If you receive a public pension in Washington, consider what elected officials did before asking you to accept a new state income tax. Lawmakers first amended existing statutes that had long kept retirement income free from state, county, and local levies, and shielded it from creditor claims.
For decades, state law guaranteed that pension payments, disability benefits, survivor allowances, and even accumulated employee contributions remained untaxed and protected from garnishment. In 2026, legislators revised those provisions, inserting a new clause stating the existing exemptions no longer extend to the upcoming income tax. The same legislation also made retirement accounts subject to collection for the new levy.
Pensions for most public educators and state employees fall well below high-income thresholds. In the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS 2) and Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS 2), someone retiring after 30 years at an average salary of $100,000 typically receives about $60,000 annually. Those with over 31 years of service now average roughly $62,000 in pension income. Under current rules, such a retiree would only begin paying the income tax after surpassing $900,000 in additional income.
Lawmakers did not target a few affluent retirees alone, they positioned the system to expand. The decision to revise 11 statutes suggests intent to broaden the tax base in coming years, not just address a limited cohort.
A chance to preserve pension protections arose in March, when State Representative Dan Griffeys introduced an amendment to exclude public pension income from the new tax. It fell short by a margin of 52 to 44, with every opposition vote coming from the majority that drafted the tax proposal. A second opportunity came later, when State Senator Chris Gildon urged a constitutional amendment to codify a $1 million deduction and cap the top rate at 9.9 percent. Without voter approval, the measure would lack durability, and that vote was ultimately blocked.
This sequence reveals a broader design: a tax marketed as a long-term fixture for high earners does not rely solely on a fixed income threshold or limited scope. Its structure allows for steady growth and inclusion of additional income sources over time.
Advocates opposing Initiative 645 argue for eliminating a tax break aimed at wealthy households. Notably, no income tax is currently collecting revenue, the first filings are scheduled for 2028, with payments due starting in 2029. Since the tax has yet to take effect, offering a “break” from it amounts to deferring a new obligation rather than reversing an existing one. Critics contend the initiative introduces a novel levy, presenting it as targeting a narrow group of affluent residents while broader implementation unfolds.
Tax Rate and Spending Growth
Review your pay stub, then remove nearly 10 percent from the total and consider whether that reduction was a sacrifice you chose to make. That percentage is what the law specifies. The only safeguard preventing this rate from affecting most working households is a $1 million figure set in ordinary legislation, not the state constitution.
Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, the primary sponsor of the bills, has already indicated what such a commitment is worth. In 2024, the Legislature enacted a prohibition on a state income tax. In 2025, he characterized that prohibition as a pie crust promise, easily made and easily broken. Two years later, they opened it up. When questioned on television about his support for a universal income tax, he responded, "I personally absolutely do." He subsequently stated that the current Legislature has no intention of broadening the tax. Intent is not law. A simple majority can alter the threshold just as it did the 2024 ban, year after year, until the target is you.
The Source of the Shortfall
They created the gap they now seek to address with this tax. From 2013 to 2025, tax collections increased 112 percent. Spending rose 148 percent. For the 2023-25 period, they increased spending by 15.8 percent when they projected revenue growth of 3.5 percent. Actual spending during that biennium exceeded revenue by $4.8 billion. The operating budget now totals approximately $80 billion for two years, more than double the figure from a decade ago. They established long-term programs they could not sustain, used one-time funds to conceal the deficit, and then identified a need for a new tax. The shortfall is not a natural occurrence. It is the cost of years of spending that surpassed incoming revenue.
Union leaders must provide an explanation for this. The campaign against I-645 has been funded almost entirely by the Washington Education Association, the Washington Federation of State Employees and SEIU. They state that the tax will support schools, health care and public services. Those services are important. So is the protection their members secured during their employment. It is a peculiar form of solidarity to write seven-figure checks to maintain a tax whose first legislative action was to remove the pension safeguard for its members.
Building the Collection System
The Department of Revenue reports that approximately 130 positions are linked to the income tax itself, costing about $30 million annually once operational. The broader legislation anticipates around 300 positions when the Working Families Tax Credit expansion is included. These employees will receive salaries, health coverage and, yes, pensions. Taxpayers and businesses receive the remainder: inquiries about spouses, out-of-state earnings and partnerships that Washington has never administered as an income-tax state.
Washington already ranks 45th in the Tax Foundation's 2026 state tax competitiveness index. That standing precedes this levy. Adding an income tax to a base that includes retirement income, with a threshold that can be rewritten in Olympia, is not a cautionary label. It is the next chapter. Snohomish County families bear the consequences of the jobs that follow those decisions.
The Budget Shortfall
Eliminating a tax that has not yet been collected does not create a budget gap. The gap was created first. A projected deficit does not justify weakening a pension statute, targeting households over $1 million, and then asking everyone else to trust a provision they declined to make permanent.
Your retirement savings are in the crosshairs.
Vote yes on I-645.
A columnist for this publication covering local and state affairs wrote the above.