Saturday’s town hall (Image: CHS)
By Kali Herbst Minino, UW News Lab
“Tax the rich” might seem like something you see scrawled in Cal Anderson graffiti or on a Pike/Pine hipster’s ironic t-shirt. Against a backdrop of now fully uncertain federal support, the slogan a part of core 2025-era political debate in Washington and its largest city. This past weekend, it was the center of the discussion on First Hill.
People gathered at 43rd District Rep. Shaun Scott’s town hall Saturday at Seattle First Baptist Church to hear panelists from Working Washington and Seattle Democratic Socialists of America talk about turning the “tax the rich” slogan into real world legislation.
Advocacy group Balance Our Tax Code took videos of personal testimonies about the benefits of progressive policies and someone handed out “Tax the Rich” buttons.
The town hall came as Gov. Bob Ferguson’s office asked that state agencies request funding only for “critical and emergent costs.”
The new legislative session will begin in January.
The last state budget included cuts in higher education, behavioral health and health care. It also supported new spending in special education and $100 million in grants for hiring local law enforcement. Scott was critical of that decision during the event.
“We saw wildfire preparedness defunded, we saw reproductive health care defunded, we saw child care and human services defunded in the most recent legislative session. We have to replace that funding. I believe that those are the values of the people of the 43rd LD and certainly Capitol Hill,” Scott said.
One way Scott thinks the state can get some of that funding back is by changing the definition of a “community bank” in Washington’s tax code. They’re currently defined in fewer than 10 states and can deduct interest on residential property loans if they meet that definition. Digital and internet-only banks can claim the deduction because they have no physical locations, Scott said.
“[Digital and internet-only banks] had operated in no states, and were therefore able to make use of a tax benefit that was supposed to go towards community banks,” Scott said during the event.
In May, Ferguson vetoed a bill to repeal the deduction entirely to encourage community banks to finance home loans and affordable housing projects.
Scott would also like to see a state-level version of Seattle’s payroll tax laws. Seattle taxes businesses with payrolls over $8.8 million or employees earning at least $189,000.
“That’s something that we can absolutely advance, and that would create $2 billion worth of revenue,” Scott said. “That’s money that can go towards expanding child care to money that can go towards funding climate projects, funding affordable housing, funding higher education.”
Scott also represents parts of downtown, Eastlake, Madison Valley and Madison Park, portions of the University District and Montlake. He’ll be up for reelection in the August 2026 primary.
During the last legislative session, Scott said he was proud to write and advance House Bill 1858, which eliminated an exemption from fees on previously recorded deeds of trust.
Scott sponsored multiple progressive tax bills that never made it through committee. His proposals included expanding eligibility for the working families’ tax credit to everyone age 18 or higher, allowing counties to add excise taxes to real estate to build affordable housing and eliminating the investment income business and occupation tax deduction for corporations, which lets corporations deduct investment income unrelated to their primary business activities.
His bills weren’t the only ones that didn’t make it through the legislative process. Scott’s priorities will be accompanied by a push for more worker protections. Seattle has had a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights since 2019, and it has provided domestic workers with minimum wage protections, breaks, time off work and right to keep any of their possessions, regardless of immigration status. A state-level law ran out of time during the legislative session, and got stuck in the Senate committee.
Hannah Sabio-Howell, who participated in the panel as communications director at Working Washington, said her organization will be championing the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights this legislative session, even though it’s not explicitly focused on taxing the rich.
“It doesn’t facially have anything to do with raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy. What it does do is ensure that workers, tens of thousands of workers in this essential industry, can finally count on fair pay, safe and dignified workplaces, and the right to rest. And that’s inherently connected to this broader conversation we’ll be having at the town hall, which is about how we make our economic system more fair,” Sabio-Howell said.
Through the event, multiple panelists, including Scott, pointed to the high support for policies that would tax wealthier residents in Washington.
In 2025, Washington added a capital gains tax that makes the first $1 million in taxable Washington capital gains subject to tax at a rate of 7%. Any amount exceeding $1 million is subject to the 7% tax, plus an additional 2.9%. Around 3,000 filers were hit with the new tax last year, the state says.
The state’s Democratic leaders have so far said no to adding a wealth tax to try to cover spending needs and balance the budget. One proposal would levy a tax of $8 on every $1,000 of assessed value of financial assets. There would be exemptions for retirement accounts and education savings accounts. The State Department of Revenue estimates more than 4,000 would qualify for the tax, generating nearly $2 billion a year.
“I know through the course of the discussion that we have today, I don’t think of us are gonna be leaving here feeling very lonely about how popular tax the rich is as a general policy proposal,” Scott said.
The question will be can Scott and other progressives in the legislature turn that support into approved legislation in time.
The Journalism and Public Interest Communication News Lab at the University of Washington gives advanced journalism students an opportunity to build a dynamic clip portfolio by reporting for any of 70 client news outlets in the greater Seattle area. CHS is proud to work with young journalists and feature their work.
$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 🖤
Everybody loves taxes they don’t have to pay, so these so called progressive tax schemes are political winners for a guy like Scott, who will be running for reelection shortly. How about proposing some broadly based progressive taxes that require a much larger swath of the electorate to reach into their pockets? And by that I mean almost everyone would be required to pay some taxes to support the new programs and policies he says people want. That is a bigger political lift, but it is actually the way things will have to be if we don’t want to drive the slice of the electorate currently targeted for these taxes out of the state. Idaho anyone? And as a sidenote, I thought Scott was a Democrat. What’s he doing rubbing elbows with all the Social Democrats. Oh, that’s right. He isn’t a Democrat. He just ran like he was one to get elected.
Jesus, this nonsense again. The wealthy are so lucky to have useful idiots to defend their interests against their own.
The rich aren’t fleeing to Idaho. If a small tax increase would drive the wealthy to lower tax states, why isn’t New York and California out of rich people and Mississippi and Alabama swimming with them? It’s as if the wealthy care more about other things besides taxes unless they’re acting like petulant children (like Elon Musk), in which case, they’re right wingers already and probably already don’t want to live in Washington or any place to the left of Indiana.
Also, most of us already pay most of the taxes. You are apparently new to Washington and don’t know we have one of the most regressive tax systems in the country.
So spare me the right wing fantasy. They’re not leaving Seattle for Boise anytime soon. A handful of them might, but that doesn’t prove your point since most of them will stay and just pay the tax–like they do in NY and CA.
That was beautiful.
Glenn has an agenda for a brain. His soul? Also and agenda.
All this and below because I suggested proposing taxes that are more broadly based. They can still be progressive taxes, but not solely targeted at a very narrow swath of the population. Sorry if that upsets you all so much. My opinions are not outliers and your hostility and personal attacks don’t reflect particularly well upon you.
Why do you carry water for your overlords so much? Disgusting
What makes you so sure he isn’t one of the overlords? As far as I can track from his comments he’s a landlord and private school apologist. Maybe he’s not an overlord, but simply a very well off individual who is sympathetic towards the wealthy class.
Overlord? Oh dear. That where we are now? Seriously?
Meh, It’s proper context. Large property owners have an overlord of some kind. Trump is one. The boss at work is one.
It’s anyone of high authority.
Petit Bourgeoisie!
WA. is one of the most regressive tax states in the union. What are you talking about?
The US has one of the most progressive overall tax systems in the world (yes more than pretty much everywhere in Europe). Progressive doesn’t always mean better. The broad regressive VATs fund most of the European welfare state.
They type of tax isn’t the problem lol, it’s the swath of people in the US able to avoid them.
Europe taxes far more progressively because it taxes a larger proportion of the wealthy’s income. That’s why they have a more progressive tax system.
Also, less people there in destitution who are being taxed, social safety net exists, etc. You are dumb Bo
I’m talking about realized taxes. Europe 100% does not tax more progressively. Almost every country relies overwhelmingly on a VAT, which is a regressive sales tax.
that’s simply false.
top marginal income tax rate in…
US: 37%
not to mention our lower capital gains rates, the exclusion for selling a primary residence… do I need to go on?
Not true, CGT on gain over $650k last time I looked. Compare to uk with no CGT on gains from property sale. How many of these countries have a 1% property tax annually ?
Wasn’t the top tax rate for very high earners in this country 70% at one point?
that’s not the highest rate, AND you’re only looking at federal income taxes. you’re also not showing the lowest rate for either the us or other countries. and you’re not showing transfers. and you’re not showing a comparison of sales taxes in the us vs VAT in europe (which is much higher).
Germany taxing high income individuals making north of 277K Euro at 45% seems pretty progressive to me (in France the same % already kicks in at 180K). While it obviously won’t replace consumption tax earnings anytime soon, making everyone pay their fair share is the right thing to do and is exactly what should be happening over here as well. Two things can be true at the same time…
The New Deal tax rates were about 60%+ or minus on 1 million dollars.
Before Reagan folks would pay 90% if they were a billionaire.
again, include other taxes. germany depends on a vat to a much higher degree than the us depends on sales taxes – and those are the most regressive taxes.
“The US”…Okay you can change the context to make me look smart.
We are the most livable year in and out so, there’s that.
i would love the us to have a similar tax structure and social benefits to say, denmark, but it is also true that denmark has more regressive overall taxes than the us.
just give up man
Let’s talk Zimbabwe?
lol whatever. i’m not clear what you want – progressive taxes for the sake of progressive taxes, better and more equitable services, etc
look anytime someone brings up the taxation of European nations, my first response it should be at the national level here in the US. not at the local level.
“Everybody loves taxes they don’t have to pay,”
Like almost EVERY RED STAE?
Glenn, do you think that Scott’s opponent, Andrea Suarez, was a Democrat? She’s a close friend of Brandi Kruse and Jonathan Choe, who last week met personally with Trump asking him to send the federal gestapo to Seattle. At a Bruce Harrell rally last week, Suarez personally asked Harrell if his mask ban against ICE would also apply to “antifa”.
But Scott’s been rubbing elbows with not Democrats, but “Social” Democrats. Do you hear yourself, Glenn? Aren’t you just the least bit ashamed at the time you spent composing your comment?
It’s almost a cut and paste of his usual almost cut and paste. It’s victimized, denigrate, puffery, obtuse, character masturbation and a general lack of curiosity and education combined with either no care to it’s actual basic logic or simply made up of whole cloth.
Yup Andre Suarez sucked as a candidate. Can we get someone better?
As someone who many on the hill would consider rich, I say tax me.
Inflation and the general high-prices of things are annoying and I don’t like it, but it don’t really cause me any ‘pain’. I’m not going to move to some low-tax state just to save a bit of money. Seattle has problems, but I’m sticking around.
There’s a reason Seattle is the most livable city year in and year out.
LOL.. Seattle hasn’t been on the top of a “most livable city” list since 2005…
There’s a fence around my local park because the village idiots who are supposed to be dealing with problems are totally incapable of doing so. Just one example, but that is NOT a characteristic of a “highly livable” city.
If I was running, I’d be like “we need to make sure the help has a home rich people. The help can’t make and serve your food if they can’t live in the city. And what about the white children who inhabit our progressively gentrified neighborhoods? We can’t depend on unemployed art school graduates to keep our exogenous needs met. They move to L.A. and Paris Texas, if they can suck it up and act heteronormative. We need our city gay gay gay. I mean queer and affordable… and another thing! Pay roll taxes hurt the bottom line and is a win for K Swant…we can be progressive with our here. Questions???
👩💻 “who is your campaign manager.”
I found a box of laid off streaming service writers turned campaign managers behind a building in downtown Bellevue. Next question.
We desperately need progressive taxing. Stop taxing the poor the same as the rich. It’s insane. Vote Katie
Nope! Not voting for Katie. That is a not the responsible choice at all. She will be worse than a toll, or a puppet. She will be an AI mayor. Not responsible for any of the fall out from having no experience. You wanna bitch at someone day one don’t you? Choose Bruce. He’s used to it. You can’t bitch about Katie. You know why? Because you voted for it. And you will not own up to you huge mistake. No businesses are gonna work with her. She is gonna have a fat goose egg of a city to run. Vote smart this election not with your instagram feeds!
Do not vote Katie. You gonna regret it.
are you basically saying that we need a city income tax similar to NYC?
Aren’t income taxes banned in our state’s constitution? Would Seattle be able to impose such a tax without running afoul of the state constitution?
Seattle is allowed to impose a flat income tax per WA Supreme Ct decision but has declined to do so, as political winds blow for taxes imposed solely on the highest earners. BTW, progressive taxes used to be called that because the rates imposed progressed upwards as the individual’s income progressed upward. This is not the case with so called progressive taxes imposed and suggested today. These taxes are imposed on a narrow slice of the electorate with no progression at all. That isn’t progressive. It’s just an easy political sell.
“Flat tax” is the most regressive form.
Give it a rest Glenn. The gilded age is ending…again. Too bad for you.
Thanks for the clarification and insight.
I agree about the progressive taxing. The rich earn more and have more, so they can, and should, pay more. The poor earn less and have less, so they should pay less.
I guess we’ll just ignore the fact that a wealth tax has failed everywhere it was tried. I’m sure Shaun will get it right this time. The state just raised $9B in taxes last year and spending is far outpacing growth and inflation. What do we have to show for it?
We have a lot to show for it. If you had won a prize on the price is right to beautiful Seattle, and you lived in say, Crimson Lake, Idaho (that’s a place right!? Actually sounds pretty nice if you stretch your imagination. Scenery wise, not politically as it is possibly in Northern Idaho.) you would be like
‘wow what a great city… shame all the meth and other narcotics we process back home are ruining the streets. But it’s only Downtown, Capitol Hill and Pioneer Square when it’s not art walk. Greenwood is amazing, and Ballard is a dream, off Leary way I mean. ❗️🤬❗️ HEY ASSHOLE THATS MY GRAND MOTHER YOURE MUGGING’ (you visited South Seattle because you heard about Columbia City from a friend.)
Well considering the US budget is like 6 something trillion, 9B for a state this size with as much development as it has almost seems like a steal.
Maybe we just need more tax revenue, you know from the rich tax dodgers living here in paradise?
This kind of comment is exactly why there is little accountability from our representatives. The state budget is not $9B, they created $9B in new taxes last year alone. The state budget has grown from $45B in 17-19 biennium to now $80B. That is 78% increase in the last 6 years. Despite this and the massive tax increases passed by the legislature we are still looking at $900M deficit next year. Tax receipts have declined another $500M alone since they passed the tax increases indicating the new taxes are having a negative impact on the economy (duh).
Look at the tax rates before Reagan. Then come back and recheck your comment.
No one actually paid those rates. People either stopped working or took “alternative” payment that fell outside the income tax laws. Regardless that has nothing to do with WA state or a wealth tax. Why don’t you provide an example where a wealth tax actually accomplished its stated goal and provide an example of how the lives of ordinary working people have improved over the last 6 years that the state budget has massively increased. There is already actual data that has shown the increases passed last session have led to declines in revenue, there is data that shows the Jumpstart tax has led to reduced hiring in Seattle, there is data that shows the increases in minimum wage has led to less jobs and less hours for those working, there is data that shows the delivery driver regulations has led to less pay for those who are still working….do you see the trend that is emerging here?
Katie Wilson is happy that the Jumpstart tax has resulted in less hiring in Seattle. Not all jobs are good jobs says Katie. Better that high income jobs go to Bellevue so those pesky high income earners aren’t here to drive up housing and other costs of living in Seattle. It’s strange thinking, but absolutely part of the progressive vision in our city.
OMG! NOBODY PAYS THE RATE ON PAPER!!!! TAXES ARE DEDUCTABLE!
Go away with your worthless arguments…that’s a lot of typing to say nothing.
Nice temper tantrum when presented with actual facts. Screaming doesn’t change the sad truth that what Scott is proposing is ineffective and bad policy nor does is change the fact the state / city needs to manage the funds it has better.
I’m starting to see an uptick in tech job postings where the salary range is $190K+ for positions based in Bellevue more so than in Seattle. So this basically was an FU to the Seattle job sector and a blessing to Bellevue and Redmond.
This is one of those things that will eventually hurt small businesses in Seattle normally used to supporting and catering to small and large businesses in Seattle.
I highly doubt that Scott’s vision for a state-level version of Seattle’s payroll tax laws will ever pass a committee.
Why are they the only ones wearing masks ? At this point science tells us with have a vaccine for Covid – are they aware ?
Because they still believe, that’s why they were a mask. Do you believe!?
It truly is quasi-religious signalling at this point, like wearing a cross.
Yeah those people scare me. It’s like fine let it be a season for the viruses, but it’s like all the time. And on the street. I’d rather them in pup masks at this point.