Audits
Washington's millionaires tax can reach households where no one earns $1 million.
Version 4 (draft). 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 households with no $1 million earner can be reached. The evidence items (couples, one-time income, capital gains stacking) support that direction, and the threshold item supports the inflation wording. The title states no number the evidence lacks.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
Finding True matches the answer and conclusion. Key point 4's $821,000 in 2040 matches the threshold dataset. The 31,000-33,000 household projection matches the evidence and objection responses. Stacking figures reconcile: $800k plus $600k gives a $1.4M base, $39,600 gross new tax less the $22,540 credit gives $17,060. The 0.9% figure for the $1.1M couple reconciles with $9,900.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains why the claim is rated True: the base is household-based, starts from federal AGI with no averaging, adds back capital gains, and indexes only every other year. It names the limits (exempt home sales, small amounts near the line, unknown counts) and why they do not change the rating.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Bill report, session law, voters' pamphlet, RCW 82.87.050 and .150, amendment texts, two-lawyer blog posts, a news report on the Department of Revenue estimate, and FactHub analyses all match the claims they support. None is off-topic. Accuracy of their takeaways was not judged here.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Five objections are present. Each response addresses its question: the half-percent sentence (with 0.66% and 0.79% arithmetic), the No and Yes pamphlet statements, the every-other-year drafting claim, and the home-sale claim.
Coverage: Read the full article payload: title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, evidence, limitations, objections and their responses, key points, sources and takeaways. Did not open sources, snapshots or the web. Every source takeaway carries status 'not yet checked', so I relied on none of them for accuracy and judged only topic relevance and internal consistency. Spot-checked arithmetic: $550,000 each gives a $1.1M base, and $9,900 at 9.9% equals 0.9% of income; the stacking example reconciles; 21,000 and 25,000 over 3,168,080 give 0.66% and 0.79%. Did not verify the vote counts or the 2040 and 2050 projections, which rest on FactHub datasets not provided here. Did not check the pamphlet, Wallin or Inlander text against their sources.