Over 61,000 “CON” sign-ins – the largest in state history ever. “Imagine 61,000 Washingtonians showing up to scream ‘NO’… and the politicians still trying to ram this through. That’s SB 6346, the “Millionaire Tax” at 9.9% but its not just a millionaire Tax.  AND how do I know this.

In 2024, the Washington state legislature passed Initiative 2111 to ban income taxes—today, the same people are sponsoring SB 6346 to repeal it. Pedersen's response? Promises are like "pie crusts"—easily made and easily broken.

Feb 9th, Despite the largest opposition in Washington state history. The politicians moved this bill out of committee. 

The Framing: Proponents are marketing this as an "affordability" measure to fund schools and healthcare. 

In this video, we're going to reveal to you the full story, the lies, the history, expose the affordability, reveal how the tax is marketed for millionaires and yet they put the language in to allow the slippery slope. And history shows it expands. They're using the necessity clause to block your right to vote. And ignoring a state budget that has more than doubled since 2013 to over $173 billion. Olympia is choosing a spending spree over the true affordability and long-term economic viability of Washington families. 

Based on the text of Substitute Senate Bill 6346, the primary mechanism that allows the "millionaires' tax" to potentially expand or be categorized as a broader income tax structure—despite existing prohibitions—is found in the amendments to existing law and the creation of a new legal framework (Title 82A RCW).

The following sections detail how the bill creates a pathway for a broader application:

Location: Page 63, Lines 1–3 (Section 1001).

Mechanism: It amends the current law to state that the prohibition on personal income taxes "does not apply to the tax authorized in chapter 82A RCW". By creating this specific exemption, the legislature establishes a legal "container" (Title 82A) that is shielded from the general ban on income taxes.

Location: Page 3, Lines 23–27 (Section 1, Subsection 12b); Page 38, Lines 16–20 (Section 709).

Mechanism: The bill states the intent is to make the tax "identical in effect to the provisions of the internal revenue code". Section 709 explicitly adopts Subtitle F of the IRC (the federal procedures for tax prepayments, returns, and verification) for the state tax. This installs the administrative machinery necessary to process a broad-based income tax.

Location: Page 5, Lines 26–28 (Section 101, Subsections 4 & 10).

Mechanism: "Individual" is defined simply as "a natural person" , and "Taxpayer" is defined as "an individual receiving income subject to tax under this chapter". The million-dollar threshold is applied later as a "standard deduction" (Page 10, Line 33), which is a parameter that can be easily lowered in future sessions without rewriting the entire tax code structure.

Example Location: Page 41, Lines 8–10 (Section 801, Subsection 5).

Mechanism: For multiple retirement systems (Judges, Teachers, Public Employees, State Patrol), the bill adds language stating that previous tax exemptions do "not exempt any pension or other benefit received under this chapter from tax under Title 82A RCW".

The legal classification of SSB 6346 (the "Millionaires' Tax") is the central point of contention in its drafting. While the bill’s language carefully uses terms that could support an "excise tax" argument in court, it is functionally a graduated income tax.

The Legislative Label: The bill defines the levy as a tax on the "receipt of Washington taxable income".

The Legal Hook: By taxing the receipt (the act of getting the money) rather than the income itself, proponents argue it is an excise tax on the privilege of engaging in high-income activities.

The Opposing View: Opponents and tax analysts argue that because the tax is measured by a person's net income—including wages, salaries, and interest—it is a graduated income tax. Under Washington’s 1933 Culliton v. Chase precedent, income is considered "property," which must be taxed at a flat rate (not exceeding 1%).

The "Privilege" Precedent: In the capital gains case, the court ruled the tax was an excise tax because it was triggered by the sale of an asset, not just the ownership of it.

The "Receipt" Strategy: This bill attempts to expand that logic by arguing that receiving more than $1 million in income is a taxable event or privilege, rather than a tax on the property (money) itself.

Location of this Strategy: * Page 5, Line 37 (Section 201): "A tax is imposed on the receipt of Washington taxable income.". This is the specific phrasing intended to make the tax survive a constitutional challenge.

The "emergency clause" is a critical legal maneuver in Washington state law. In SSB 6346, this language is primarily found in Section 1007.

Page: 63

Line: 27

Section: 1007

The Text: "The tax imposed in this act is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions."

Bypassing the Referendum: Normally, citizens have 90 days after a legislative session to gather signatures and put a new law to a public vote (a referendum) before it takes effect. An "emergency clause" or a "support of government" clause blocks the right of referendum.

Immediate Effectiveness: It allows the state to begin the administrative work of setting up the tax immediately rather than waiting for the standard 90-day cooling-off period.

The "Litigation" Shield (Section 1008): Directly following the emergency clause on Page 63, Line 29, the legislature adds a secondary instruction. It mandates that the Department of Revenue must spend money to implement the tax "regardless of litigation".