Rob McKenna: income tax a big dividing line in WA, but Seattle's case is going nowhere


One of the clearest dividing lines in Washington state politics is our lack of a state income tax. Many on the left view an income tax as the path to a fairer tax system. To most everyone on the right, it looks like just one more way to let government chip away at your paycheck.

It’s a dividing line among politicos, anyway. Among the public at large, there’s more agreement – they don’t want one. During the height of the Depression in 1932, voters approved an income tax initiative. But in nine subsequent votes, they’ve rejected the idea each time.

The latest attempt was in 2010, when advocates put I-1098 on the ballot. Despite being told the tax would only apply to the wealthy, a decisive 64.15% of voters turned it down.

With that kind of majority, plenty of Democratic voters, too, doubt that our state needs an income tax.

So what is Seattle’s income tax about?
Activists on the left not only want an income tax, they want one with graduated rates, like the federal income tax. To achieve that, first they need the state Supreme Court to overturn decades of precedent.

That’s because the court in the 1930’s ruled that a person’s income is their property. Under our state constitution, property must be taxed uniformly. The court ruling, which was upheld in subsequent cases, effectively bars graduated rates.

Seattle’s new local income tax is all about setting up a test case. Some activists are convinced today’s state Supreme Court justices are anxious to overturn precedent and clear the way for a state income tax, with graduated rates. A group calling itself Trump-Proof Seattle (because Donald Trump has so much to do with our state and local tax structure) wrote a few months ago:

“We expect that today's progressive State Supreme Court will reverse those rulings, based on legal developments in Washington and other states since the 1930s. But in order for them to do this, first a measure needs to be passed and challenged!”

The movement to pass an income tax – any kind of income tax, anywhere in the state – and set up a test case shifted its attention to Seattle after Olympia voters rejected a city income tax there last year. I-1098 in 2010 was also an attempt to set up a lawsuit, but it would have created a much cleaner challenge than Seattle’s local effort.

What are the chances Seattle’s income tax case succeeds?
A case based on Seattle’s new tax faces an additional barrier: state law is clear that cities and counties aren’t allowed to enact local income taxes. Playing word games – like calling it an “excise” tax – won’t get Seattle past the prohibition.

Since courts rule on statutory matters first, that’s where Seattle’s income tax case is likely to end. The courts shouldn’t rule on the constitutionality of a graduated income tax unless the Seattle case somehow gets past the ban on local income taxes.

Even the Seattle elected officials who passed the income tax aren’t predicting success in the courts. Council president Bruce Harrell told the Seattle Channel recently “it is probably time to test the law” to at least “send a signal to the judicial body” that cities want income taxes, but he didn’t predict success. Councilmember Sally Bagshaw likewise demurred on the city’s chances in court.

Despite the odds, they’re willing to spend taxpayer funds on the case. Some might call that a waste. In Seattle, it’s “sending a signal.”

Comments (2)
No. 1-2


Very good point, @ben! Those in favor of the income tax must be sure to bring this up when they go in front of the courts to fight their case and (possibly) change the state constitution that has forbidden a state income tax.


It's funny how relative we define waste. If someone is opposed to a change, then they are more likely to view any effort to enact that change as wasteful. And to others, by definition, change has to start from a place of being unlikely, otherwise it would have already happened.

A little bit of history on the naming of the campaign in Seattle, and it's relation to Trump: When Trump was threatening to revoke federal funding to sanctuary cities, the income-tax campaign made the argument that these funds could be used to shore up funding in the case that Trump were to target Seattle. So, when Trump issues threats, I think it's pretty fair game for activists to respond to those threats and to take steps to protect vulnerable populations who's positions are already quite precarious in this fast-changing town.