12th District Republicans criticize income tax bill

OLYMPIA — Lawmakers representing Washington’s 12th Legislative District are criticizing the Washington House’s passage of a state income tax following a marathon floor debate that lasted more than 24 hours.

The House approved Senate Bill 6346 on a 51-46 vote Tuesday after a lengthy debate that began Monday evening and continued overnight. The measure would impose a 9.9% tax on adjusted gross household income above $1 million, beginning Jan. 1, 2028, with payments due in 2029.

Supporters say the tax would affect roughly 21,000 high-income households and generate between $3.5 billion and $4 billion annually. Revenue would help expand the state’s Working Families Tax Credit and provide funding for early learning programs and other state priorities.

For the bill to become law, the Senate must agree to changes made in the House before sending it to Gov. Bob Ferguson, who has indicated he will sign it. Legal challenges and potential ballot efforts are widely expected.

Republicans strongly opposed the measure during the debate and through dozens of proposed amendments.

Rep. Brian Burnett, R-Wenatchee, who represents the 12th Legislative District, said the proposal creates a new income tax framework that could eventually be expanded.

“The way this bill is written, it is an income tax on everyone with a $1 million exemption,” Burnett said. “Nothing in the law guarantees that threshold will stay there. Once the infrastructure for an income tax is in place, lowering the exemption becomes a simple majority vote. That is why so many Washingtonians are concerned about what comes next.”

Republicans offered numerous amendments during the debate, including proposals to reduce the tax rate, protect small businesses and pass-through income, lower the state sales tax and require voter approval before lowering the $1 million threshold. They also proposed adding a referendum clause to allow voters to decide the policy directly.

Those proposals were rejected.

“Republicans spent hours offering practical ideas to lower costs for families, farmers, seniors, and small businesses,” Burnett said. “Every single one of those amendments was voted down. If the majority were serious about affordability, they had the opportunity to prove it. Instead, they doubled down on a brand-new tax.”

Rep. Mike Steele, R-Chelan, also representing the 12th Legislative District, opposed the bill and cited concerns about affordability and economic competitiveness.

“Washington families are already struggling with the rising cost of living-from housing and groceries to fuel and utilities,” Steele said. “Passing a new income tax moves our state in the wrong direction and risks making Washington even less affordable for the people who live and work here.”

Steele also said lawmakers rejected most proposed changes to the measure.

“We offered 53 amendments to improve the bill, all but two were rejected,” Steele said.

During the debate, Democrats framed the proposal as a step toward making Washington’s tax system more progressive, arguing the current structure relies heavily on sales taxes that disproportionately affect lower-income residents.

House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, D-West Seattle, said the proposal follows decades of debate about Washington’s tax system.

“It has been a long journey here to this moment, not just the over 24 hours that we’ve spent on this floor debating this proposal, but the 93 years that Washingtonians have struggled with a grossly outdated tax structure that falls by far the heaviest on the lowest income,” Fitzgibbon said during floor debate.

Republicans also raised constitutional concerns, citing a 1933 Washington Supreme Court ruling that treated income as property and required property taxes to be uniform.

“Washington's constitution has clear protections when it comes to income taxation,” Burnett said. “Those protections exist for a reason. If lawmakers want to fundamentally change our tax system, the honest and transparent way to do that is through a constitutional amendment and a vote of the people.”

The measure now returns to the Senate for consideration of House changes as the Legislature approaches the scheduled end of the 60-day session Thursday.