Initiative 645 would repeal Washington's 9.9% tax on household income over $1 million and bar state and local income taxes. This briefing lays out what the measure does, every checkable claim each campaign made in the voters' pamphlet, and FactHub's fact checks of them.
Washington is one of a handful of states without a broad personal income tax. In 2026 the Legislature passed a 9.9% tax on household income over $1 million, starting with 2028 income, and I-645 asks voters whether to keep it.
Yes on 645
Repeal the tax
Repeals the 9.9% tax on income over $1 million before it starts, and bars state and local taxes on individual income. The tax cuts passed with it stay in place.
No on 645
Keep the tax
Keeps the tax. First payments are due in April 2029; 95% would go to the state general fund and 5% to child care and early learning.
What each side told voters
Every checkable claim in the two campaigns' official voters' pamphlet statements, quoted exactly and in the order printed. Each rating comes from the FactHub fact check named beside it. A prediction is listed without a rating; it can only be checked later.
Yes on 645
Yes: "Repeal the Income Tax, Make Olympia Keep Its Word"
“Over the last 90 years, Washingtonians have rejected an income tax ten times because they knew it would threaten economic growth, discourage investment, and reach beyond the people originally targeted.”
Mostly true
Voters rejected ten income-tax measures from 1934 to 2010, but approved one in 1932 that courts struck down.
Evidence: Washington voters rejected income-tax measures ten times between 1934 and 2010. →Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Vote Yes: Repeal the Income Tax, Make Olympia Keep Its Word" ·
Context: Opens the Yes argument, counting statewide votes on income-tax measures since the 1930s as evidence that voters oppose any income tax.
“But lawmakers rejected opportunities to permanently limit its reach, giving Olympia the ability to expand the income tax to everyone.”
True
Accurate. During the 2026 session the House declined amendments that would have required a referendum on any cut to the deduction or made the tax contingent on a constitutional amendment, and the Senate rejected a constitutional cap of 9.9% with a $1 million floor. Because the deduction and the I-2111 exemption are ordinary statutes, a future Legislature has the legal ability to broaden the tax. 'To everyone' describes that ability, not a plan: no bill exists, the governor has pledged a veto, and a broad tax would also face the 1933 Culliton precedent unless the courts revisit it.
“The capital gains tax was promised to support early learning and childcare, yet those commitments were delayed, reduced, or cancelled.”
Mostly true
The delays, reductions and cancellations are documented: the ECEAP entitlement moved to 2030-31, the child care eligibility expansion to 2029, two eligibility expansions were repealed and Early ECEAP was eliminated. The promise is weaker than the sentence implies: the capital gains law named early learning in its statement of intent and sent the money to an account that may fund it, but it did not earmark any of it for early learning.
“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.”
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.
“Voting Yes repeals the new income tax before it begins, preserves the Working Families Tax Credit, paid family leave, and small-business tax relief.”
True
Each part checks out. I-645 would take effect 30 days after the election, and the first payments of the tax are not due until 2029, so it repeals the tax before anyone pays it. The Working Families Tax Credit expansion and the small-business relief are in sections I-645 does not repeal, and the Attorney General says they remain. Paid family leave is a separate program that I-645 does not list for repeal. What the sentence leaves out is cost: the relief stays in law but loses the tax meant to pay for it, about $963 million in fiscal 2031.
Evidence: If I-645 passes, the tax relief for working families stays in place. →Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Closing paragraph" ·
Context: The Yes answer to the warning that repeal would undo the tax relief passed with the 2026 law.
“Without I-645, Olympia can expand the income tax to reach into your paycheck with the simple stroke of a pen. No public vote and no permission required, any time they want.”
Mostly true
The core is accurate. Without I-645, a future Legislature could lower the $1 million deduction by passing a bill, which would bring ordinary wages into the tax, and a necessity clause could keep that bill from a referendum, so no public vote is required. Two phrases overstate. 'The simple stroke of a pen' and 'any time they want' skip the steps a change needs: majorities in both chambers, a second amendment to the I-2111 exemption, and the governor's signature or a two-thirds override; the current governor has pledged a veto. And 'no permission required' leaves out the courts: whether this or any broader income tax survives the pending challenge under the 1933 Culliton precedent is undecided.
“This was never about schools or diapers, that's a scare tactic.”
Mixed
Half of this holds up. On diapers, the Yes rebuttal is right: the sales-tax exemption for diapers stays in place under I-645, as this article finds. On schools, it goes too far. The 2026 law said the tax revenue was to fund the relief and to make public investments in K-12 education, health care, human services and higher education, and the revenue goes to the general fund, which the Attorney General notes pays for K-12 schools. None of it is dedicated to schools and the first payments are not due until 2029, but repeal does remove future revenue those budgets were expected to draw on. Calling that a scare tactic dismisses a real budget trade-off.
Evidence: If I-645 passes, the tax relief for working families stays in place. →Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
Context: Responds to the No argument that repeal would make families pay sales tax on diapers and cut school funding.
In dollars, yes: revenue subject to the budget outlook reached $37.64 billion in fiscal 2026, up 9.2% and the most ever, in the state's September 2026 forecast, and each recent biennium has set a new dollar high. It is not a record relative to the economy: as a share of personal income, revenue peaked at 5.41% in 2021-23 and was 4.97% in 2023-25, and part of the recent rise comes from the 2025 tax package. A record also does not close the budget gap: the Washington Research Council puts enacted 2025-27 appropriations $3.9 billion above forecast revenue. So the sentence is accurate in nominal terms but does not by itself show the state can do without the tax.
“An income tax on anyone will become an income tax on everyone.”
PredictionTracked, not rated
Committee for the argument for Initiative 645 (Sen. Chris Gildon and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument for I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument for: "Rebuttal of argument against" ·
Context: The closing prediction of the Yes rebuttal: that a tax on income over $1 million will eventually be extended to all earners.
“Washington has one of the nation’s most upside-down tax systems, where working and middle class families pay a far higher tax rate than the wealthiest.”
Mostly true
By ITEP's estimate, middle-income families pay 10.9% of income in state and local taxes; the top 1% pay 4.1%.
“I-645 is fiscally irresponsible, slashing billions in funding for education and healthcare, increasing taxes on 460,000 hard-working families, and jeopardizing tax cuts for thousands of small businesses.”
Misleading
The No argument's opening sentence makes three factual claims. 'Increasing taxes on 460,000 hard-working families' is false as a legal effect, and states without a hedge what the sentence rated above says I-645 'could' do: the credit expansion those families would gain stays in place. 'Slashing billions in funding for education and healthcare' describes revenue the state would not start collecting until 2029, which would go to the general fund that pays for those services among others; it is forgone future money, not a cut to a current budget. 'Jeopardizing tax cuts for thousands of small businesses' fairly describes budget pressure: the relief stays in law but loses the tax meant to fund it. Taken together, the sentence presents a future budget choice as an immediate tax increase and cut, which leaves a wrong impression.
Evidence: If I-645 passes, the tax relief for working families stays in place. →Committee for the argument against Initiative 645 (WEA President Janie White and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Opening paragraph" ·
Context: The No argument's summary of what repeal would do; later paragraphs argue each effect in more detail.
“Hedge fund mogul Brian Heywood has spent millions backing I-645 because he wants a tax cut for the top 1%, while sticking working and middle class families and small businesses with higher costs.”
Misleading
The committee named for and sponsored by Heywood, Let's Go Washington, did spend about $2.48 million in 2026 on items it described as supporting I-645, mostly signature gathering. But Heywood's own 2026 contributions were $657,136, 16% of LGW's $4.0 million, and he gave nothing directly to Vote Yes. Most of the money came from other donors. His earlier loans and gifts to LGW funded 2024 and 2025 measures, before the tax existed. The sentence's second half, that he backs I-645 'because he wants a tax cut for the top 1%,' is a claim about motive that the records can't settle, and his income is not public. A fair version: Heywood's committee spent millions to put I-645 on the ballot, and he personally gave about $660,000 this year.
Evidence: Most No on 645 money comes from unions paid through the state budget. →Committee for the argument against Initiative 645 (WEA President Janie White and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Vote No: Stop a Tax Break for the Wealthiest" ·
Context: Turns to who is paying for the Yes campaign, arguing that the measure mainly benefits the highest earners.
“I-645 could mean higher taxes for thousands of small businesses, force families to pay sales tax for basic household items like diapers, and raise taxes for 460,000 Washington families – just so those making over a million dollars in a year get a tax break.”
False
I-645 repeals only the income tax; the family credit, diaper exemption and small-business tax relief all stay in place.
Evidence: If I-645 passes, the tax relief for working families stays in place. →Committee for the argument against Initiative 645 (WEA President Janie White and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Vote No: Stop a Tax Break for the Wealthiest" ·
Context: Refers to the tax relief passed with the tax, including the Working Families Tax Credit expansion the governor said reaches 460,000 families.
No: "Stop Cuts to Schools, Healthcare, and Childcare"
“This measure cuts funding for K-12 public schools, healthcare, childcare, and other important public services by $13 billion over four years.”
Mixed
The size is right; the verb is not. $13 billion over four years matches the fiscal note's FY2029-32 gross estimate ($12.894 billion). But I-645 cuts no current funding: nothing is collected before 2029, no appropriation relies on the money, and only 5% is dedicated, to child care rather than K-12. Whether schools, health care or child care get less is a decision the 2027 Legislature has not made; the sentence presents it as a fact.
Evidence: I-645 would forgo about $13 billion, but cuts no current school budget →Committee for the argument against Initiative 645 (WEA President Janie White and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Vote No: Stop Cuts to Schools, Healthcare, and Childcare" ·
Context: The No argument's headline cost figure: revenue the tax is projected to raise over its first four years of collections.
“That means larger class sizes, higher costs for healthcare and childcare, and the elimination of free school lunches for many children.”
Misleading
Each consequence is stated as certain, but none is in the law or in OFM's estimate. Free school meals for all students appear only as the Legislature's stated intent in ESSB 6346, and OFM excludes effects that rest on intent; the budget outlook pencils in $140 million for free meals in FY2029 but labels it not mandatory. No current lunch, class-size or child-care program depends on the tax. Losing the revenue could lead a future Legislature to drop planned expansions, which is a possibility, not the elimination of anything that exists today.
Evidence: I-645 would forgo about $13 billion, but cuts no current school budget →Committee for the argument against Initiative 645 (WEA President Janie White and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Vote No: Stop Cuts to Schools, Healthcare, and Childcare" ·
Context: Follows the $13 billion figure and describes what the No campaign says losing that revenue would mean for services.
“Any attempt to expand it to those of us making under a million would be decided on the ballot - voters always have the final say.”
False
State law lets lawmakers lower the threshold by majority vote, and they rejected an amendment requiring a referendum.
Evidence: Washington lawmakers could expand the millionaires tax without a public vote. →Committee for the argument against Initiative 645 (WEA President Janie White and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
Context: The No campaign's answer to the Yes argument that lawmakers could expand the tax.
“I-645 blows a $13 billion hole in the budget - don’t believe lies that we can keep tax cuts for working families and small businesses but eliminate the tax on the wealthy few that pays for them.”
Mixed
The core is real: the state's budget outlook already counts on this revenue, so repeal opens a gap going forward, and $13 billion matches four years of projected collections (FY2029-32). But no current budget has a hole, because nothing is collected until April 2029. In the outlook that does exist, for 2027-29, the gap is about $2.0 billion with the relief kept (our calculation), not $13 billion; most of the $13 billion falls in years beyond the outlook. The second half of the sentence is wrong: calling it a lie that the tax cuts can be kept contradicts the Attorney General's statement that the relief "would not be repealed and would remain in place" under I-645. Paying for that relief is a real budget question, but keeping it is what I-645 does. (The relief would fall only if a court struck the tax down, under Sec. 1202.)
Evidence: I-645 would forgo about $13 billion, but cuts no current school budget →Committee for the argument against Initiative 645 (WEA President Janie White and five co-authors), Authors of the official voters' pamphlet argument against I-645 ·
2026 Washington voters' pamphlet, Initiative Measure IP26-645, p. 14, argument against: "Rebuttal of argument for" ·
Context: The No reply to the Yes claim that repeal keeps the tax relief passed with the tax.
Timing, money and legal effects, from the Attorney General's explanatory statement, the state's fiscal impact statement and the 2026 law.
The tax: 9.9% of household income over $1 million a year, starting with 2028 income. It passed the Legislature in 2026 as ESSB 6346.
Washington Office of Financial ManagementA state tax equal to 9.9 percent on Washington taxable income greater than $1,000,000 per individual became law following the 2026 legislative session due to ESSB 6346(General assumptions, p. 1)
The ballot describes I-645 as repealing that tax, prohibiting taxes on or measured by individual income, and defining "income."
Washington Attorney General's OfficeThis measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit taxes measured by individual income and taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income; and define "income."(Ballot title as printed on the ballot)
Washington Attorney General's OfficeIf approved, the proposed measure would repeal the annual tax on individual income over $1,000,000.(The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved, p. 2)
Washington Attorney General's OfficeThe measure would also prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income and taxes measured by an individual's income.(p. 3)
The tax has not collected anything yet. The first payments are due in April 2029, so no current state budget relies on it.
Washington Research CouncilBecause the income tax is not yet being collected, no current appropriations rely on the revenues.(Body)
The sales-tax exemptions, business tax relief and Working Families Tax Credit expansion passed with the tax would stay in place if voters repeal it.
Washington Attorney General's OfficeThe non-income tax credits, exemptions, and deductions that accompanied this tax would not be repealed and would remain in place.(The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved, p. 2)
The relief would end if a court struck the tax down: the 2026 law voids its own relief in that case, but not when voters repeal the tax.
Washington State LegislatureIf a court of final jurisdiction invalidates section 201 of this act, sections 1 through 1003 and 1201 through 1209 of this act are null and void(Sec. 1202)
The state estimates the measure would cost $11.4 billion in revenue over fiscal years 2027 to 2031, and the adopted budget outlook already counts on about $2.7 billion in gross tax revenue from it in 2027-29.
Washington Research CouncilThe outlook for the current operating budget assumes $2.698 billion in income tax revenues in 2027–29.(Body)
Ninety-five percent of the tax would go to the general fund, which pays for schools, colleges and health care; no part is legally dedicated to K-12. Five percent, $377 million through fiscal 2031, would go to child care and early learning.
Washington Attorney General's OfficeThe remaining 95 percent of money collected from the tax and any interest and penalties is deposited into the state's general fund.(The Law As It Presently Exists, p. 2)
Washington Attorney General's OfficeThis would also eliminate the funding collected from the tax that would go to the general fund(The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved, p. 2)
Washington Office of Financial ManagementThe total amount that will no longer be transferred to the fair start for kids account is $377,000,000(Fair Start for Kids Account, p. 3)
The ballot itself tells voters the measure "would decrease funding" for K-12, higher education and human services.
Washington Attorney General's OfficeThis measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare).(Public investment impact disclosure)
The strongest case on each side
Each side's main arguments, summarized by FactHub, with the other side's best reply. Where a FactHub fact check rates the point, its rating is shown.
Yes on 645
No current program is cut
True
The tax collects nothing until 2029, so repeal reduces no current budget. Most of the money would go to the general fund with no dedication to schools.
Four years of projected collections total $12.9 billion, but none is collected before 2029 or appropriated now.
The budget outlook for 2027-29 already counts on the money; without it, lawmakers would have to hold spending roughly flat, a cut of about 2 to 5 percent from planned spending.
Lawmakers can expand it without a vote
True
The $1 million threshold and the 9.9% rate are ordinary law that a simple majority can change, and lawmakers rejected amendments requiring a public vote.
The deduction is ordinary statute, and lawmakers rejected amendments requiring a referendum or a constitutional limit.
No bill to lower the threshold exists, the governor has pledged to veto one, and the threshold rises with inflation, though only every other year.
It can reach people who are not millionaires
True
Married couples share one $1 million deduction, one-time income such as a retirement withdrawal counts in full, and the threshold keeps up with only about half of inflation.
Couples share one $1 million deduction, one-time income counts fully, and the threshold keeps only about half of inflation.
Official estimates put the number who would pay at roughly 21,000 to 30,000 a year, and home and family-business sales are exempt.
The revenue is volatile, with no reserve
True
The total income reported by Washington's $1 million-plus filers has fallen by a third to a half in a single year, and the law sets aside no reserve for downturns.
IRS data show $1M+ filers' total AGI fell 45% in 2001, 34% in 2022; ESSB 6346 creates no reserve.
The law already moves most long-term capital gains to the separate capital gains tax, most top-earner taxes have beaten their forecasts, and a future Legislature could add a reserve.
Spending, not revenue, is the problem
True
State general-fund spending grew $17 to $21 billion a biennium beyond population and inflation since 2013-15, several times what the tax would raise in 2027-29.
2023-25 spending was $17-21 billion above a population-and-inflation path; the tax would raise $2.3-3.5 billion in 2027-29.
Most of the change for lower-income households comes from the tax relief, which stays under I-645, and the tax itself is mainly a net increase rather than a swap.
True
After its tax cuts and credits, the state keeps about 70% of the new tax for general spending.
Over its first four years of collections the tax is projected to raise about $13 billion, money the state budget outlook already counts on for schools, health care and child care.
Four years of projected collections total $12.9 billion, but none is collected before 2029 or appropriated now.
None of that revenue is collected or appropriated yet, 95 percent of it would go to the general fund without dedication, and spending has outgrown population and inflation by far more.
The tax relief needs a way to be paid for
The relief for working families and small businesses costs about $1 billion a year; repeal removes the tax that was meant to fund it.
Best reply from the other side
The relief stays in law unless a future Legislature votes to repeal it, so I-645 itself raises no one's taxes.
False
I-645 repeals only the income tax; the family credit, diaper exemption and small-business tax relief all stay in place.
The tax applies only to household income above $1 million, which fewer than 1 percent of Washington households report in a given year.
Best reply from the other side
Couples share one deduction, one-time income counts in full, and the threshold loses value over time, so the tax can reach households where no one earns $1 million.
True
Couples share one $1 million deduction, one-time income counts fully, and the threshold keeps only about half of inflation.
A lawsuit (Petter v. State) argues the tax violates the state constitution under a 1933 ruling that treats income as property. If the tax is struck down, the 2026 law voids its relief too. No court has ruled yet; a final decision will come after the election.
Washington State LegislatureIf a court of final jurisdiction invalidates section 201 of this act, sections 1 through 1003 and 1201 through 1209 of this act are null and void(Sec. 1202)
Will the threshold or rate change?
The Yes campaign predicts the tax will reach everyone; the No campaign says voters would decide. The governor has pledged to veto any attempt to lower the threshold while he is in office; his term runs through January 2029. Only future legislative votes can settle this.
The state's estimate assumes high earners won't change their behavior; studies of similar taxes find responses offset a large share of new revenue, but market swings often push collections above forecasts.
The No campaign's claim that I-645 raises taxes on 460,000 families: the relief stays in law.
FalseFactHub rated the claim I-645 could mean higher taxes for thousands of small businesses, force families to pay sales tax for basic household items like diapers, and raise taxes for 460,000 Washington families
I-645 forgoes about $13 billion in future revenue but cuts no current budget.
TrueFactHub rated the claim I-645 would forgo about $13 billion in revenue over the tax's first four years, but it would not cut any current school, health-care or child-care budget
The No campaign's rebuttal says voters always have the final say; no law requires a vote.
FalseFactHub rated the claim Any attempt to expand it to those of us making under a million would be decided on the ballot - voters always have the final say
The No campaign's claim that Washington has one of the most upside-down tax systems.
Mostly trueFactHub rated the claim Washington has one of the nation's most upside-down tax systems, where working and middle class families pay a far higher tax rate than the wealthiest
Most No on 645 money comes from unions whose contracts the general fund pays.
TrueFactHub rated the claim Most of the money opposing I-645 comes from unions whose members' pay is set in contracts funded largely from the general fund this tax would feed; the state refused one of them 2027-29 raises, citing a shortfall, and proposed a wage freeze for another
The $1 million threshold can be lowered by a simple majority without a public vote.
TrueFactHub rated the claim Lawmakers can lower the $1 million threshold by a simple majority without a public vote, and they rejected amendments to require one
Couples, one-time income and partial indexing let the tax reach households where no one earns $1 million.
TrueFactHub rated the claim Washington's millionaires tax can reach households where no one earns $1 million a year: couples share one deduction, one-time income counts in full, and the threshold keeps up with only about half of inflation
Public pensions lose their exemption from this tax, though only households over $1 million owe.
TrueFactHub rated 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
Washington raised its capital gains tax and amended its income-tax ban within four years.
TrueFactHub rated the claim Four years after enacting its 7% capital gains tax, Washington added a 2.9% surcharge on gains over $1 million, and two years after adopting I-2111's income-tax ban, it carved the millionaires tax out of it
The income the tax relies on swings sharply, and the law has no reserve.
TrueFactHub rated the claim The income Washington's millionaires tax relies on has fallen by a third to a half in a single year, several times the state's worst general-fund drop, and the law sets aside no reserve
The state's revenue estimate assumes high earners don't change their behavior.
TrueFactHub rated the claim The state's revenue estimate for the millionaires tax assumes high earners won't change their behavior, though the leading study of California's 2012 increase found responses erased 45-61% of the expected new revenue, mostly through less reported income rather than moving
Ten payments supplied half of the capital gains tax's first year.
TrueFactHub rated the claim The 10 largest payments supplied 51% of Washington's first year of capital gains tax revenue, and collections swung from $782 million to $395 million to $1.5 billion
Spending growth beyond population and inflation compared with the tax's 2027-29 revenue.
TrueFactHub rated the claim Washington's general-fund spending has outgrown population and inflation by about $17-21 billion a biennium since 2013-15, five to nine times what the millionaires tax would raise in 2027-29
TrueFactHub rated the claim Washington's millionaires tax is mainly a tax increase, not a tax swap: the state keeps about 70% of the revenue after the tax cuts passed with it
TrueFactHub rated the claim State officials expect I-645 to leave Washington's capital gains tax in place, though its wording raises an untested legal question
How Washington news coverage handled the key budget facts.
TrueFactHub rated the claim Mainstream news coverage of I-645 rarely told readers that no current state budget relies on the tax or that its tax relief survives repeal
Every checkable claim in both voters' pamphlet statements, quoted exactly.
Disclosure
Funding
No external funding for this briefing.
Ownership
Published by the FactHub Research Team.
Conflicts
None known.
Update history
: First version.
: New title; added What you're voting on; renamed the facts section; quotes now use the trimmed statements dataset (v2); the "$13 billion hole" rebuttal is now rated Mixed; specific notes on each data link.
: What a Yes or No vote does now appears as vote summaries at the top; consistency fixes to several facts, case summaries and open questions; links the corrected version of the 460,000-families check.
: Links the corrected versions of eight fact checks: who the tax affects, the top-rate ranking, volatility, spending growth, union funding, the static estimate, unemployment and the net increase.
: Links the corrected versions of three fact checks: who the tax affects, union funding and unemployment.
: Conflicts disclosure now reads "None known."; links the versions of four fact checks with standardized disclosures: volatility, capital gains concentration, news coverage and school spending.
