Many people say that income tax in WA state violates the state constitution. This is incorrect, but that doesn’t mean that proponents of the income tax can rejoice. They are also wrong. To understand this issue, one must first understand two parts of the state constitution:
Definition of Property
The WA state constitution defines property in a general way. It says, “The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”
Clearly, people own their income so it is property as defined by the constitution. And for nearly 100 years, the state supreme court has ruled that this means what it says.
Limits on Property Taxes
The WA state constitution also requires that when property is taxed, the taxes must be uniform and no more than 1%.
Constitutionality of Income Tax
Income tax would be legal in WA state, under two conditions: the same uniform rate must apply to everyone and all income, and that rate cannot exceed 1%.
Of course, this is a poison pill for people who want higher taxes on “the rich”. Their proposed income tax violates both of these constitutional provisions. It is non-uniform, since it applies only to income above a certain threshold. And it is greater than 1%.
The Bigger Picture
The bigger picture is that in WA state, for several years government spending has been growing faster than the economy. In the long term, no amount of taxes can ever pay for that. Until the state gets spending under control – by “control” I mean government spending grows no faster than the economy – the state will go bankrupt no matter what tax policy they enact.
Not surprisingly, passing an income tax only encourages the legislators to spend even more – they’ve already identified additional spending for the revenue they expect from the income tax. And of course that estimated revenue is grossly inflated, which means they will spend more than the tax returns. So not only is the income tax unconstitutional as proposed, it will also make the state’s budget problems worse, not better.
In short, WA state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. When the state cannot control its spending, giving it more money does not solve the problem, but only makes it worse.
The History
In the past, WA state acknowledged that the constitution must be amended in order to have a graduated income tax. And over the years, voters rejected these constitutional amendments several times: in 1934, 1936, 1938, 1942, 1970, and 1973.
Voters have also rejected multiple income tax ballot initiatives: in 1944, 1975, 1982 and 2010.
Now, the state wants to ignore and circumvent the constitution, prior supreme court decisions, and the will of the voters.
Ethics and Respecting the Law
Every legislator takes an oath of office stating they will uphold the state constitution (among other things). Thus proposing unconstitutional laws can be seen as violating their oath of office — they took an oath to uphold it, not to undermine it. If legislators believe that a graduated progressive income tax is good public policy, the ethical and legal way to pursue that is to first amend or change the state constitution. This is nothing more than what the WA state supreme court has said before.