Sometimes a ballot question sounds simple until you start looking at what sits underneath it.
Initiative 645 (officially IP26-645) is one of those questions.
If you want Washington’s new 9.9% individual income tax repealed, the vote is YES.
That can feel a little backwards at first, so it is worth slowing down and looking at what voters are actually being asked to decide.
The ballot language says the measure would repeal the new 9.9% tax on annual individual income above the law’s $1 million standard deduction, prohibit taxes measured by individual income or the receipt of individual income, and define income for that purpose.
So the first thing to understand is simple:
YES means repeal the new income tax.
NO means leave the new income tax in place.
But the bigger question is not just whether someone making more than $1 million should pay a new tax.
The bigger question is this:
What kind of tax system do we want Washington to build for the future?
That is where this ballot measure gets much more important.
It Is Not Just About Today’s Millionaires
Supporters of the new tax often describe it as a tax that affects only very high earners.
Under the law as written today, that is largely true.
The current standard deduction is $1 million, and that amount is scheduled to adjust for inflation.
So someone earning far below that amount is not suddenly going to owe a 9.9% state income tax under the law as it currently exists.
That needs to be said clearly.
But there is another side to the discussion.
Once Washington has an individual income-tax system in place, the Legislature can change the law later.
The current $1 million threshold is not carved into the state constitution.
It is a number written into statute.
And discussions about lower thresholds have already taken place.
Rep. Cindy Ryu has discussed a possible threshold around $250,000, while Sen. Jesse Salomon reportedly suggested $750,000 would have been a more appropriate expansion point.
Neither of those proposals is current law.
But they raise a fair question for voters:
If the system exists, how difficult would it be for a future Legislature to change the number?
That may be one of the most important things to think about before voting.
A Tax System Is More Than a Tax Rate
It is easy to look at the 9.9% number and stop there.
But creating an income tax requires far more than simply writing a tax rate into law.
Washington has had to create rules for:
- residency,
- nonresidents,
- married couples,
- pass-through businesses,
- trusts,
- pensions,
- deductions,
- credits,
- estimated payments,
- reporting,
- audits,
- enforcement, and
- Department of Revenue administration.
That matters because the state is not simply collecting one more tax.
It is building an entirely new tax structure.
Once that structure exists, future lawmakers would not have to start from scratch if they wanted to expand it.
The forms, definitions, enforcement process, reporting requirements and Department of Revenue systems would already be there.
That is one of the reasons many YES voters see this measure as a decision about the long-term direction of Washington’s tax system, not simply a debate over millionaires.
Married Couples May Want to Look Closely at the $1 Million Threshold
The phrase “only people making more than $1 million” can also be misleading if people assume the threshold applies separately to each spouse.
Under the law, spouses and registered domestic partners receive a combined $1 million standard deduction.
It is not automatically $1 million for one spouse and another $1 million for the other.
For many families that will never matter.
But it is still an important detail because it shows how quickly a simple slogan becomes more complicated when applied to actual households.
Small Businesses Are Part of This Conversation Too
This is another area that deserves more attention.
Many Washington businesses are not large corporations.
They are LLCs, partnerships, S corporations, sole proprietorships, family businesses, farms, contractors and professional practices.
The income from those businesses often passes through to the owner’s personal tax return.
The new income-tax law contains provisions specifically dealing with pass-through entities.
There are credits intended to reduce certain kinds of double taxation, including interactions with Washington’s B&O tax and public utility tax.
Pass-through entities may also elect to pay the new tax at the entity level under certain circumstances.
Those protections are important.
But the larger question remains:
Should Washington business owners have to navigate another layer of state tax law at all?
That question matters even more in rural communities.
A business can have a high-income year because of a sale, expansion, restructuring, land transaction, equipment sale or other one-time event.
That does not always mean the owner has millions of dollars sitting in a checking account.
Taxable income and available cash are not always the same thing.
For small-business owners, farmers and family-run companies, that distinction can be very real.
You May Not Even Have to Live in Washington
One of the more surprising parts of the new law involves nonresidents.
A person can live outside Washington and still potentially have Washington taxable income.
That can happen when someone earns income through work performed in Washington, business activity connected to Washington, or ownership in a pass-through business that earns Washington-source income.
That is why the state’s Income Tax Advisory Workgroup has already been discussing issues involving Schedule K-1 forms and pass-through entities.
So this is not simply a tax system for Washington residents with seven-figure salaries.
It can also reach people and businesses outside the state when their income has a Washington connection.
That creates another question worth considering:
How much tax complexity do we want Washington to create, both for residents and for people doing business here?
Pensions Deserve More Attention Than They Have Received
This may be one of the least discussed parts of the law.
Washington has historically provided strong protections for many pension and retirement benefits.
The 2026 income-tax legislation amended multiple pension statutes to say those benefits are not exempt from taxation under the new Title 82A income tax.
Some pension-protection language also contains exceptions involving collection of taxes imposed under that title.
That does not mean an average retiree suddenly owes a 9.9% tax.
The income threshold still applies.
But the change matters because it raises a broader question:
Why did pension statutes need to be changed at all if this tax was intended to be completely separate from retirement income?
The Legislature’s own analysis of Initiative 645 says the initiative would repeal corresponding pension-income provisions.
For retirees and public employees, that is worth knowing before filling out a ballot.
Trusts and Estate Planning Are Also Part of the Law
Most Washington families will never deal with this section.
But it is another example of how complex the system already is.
The law contains provisions affecting certain incomplete-gift nongrantor trusts.
Again, the point is not that every Washington resident needs to understand sophisticated trust taxation.
The point is that Washington has already begun creating a detailed income-tax code involving trusts, residency, business ownership, charitable deductions and other complex situations.
This is not simply a single tax line aimed at a few wealthy residents.
It is the foundation of a larger tax system.
Remember What Voters Approved in 2024
There is another piece of history that deserves attention.
Washington voters approved Initiative 2111 in 2024.
That initiative prohibited state and local governments from imposing personal income taxes.
Then, in 2026, the Legislature changed the law to allow the new income tax as long as the standard deduction remained at least $1 million.
Whatever someone thinks about the tax itself, this sequence raises an important question:
When voters approve a tax restriction, how much flexibility should the Legislature have to change it two years later?
Initiative 645 would repeal the new income tax and again establish a broader prohibition against state and local taxes on individual income, receipt of individual income, or taxes measured by individual income.
For many YES supporters, that is the heart of the issue.
The vote is not only about the 9.9% rate.
It is about whether Washington should continue down the path of establishing an individual income-tax system at all.
What About the State Budget?
This is the part that should not be ignored.
Repealing the tax would affect the state budget.
The official fiscal analysis estimates that Initiative 645 would reduce projected state revenue by roughly $11.4 billion through fiscal year 2031 compared with leaving the income tax in place.
That includes about $3.1 billion during the 2027-29 budget period and about $8.3 billion during 2029-31.
The state would also avoid roughly $150 million in estimated implementation and administration costs.
So voters should not be told that repeal has no budget consequences.
It does.
The more useful question is what should happen next.
Should the state solve budget problems by creating another major tax source?
Or should lawmakers first look harder at spending priorities, program results, duplication, administrative growth and whether existing tax dollars are being used effectively?
That is the real budget debate.
Washington has experienced budget pressure even after years of higher revenues and expanding state spending.
So voters may reasonably ask:
If more revenue is always the answer, when do spending priorities get examined?
And another question follows:
Would a new income tax solve the underlying budget problem, or simply give government another source of money to spend?
Those are questions worth asking regardless of party.
What About Schools, Health Care and Other Programs?
Supporters of the new tax argue that the money will help support K-12 schools, higher education, health care, human services, early learning and the Working Families Tax Credit.
Those are real priorities.
Five percent of future income-tax revenue is directed to the Fair Start for Kids Account.
Most of the remaining revenue, however, goes into the state’s general fund.
That means the money is not placed into one protected account solely for schools, hospitals or another specific service.
The Legislature still makes spending decisions.
So another fair question is:
If education, health care and essential services are truly the highest priorities, are they already being treated that way in the existing state budget?
That is an important distinction.
Voting YES does not mean someone opposes schools, health care or early learning.
It can also mean they believe state government should prioritize those services within the revenue Washington already collects.
A YES Vote Does Not Erase Every Tax Change Passed in 2026
This is another area where accuracy matters.
The 2026 legislation included more than the new income tax.
It also included changes involving the Working Families Tax Credit, small-business B&O relief and certain sales-tax exemptions.
Initiative 645 does not simply erase every sentence of that legislation.
The initiative specifically targets the income tax, related administration, revenue distribution, pension provisions and connected sections.
So voters should be cautious when they hear claims that a YES vote automatically eliminates every tax benefit included in the larger 2026 package.
That is not an accurate description of what the initiative does.
And What About Washington’s Capital Gains Tax?
This is an area where we should also be careful.
Initiative 645 contains broad language prohibiting taxes on or measured by individual income.
Washington already has a separate capital gains tax.
However, Initiative 645 does not expressly repeal the chapter containing that tax.
There may eventually be legal arguments about how the initiative’s broader definition of income interacts with the capital gains tax.
That could become a court question.
So voters should not be promised that voting YES automatically eliminates Washington’s capital gains tax.
There are already plenty of clear reasons to evaluate Initiative 645 without making claims that have not yet been settled.
So What Does a YES Vote Really Mean?
For voters considering YES, the strongest argument may not be:
“I don’t want millionaires taxed.”
It may be something much bigger.
A YES vote can represent the belief that Washington should not establish an individual income-tax system that future Legislatures could expand.
- It can represent concern about creating another layer of taxes and compliance for small businesses.
- It can represent concern about changing pension protections.
- It can represent concern about nonresident taxation and increasingly complicated pass-through business rules.
- It can represent the belief that budget problems should first be addressed by examining spending, priorities and accountability before creating a new tax structure.
- And it can represent the belief that when voters approve restrictions on an income tax, those restrictions should mean something.
That is why the most important question may not be:
“Will I personally owe this tax in 2028?”
A better question might be:
“What kind of tax system do I want Washington to have ten or twenty years from now?”
Because laws change.
Thresholds change.
Legislatures change.
But once a tax structure is built, it can be much easier to expand than it was to create in the first place.
When you fill out your ballot this November, take the time to think past the word “millionaire.”
Look at the system being created.
Look at the pension provisions.
Look at the business rules.
Look at the nonresident rules.
Look at the budget.
Look at what voters approved in 2024.
Then ask yourself one simple question:
Is creating a permanent state individual income-tax system the direction Washington should be going?
That is the question at the heart of Initiative 645.
And if your answer is no, remember:
YES is the vote that repeals the new income tax.
Sources
Washington House Office of Program Research, Summary of Initiative 26-645, including the official ballot description, income-tax provisions, nonresident rules and provisions repealed by the initiative. Washington State Legislature
Washington Secretary of State, official certification and ballot information for IP26-645. VoteWA
Washington Department of Revenue, overview and FAQ regarding the new 9.9% income tax beginning January 1, 2028. Washington Department of Revenue
Washington RCW 82A.04.030 and RCW 82A.04.360, establishing the 9.9% rate and the $1 million standard deduction, including the combined deduction for spouses and domestic partners. Washington State Legislative App
Washington RCW 1.90.100, showing the 2026 exception made to the 2024 personal-income-tax prohibition. Washington State Legislative App
Washington RCW 82A.04.420, RCW 82A.04.430 and RCW 82A.04.520 regarding pass-through entities, nonresident income and entity-level taxation. Washington State Legislative App
Washington Department of Revenue Income Tax Advisory Workgroup, including its examination of pass-through entities and K-1 reporting. Washington Department of Revenue
Washington pension statutes amended by the 2026 income-tax legislation, including pension benefits under Title 82A. Washington State Legislative App
Washington RCW 82A.04.260 concerning certain incomplete-gift nongrantor trusts. Washington State Legislative App
Official fiscal-impact information reported for Initiative 645, including approximately $11.4 billion in projected revenue effects through FY 2031 and administrative savings. WSPTA
Recent reporting on statements by Rep. Cindy Ryu regarding a potential $250,000 threshold and Sen. Jesse Salomon regarding a potential $750,000 threshold. These are proposals/comments, not current law.