Five-second answer

Claim we investigated

The law removes public pensions' exemption from this tax: pension, IRA and taxable Social Security income count toward the $1 million, though only households above $1 million owe.

True. Part VIII ends the pension exemption for this tax, but only households with over $1 million of income owe it. The enacted law and its bill report, the retirement department's fiscal note, the recorded House vote, IRS data on Washington's top filers and a local TV fact check all agree on what changed and whom it reaches today.

Quote or cite this fact-check

FactHub rates the claim “The law removes public pensions' exemption from this tax: pension, IRA and taxable Social Security income count toward the $1 million, though only households above $1 million owe” True (high confidence): Part VIII ends the pension exemption for this tax, but only households with over $1 million of income owe it. Reviewed October 21, 2026. https://facthub.org/n/article/wa-millionaires-tax-pensions/5

One-minute summary

What the evidence establishes

  • Established. ESSB 6346 adds a sentence to 13 public-pension statutes saying their tax exemption does not apply to the new tax, and lets the state collect the tax from pensions and retirement accounts.
  • Established. Pensions, IRA and 401(k) withdrawals and taxable Social Security all count toward the $1 million threshold; the law subtracts none of them.
  • Established. Only households with more than $1 million of Washington income owe the tax; in 2022 about 2,800 to 3,700 of the 21,530 Washington returns over $1 million reported pension, IRA or taxable Social Security income.
  • Established. A retiree can still cross the line in a year with a large one-time withdrawal: a couple with $150,000 of pension and Social Security who take $1 million from a 401(k) owe $14,850.
  • Established. The change was described in the bill report and debated: the House rejected an amendment to strike it, 44-52.
  • Not shown. No official reason for the change was found; federal law's ban on taxing federal retirees less favorably than state retirees is a likely legal driver, by our analysis.
Important context: Washington's 9.9% tax on household income over $1 million (ESSB 6346) starts in tax year 2028; Initiative 645 on the November 3, 2026 ballot would repeal it. Yes-on-645 ads say the law broke a promise to protect first responders' and teachers' pensions from taxes. This article checks what the pension sections do and whom they affect. Its Common questions also rate a separate sentence in the Yes campaign's voters' pamphlet argument, that lawmakers 'raid' first responders' pensions, which is about a 2026 law moving pension surplus money, not about the tax.

The evidence

The conclusion rests on the combined record. Expand each item to see its role and limitations.

Independence note: This check uses 6 methods across 6 institutions and 1 country or international grouping.
Evidence map
Method Institution / country Year(s) What it shows Key limitation Primary links
Statutory text, the Senate final bill report and the retirement department's fiscal note Washington State Legislature, Washington State Department of Retirement Systems United States 2026 Sections 801 to 814 add to each of 13 public-pension statutes (judges, teachers, state and school employees, public safety employees, law enforcement and firefighters, volunteer firefighters, first-class city employees and the State Patrol) a subsection saying it 'does not exempt any pension or other benefit received under this chapter from tax under Title 82A'. Section 804 amends the general exemption from execution so it does not apply to 'collection actions for taxes imposed under Title 82A'. The final bill report summarizes: 'Various pension statutes are modified to specify that pension income is not exempt from the new tax.' The Department of Retirement Systems' section of the fiscal note says the changes 'clarify that certain pre-existing exemptions related to state and local tax law and collections' do not apply to the new tax. The Department of Revenue has not yet issued rules. The change applies only to the new tax in Title 82A; it does not remove pension exemptions from any other state or local tax, and Washington still has no other income tax. Washington State Legislature Washington State Legislature, Senate Committee Services Washington Office of Financial Management, Department of Retirement Systems section
Statutory base and deduction, a local TV fact check, and worked examples Washington State Legislature, KXLY, FactHub United States 2026 The tax base 'starts with federal AGI', which includes pensions, IRA and 401(k) distributions and the taxable part of Social Security, and nothing in the law subtracts them. The household then deducts $1 million, shared by spouses. KXLY's October 14 fact check of the Yes ad reached the same conclusion: the sentence 'is there', but those affected are pensioners whose total income tops $1 million a year. In our examples, a retired couple with $150,000 of pension and Social Security owes nothing; the same couple owes $14,850 in a year they withdraw $1 million from a 401(k). The examples are illustrations, not counts. Federal rules already decide how much of a Social Security benefit is taxable; the state law follows them. Washington State Legislature, Senate Committee Services KXLY (via KXLY 920 radio) FactHub
IRS Statistics of Income state data for Washington, tax year 2022 Internal Revenue Service, FactHub United States 2022 Of 21,530 Washington returns with adjusted gross income of $1 million or more in 2022, 2,800 reported taxable pensions and annuities ($324 million), 3,350 taxable IRA distributions ($503 million) and 3,670 taxable Social Security ($130 million). Together these were $958 million, 1.5% of the group's $66.0 billion of income. Wages (29.6%) and pass-through business income (18.4%) were far larger. Returns, not households, and the counts overlap: one return can report a pension, an IRA distribution and Social Security. Federal AGI includes capital gains the new tax mostly excludes, so not all of these returns would owe it. 2022 is six years before the tax starts. FactHub
Amendment text and recorded House vote Washington State Legislature United States 2026 Rep. Griffey's floor amendment would have struck all of Part VIII; its official effect: it 'Excludes public pensions from being included as income for the purposes of the income tax.' The House rejected it 44-52 on March 9, 2026. The change was also in the bill reports and the retirement department's fiscal note. A recorded vote shows the issue was raised, not how thoroughly it was explained to the public. Washington State Legislature FactHub Washington State Legislature, Senate Committee Services
Federal statute and Supreme Court precedent, applied by FactHub U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Congress, FactHub United States 1989, 2026 Federal law lets states tax federal employees' pay and pensions only 'if the taxation does not discriminate' because of the source of the pay. In Davis v. Michigan (1989), the Supreme Court struck down a Michigan income tax that exempted state retirement benefits while taxing federal ones. By our reading, if Washington had kept its own pensions exempt from the new tax while taxing federal pensions, it would have faced the same problem, so it had to either tax both or exempt both. This is FactHub's legal analysis. No bill report, fiscal note or sponsor statement we found gives this or any other reason, and a court could treat the question differently. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School U.S. Supreme Court (via Justia)
Statutory structure, with a campaign leader's question as reported Washington State Legislature, KXLY United States 2026 Because the pension exemption is already removed for this tax, a later change to the deduction or rate would apply to pension income automatically, without a separate vote on pensions. Let's Go Washington's Brian Heywood made this point to KXLY: 'If there's no intention to bring this number down from a million dollars, why did you go in and specifically unlock all the public pensions?' No bill to lower the threshold exists, and the governor has pledged a veto during his term; this item describes what the law makes possible, not a prediction. KXLY (via KXLY 920 radio) Washington State Legislature
1. What the law changed for pensions Statutory text, the Senate final bill report and the retirement department's fiscal note

Sections 801 to 814 add to each of 13 public-pension statutes (judges, teachers, state and school employees, public safety employees, law enforcement and firefighters, volunteer firefighters, first-class city employees and the State Patrol) a subsection saying it 'does not exempt any pension or other benefit received under this chapter from tax under Title 82A'. Section 804 amends the general exemption from execution so it does not apply to 'collection actions for taxes imposed under Title 82A'. The final bill report summarizes: 'Various pension statutes are modified to specify that pension income is not exempt from the new tax.' The Department of Retirement Systems' section of the fiscal note says the changes 'clarify that certain pre-existing exemptions related to state and local tax law and collections' do not apply to the new tax.

Limit: The Department of Revenue has not yet issued rules. The change applies only to the new tax in Title 82A; it does not remove pension exemptions from any other state or local tax, and Washington still has no other income tax.

Verify: ESSB 6346, chapter 238, Laws of 2026 (session law), Part VIII Final Bill Report, ESSB 6346 (2026) Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary, ESSB 6346 as passed (package 77653)

2. Only households above $1 million owe it Statutory base and deduction, a local TV fact check, and worked examples

The tax base 'starts with federal AGI', which includes pensions, IRA and 401(k) distributions and the taxable part of Social Security, and nothing in the law subtracts them. The household then deducts $1 million, shared by spouses. KXLY's October 14 fact check of the Yes ad reached the same conclusion: the sentence 'is there', but those affected are pensioners whose total income tops $1 million a year. In our examples, a retired couple with $150,000 of pension and Social Security owes nothing; the same couple owes $14,850 in a year they withdraw $1 million from a 401(k).

Limit: The examples are illustrations, not counts. Federal rules already decide how much of a Social Security benefit is taxable; the state law follows them.

Verify: Final Bill Report, ESSB 6346 (2026) Fact check: What you need to know about Initiative 645, the millionaires tax repeal (Oct. 14, 2026) Ten illustrative households under the law as enacted

3. How many top filers have retirement income today IRS Statistics of Income state data for Washington, tax year 2022

Of 21,530 Washington returns with adjusted gross income of $1 million or more in 2022, 2,800 reported taxable pensions and annuities ($324 million), 3,350 taxable IRA distributions ($503 million) and 3,670 taxable Social Security ($130 million). Together these were $958 million, 1.5% of the group's $66.0 billion of income. Wages (29.6%) and pass-through business income (18.4%) were far larger.

Limit: Returns, not households, and the counts overlap: one return can report a pension, an IRA distribution and Social Security. Federal AGI includes capital gains the new tax mostly excludes, so not all of these returns would owe it. 2022 is six years before the tax starts.

Verify: What Washington's $1 million-plus returns reported, 2022

4. The change was described and debated Amendment text and recorded House vote

Rep. Griffey's floor amendment would have struck all of Part VIII; its official effect: it 'Excludes public pensions from being included as income for the purposes of the income tax.' The House rejected it 44-52 on March 9, 2026. The change was also in the bill reports and the retirement department's fiscal note.

Limit: A recorded vote shows the issue was raised, not how thoroughly it was explained to the public.

Verify: Amendment 6346-S.E AMH GRIF HARA 467 (Rep. Griffey) Floor amendments on couples, one-time income, retirement income and expansion, with votes Final Bill Report, ESSB 6346 (2026)

5. A likely reason: federal law bars favoring state retirees Federal statute and Supreme Court precedent, applied by FactHub

Federal law lets states tax federal employees' pay and pensions only 'if the taxation does not discriminate' because of the source of the pay. In Davis v. Michigan (1989), the Supreme Court struck down a Michigan income tax that exempted state retirement benefits while taxing federal ones. By our reading, if Washington had kept its own pensions exempt from the new tax while taxing federal pensions, it would have faced the same problem, so it had to either tax both or exempt both.

Limit: This is FactHub's legal analysis. No bill report, fiscal note or sponsor statement we found gives this or any other reason, and a court could treat the question differently.

Verify: 4 U.S. Code § 111, Same; taxation affecting Federal employees; income tax Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989)

6. Pensions are already inside the base if the threshold changes Statutory structure, with a campaign leader's question as reported

Because the pension exemption is already removed for this tax, a later change to the deduction or rate would apply to pension income automatically, without a separate vote on pensions. Let's Go Washington's Brian Heywood made this point to KXLY: 'If there's no intention to bring this number down from a million dollars, why did you go in and specifically unlock all the public pensions?'

Limit: No bill to lower the threshold exists, and the governor has pledged a veto during his term; this item describes what the law makes possible, not a prediction.

Verify: Fact check: What you need to know about Initiative 645, the millionaires tax repeal (Oct. 14, 2026) ESSB 6346, chapter 238, Laws of 2026 (session law), Part VIII

Common questions

“Yes on I-645 website: 'Teachers, firefighters, and police officers lost that protection at every income level, without notice or debate.'”

Short answer: Misleading

The exemption sentence was changed for every pensioner, but only households with more than $1 million of income owe the tax, so a typical retired teacher or firefighter pays nothing. 'Without notice or debate' is contradicted by the record: the change was in the bill report and the retirement department's fiscal note, and the House rejected an amendment to strike it, 44-52. The site's count of 'eleven' pension laws is also out of date; the enacted law amends 13.

“Yes on I-645 ad, as quoted by KXLY: 'The state made first responders a promise: our retirement benefits would be protected from taxes. This year, Olympia broke that promise.'”

Short answer: True of the text; only $1M+ pay

The pension statutes did promise an exemption from state taxes, and ESSB 6346 removed it for the new tax. Whether that is a broken promise is a judgment for voters. The facts that go with it: the tax applies only to household income above $1 million, and the pensions were already subject to federal income tax.

“Yes on I-645 website: 'I-645 restores the pension protections Olympia erased and keeps Social Security off the table.'”

Short answer: Only above $1 million

Taxable Social Security does count toward the $1 million under ESSB 6346, because the base starts from federal AGI and the law has no Social Security subtraction. But it matters only for households already over $1 million: 3,670 Washington returns over $1 million reported taxable Social Security in 2022, $130 million in all.

“Sen. Marcus Riccelli, to KXLY: 'If you're not making over $80,000 a month, this will not impact you.'”

Short answer: Mostly true

$80,000 a month is $960,000 a year, close to the $1 million household deduction. It leaves out that the deduction is shared by spouses and that one-time income, such as a large retirement withdrawal, counts in full in the year received, so a household can owe the tax in one year without earning that much every month.

“First responders spent careers relying on promises about their retirements, only to watch the legislature raid their pensions to plug holes in the general fund.”

Our rating: Mostly true

Mostly true, with moderate confidence. This sentence is about a different 2026 law, E2SHB 2034, not the millionaires tax. It ends the overfunded LEOFF Plan 1 police and firefighter pension plan on June 30, 2029, keeps 110% of what retirees are owed in a restated plan, and moves the rest, about $4 billion, into a new Pension Surplus Holding Account from which the Legislature may transfer money to the general fund in 2027-29. Lawmakers already plan to use $880 million of it to refill the rainy-day fund, which was drawn down to cover the current budget, so 'to plug holes in the general fund' is accurate. What 'raid their pensions' leaves out: the bill report says the benefits 'are unchanged'; the money taken is surplus above 110% of what retirees are owed; about 80% of the plan's contributions came from the state's general fund; and nothing moves until 2029, so first responders have watched the law pass, not the money leave. Retirees, including former Rep. Dave Reichert, have sued, arguing the transfer violates the state and federal contract clauses and leaves the fund exposed to market losses; we found no ruling as of October 2026. The rating would fall to Mixed for a reader who takes 'raid their pensions' to mean cutting benefits.

Conclusion

The pension provisions are real and do what the Yes campaign's text says: Part VIII adds a sentence to each of 13 public-pension statutes, covering judges, teachers, state and school employees, law enforcement, firefighters and the State Patrol, saying the statutes' exemption from state taxes does not apply to the new tax, and it lets the state collect the tax from retirement benefits. Taxable Social Security, pensions and IRA or 401(k) withdrawals all start in federal adjusted gross income and nothing in the law subtracts them. What the campaign leaves out is who pays. No household owes the tax until its Washington income passes the shared $1 million deduction, so a retired teacher with a typical pension owes nothing, and in 2022 only about 2,800 to 3,700 of Washington's 21,530 returns over $1 million reported pension, IRA or taxable Social Security income, which together were 1.5% of that group's income. Retirees can still cross the line through one-time events, such as a large 401(k) withdrawal, and couples share one deduction, so 'only millionaires' is a slight simplification too. The campaign's claim that public workers lost protection 'without notice or debate' is contradicted by the record: the bill report described the change, the retirement department reviewed it, and the House rejected an amendment to strike it, 44-52. Why the Legislature did it is not stated anywhere we found. Our reading, labeled as analysis, is that federal law bars a state from taxing federal retirees' pensions while exempting its own, so exempting state pensions would likely have required exempting federal pensions too. The change also matters for the future: because the exemption is already gone for this tax, any later change to the threshold would reach pensions without a separate vote on them. We rate the claim True with high confidence, because each part rests on the statute's text and official data.

How we checked

  1. Defined the claim as what ESSB 6346 does to public pensions and other retirement income, and whom it reaches today.
  2. Read sections 801 to 814 of the session law, the Senate final bill report and the Department of Retirement Systems' section of the fiscal note.
  3. Checked the House floor amendment to strike the pension sections and its recorded vote.
  4. Extracted the retirement-income items for Washington's $1 million-plus returns from IRS Statistics of Income data and computed illustrative retiree households from the statute; both are in the FactHub dataset.
  5. Compared the Yes campaign's pension claims with the record, and with KXLY's fact check.
  6. Labeled our own legal reading of why the change was made.

Editorial note: Scope: the pension and retirement-income provisions of ESSB 6346 as enacted, before Department of Revenue rules, plus a rating of the Yes pamphlet's separate 'raid their pensions' sentence, which concerns E2SHB 2034 (2026), the LEOFF 1 surplus transfer. The counts of returns with retirement income come from IRS data for 2022, the latest state release; the tax starts in 2028. The explanation for why the Legislature included Part VIII is our own legal analysis, not a stated rationale.

Expert-review status

No external specialist review has been recorded.

Funding and conflicts

Funding: No external funding for this piece.

Ownership: Published by the FactHub Research Team.

Conflicts: None known.

Sources

Sources are labeled by kind, with what this fact check takes from each, so readers can check the evidence independently.

  1. Government Washington State Legislature. ESSB 6346, chapter 238, Laws of 2026 (session law), Part VIII

    The enacted text, including Part VIII, 'Application of tax to public pensions'.

    Reliability: The law as signed March 30, 2026.

    • Each amended pension statute says it does not exempt pensions from the new Title 82A tax.

      What the source says
      other benefit received under this chapter from tax under Title 82A
      Sec. 801(5), p. 44, and the same subsection in Secs. 802-814

    • Section 804 lets the state collect the new tax from pensions and retirement plans despite the exemption from execution.

      What the source says
      permitted by federal law, or to collection actions for taxes imposed
      Sec. 804(2), p. 46
  2. Government Washington State Legislature, Senate Committee Services. Final Bill Report, ESSB 6346 (2026)

    Nonpartisan staff summary of the bill as passed.

    Reliability: Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; it summarizes but does not change the law.

    • The bill report states plainly that pension income is not exempt from the new tax.

      What the source says
      Various pension statutes are modified to specify that pension income is not exempt from the new tax.
      Summary

    • The tax base starts from federal adjusted gross income.

      What the source says
      The determination of Washington taxable income starts with federal AGI
      Summary, Determining Washington Base Income

    • Qualifies: Households deduct $1 million, shared by spouses.

      What the source says
      their combined standard deduction is limited to $1 million, regardless of whether they file joint or separate returns.
      Summary, Determining Washington Taxable Income
  3. Government Washington Office of Financial Management, Department of Retirement Systems section. Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary, ESSB 6346 as passed (package 77653)

    The official fiscal note, including the retirement department's review of Part VIII.

    Reliability: Prepared by state agencies for the Legislature; the Department of Retirement Systems reviewed the pension sections and found no fiscal impact on itself.

    • The retirement department describes Part VIII as clarifying that pension tax exemptions do not apply to the new tax.

      What the source says
      state pension systems to clarify that certain pre-existing exemptions related to state and local tax law and collections
      Department of Retirement Systems, summary of changes
  4. Government Washington State Legislature. Amendment 6346-S.E AMH GRIF HARA 467 (Rep. Griffey)

    House floor amendment to strike Part VIII.

    Reliability: Official amendment text with its staff-written effect statement.

    • Qualifies: An amendment to keep public pensions out of the tax was offered on the House floor.

      What the source says
      Excludes public pensions from being included as income for the purposes of the income tax.
      EFFECT
  5. News report KXLY (via KXLY 920 radio). Fact check: What you need to know about Initiative 645, the millionaires tax repeal (Oct. 14, 2026)

    Spokane TV station's fact check of ads on both sides.

    Reliability: Local TV news; it checked one claim from each side and gave no formal ratings.

    • Qualifies: The Yes ad says the state broke a promise to protect first responders' retirement benefits from taxes.

      What the source says
      The state made first responders a promise: our retirement benefits would be protected from taxes
      Pension ad section · Yes on I-645 ad, as quoted by KXLY

    • KXLY found the pension sentence real but limited to people whose total income tops $1 million.

      What the source says
      The sentence the ad refers to is there and says pensions are not exempt from tax.
      Pension ad section

    • Qualifies: Brian Heywood argues the pension change makes pensions taxable if the threshold is lowered later.

      What the source says
      why did you go in and specifically unlock all the public pensions?
      Pension ad section · Brian Heywood, Let's Go Washington

    • Qualifies: Sen. Riccelli says people earning under $80,000 a month are not affected.

      What the source says
      If you’re not making over $80,000 a month, this will not impact you.
      Pension ad section · Sen. Marcus Riccelli (D-Spokane)
  6. Party to the dispute Vote Yes on 645 campaign. Vote Yes on 645 (campaign website), 'It's a Retirement Tax' and FAQ

    The Yes campaign's website.

    Reliability: Has a stake in this finding. The campaign for I-645; its claims are advocacy. Text as fetched October 21, 2026.

    • Contradicts: The Yes campaign says public workers lost pension protection at every income level without notice or debate.

      What the source says
      Teachers, firefighters, and police officers lost that protection at every income level, without notice or debate.
      FAQ: Does this tax really affect public sector retirement benefits

    • Qualifies: The Yes campaign says I-645 keeps Social Security off the table.

      What the source says
      I-645 restores the pension protections Olympia erased and keeps Social Security off the table.
      It's a Retirement Tax
  7. Academic Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. 4 U.S. Code § 111, Same; taxation affecting Federal employees; income tax

    Federal statute allowing state taxes on federal pay and pensions only if they do not discriminate.

    Reliability: Cornell's reproduction of the U.S. Code.

    • States may tax federal employees' pay only if the tax does not discriminate because of its source.

      What the source says
      if the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation.
      Subsection (a)
  8. Government U.S. Supreme Court (via Justia). Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989)

    Supreme Court decision striking a state tax that exempted state retirees but taxed federal ones.

    Reliability: Opinion of the Court by Justice Kennedy; Justia reproduces the official text.

    • Michigan's tax exempted state retirement benefits but taxed federal ones, the scheme the Court struck down.

      What the source says
      The State of Michigan exempts from taxation all retirement benefits paid by the State or its political subdivisions, but levies an income tax on retirement benefits paid by all other employers, including the Federal Government.
      Opinion of the Court, Part I
  9. FactHub record FactHub. What Washington's $1 million-plus returns reported, 2022

    IRS Statistics of Income figures for Washington's top filers.

    • Qualifies: In 2022, 2,800 of 21,530 Washington $1 million-plus returns reported pensions, 3,350 IRA distributions and 3,670 taxable Social Security; together $958 million, 1.5% of the group's income.

  10. FactHub record FactHub. Ten illustrative households under the law as enacted

    FactHub's worked examples computed from the statute.

    • Qualifies: A retired couple with $150,000 of pension and Social Security owes nothing, but owes $14,850 in a year they withdraw $1 million from a 401(k).

  11. FactHub record FactHub. Floor amendments on couples, one-time income, retirement income and expansion, with votes

    Recorded votes on 13 floor amendments, from the Legislature's roll-call service.

    • The House rejected the amendment to strike the pension sections, 44-52, on March 9, 2026.

  12. Government Washington State Legislature, House Office of Program Research. Final Bill Report, E2SHB 2034 (2026), LEOFF Plan 1 termination and restated plan

    Nonpartisan staff summary of the 2026 law that ends LEOFF Plan 1 and moves its surplus to a holding account.

    Reliability: Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; it summarizes but does not change the law (chapter 261, Laws of 2026).

    • On June 30, 2029, 110% of LEOFF 1 liabilities stay in a restated plan and the rest goes to a new Pension Surplus Holding Account.

      What the source says
      On June 30, 2029, the State Treasurer (Treasurer) must transfer funds equal to 110 percent of LEOFF 1 liabilities into the Restated LEOFF and the remainder will be transferred into the newly created Pension Surplus Holding Account (PSHA).
      Summary

    • The Legislature may move holding-account money to the general fund in 2027-29.

      What the source says
      During the 2027-29 fiscal biennium, the Legislature may direct the Treasurer to make transfers of money in the PSHA to the State General Fund.
      Summary

    • Qualifies: LEOFF 1 retirees' benefits are unchanged.

      What the source says
      The benefits paid to the annuitants of LEOFF 1 are unchanged as they are transferred to the Restated LEOFF.
      Summary

    • Qualifies: About 80% of LEOFF 1 contributions came from the state general fund.

      What the source says
      About 80 percent of the contributions made to LEOFF 1 were provided from the State General Fund, with the other 20 percent being evenly divided between employers and employees.
      Background

    • Qualifies: The plan is expected to be about 225% funded, with a surplus of about $4 billion, by 2029.

      What the source says
      At the end of the 2027-29 fiscal biennium, LEOFF 1 is expected to be about 225 percent funded and to have a surplus of about $4 billion
      Background
  13. News report Washington State Standard. Plan to sweep $4B from WA police and firefighter pension fund spurs lawsuit (Apr. 30, 2026)

    News report on the LEOFF 1 surplus transfer, the $880 million budget use and the retirees' federal lawsuit.

    Reliability: Nonprofit state news outlet; quotes the bill's sponsor, the plaintiffs' lawyer and the state actuary.

    • The Legislature and governor plan to use $880 million of the surplus to backfill the rainy-day fund, which was tapped to fill a $2 billion budget gap.

      What the source says
      from the fund to backfill spending from the state’s rainy day savings account.
      Paragraph on the $880 million

    • Qualifies: Retired first responders sued in federal court, arguing the transfer violates the state and federal contract clauses.

      What the source says
      argues the move violates the contract clauses of the state and U.S. constitutions.
      Paragraph on the lawsuit

    • Qualifies: The bill's sponsor says retirees' benefits remain guaranteed.

      What the source says
      Whatever pension those firefighters and law enforcement signed when they came into service, those benefits are guaranteed
      Sponsor's comments · Rep. Timm Ormsby (D-Spokane), bill sponsor
  14. Advocacy group Washington Research Council. House-passed bill would make LEOFF 1 surplus easily accessible to budget writers (Feb. 20, 2026)

    Analysis of E2SHB 2034 as it passed the House.

    Reliability: Business-funded nonpartisan research group. It analyzed the House version, which sent the surplus to different accounts than the final law; the final law's holding account is likewise open to general-fund transfers.

    • Analysts described the bill as moving restricted pension money where budget writers can use it, comparing it to the 2021 rainy-day sweep.

      What the source says
      Effectively, E2SHB 2034 would move funding from a restricted account to an account that is easily accessible for general use.
      Conclusion paragraph
  15. FactHub dataset Washington millionaires tax: income mix of top filers, floor amendment votes, worked household examples and payer projection

    • Tables: irs-top-returns

      Analysis income-mix-1m-2022

    • Tables: household-examples

      Analysis household-examples, rows retiree-lump-sum and retiree-no-lump-sum

    • Tables: amendment-votes

      Analysis amendment-votes, row 6346-S.E AMH GRIF HARA 467

  16. FactHub dataset Initiative 645: the campaigns' claims in their own words
    • First responders spent careers relying on promises about their retirements, only to watch the legislature raid their pensions to plug holes in the general fund.
      Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645, · In the dataset

Update history

  1. Cites the current version of the FactHub household-reach dataset; disclosure updated; removed links to companion drafts until they are final.
  2. Added a rated Common question on the Yes voters' pamphlet sentence that lawmakers 'raid' first responders' pensions (Mostly true), with sources on E2SHB 2034 (2026), the LEOFF Plan 1 surplus transfer; updated the context and editorial note to match.
  3. First version.

Cited by

Version details

The exact citing versions, and the version of this article each cites.

  • Briefing wa-i-645 — version 6 (published) cites version 5
  • Briefing wa-i-645 — version 4 (published) cites version 5

For search, research, and AI systems

Machine-readable fact-check

This page includes standardized ClaimReview metadata describing the exact claim, FactHub's finding, publisher, and review dates. You can inspect the record below and confirm that it matches the article you just read.

View ClaimReview JSON 
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"ClaimReview","url":"https://facthub.org/n/article/wa-millionaires-tax-pensions/5","datePublished":"2026-10-21","dateModified":"2026-10-21","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"FactHub","url":"https://facthub.org/"},"claimReviewed":"The law removes public pensions\u0027 exemption from this tax: pension, IRA and taxable Social Security income count toward the $1 million, though only households above $1 million owe.","reviewRating":{"@type":"Rating","alternateName":"True"},"image":"https://facthub.org/node-assets-v2/article/wa-millionaires-tax-pensions/5/retired-couple/social-1200x630.jpg"}

This metadata helps machines discover the fact-check. It does not prove the conclusion or guarantee special treatment by a search engine.

Challenge this fact-check

Every source above is linked so you can check it yourself. Identify the specific conclusion you dispute and provide verifiable evidence that could change it. Credible challenges deserve review and a visible response.

Submit evidence Send general feedback instead

Technical details: node handle article:wa-millionaires-tax-pensions:5