- H.R. 10171August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10156August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10172August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10160August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10181August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10176August 27, 2026
- H.Res. 1496August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10164August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10170August 27, 2026
- H.Res. 1494August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10163August 27, 2026
- H.R. 10157August 27, 2026
- Administration
- Agriculture
- Agriculture, Nutrition, And Forestry
- Appropriations
- Armed Services
- Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs
- Budget
- Commerce, Science, And Transportation
- Education and Workforce
- Energy And Commerce
- Energy And Natural Resources
- Environment And Public Works
- Ethics
- Finance
- Financial Services
- Foreign Affairs
- Foreign Relations
- Health, Education, Labor, And Pensions
- Homeland Security
- Homeland Security And Governmental Affa…
- Indian Affairs
- Indian and Insular Affairs
- Intelligence
- Judiciary
- Natural Resources
- Oversight And Government Reform
- Permanent Select Intelligence
- Rules
- Rules And Administration
- Science, Space, And Technology
- Select Intelligence
- Small Business
- Small Business And Entrepreneurship
- Subcommittee on Aviation
- Subcommittee on Border Security and Enf…
- Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritim…
- Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digi…
- Subcommittee on Conservation, Research,…
- Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and In…
- Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infra…
- Subcommittee on Disability Assistance a…
- Subcommittee on Economic Development, P…
- Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
- Subcommittee on Emergency Management an…
- Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Reso…
- Subcommittee on Federal Lands
- Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticultu…
- Subcommittee on General Farm Commoditie…
- Subcommittee on Health
- Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
- Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and P…
- Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign A…
- Subcommittee on Oversight and Investiga…
- Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigatio…
- Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, a…
- Subcommittee on Transportation and Mari…
- Subcommittee on Water Resources and Env…
- Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fis…
- Transportation And Infrastructure
- Veterans' Affairs
- Ways And Means
washingtonpolicy.org · Ryan Frost · September 8, 2026
# Washington’s “regressive” tax debate ignores where people and money are moving
Author: Ryan Frost Published: 2026-09-08T20:18:32+00:00 Source: washingtonpolicy.org (washingtonpolicy.org) Language: en
## Story
Washington’s “regressive” tax debate ignores where people and money are moving
Farmworker union bill punishes employers, employees without cause
The Real Cost of Coexistence: How Wolf Policies Are Failing Western Ranchers
Trade wars are tough on ag
Farmworkers call for changes to improve their lives
Report Card for Washington: Education
The Nation's Report Card: F for 'Fix It Already'
50.3% of Washington public school students at grade level in English, 39.7% in Math
Washington’s EV sales far short of next year's state mandate
Canada is cutting its carbon tax. The Seattle Chamber of Commerce says it won't cut gas prices.
Another increase in the state's CO2 tax. Another failure by Ecology staff to understand the market.
WPC experts offer solutions for agricultural & environmental stewardship in legislative work session
New proposed legislation aims to adopt Seattle’s failing economic strategy
MIA: Opportunity to end wasteful payments
Legislative leaders fail (again) to limit the abuse of emergency power in Washington state
Estate recovery is fair — if Medicaid is for the needy
Unraveling Medicaid isn’t cruel, it's necessary
Parents told to have a seat; government knows best
Washington state is in a race to the bottom in health care
How to Start a Business in Washington
Report Card for Washington: Business & Taxes
It’s not just the increased taxes that are driving businesses away
Are you a public employee with a pension? The income tax is coming for you too
Should every rural home have fiber internet?
Report Card for Washington: Transportation
Will Sound Transit be able to change course with a new CEO?
Hang on to your wallet - bumpy roads ahead
The West Seattle Link Extension has gone off the Rails
Resource for public employers: Help workers know their rights
New resource can help public employees understand their rights
Workers needed tax relief. Olympia gave them something else.
Fix licensing. Expand access. Lower costs. Free workers.
Evasión masiva de tarifas por usuarios de Metro y planes evasivos de los líderes del condado
El contexto importa: la participación del agricultor, la sesión legislativa y las granjas de Washington
# Washington’s “regressive” tax debate ignores where people and money are moving
- Blog - RYAN FROST - Sep 8, 2026
Share
Related Articles
The Seattle Times editorial board makes excuses for the budget failures it condemns
Six charts that explain Washington’s budget problem
Are WA millionaires really leaving to avoid tax?
Over the past two decades, Washington’s economy has grown rapidly under a tax system without a broad-based personal income tax. People and employers moved here, the economy exploded, and state tax collections climbed. Every governor since 1985 has been a Democrat, and Democrats have controlled both chambers of the Legislature for most of those two decades. This is the tax system they governed under and largely chose, and it came to the benefit of those who started businesses and live here today.
That tax system has changed rapidly over the past ten years, driven largely by the state's own spending choices. The operating budget has risen from $33.6 billion in 2013–15 to $80.2 billion today. When even strong revenue growth could no longer keep pace with their spending demands, lawmakers and their pro-tax allies increasingly argued that Washington’s tax code was unfair because wealthy households were not paying their “fair share.” That argument helped produce a capital gains tax, higher business taxes, and now a 9.9% income tax.
The consequences of these choices are dire. Washington recorded a net loss of 5,875 residents earning $200,000 or more in the latest IRS migration data. The state’s tax-competitiveness ranking fell from sixth in the 2014 index to 45th in the 2026 index. Both trends have unfolded as lawmakers imposed new taxes on high earners and businesses. It is a poor time to pretend that the loss of high earners and the deterioration of Washington’s business tax climate are unrelated to the choices lawmakers are making.
The main evidence offered for continuing this shift is the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s (ITEP) Who Pays? study. Advocates of higher taxes cite its ranking of Washington as the nation’s second-most regressive tax code as proof that the system must change. The study measures how the tax burden is distributed, but it does not measure the total burden, economic competitiveness, or whether a tax system is working.
ITEP’s conclusions fail a basic common-sense test. It asks us to believe Tennessee, Texas, Nevada, and Florida are doing tax policy wrong, while California, Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey are doing it right. Yet people and income keep moving in the opposite direction. You do not need a complicated study to recognize that a ranking this disconnected from how people actually behave is not a reliable guide to tax policy.
From April 2020 through July 2025, according to the US census, the 10 states ITEP ranks most regressive gained a combined 1.53 million net domestic migrants. The 10 least regressive states lost 3.32 million. Six of the 10 most-regressive states gained residents through domestic migration. Among the least-regressive states, only Maine and Vermont did.
Federal tax-return data shows income moving in the same direction. During IRS filing years 2022 to 2023, the 10 most-regressive states had a net gain of $21.9 billion in adjusted gross income carried by interstate movers. The 10 least-regressive states lost $29.8 billion.
Business relocation is harder to measure consistently across all states, but employment and output show where economic activity is growing. From 2019 through 2025, median real GDP growth among the 10 most-regressive states was 19.1%, compared with just 11.2% among the 10 least-regressive states. Median payroll employment grew 6.6% versus 1.6%, and median real GDP per resident grew 13.1% versus 8.8%.
Lower regressivity also did not mean a lower tax bill. Using the Tax Foundation’s 2022 resident-burden estimates, the 10 least-regressive states averaged 12.45% of income, compared with 9.68% for the most-regressive states. That is 29% higher. Average burden per resident was $8,302 versus $5,790, a 43% difference.
These real-world outcomes belong in any honest debate about taxes, and they don’t exist today among the majority party and its supporters. Washington lawmakers can debate how taxes are distributed, but they also must account for how much people will pay, what changes to the tax system does to the economy, and whether it makes Washington a better place to live, invest, and create jobs. After years of rapidly increased spending, tax increases, and worsening outcomes, Washingtonians are finding out that the new way of doing things isn’t working.
Sign up for the WPC Newsletter
Please enter full name
Please enter e-mail address
Share
Share
The Seattle Times editorial board makes excuses for the budget failures it condemns
- Ryan Frost - Sep 6, 2026
Six charts that explain Washington’s budget problem
- Ryan Frost - Aug 31, 2026
Are WA millionaires really leaving to avoid tax?
- Paul Roberts - Aug 30, 2026
Washingtonians deserve the truth about the state’s income tax experiment
- Maynard Jackson - Aug 21, 2026
You’re all signed up!
Topics successfully updated.
You’re all signed up!
Text sign up success.
You’re all signed up!
Let’s fine tune your experience. What topics are you interested in receiving news about?
Transportation
Government Reform
Tech/Telecom
Environment
Labor
Education
Budget & Taxes
Eastern Washington
Small Business
Agriculture
Health Care
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|