Home  |  About Peter  |  News & Media  |  Email Updates  |  The Ledger  |  Contact

March 16, 2026

Dear Neighbor,

Just a few days ago, the Legislature concluded its work for the 2026 session and officially adjourned Sine Die. “Sine Die” is simply the formal end of the legislative session.

But for families, seniors, and small business owners across Washington, the financial pressure created by bad policy does not end when lawmakers go home.

That is why I want to take a moment to talk about one of the most consequential votes of the session: Senate Bill 6346. This is the measure that puts Washington on the path toward a state income tax.

After more than 24 hours of debate, the Democrats passed the bill anyway. I voted NO, and I want to explain why.

If you’re short on time, you can:

• Read my statement: Rep. Peter Abbarno votes ‘no’ on Democrat proposal to create new state income tax; Washington families need relief, not a new income tax
• Read my op-ed: A state income tax – making history for all the wrong reasons
• Watch my full NO speech by clicking on the photo below or here.

Affordability should have been the priority

The central problem with this simple is simple: it asks Washingtonians to trust promises that are not actually guaranteed.

I opposed more taxes, especially without the bill including broad-based tax relief.

Supporters spent a great deal of time talking about what this tax might fund. They pointed to child care, school meals, and other worthy priorities. But good intentions are not the same as real relief, and aspirational language is not the same as binding law.  

That distinction matters.

Much of the rhetoric surrounding this bill relied on statements of intent rather than enforceable guarantees. In other words, the public is being asked to accept a permanent new tax structure based on promises the majority party may or may not keep later. That is not sound policy, and it is not how you help families already struggling with affordability.

You deserve more than a tax built on maybe.

I opposed the income tax; however, if it was going to pass, I wanted to make sure the bill delivered real tax relief as well. I supported House Republican amendments that would have taken the revenue and invested it in property tax relief, sales tax relief, lowered health care costs, and lowered child care costs. Unfortunately, House Democrats were not interested in tax relief and voted against every broad-based tax relief proposal to lower the cost of living in Washington. You deserve an affordable Washington.

What affordability looks like in Washington right now

Here is the reality: families and seniors are facing right now.

• Washington is the third-most-expensive state in the nation.
• Washington has the highest gas prices in the nation, about 45% above the national average.
• The Seattle metro area is now the fourth-most-expensive place in America to raise a child, with annual costs of $34,448.
• Statewide, Washington is the eighth-most-expensive state to raise a child, with families spending nearly $28,000 a year on essentials.
• Washington ranks as the third-most-expensive state for married couples and fifth-most-expensive for single parents when child care costs are measured against income.
• Washington is the nation’s fifth-most-unaffordable state for housing.
• The median price of a new home in Washington is $700,683, and 82% of Washington households cannot afford one.
• Washington has the sixth-highest rents in the nation.

These are not abstract numbers. This is the affordability crisis Washington families are living through every single day.

The wrong answer to the wrong problem

Senate Bill 6346 does not lower costs. It does not guarantee relief. It does not return money to the families who need breathing room the most.

What it does is create a new tax mechanism and ask the public to trust that future Legislatures will use it responsibly.

That is a hard sell, especially from a government that has spent years making Washington less affordable.

Over the past decade, state spending has more than doubled. Yet even with all that growth, the answer from the majority party is still the same: spend more, then ask for more. At some point, lawmakers need to stop treating taxpayers like an endless funding source and start addressing the cost burden their own decisions have helped create.

That is why I have said repeatedly: Washington does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending and prioritization problem.

What Republicans offered instead

One of the reasons Republicans debated this bill as long as we did was because Washingtonians deserved time to see what was really happening.

The longer the debate went, the clearer the contrast became.

During the floor debate, Republicans supported amendments that would have made this bill less harmful and far more responsive to the pressure families are under right now.

Here are some of the amendments Republicans supported that would have made this bill better for Washingtonians.

• Permanently codify the $1 million threshold so future Legislatures cannot lower it.
• Reduce the state sales tax by 1.5% to provide broad-based relief.
• Exempt prepared food from sales tax.
• Create a three-day back-to-school sales tax holiday for families.
• Expand the sales tax exemption beyond diapers to include essential child care products.
• Exempt pension income and benefits to help protect retirees and seniors on fixed incomes.
• Create a deduction tied to siting, construction, and operation of affordable housing.
• Dedicate 25% of the revenue to increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates and easing health care cost pressure.
• Direct a meaningful share of funding to Working Connection Child Care.
• Create a dedicated Universal Free School Lunches account so promises to families were tied to actual funding.
• Add stronger accountability and accountability requirements so taxpayers could track capital flight, business departures, and the broader economic impact over time.

These were practical proposals. They were not symbolic. They were opportunities to offer actual relief and actual accountability.

Democrats rejected them.

That should tell people a lot.

If this bill were truly centered on affordability, lawmakers would have embraced measures to lower costs for those already struggling the most. Instead, they rejected tax relief, rejected stronger guarantees, and rejected guardrails that would have made their promises more credible.

Never make a promise you cannot keep

This bill was sold with promises, but too many of those promises were not backed by binding commitments. Washington families have heard enough about what government intends to do. They need to know what government will do.

There is a difference.

And if lawmakers are unwilling to put real guarantees into law, then Washingtonians have every reason to question whether this bill is about helping families at all—and having millionaires pay their fair share—or whether it is simply about creating another stream of revenue for a government that never seems to stop growing.

The bill also creates another problem: trust.

Just two years ago, the Legislature—in a bipartisan manner—voted to prohibit a state and local income tax through Initiative 2111. Now, many of those same lawmakers who voted to ban an income tax have just voted in favor of one.

That is not a small inconsistency. It is a broken promise to the public.

And there are still serious constitutional concerns. Washington courts have long held that income is property, and our constitution requires taxes on property to be applied uniformly. Calling this something narrower does not erase that conflict.

Why capital flight matters

Affordability is not only about what families pay at home. It is also about whether Washington remains a place where employers, investors, job creators, and working families can afford to stay and grow.

That is why the capital flight question matters.

We are already seeing signs that people and businesses are making decisions based on the tax climate and long-term certainty. Howard Schultz, the Starbucks founder and former CEO, recently announced he is moving to Miami, and his family office is relocating as well. Starbucks is opening a Nashville office and shifting some of the headquarters operations to Tennessee. Boeing is moving engineering work tied to the 787 program to South Carolina. And Seahawks general manager John Schneider recently acknowledged that a state income tax would hurt Seattle teams’ ability to compete for free agents because Washington’s tax advantage has mattered in recruiting.

Those are not isolated anecdotes.

They are reminders that tax policy affects behavior. It affects investment. It affects where talented people go, where companies expand, and whether Washington is seen as a place of opportunity or growing risk.

At a time when our state should be doing everything possible to encourage growth, job creation, investment, and long-term stability, this bill sends the opposite message.

Looking ahead

Session may be over, but the conversation is not.

In the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to share updates on the bills, budgets, and decisions that will shape our communities and our state.

Thank you for staying engaged and for the opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

Peter Abbarno