Washington State Standard reporter Jerry Cornfield says Senate Democrats are weighing a 9.9% income tax on adjusted gross income above $1 million for individuals and households.
According to Cornfield, the broad outline includes a credit against the state capital-gains tax, and budget writers believe roughly 20,000 households could be on the hook, yielding an estimated $3 billion per year.
Cornfield reports the idea surfaced at a recent Senate Democratic Caucus retreat.
It’s an election-year gambit, with every House seat and most Senate seats on the 2026 ballot.
One reality check from Cornfield: even supporters concede it wouldn’t patch near-term deficits because it would inevitably face court and ballot challenges. In other words, long runway, higher risk, uncertain landing.
Leadership Says “It’s Early,” But the Conversation Is Real
Cornfield quotes Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle) saying it’s too early to declare there will be a bill on Day 1.
Pedersen told Cornfield there are “four or five ideas” being researched and nothing is settled enough to introduce yet.
Cornfield also notes Gov. Bob Ferguson is non-committal. The governor told the Standard he’s “skeptical of additional revenue at this time” after billions were raised earlier in 2025 – though he didn’t shut the door.
On the other side, Sen. Chris Gildon (R-Puyallup) told Cornfield the push reflects a “never-ending” thirst for new taxes. His takeaway: Democrats raised taxes and “haven’t paid any price,” so they’re emboldened.
My read: Pedersen is keeping optionality while sounding out votes and legal pathways. Ferguson’s caution feels tactical – the governor already took heat for 2025 increases. Keeping distance now preserves leverage later.
Budget Pressures Meet a Regressive Tax Code
Cornfield frames the structural math. Revenues aren’t keeping pace with service costs.
Forecasts came in over half a billion short of what lawmakers counted on in April, with talk of a $1 billion gap in the current biennium and a bigger hole next time.
This follows a 2025 session where lawmakers closed a $12 billion chasm with new taxes, higher fees, and across-the-board cuts, Cornfield writes. Progressives argue an income tax would rebalance a regressive code, where lower earners pay a disproportionate share.
But, as Cornfield underscores, the Washington Supreme Court has previously ruled an income tax is not allowed under the state constitution’s property-tax uniformity clause.
That’s the constitutional tripwire opponents love – and why any bill would march straight into litigation.
My take: the policy case – stability, progressivity, and diversification – collides with Washington’s unique constitutional history. You can sell voters on fairness. You can’t shortcut Article VII.
From “Wealth Tax” to “Income Tax”: The Menu Expands
Cornfield reminds readers that Senate Democrats passed a wealth-tax bill (targeting financial assets above $50 million) on the last day of session, but the House never took it up. That bill technically lives on and could resurface early in 2026.
Rep. Shaun Scott (D-Seattle) told Cornfield he “absolutely” supports an income tax on higher earners, saying it matches what he hears from constituents.
Rep. April Berg (D-Mill Creek), the House Finance chair, said “everything is open for discussion,” while noting she hadn’t seen details on this specific income-tax idea.
Cornfield also captured the business lens. Microsoft president Brad Smith called it an “interesting question,” arguing any 2026 tax debate needs to be far more collaborative after a bruising 2025. Smith flagged the need to reduce property and small-business taxes if you’re going to raise others – classic “swap” logic.
Max Martin of the Association of Washington Business told Cornfield it feels like “Groundhog Day.” Translation: after last session, businesses are still catching their breath.
Democrats now have two tracks – a wealth tax for ultra-high net worth and an income surtax for seven-figure earners. Expect intense horse-trading around offsets to property and B&O burdens to calm the business community.
Brandi Kruse’s Warning Shot: “They’ll Call It ‘High Earners’ – Then Lower the Bar”
On unDivided with Brandi Kruse, host Brandi Kruse argues the income tax is effectively “on the ballot” in 2026 unless one-party rule is checked.
Kruse calls the proposal “unconstitutional,” asserting Democrats will pass it anyway and dare the courts to stop them.
Kruse says she’s seen this movie before: sell it as “only millionaires,” then lower the threshold. She points to the capital-gains tax trajectory – promises focused on the ultra-rich, followed by threshold creep.
She also challenges the governor’s skepticism. Kruse reminds viewers that Ferguson campaigned on restraint, then signed the largest tax increase in state history. Her view: don’t buy the caution; watch the follow-through.
Kruse raises a flight-risk argument: if you tax million-dollar earners, they leave, revenue underperforms, and lawmakers turn to everyone else to fill the hole. Her bottom line is blunt: once the door to an income tax is open, everyone eventually walks through it.
Kruse’s critique is less about the first-year bill text and more about trust, trajectory, and political muscle memory. If Democrats can’t credibly bind the threshold and pair it with visible tax relief elsewhere, her “slippery slope” argument will resonate.
The Constitutional Rub: Courtroom First, Budget Later
Cornfield is clear: an income tax won’t solve the near-term budget problem because litigation is certain. The state high court’s precedent is the immediate obstacle; a statewide referendum is the likely second act.
Kruse leans into that constitutional posture, labeling the move unconstitutional from the jump. Her framing positions Democrats as daring the courts while counting on voter fatigue.
Politically, Cornfield notes Democrats hold 59–39 in the House and 30–19 in the Senate. But this is an election year, and a hot-button tax fight is a tough sell in swing districts—even with credits and carve-outs.
If leadership truly wants a shot, they’ll need a two-step strategy – 1) draft something tightly tailored to seven-figure AGI with conspicuous offsets for property/B&O, and 2) pre-wire business and civic validators like Smith to avoid the “us vs. them” dynamic that marred 2025.
Otherwise, they’ll own the fight and the fiscal uncertainty that follows.
Who Carries the Message – and What It Must Include
Cornfield’s reporting spotlights Pedersen’s equity pitch and Scott’s enthusiasm, while Berg keeps options open. That’s a workable inside game, but the public case must be sharper.
If Democrats proceed, the message has to do three things at once:
- First, guarantee guardrails – no threshold creep, no broadening, no hidden expansion (sunsets, supermajority to change thresholds, explicit statutory caps).
- Second, pair with relief – visible cuts to property taxes for homeowners and targeted B&O relief for small businesses, as Smith suggested.
- Third, prove discipline – spell out spending controls, service benchmarks, and automatic counter-cyclical stabilizers so voters don’t feel like they’re writing a blank check.
Kruse’s audience will still oppose it on constitutional grounds, full stop.
But swing voters might listen if the package is limited, offset, and audit-proof.
The Stakes for 2026 – and a Practical Forecast
Cornfield captures the governing problem: deficits rising, revenue base wobbling, and a regressive structure under constant critique. Kruse captures the political problem: credibility. Voters suspect that “tax the rich” is the on-ramp to tax the rest.
My forecast: if an income-tax bill drops, it will be narrow, credit-linked to capital gains, and coupled with property/B&O relief to court business cover. Even then, expect immediate lawsuits, a likely referendum, and months of fiscal uncertainty – not a recipe for plugging a 2026 gap.
And if leadership blinks? The wealth-tax vehicle Cornfield mentions becomes the fallback, with similar political and legal risks but a smaller, ultra-targeted footprint.
Either way, the fight is coming. In Washington, the policy math and the constitutional math rarely balance on the first try.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
