In Their Own Words: It's Meant To Be An Income Tax for All

Democratic lawmakers' statements raise questions about whether Washington's new income tax could eventually extend beyond millionaires.

As Washington voters prepare to decide the fate of the state's new income tax on November 3, public statements from Democratic lawmakers are drawing attention to a central question: Will the tax remain limited to income above $1 million, or could future legislatures expand it?

Initiative 645 would repeal the income tax enacted earlier this year under Senate Bill 6346. The law establishes a 9.9% tax on annual Washington taxable income exceeding $1 million, beginning in 2028.

Although commonly called the "millionaires' tax," the legislation established an individual income tax with a $1 million standard deduction! Future legislatures could change that deduction, potentially bringing additional households into the tax system.

What have they said?

Rep. April Berg: "A Broad Tax Base With a $1 Million Deduction"

At the October 5, 2026, Income Tax Advisory Workgroup meeting in Olympia, Democratic Representative April Berg, chair of the House Finance Committee, described the structure of the new tax:

"It's higher earners only, but it's also a broad base with a $1 million standard deduction."

Berg continued: "It is just on higher earners, but it's technically on the base of taxpayers, and everybody, every household gets the million-dollar standard deduction."

In an October 9 KIRO Newsradio interview, Berg tried to clarify that the deduction does not mean every Washington household must file an income-tax return.

"It is a standard deduction for all households, but nobody has to file a tax," she said.

Berg also acknowledged the limits of protecting the threshold from future legislative changes:

"There's really not a lot of ways to constrain future legislators."

She added that she personally did not intend to support lowering the $1 million threshold.

Rep. Larry Springer: "You Shouldn't" Trust That the Tax Won't Expand

Democratic Representative Larry Springer, the House Deputy Majority Leader, drew attention during the legislative session when he questioned whether Washington residents should trust assurances that the income tax would remain limited to wealthy households.

Asked why the public should assume the income tax would not eventually apply to them, Springer responded:

"You shouldn't."

Springer pointed to the Legislature's decision in 2024 to approve a statutory prohibition on income taxes, followed by the introduction of new income-tax legislation less than two years later.

"And within a year, we're proposing an income tax. Yeah, you should probably be skeptical," Springer said, according to a February 2 Washington Post opinion column recounting his remarks.

Springer's comments focused on the Legislature's ability to reverse previous tax-policy decisions and the difficulty of guaranteeing that today's income threshold will remain unchanged.

Rep. Cindy Ryu: A "$250,000" Threshold?

Democratic Representative Cindy Ryu, who is running for a state Senate seat in the 32nd Legislative District, recently discussed expanding the tax to households earning substantially less than $1 million.

During a KUOW Soundside debate, Ryu said:

"Let's take a look at how well can most of us live? Pretty well at $250,000."

According to KNKX's October 9 reporting, Ryu supports a progressive income tax that would apply lower rates to households earning less than $1 million.

Her comments demonstrate that some Democratic lawmakers support a broader income tax than the one currently enacted.

Sen. Jamie Pedersen: Support for a Broader Tax

Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, the primary sponsor of the legislation, has also acknowledged his preference for a broader income tax.

“I would like to force the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider its caselaw that considers income to be property,” Pedersen wrote in an email obtained through public disclosures.

In another statement, he told KNKX and KUOW, "I would personally like to see a broader-based income tax, as I have been very clear about for many years."

However, he also said there were insufficient votes in the Legislature to expand the tax and pointed to Governor Bob Ferguson's opposition.

Pedersen has also been quoted describing an earlier legislative commitment to not tax property as income as "...what did Mary Poppins call it? A pie crust promise. Easily made, easily broken." Lawmakers subsequently changed that.

House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon: "Future Legislatures Cannot Be Bound"

House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon addressed the question of whether the income tax could eventually extend beyond millionaires during a February 2026 discussion with reporters.

"We're not going to bind future legislatures," Fitzgibbon said, according to the Washington State Standard.

"But that's not a proposal that we support," he added, referring to lowering the threshold.

His remarks distinguish current legislative intentions from the authority of future lawmakers to change the law.

Governor Ferguson Promises a Veto

Governor Bob Ferguson has publicly committed to opposing any reduction in the income-tax threshold.

"I've said it before many times, and will say it again, I will veto any attempt by the Legislature to lower the threshold below a million dollars," Ferguson wrote in a public statement reported by KNKX.

However, Washington's Constitution permits a gubernatorial veto to be overridden by a two-thirds majority in each legislative chamber. With democrats poised to grab a super majority, this wouldn't be hard for them to do. And future governors would not be bound by Ferguson's pledge.

Removal of 'Pension Protections' Raise Additional Eyebrows

The legislation also changed statutory protections for certain public employee retirement benefits.

Previously, Washington law contained explicit exemptions protecting specified retirement benefits from state taxation. The new legislation modified those provisions in connection with establishing the income tax.

Pedersen told Axios that lawmakers intended to follow the federal approach of counting income from multiple sources, including pensions.

Under the current $1 million threshold, most retirees would not owe the tax based on pension benefits alone. However, pension income may count toward taxable income, and a future reduction in the deduction could affect additional retirees.

Initiative 645: What Voters Are Deciding

Opponents of Initiative 645 (NO) support keeping the income tax. They say its revenue will help fund education, health care, and tax relief for working families and small businesses. The law earmarks 5% of income-tax revenue for the Fair Start for Kids Account.

Supporters of Initiative 645 (YES) want to repeal the income tax. They argue that establishing an individual income-tax system opens the door to future expansion beyond millionaires. They point to lawmakers’ statements acknowledging that future legislatures could lower the threshold.

Critics view the “millionaires’ tax” as a Trojan horse that could eventually reach more taxpayers.

For voters, the debate concerns both who would pay under today’s law and who could pay if lawmakers change it.

A YES vote on Initiative 645 would repeal the new income tax. A NO vote would keep it in place.