John Braun commentary: The problem is Democrats’ thirst for money, not the state tax code
Friday, February 6, 2026
For more than a decade, Democrats in Olympia have complained our state’s tax code is overly regressive. That claim is made again, predictably, in Senate Bill 6346, the legislation they filed Feb. 3 to create a state income tax — in defiance of both the state constitution and the 2024 law prohibiting any kind of income tax in Washington.
Sales tax, gas tax, property tax and carbon taxes are examples of “regressive” taxes. Because everyone pays the same rate, lower-income Washington residents lose a higher percentage of their income to those taxes. An income tax that takes more from higher-income people is considered “progressive.”
The source of the Democrats’ regressivity claim is an organization called the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), and its analysis of tax codes across the 50 states. ITEP’s 2015 and 2018 reports ranked Washington’s tax structure as the most regressive in the nation. The latest analysis, based on 2024 taxes, had our state falling to second worst behind Florida.
Democrats have repeatedly cited these findings over the years without saying much about where they got them — and maybe this is why: ITEP is a big fan of income taxes, openly declaring they are “typically the fairest revenue source” a state government can have.
The organization also admits its research “supports taxing millionaires and billionaires, taxing big corporations and raising revenue for the things our people, our communities and our planet need.” That’s transparent, but it doesn’t sound unbiased.
A more complete picture of state tax codes was issued barely a year ago by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). It rates Washington’s tax code 23rd nationally on the regressive scale, meaning the middle of the pack.
On one hand, then, we have the ITEP study, which was done by researchers with an agenda who concluded the least regressive tax codes belong to the District of Columbia, Minnesota, Vermont, New York and California, in that order. It’s no coincidence that all collect income tax.
On the other is the NBER research. I’ll put my faith in its findings, since they came from two experts from the Federal Reserve and a pair of economics professors, one from Princeton University and the other from the University of Minnesota.
The NBER study also had D.C., Minnesota and California in the five least regressive states, but it’s the ranking of our state’s tax code — almost at the median — that is so significant. It effectively cancels out the claim Democrats have been making about Washington all these years.
If the sponsors of the income-tax bill still want to say Washington’s tax structure is “upside down,” and unfair to people who are poor, Republicans will be ready to bring up all the regressive taxes and fees Democrats have increased or tried to hike in recent years.
We may get that chance soon, because the sponsors of the income-tax bill are fast-tracking it through the Senate.
The 9.9% tax rate imposed in the Democrats’ income-tax bill — Senate Bill 6346 — was expected, as they had floated that weeks earlier. As introduced, it also would offer a million-dollar deduction, meaning the tax would apply only to income in excess of $1 million.
That allows the bill to be marketed as a “millionaires’ tax,” but if you look closely, the deduction is contained in a single sentence in one section of the bill. Simply change a few words and the deduction can be reduced or eliminated. It therefore is best viewed as an income tax, with no real limit — an “everybody tax.”
Even though the income tax wouldn’t be collected until 2029, Democrats worded their bill to prevent the people from using their constitutional power of referendum to approve or reject it. That’s shameful.
Also, we didn’t know from the rumors where the estimated $4 billion in annual proceeds would go. In January, when repeating his support for a state income tax, Gov. Bob Ferguson declared a “significant percentage” of the revenue would have to be put back in the pockets of Washingtonians.
Someone either wasn’t listening or didn’t care. When SB 6346 was filed exactly three weeks later, we calculated it would only set aside 5% for tax relief out of that $4 billion — and the only family-oriented tax relief is a sales-tax exemption for grooming and hygiene products. Even then, hard-working taxpayers would have to compile a year’s worth of receipts to claim the exemption.
As a Republican legislative staffer put it, in remarks picked up by a liberal Seattle newspaper columnist: “After years of railing against the inequity of the tax code and how it disproportionately burdens the lower income and working class, the best tax relief you can come up with that is broad based is … sales tax exemption on suntan lotion?”
The logical conclusion is that the income-tax proposal is and always was about generating more money for government to keep, not money that could go toward making Washington’s tax code less regressive.
A prominent House Democrat leader had said as much several days earlier, admitting his party “wouldn’t do this if we weren’t getting a significant revenue boost.”
There it is: more proof that the real problem is the Democrats’ thirst for more dollars to spend, not our state’s tax code.
The income-tax bill is the most important piece of tax legislation seen in decades. It also is the most unpopular piece of legislation introduced in the Senate. Close to 60,000 people had signed in as “opposed” by the time SB 6346 came to the Senate Ways and Means Committee for a public hearing Feb. 7. The public clearly recognizes the threat this tax poses.
Washington has gotten along fine without a state income tax for more than 90 years, and we don’t need one now. Democrat legislators must do better.
•••
Sen. John Braun of Centralia serves the 20th Legislative District, which spans parts of four counties from Yelm to Vancouver. He became Senate Republican leader in 2020.