HJR 4213
In CommitteeHouse
Income tax
Amending the Constitution to allow for an income tax.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill proposes a constitutional amendment to permit Washington to implement a state income tax, but only on incomes above $1 million (adjusted for inflation), with a maximum rate of 9.9%. It would require voter approval at the next general election.
- Proposes a constitutional amendment to allow Washington to impose a state income tax (currently prohibited by the state constitution).
- Protects households with $1 million or less of Washington taxable income from the tax.
- Caps the maximum income tax rate at 9.9%.
- Requires annual inflation adjustments to the $1 million income threshold using the consumer price index for the Seattle area.
- Defines key terms like 'consumer price index' and 'Seattle area' for implementation.
Who is affected
- High-income Washington residents — Individuals and households with Washington taxable income above $1,000,000 per year (adjusted annually for inflation) would be subject to a new state income tax, with rates capped at 9.9%.
- Most Washington residents (middle- and lower-income) — Individuals and households with Washington taxable income at or below $1,000,000 would not pay the new state income tax.
- State tax administration agencies — The Washington State Department of Revenue would be responsible for implementing and collecting the new income tax, including annual inflation adjustments to the income threshold.
- Public service funders — Local governments and public services (e.g., schools, roads, emergency services) could receive new state revenue if the amendment passes and the tax is enacted.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
If enacted, the tax could generate substantial new revenue—potentially hundreds of millions annually—targeted for public services like education, transportation, and emergency response, directly benefiting communities that rely on underfunded infrastructure and first-responder resources.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact (summary) & Article VII, section . . .. INCOME TAX. (b)(1)By exempting 95%+ of Washington households (those earning ≤$1M), the bill avoids imposing new financial pressure on middle- and low-income families already strained by housing costs—while preserving state revenue flexibility to fund affordable housing programs.
HousingPeopleRef: Article VII, section . . .. INCOME TAX. (b)(1)Annual inflation adjustments to the $1M threshold using the Seattle-area CPI help prevent fiscal drag—where inflation pushes nominal incomes above the threshold without real purchasing power gains—ensuring the tax remains targeted to high earners over time.
FinancialPeopleRef: Article VII, section . . .. INCOME TAX. (c)The 9.9% cap on the top rate provides a clear, predictable ceiling that reduces uncertainty for high-earning professionals and business owners, potentially limiting the risk of capital flight or aggressive tax avoidance strategies.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Article VII, section . . .. INCOME TAX. (b)(2)New state revenue from the tax could be directed toward K–12 and higher education, helping offset decades of declining per-pupil funding and supporting teacher retention and school infrastructure—benefiting students and educators statewide.
EducationPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact (summary)
Potential Concerns (5)
While the tax only applies to incomes above $1M, the administrative and compliance costs associated with the new tax (e.g., recordkeeping, tax preparation, potential audits) may disproportionately burden high-income households—many of whom are small business owners or sole proprietors—who must now track and report business income separately from personal income under a new, unfamiliar regime.
FinancialPeopleRef: Article VII, section . . .. INCOME TAX. (b)(1)The constitutional amendment prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing their own income taxes, effectively precluding cities or counties from using income taxation as a revenue tool—even if local needs (e.g., housing, transit, schools) outpace state funding allocations.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Article VII, section . . .. INCOME TAX. (b)(2)Annual inflation adjustments tied to the Seattle-area CPI may understate cost-of-living increases for residents in rapidly appreciating regions (e.g., Spokane, Yakima, or rural areas), causing the $1M threshold to effectively erode in real terms over time and potentially pulling more middle-income households into the tax net without legislative correction.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Article VII, section . . .. INCOME TAX. (c)The bill does not clarify whether pass-through business income (e.g., S-corp, partnership, sole proprietorship) is taxed at the individual or entity level—creating uncertainty for small business owners who may face unexpected liability or compliance burdens if business income pushes them above $1M in Washington taxable income.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact (summary)The amendment preserves the constitutional prohibition against property taxes on income, reinforcing the distinction between income and property—a long-standing feature of Washington’s tax structure—but does not expand any new individual rights or liberties beyond maintaining the status quo for most residents.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Article VII, section . . .. INCOME TAX. (b)(1)
Who Is Most Affected
High-income individuals (≥$1M Washington taxable income) face a new tax liability, but benefit from a clear statutory cap and inflation protection; many may shift income or residency in response, though full migration is unlikely due to strong economic ties.
The vast majority of Washington households (≈95%) are exempt from the tax and may benefit indirectly through improved public services—especially in education, transportation, and housing—if revenue is allocated equitably.
The Department of Revenue gains new authority and responsibilities, requiring increased staffing and systems investment—but also gains long-term revenue stability and modernization opportunities.
Local governments lose the ability to impose local income taxes but gain potential state revenue flows—though allocation decisions will determine whether schools, transit, or housing benefit most.
Small business owners who file as pass-through entities and earn over $1M in Washington taxable income (e.g., high-earning consultants, physicians, tech founders) may face higher compliance costs and effective tax rates, while those below the threshold are unaffected.