After more than 24 hours of debate on the House floor, Democrats in the Legislature passed Senate Bill 6346, moving Washington another step toward something voters have rejected again and again: a state income tax.
Supporters keep calling it a “millionaires tax,” as if that settles the argument. It does not. The bill itself makes clear what this really is: a tax on Washington taxable income. Today, it applies only above a certain threshold and is limited in scope. But the framework matters. Once Olympia creates the legal structure for an income tax, future Legislatures can lower the threshold, broaden the base, and reach deeper into the lives of working families.
Republicans offered an amendment to permanently codify the $1 million threshold, and Democrats voted it down. If the majority truly intended this tax to stop there, they had the chance to guarantee it in law. They refused. That vote spoke volumes, especially since 76 legislators voted to ban an income tax in Washington in 2024, only to support one in 2026.
That reversal should have demanded a transparent, careful process. Instead, late Friday night, the majority dropped a striking amendment that completely rewrote the bill. In plain English, a striking amendment replaces the bill with new language. Lawmakers and the public were handed a massive rewrite with little time to read it, understand its consequences, or prepare thoughtful amendments.
That is not how you build public trust on a proposal as consequential as a state income tax.
So why did Republicans keep debating when the votes were already there to pass it?
Because the debate was about more than the final vote. It was about transparency, accountability and forcing a real conversation on affordability in Washington.
Had Republicans simply stepped aside, this could have moved faster and with far less public attention. Instead, we made sure Washingtonians had the chance to watch, listen and understand what was being done in their name.
We refused to let the most consequential tax policy in state history be rushed through with as little daylight as possible. Our constituents sent us here to fight for them, not to quietly accept bad policy because the outcome looked difficult.
Republicans also used the debate to offer something the bill itself never truly delivered: real affordability relief.
If the majority wanted to make the case that this bill was about helping working families, the House floor gave them every opportunity to prove it.
Republicans supported amendments to reduce the sales tax by 1.5%. We supported exempting prepared food from the sales tax. We supported a three-day back-to-school tax holiday to give parents a break when they are already stretched thin buying clothes, supplies, and everything else their kids need before the school year starts.
We supported broader relief for families with young children by exempting not just diapers, but essential child care products from sales tax.
House Republicans also supported exempting pension income and benefits, so seniors living on fixed incomes would not be dragged further into Olympia’s tax appetite. We supported creating a deduction for the costs of siting, constructing, and operating affordable housing.
We supported an amendment that would have committed 25% of revenue to increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates and reducing health care costs in Washington. We supported directing a meaningful share of revenue to Working Connections Child Care so families could actually see help with a major monthly cost.
House Republicans also supported a dedicated Universal Free School Lunches account so that if the majority were going to talk about feeding children, it would have to put actual money behind that promise.
Those were not slogans. Those were concrete ideas. Democrats rejected them.
The majority says this bill is about fairness. Republicans spent the debate asking a simple question: if that is true, why reject amendment after amendment that would have made life more affordable right now?
Why oppose earmarks that would have required this new tax revenue to go toward helping people afford child care, school meals, housing, health care, and other basic needs?
That was one of the most revealing parts of the debate. Supporters spoke in broad terms about what they wanted this tax to accomplish. But when Republicans offered amendments to turn those promises into concrete policy, the majority rejected them.
That is the gap Washington families should pay attention to.
This bill was sold as a way to help ordinary people. But when lawmakers had the chance to write real relief into the bill, they chose not to: no true affordability package, no guaranteed dedication of funds for the everyday costs families are struggling to manage, and no meaningful assurance that this new tax would reduce the pressure families feel at the grocery store, gas pump, kitchen table or when opening a child care bill.
This was never just about a tax on one income bracket. It was about whether Washington would impose an income tax while rejecting repeated opportunities to pair it with real, immediate help for the people supposedly meant to benefit from it.
The majority may have had the votes, but Washingtonians still deserved the truth.
Senate Bill 6346 is not just a “millionaires tax.” It is an income tax. And when House Democrats had the chance to connect that tax to meaningful affordability relief, they refused.
That choice should concern everyone.
Rep. Peter Abbarno, R-Chehalis, represents the 20th Legislative District and serves as House Republican Caucus Chair.
