Democrats in Washington Legislature reveal sweeping new tax plan
Democratic lawmakers in Washington are beginning to lay out the buffet of tax increases they want to use to fill most of a $16 billion state budget shortfall.
There are hikes in business and capital gains taxes, new sales taxes on services and greater property tax collections by the state and local governments.
Other selections include an increase in a surcharge on technology companies, an expanded tax on nicotine products, and a mandate for some large businesses to make a one-time pre-payment of sales tax owed to the state.
Major financial institutions will pay a little more, too. And there's a surcharge on corporations with more than $250 million in annual revenue that starts Jan. 1, 2026, and lasts four years. Among those exempted from that surcharge is Boeing.
A pivotal question now is whether Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson endorses the slate of tax measures. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Last month, House and Senate Democrats rolled out separate packages to raise up to $21 billion.
But Ferguson threw cold water on their desire to tax those with more than $50 million, a pillar in both approaches. The governor said this proposal was 'untested, difficult to implement, and most importantly, for purposes of adopting a sustainable budget, will face an immediate challenge in court.'
That sent legislators searching for new options. They came up with a whole bunch.
They also discarded a payroll tax modeled on Seattle's JumpStart tax that would have been levied on companies with large payrolls and highly-paid employees. This was another central plank in their earlier tax plans.
The new approach still relies on many of the state's corporate and banking giants to pay more.
It also still targets wealthier individual taxpayers with the addition of a second tier of the state's capital gains tax, which took effect in 2022 and has been upheld in court.
Washington imposes a 7% tax on gains over $270,000 from the sale or exchange of long-term assets like stocks, bonds and business interests. Senate Bill 5813 and House Bill 2082 call for a new 9.9% tax on gains greater than $1 million, an idea Senate Democrats discussed in December. This would bring in an additional $280 million for the budget, $560 million over four years.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on several bills at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday.
This is a developing story
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Asked for a yes or no on nonprofit transparency, top Maryland Democrats don't answer
BALTIMORE — It should be an easy yes-or-no answer, according to taxpayer advocate David Williams. But when Spotlight on Maryland asked the state's top three Democrats whether they would ensure transparency and accountability as tax dollars flow through nonprofits, none offered a yes or no response. The Baltimore Sun reported last month that neither state budget officials nor individual agencies can say exactly how much state money is flowing to nonprofits each year. That disclosure has led some state officials to call for more oversight. In response, Spotlight on Maryland — a partnership of The Sun, WBFF FOX45 in Baltimore and WJLA in Washington, D.C. — has launched an investigation into how much taxpayer money is allocated to Maryland nonprofits and how those dollars are spent. As part of that reporting, Spotlight on Maryland asked Gov. Wes Moore, House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones and Senate President Bill Ferguson, if they would ensure full transparency and accountability around nonprofit funding. After receiving no response from Ferguson and Jones, Spotlight on Maryland sent a follow-up question to all three, asking if they would assist the investigation in the public interest as journalists follow the money through Maryland nonprofits. Moore, Jones and Ferguson did not respond to the follow-up question. 'This is crazy. It's an easy answer,' said Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. 'They should all say yes.' Moore, for his part, gave an answer on camera to a Spotlight on Maryland reporter at an unrelated news event in Salisbury last week. 'I think people know and realize that our administration believes in full transparency, that we understand that the things that we are going to support are things that are both sustainable and effective. And when you're looking at the entire budget for the state of Maryland, we are, we are very wise and smart stewards of taxpayer dollars to make sure that the right capital is going to the right usages,' the governor said. When The Sun asked last month whether Ferguson believes taxpayers should have access to a full accounting of how their money is spent and how much of it flows to nonprofits in Maryland, he said: 'All public dollars should be spent wisely and with the utmost care, whether a public agency or a nonprofit uses them. To that end, nonprofits are an important bridge between the state government and the communities they serve. That's why we have a robust audit division of the Department of Legislative Services that has been doing this important oversight work for decades.' As part of its July reporting, The Sun sent inquiries to individual state departments and agencies, asking them to provide the amount of money they allocate to nonprofits. A few offered specific dollar amounts. 'Many nonprofits receive funds directly from agency grant programs, and we don't track that centrally,' said Raquel Coombs, chief of staff for the Department of Budget and Management, in a July email. This lack of oversight raises concern, especially for a state that needed to make cuts and raise taxes to resolve a $3.3 billion budget deficit earlier this year. Nonprofit spending 'increases the size of government,' Williams said. The more that government spends — on nonprofits and other line items — the more taxpayer money that is needed to fund the government, he said. One political analyst said the state's top Democrats appear 'overly cautious' in not answering Spotlight on Maryland's follow-up questions on nonprofit spending. 'It seems like a no-brainer,' said Flavio Hickel, a political science professor at Washington College. 'You'd think they would say, 'I will do everything in my power to ensure good governance with taxpayer money.'' Why aren't they saying that? 'There are good nonprofits, but they're probably being cautious in case one bad actor fell through the cracks on their watch,' Hickel said. 'They're probably being overly cautious to prevent campaign ads down the line.' Even as the state's top leaders declined to answer Spotlight on Maryland's follow-up, the governor was quoted in a news release about his chief of staff, Fagan Harris, leaving for the top spot at the Abell Foundation, one of the state's biggest and most influential nonprofits with more than $300 million in assets. 'While he will be deeply missed personally and professionally, I look forward to working closely with him as he leads the Abell Foundation for years to come,' Moore said. Top officials in government administrations moving to nonprofits is similar to Pentagon officials going to work for defense contractors, Williams said. 'We need more checks and balances to stop the revolving door,' he said. 'The government and nonprofits are way too cozy. There needs to be a firewall.' Hickel said he couldn't comment on the specifics of Harris moving to a nonprofit and noted that it could be 'perfectly coincidental and benign.' But, he added, 'it does raise questions' about the relationship between the governor's office and influential nonprofits that shape life in Maryland. 'It's not uncommon at all, though, to see someone in a high government role going to work at a nonprofit,' Hickel said. 'We advise students to do that. We tell them to do legislative work for a few years, meet people, then go to a nonprofit.' --------------- Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
How the ‘tech titans' can save Social Security
The Wall Street Journal reports that several of 'Silicon Valley's elite' believe the artificial intelligence boom will generate massive wealth even as it displaces millions of workers, leaving them unemployed. Their solution to this unemployment crisis is to use the newly generated wealth from AI to provide a universal basic income for everyone. It's a terrible idea for several reasons. But it could be tweaked to address a huge public policy problem: funding Social Security. The idea of a universal basic income has been around for decades. While proposals vary, the basic plan is a taxpayer-funded redistribution scheme: providing everyone with a designated amount of money — usually between $500 to $1,000 per month — with no strings or work attached. Wall Street Journal reporter Josh Reich notes that Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes have used their own money to set up limited universal basic income, or UBI, pilot programs to see if they work. And they aren't alone. Stanford University's Basic Income Lab tracks UBI programs around the world. While most are in the U.S. and created at the state or local level, there are several in other countries. Some are funded by donations; others are taxpayer funded. Reich says OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is a UBI proponent and funded an experiment in 2016 that gave $1,000 a month to low-income individuals for three years. Elon Musk has talked about 'universal high income,' and boasted that AI 'will automate most production and the public can share in the revenue.' And tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang proposed a $1,000 a month UBI program as part of his failed Democratic presidential campaign in 2020. What's different now is that some tech titans 'see a future flush with wealth generated by artificial intelligence.' And 'that revenue can be shared under a massive wealth-redistribution system.' It's not clear how AI-created wealth could be redistributed. Wealth is usually created by a company or an individual, who owns the wealth. To redistribute that wealth, the owner has to voluntarily donate it or the government must take it. Even if AI were to dramatically boost federal revenues, the federal government currently has a $37 trillion debt and a $1.9 trillion 2025 budget deficit that need to be reduced. And there are other problems. UBI programs have a dubious record, as a recent National Bureau of Economic Research paper demonstrates. The funds aren't enough to reduce income inequality, especially since participants tend to work fewer hours. Even many center-left organizations oppose them. Finland tried a pilot UBI project for two years. About 2,000 unemployed Finns received the equivalent of $634 per month. The hope was the money would encourage the unemployed to find a job. The BBC asks, 'Did it help unemployed people in Finland find jobs, as the centre-right Finnish government had hoped? No, not really.' However, if untold riches flow from AI advancements — and that's a very big 'if' — as some tech titans seem to think, there is a way that money could help both individuals and the country. Instead of handing people a monthly check, establish something like a special individual retirement account for everyone. The individual could not take out any funds until retirement age — say 60 or 65. Individuals would have limited, broad-based investment options to prevent speculation. Workers would continue to pay their current payroll taxes to Social Security. They wouldn't be funding this new type of IRA because the money would come instead from the tech titans' predicted AI revenue. At retirement, an individual could then choose between standard Social Security and their AI-funded retirement accounts. If enough money has been deposited and appreciated in these accounts over the years, retirees might choose it over standard Social Security. Plus, they would have ownership rights, meaning any money left over would be passed on in their estate. Retirees who choose their special private retirement account would forfeit their claim on traditional Social Security, leaving fewer retirees relying on Social Security's underfunded financial position. Those who choose traditional Social Security would forfeit their special account. Unlike a universal basic income, the special account would be more like a universal basic retirement program. Because people would not have access to their universal basic retirement funds until retirement, there would be no economic incentive to reduce work. And it wouldn't be a new entitlement, because retirees would choose between traditional Social Security or their private retirement option. Although AI will surely make a lot of money for some people, it is unlikely to produce the flood of revenue some tech billionaires anticipate. That said, if AI does produce massive wealth, using it to improve retirement and save Social Security is a much better and more workable option than a universal basic income.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Democrat Nicole Collier slams GOP in interview from state House floor
A Democratic Texas state lawmaker who spent the night on the Texas House floor rather than accept a police escort slammed the GOP in an interview as Republicans try to move forward with their plan to redistrict the Lone Star State. Texas Rep. Nicole Collier was one of the Democratic state legislators who fled earlier this month to break quorum and stall the plan, before returning to the Lone Star State on Monday after a two-week standoff. She opted to spend the night in the state House rather than let law enforcement surveil her as part of Republicans' effort to ensure lawmakers would return to the Capitol, The Associated Press reported. 'At the moment that the directive was issued, I felt like it was wrong. It's just wrong to require grown people to get a permission slip to roam about freely. So I resisted. I objected, in the only way I knew how, and that's to resist,' Collier told MSNBC's Ali Vitali in an interview from the state House floor, when asked why she wouldn't sign on to the law enforcement escort. Collier, who has been on the floor for nearly 24 hours, vowed to stay 'as long as it takes.' 'This is the fight that all of us have in resisting the end of our democracy, basically,' she said. She slammed Texas Republicans for putting 'politics over people' as the redistricting fight dwarfs conversations about disaster relief for Texans affected by recent floods. More than 50 Democrats left Texas in early August to deprive the state House of the numbers it needed to function, putting a pause on the redistricting plan that could net five GOP House seats. After their conditions were met, enough Democrats returned to Austin on Monday to reach quorum. The maps are expected to move quickly through the Republican-controlled state legislature. Meanwhile, California is expected to charge ahead with a plan to redistrict in response to the Texas changes. 'Typically they say, take that high road. Well, you know, that high road has crumbled. We're on a dirt road, and we're going to meet them on that dirt road and get down and dirty, just like they are,' Collier said.
