from high earners would likely create unstable revenue streams that fuel future budget “emergencies.” Those emergencies, in turn, often become the justification for expanding taxes even further.
If Washingtonians have seen this movie before, it’s because they have. The script rarely changes — only the marketing does.
