On Friday, The Columbian’s Editorial Board recommended a “no” vote on Initiative 2117, which would repeal Washington’s Climate Commitment Act. Today, we make recommendations for other statewide measures on the November ballot.
As always, these are merely recommendations to provide information and foster discussion. The Columbian urges voters to study the issues before casting an informed ballot.
- Initiative 2109 — We recommend a “no” vote. This initiative would repeal the capital gains tax signed into law in 2021. The tax charges 7 percent on profits of more than $250,000 for the sale of long-term assets such as stocks and bonds. The state Supreme Court ruled that it is an excise tax rather than an income tax, which would be unconstitutional in Washington.
In 2023, the capital gains tax was paid by fewer than 4,000 people in Washington and generated nearly $900 million — 85 percent of it from King County residents. The Office of Financial Management estimates that repeal of the tax would reduce state revenue by $2.2 billion over five years.
That money is dedicated to K-12 education, higher education, early learning and child care. In particular, it is being used to help with school construction, especially in rural and low-income districts that have difficulty getting bond measures approved.
Critics argue that the capital gains tax is an income tax, that its volatility makes it an unreliable revenue source and that it will lead investors to leave the state. These are reasonable assertions, but they are outweighed by the benefits of the tax.
Washington has an especially regressive tax system. It also has a school-funding system that can exacerbate inequities between districts. The capital gains tax is a reasonable method for mitigating those problems and aiding a large segment of our population.
- Initiative 2066 — We recommend a “no” vote. This initiative would repeal parts of the Washington Decarbonization Act and amend others. The law, passed this year, limits the use of natural gas in new construction in an effort to reduce carbon emissions.
Critics say it is a step toward banning the use of natural gas for heating and cooking throughout the state — an exaggeration of what the law actually does. In truth, state law dictates that natural gas be made available in areas where access already exists. Consumers will continue to have a choice in most areas.
Both supporters and opponents of the initiative claim that if the other side wins, utility rates will increase. That points out the convoluted nature of the measure.
- Initiative 2124 — We recommend a “yes” vote. The initiative would allow employees and self-employed people to opt out of WA Cares, a long-term care program that is funded by a payroll tax.
WA Cares is a well-meaning program established by the Legislature in 2019, but it has been beset by problems from the start. After shortcomings became evident, the Legislature delayed its launch for 18 months. Questions remain about its eventual effectiveness.
While there are good reasons for a state program promoting long-term care, taxpayers should have the choice of whether to participate.
