Elizabeth New (Hovde) believes recovering our state’s no-income-tax status would likely bring far more benefit both to economic growth and to state finances

Elizabeth New (Hovde)
Washington Policy Center

The well-respected Washington Research Council just released an economic analysis of Initiative 2109, the citizen-led ballot measure to repeal the capital gains income tax.

The study finds that if Initiative 2109 passes it would have minimal impact on the state’s ample revenue collections. The study notes that repeal would reduce future state revenues by only $424 million in 2024, and $820 million in 2025, and thus would not in any way reverse the rising rate of state tax collections. Lawmakers have so much money they added another $2 billion to state spending just a few months ago.

So opponents’ claim that the initiative would “cut” funding for “K-12 education and daycare” is false. That’s because state tax collections will continue to increase without the capital gains income tax. Even if the initiative passes, expect lawmakers to add another several billion in funding to state programs in the 2025 session.

Second, the Research Council finds that capital gains income tax revenue accounts for only about 1% of estimated general fund revenue (NGFO or Near General Fund Outlook). That means passage of Initiative 2109 would have negligible impact on Washington’s public finances.

Some lawmakers wail that losing the capital gains income tax will “devastate” (their word) state programs.  As any budget planner from the kitchen table to a multi-national company knows, if you can’t handle a 1% reduction among rising revenues you should turn the finances over to someone else.

The more we learn the more we see just how small the impact of ending this new tax would be. In fact, recovering our state’s no-income-tax status would likely bring far more benefit both to economic growth and to state finances.

The full Research Council analysis is just five pages and is well worth a look. 

Elizabeth New (Hovde) is a policy analyst and director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: Inviting courts into health care policy discussion
  Elizabeth New (Hovde) warns that Senate Joint Resolution 8206 could invite lawsuits by placing vague health care mandates into Washington’s Constitution.
• 
  Opinion: 24 States In. Washington Out? $732 Million Lost?
  Vicki Murray argues Washington risks forfeiting $732 million in federal education funding if state leaders do not opt into the federal tax-credit scholarship program.
• 
  Opinion: Nationwide strike in support of illegals and opposing the rule of law?
  Lars Larson argues that a reported nationwide strike reflects opposition to immigration enforcement and the rule of law, criticizing political leaders and media coverage.
• 
  POLL: Should councilors serving on boards be required to vote the way the full council decides?
  A new poll asks whether Clark County councilors serving on boards should be required to vote in line with the full council’s position or retain independent judgment.
• 
  Opinion:  Olympia wants a 4-day work week. It won’t work out as the politicians think it will
  Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 2611’s proposed 32-hour workweek would raise costs, strain small businesses, and undermine Washington’s economic competitiveness.