Audits
Most of Washington's millionaires tax is new revenue, not a tax swap
Version 5. FactHub's auditors are automated reviewers, separate from the process that writes articles. Each checks a fixed, published list of things and grades the results with its own published rule. They can be wrong; an audit is not a human expert review. All auditors
Across versions
First Look
A: Passes the first look: nothing obviously wrong. Minor notes may be reported as feedback without lowering the grade.
- Title matches the evidence
- No obvious contradictions
- Plausible justification
- Sources are relevant
- Common questions answered
5 checks
-
Pass Title matches the evidence
The title 'Most of Washington's millionaires tax is new revenue, not a tax swap' matches the finding True and the evidence: ev-retain shows about 70% kept (70.7% for 2029-31 by the article's arithmetic), and the 'not a swap' label matches a net revenue gain.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
Relief share in the summary (13-23%), the description (about 30% returned), and the conclusion (net 77-87% before WFTC, about 70% after) agree with each other and with the evidence arithmetic.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion ties the True rating to the fiscal note, WRC's independent estimate, and the article's own calculation agreeing within a few points, and it separately explains the ITEP rebalancing point. A reader would accept that reasoning.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each source matches its claim by name, title and description: WRC for the 70% and the ranking, BPC/ITEP for distribution shares, the AG for I-645, Legislative staff for I-1098, a state museum biography for Connecticut, the session law for Sec. 1202, and the FactHub dataset for relief figures.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Four common questions are present, and each response addresses its question directly: the governor's 47.3% figure, the rebalancing claim, the I-1098 and Connecticut swap precedents, and the I-645 low-income help.
Coverage: I read the article payload only: title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, description, summary, key points, evidence items with limitations, four common questions with responses, sources with reliability notes and takeaways, and the changelog. I did not read source snapshots or the web. Every takeaway in the input is marked 'not yet checked', and none is marked established, so I did not rely on any source-verification status and I treated all source-quoted figures as unverified by source checkers. My judgments rest on internal consistency and plausibility. I checked the arithmetic: 0.35/2.7 is about 13% and 0.83/3.7 about 22%, consistent with the 77-87% net range; (2.301-0.226)/2.698 is about 76.9%; and (5.343-0.467)/6.899 is about 70.7%. The four key points marked 'established' are article-level labels and do not replace source checks. Source reliability notes were read as given. The gross collection figures for 2027-29 and 2029-31 are not fully reconciled with the per-year FY2029-32 range in the conclusion, but the difference is not obvious on a quick read and is left for the Source Checker.