REDMOND, WA – Let’s Go Washington (LGW) today released statements from Washington business owners, entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and coalition partners responding to the launch of the campaign opposing I-645.
The opposition campaign’s launch featured many of the very same unions, organizations and politicians that stand to benefit from this new source of unrestricted state revenue. Their message was predictable: link the revenue to schools and health care funding, blame convenient villains and hope that the public doesn’t catch on to their tired arguments.
The truth is that without earmarks, most of the revenue collected will go into the general fund and plug holes that the majority party’s overspending has created.
Brian Heywood, founder of Let’s Go Washington, offered his thoughts on the campaign launch.
“Three public unions, the SEIU, WEA, and WFSE are primarily behind this attempt to force an unconstitutional income tax on the state. These three already take in over $150 million every year yet somehow are exempt from paying any taxes to the state. The public unions have a collection of sock puppet politicians like Jamie Pedersen and Bob Ferguson who appear to be in their pocket and who are afraid to stand up and challenge the pig trough agenda of more spending and higher taxes.
It is very clear from internal communication between the legislature and the Attorney General’s Office that the ultimate strategy is a broad income tax on everyone. Every wage earner and voter knows they have a target on their back, and this income tax is coming for all of us. Out of control spending, back-to-back record-breaking tax increases, and an unconstitutional income tax funded and supported by self-serving, tax-exempt public unions is a recipe for an economic catastrophe. I am confident the voters will see through the greedy efforts of the unions and their politicians and repeal the income tax.“
The Climate Commitment Act (CCA) was promoted as a way to raise money to reduce carbon emissions, yet the state has failed to provide meaningful reporting showing how those dollars have improved the environment. More recently, CCA funds have been used to patch holes in the state budget, shifting money that was supposed to serve specific environmental purposes into broader government spending.
The capital gains tax was sold to voters as a way to fund child care and early learning, yet many local child care providers have not received the support they were promised. First responder pension accounts have been drained to send more money into the general fund and cover the majority party’s unsustainable spending.
Viet Nguyen is a Seattle-based technology communications executive and former president of 5G Americas. Nguyen provided this statement in response to the no campaign launch:
“As a moderate who’s worked with both Democrats and Republicans, I’m disappointed that this union-led extremist campaign is trying to overturn 93 years of settled tax law. Washington citizens like me have said ‘no’ to the state income tax eleven times. In November, we’ll make it twelve.”
Christina Janis is a realtor and the State Director of the Washington Realtors Association. She has witnessed the detrimental impacts of the income tax firsthand.
“As a real estate broker, I’m already seeing the effects of this new tax—even as efforts continue to overturn it. I’m currently helping several families market and sell beautiful homes across Washington as they consider relocating their families and businesses elsewhere. While most of these families do not currently meet the millionaire threshold, they understand the broader implications of this tax and are concerned that its impact could eventually extend beyond high-net-worth individuals and affect working- and middle-class Washingtonians as well.”
Zac Scammahorn manages Issaquah Honda-Kubota, a family-owned and operated equipment business. He has watched employees and customers of his store leave the state due to the extreme taxation.
“Our construction workers and landscapers are no longer able to participate in projects because costs to compete in this state are too high. I can’t give raises to my employees because the taxes and fees in this state drain our accounts to the point of letting good workers go. Our own business went from selling 40 excavators in the first two quarters of the last four years consistently to selling 15 – all of that started the minute that the income tax was signed. We’re seeing construction companies that typically bought from us refusing to work with cities in Washington State because the costs and fees are too high for them to have competitive bids. This isn’t a tax on millionaires, this is a tax on regular people. How is Bob Ferguson getting a 7% raise and small businesses are losing customers and letting employees go?”
Rather than honestly defending the creation of a state income-tax system, opponents of I-645 are relying on the oldest tax-campaign script in Olympia: Find a villain. Promise indispensable services. Demand more money. Claim the income tax fixes Washington’s tax system.
The villains are anyone successful enough to be taxed. High-income taxpayers are more mobile than the permanent spending programs Olympia intends to build around them, and evidence from other high-tax states demonstrates the fiscal risks associated with relying heavily on a small, volatile tax base.
The promised programs are ones that Washington already funds through its existing budget. Instead of cutting programs that don’t serve the public or cracking down on runaway spending, the majority party is proposing a volatile tax on the wealthy to fund these existing programs. If the programs exist without the funding, why is the new revenue needed?
The income-tax infrastructure provides a framework that future legislatures could expand, and without guardrails, it’s highly likely that they will. And while they claim to care about improving Washington’s tax system, a new tax does nothing to address regressivity.
With no opportunity for the public to weigh in, no tax cuts for the people who need it most and no guardrails to keep the tax from expanding to all income levels, Jamie Pedersen and Bob Ferguson have proven they don’t actually care about regressive taxes, they just want more money.
Gina Carlson, President of Olympia Master Builders and owner of the award-winning Dunamis Interiors & Design Build, shared her perspective on the damage that the income tax does to the building industry.
“For many residential general contractors in Washington, income can come in unpredictable spikes due to the longer-term nature and size of our projects. We rely on revenue from big projects to reinvest into future projects. Adding yet another tax on this work will only drive up costs for homeowners and businesspeople like me who are trying to scale up their businesses to address future housing needs and contribute back to my community. How can that be good for business and the future of families in Washington? What IS good for all Washingtonians is the ability to trust our elected leaders to balance our budget and pass policies that respect our constitution!”
Jesse Proudman, founder of Venice.Ai and Seattle native has continued to voice concerns over the volatility of taxing a wealthy base. He offered his thoughts on the tax and the campaign launch here:
“The No on 645 campaign’s launch is a case study in misdirection: invoke a billionaire bogeyman, invent eye-popping dollar figures, and skip past the actual question of whether Washington should have imposed an income tax in the first place. Governor Ferguson’s partnership with this campaign tells voters exactly where the establishment stands: with politicians who tax first and answer questions never. Dressing up a new income tax that’ll reach into every Washingtonian’s pocket as ‘protecting essential services’ is lipstick on a pig, and the governor knows it. If he were serious about protecting families, he’d stop spending first, then talk to voters about whether this state needs a new income tax at all.“
The no campaign will insist that this tax is limited to the wealthy and therefore poses no risk to ordinary families. But the central issue is whether Washington should establish the machinery for a state income tax without meaningful constitutional, statutory, or voter-approved protections preventing future expansion.
The Legislature has already demonstrated how quickly statutory protections can be rewritten. In 2024, lawmakers adopted I-2111 to prohibit state and local personal-income taxes.
Bob Ferguson, the same guy who promised not to tax his way out of his deficit, passed the largest tax increase in Washington State history AND signed the income tax. Now, he’s promised that he won’t expand the tax to incomes below $1 million. Pedersen and Ferguson have proven that their pie crust promises are flaky and unreliable.
LGW is confident that the Secretary of State will verify the signatures turned in earlier this month to repeal the income tax. As unions, special-interest organizations and politicians spend millions to defend the income tax, LGW and supporters will continue to make a much simpler case: Washingtonians deserve the final say, vote yes on I-645 this November.