Ballots are in the mail across Washington. Voters face Initiative 645. A Yes vote repeals a new 9.9 percent tax on income over one million dollars. The tax starts in 2028. It is the first personal income tax in state history.
Opponents run a slick website at No645.com. That site claims the initiative raises taxes on working families and cuts school funding. Those claims do not match the official record.
The No campaign wants you to believe a Yes vote hurts ordinary people. It says the measure increases taxes on diapers, over-the-counter medicine, and hygiene products. It says the measure limits the Working Families Tax Credit. It says the measure raises the business and occupation tax on most small businesses.
None of that is true.
Remove the prize while leaving the sweetener
The 2026 law that created the income tax also created tax relief. That relief includes sales tax exemptions for diapers, over-the-counter drugs, and personal care items. It expands the Working Families Tax Credit. It provides relief on the business and occupation tax for small businesses. Initiative 645 repeals only the income tax itself. It leaves the rest of the law alone.
The Attorney General’s explanatory statement confirms this. The non-income tax credits, exemptions, and deductions stay in place. A Yes vote does not raise the sales tax on diapers or medicine. It does not shrink the Working Families Tax Credit. It does not increase the business and occupation tax on small businesses. The No site says the opposite. That is false.
Why does the No side ignore the plain text? The income tax is the prize. The tax relief was the sweetener. Repealing only the tax removes the prize while leaving the sweetener. That is not what the No campaign wants voters to understand.
Projected revenue is not money already spent
The No site says Initiative 645 cuts 13 billion dollars from schools, health care, and child care. It warns of larger classes, higher health costs, and lost free school meals. This is a wild exaggeration.
The official fiscal impact statement puts the number at 11.4 billion dollars over five fiscal years. That is the revenue the new tax is projected to raise once collections begin in 2029. The tax has raised zero dollars so far. No current program runs on that money.
You cannot cut funding that does not exist. Lawmakers may have counted the future revenue in their plans. That is their choice.
Voters can still say no to the tax. The Public Investment Impact Disclosure on the ballot uses the phrase “decrease funding.” That is required statutory language for measures that affect general fund revenue. It does not mean the initiative forces specific cuts to classrooms or clinics.
Free school meals are another example. Legislative intent mentioned them. An amendment to dedicate a fixed share of the tax was defeated. The initiative does not eliminate free meals. The “No” site treats a forecast and an intent statement as locked-in current spending. That framing misleads.
What the initiative actually does: Repeal and prohibit
Initiative 645 does two clear things. It repeals the 9.9 percent tax on individual income over one million dollars before the tax ever takes effect. It also prohibits the state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income, or taxes measured by individual income, in the future. The definition of income covers gains from capital, labor, property, or other sources.
Roughly twenty-five thousand households would pay the tax as it is currently written. That is about one half of one percent of Washington households. Everyone else pays nothing under the tax. The relief for diapers, medicine, the Working Families Tax Credit, and small business stays.
The governor has said he would veto any attempt to lower the one million dollar threshold. His words are pie crust promises: easily made and easily broken. A future legislature or a future governor can set the current limit aside when the budget pressure rises.
Washington voters have already rejected broader income taxes many times. This initiative also adds a statutory ban so future legislatures cannot simply reopen the door.
Washington has no income tax for a reason. The legislature passed this version with an emergency clause that blocked a referendum. Opponents still gathered more than half a million signatures to put the question on the ballot. That is the process the constitution provides.
The No site treats the repeal as an attack on services. The real choice is whether to let a new income tax begin, or to stop it and keep the tax relief already in the 2026 law.
Vote ‘Yes’ to repeal the income tax
A Yes vote on Initiative 645 stops the income tax before it begins. It preserves the sales tax exemptions on diapers, over-the-counter medicine, and hygiene products. It keeps the expanded Working Families Tax Credit. It retains the small-business relief on the business and occupation tax. It bars state and local governments from taxing individual income going forward. Your paycheck and your income remain yours.
The alternative is to let the tax take effect in 2028. Collections start in 2029. Once the mechanism exists, the pressure to lower the threshold or broaden the base will grow. One Democrat lawmaker has already floated the idea of lowering the exemption to two hundred fifty thousand dollars.
The No campaign’s website does not highlight that risk. It focuses on claims the official record does not support. A future legislature or a future governor can set them aside when the budget pressure rises.
Washington voters now have a chance to decide. The initiative does not cut a single current dollar from schools or clinics. It simply refuses to create a new stream of revenue that the state has never collected. It keeps the tax cuts that were packaged with the income tax. That is the straightforward result of a Yes vote.
Mark your ballot Yes on Initiative 645. Repeal the income tax. Keep the relief for families and small businesses. Close the door on future income taxes. The choice is clear once the false claims are set aside.
Nancy Churchill is a writer, educator, and conservative activist in rural eastern Washington state. She chairs the Ferry County Republican Party and advocates for effective citizen influence through Influencing Olympia Effectively. She may be reached at [email protected]. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on Substack and X.
Comments
Loading comments…