Audits
Washington's millionaires-tax estimate assumes no response; studies show high earners respond.
Version 3. 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 says the estimate assumes no response and that studies show high earners respond. The fiscal note states affected taxpayers do not reduce taxable income, and the Rauh and Shyu evidence shows large responses in California. The title's direction and scope match the evidence.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
Finding True matches the answer and conclusion. The 12-of-18 count, the four recession shortfalls and the two other shortfalls agree across the context, objections and evidence. The 1.48 and 1.77 capital gains ratios reconcile with $782M against $527M and $442M.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion ties the True rating to two halves: the fiscal note's no-response assumption and the Rauh and Shyu erosion finding. It then explains why erosion does not equal a shortfall against the official forecast, and it names the limits on what the claim implies.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each source's name, title and description fits its citation: OFM fiscal notes, Rauh and Shyu, Conway et al., Young and Varner, JCT, Montana, elasticity reviews, Pew, LAO, Tufts, Massachusetts DOR, Maryland DLS, Metro, Washington DOR and the FactHub datasets. None is off-topic.
-
Pass Common questions answered
There are six common questions. Each response addresses its question directly, including the 4.71% cut, the 'too early' migration point, and the claim that Washington is an outlier.
Coverage: I judged the article text only, as First Look. I did not read source snapshots, the web, the chart or the datasets. Every takeaway's status field in the sources reads 'not yet checked', and the only key points marked established are the fiscal note, the 4.71% and compliance points, Rauh and Shyu's erosion and migration figures, and the JCT point. I treated the remaining takeaways and all dataset-derived figures (the 18-comparison ratios, the Massachusetts and Maryland figures, and the Washington capital gains ratios) as unchecked and did not verify them. Source relevance was judged only from names, titles and descriptions. The check results are lenient first-pass readings, not a verification of the figures.