To Our Defenders:

No doubt the most controversial bill this Legislative Session is the proposed state income tax. SB 6346 imposes a 9.9% tax on households making $1,000,000 per year. It claims that the tax “is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions”.

Despite such claims, we remain concerned. Here’s an analogy: The federal income tax began small, and then it grew from taxing the rich to taxing us all. We believe the same to be true for this state income tax: “A tax upon some will soon be a tax upon us all.” This tax is a threat to your income with severe consequences for families and businesses in our state, and here we wish to explain why.

 

* * * * *

Resources

Before we present three arguments, let me share key resources with you for those who desire more in-depth analysis.

• In his 30-minute video “Bible & State: Income Tax”, our own CEO Brian Noble offers insights into this important bill from a biblical perspective.

• Additionally, our Strategic Partner the Washington Policy Center offers good insights with their essay “Top 10 Reasons a State Income Tax is a Bad Idea”.

• The national news took notice of what is happening in Washington State, and the conservative powerhouse Newsmax produced keen analysis in its short video segment “You cannot tax your way out of liberalism”.

Let’s look at a few of these reasons to oppose the state income tax.

The Constitutional Argument

The constitutional argument against the state income tax goes like this:

The Washington State Constitution in Article VII, Section 1 states that taxes “shall be uniform” (see image above). Technically speaking, SB 6346 does impose a uniform tax upon all citizens at about 10%. But then it offers a $1 million deduction to everyone, so only those making more than $1 million would be subject to the nearly 10% income tax. It’s very clever.

We reply with two points.

First, the WA Constitution treats property as income — see the image above from Article VII, Section 1, as well as the 1933 ruling Culliton v. Chase.

Second, the WA Constitution in VII.2 says that property cannot be taxed at more than 1%: ” … the aggregate of all tax levies upon real and personal property by the state and all taxing districts now existing or hereafter created, shall not in any year exceed one percent.” It is a “hard cap”, as one excellent summary from Citizen Action Defense Fund states.

The summary concludes:

“The proposed income tax breaks both rules. It taxes some people — those making more than $1 million — but not others, which is not uniform. [And] it sets a rate at around 10%, which is far above the 1% limit.” In short: Income is property; property must be taxed uniformly and at no more than 1%; the state income tax bill violates both rules; therefore it is unconstitutional.

In Olympia, perhaps the most important testimony against the income tax was from former WA Attorney General Rob McKenna (2005–2013). Click here to see a video of his testimony, and here is a sample quotation below:

For a deeper examination of the constitutional “red flags” in SB 6346, see CEO Brian Noble’s research and videos here: “A Constitutional Minefield, Not Just a ‘Tax Bill’.”

The Moral Argument

Taxation itself is a profoundly moral issue, not merely an economic issue. The Left believes their motto “Tax the rich” is a moral imperative because evil in a society most often stems from economic inequality, which is a central tenet of Marxism. Therefore, they argue, a more powerful government is needed to control and tax society in order to achieve such economic equality and reduce evil.

Yet a moral argument against the Left goes like this: While government should be funded to perform classic responsibilities, such as roads and public safety, at too high a level, taxation becomes merely legalized theft against people who are earning their income with a free and private exchange of labor-for-money with an employer.

Moreover, our government lacks no resources and has other revenue sources; there is not a lack of taxation in our state. Instead, there is a spending problem, stemming from a misplaced faith in large government to solve problems.

At root is this clash: The Left believes government can help people the most (a “top-down” approach); the Right believes individuals and private organizations are better at creating a good and loving society (an “inside-out” approach), and they need their own income in order to do so.

In a practical sense, high taxes — often raised incrementally — can be a real threat to businesses and jobs. Businesses will simply leave and open in other states, and jobs will evaporate, leaving families hurting.

Also, high taxes weaken what a mom and a dad can provide for their own children, as well as to the Church and their own neighbors. As Dennis Prager points out, people will wonder: “Why should I give to my neighbor when the government will do it for me?” That’s a moral issue that does not foster good, loving, mature citizens.

Prager writes: “The higher the tax rate, the lower the charity rate. This is universally true. The more people give to the state, the less they give to their neighbor — and even to members of their family — in need. … [Furthermore,] the higher the taxes, the less people are inclined to work hard. Why should they? At a given point, people just conclude that work is for suckers.”

The Democratic Argument

The democratic argument, or the voice of “We the People,” makes three points:

First, in the history of Washington State, the public input against SB 6346 shattered every previous record with more than 150,000 registering CON in the combined House and Senate hearings. That was an overwhelming 90% or more of the total registered.

Second, the people of Washington have rejected a state income tax repeatedly, including rejecting six proposed constitutional amendments and four initiatives. For the detailed list, here is a chronological chart:

 

Third, there are reports that several moderate Democrats understand the immense opposition from the people. You can read their concerns here. Some politicians do not want this bill considered during an election with the fear that it will cost them their seats. Politicians know the power of the people.

* * * * *

In sum, those are three arguments against the state income tax. By understanding the constitutional, the moral, and the democratic arguments, we hope you will be better equipped and strengthened in your opposition.

Defending the family,

Brad Payne, President
FPIW Action