Jason Mercier of the Washington Policy Center says it’s best to take away the excise tax cookie while we still can
Jason Mercier
Washington Policy Center
If you give a mouse an excise tax cookie, he’ll want a broader income tax for his milk. We all knew this was the logical, inevitable, and expected outcome of the state Supreme Court’s recent 7-2 decision saying that an excise tax could be applied to income. While expected, I thought we’d have more time before lawmakers took advantage of the court’s decision. On Monday, however, Democratic budget writers in the Senate introduced: SB 5767 (Funding health care access by imposing an excise tax on the annual compensation paid to certain highly compensated hospital employees).
According to the new bill:
“The legislature intends to expand access to affordable health care by controlling health care administrative costs through a tax on excess compensation paid by hospitals . . . Beginning January 1, 2024, for taxes due in 2025, an excess compensation tax is imposed on the hospitals that pay covered employees excess compensation. The tax equals the sum of the annual total compensation, as required to be reported to the department of health under RCW 43.70.052(3) during the tax year, of any covered employee that is paid excess compensation during the tax year, multiplied by 7.5 percent.”
Expect this to be the first of many excise taxes on income introduced in Washington.
We should remember that chances are when the mouse wants his milk, the broader income tax rates will eventually increase, and bases expand. A bill has already been proposed this year to do just that for the capital gains tax.
Best to take away the excise tax cookie while we still can.
Jason Mercier is the director of the Center for Government Reform at the Washington Policy Center.
Also read:
- Opinion: The income tax proposal has arrived
Ryan Frost of the Washington Policy Center argues that a proposed Washington income tax creates a new revenue stream rather than delivering tax reform or relief. - Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - POLL: If a sub-district is created, what area should it include?
Clark County residents are asked where a potential C-TRAN sub-district should be drawn if voters are asked to fund light rail operations and maintenance costs. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design.
