Fact check: Washington has an income tax - why won’t the media call it one?

There seems to be two words that have suddenly become difficult to print in Washington state: income tax.

Sure, you can find the phrase easily on the state’s own website. In fact, the Washington Department of Revenue has an entire page devoted to Washington’s “new income tax.”

Pretty straightforward.

But turn on the news or scan the headlines and the income tax has undergone a remarkable transformation.

It has become the “millionaires tax.”

That’s the preferred terminology of supporters, too. Washington House Democrats have an entire “Millionaires Tax: Frequently Asked Questions” page. The label is everywhere.

Apparently everyone got the memo.

“Millionaires tax” certainly sounds better than “income tax.” It sounds limited. Targeted. Almost surgical. And, perhaps most importantly, it tells the overwhelming majority of voters: Relax. This is about somebody else.

Except that's not the terminology used by the agency charged with administering the tax. The Department of Revenue calls it an income tax - because it is one.

The law imposes a 9.9% tax based on Washington taxable income. It starts with federal adjusted gross income and provides a $1 million standard deduction. Even the House Democrats' own FAQ says the tax is imposed on the “receipt of Washington taxable income” and acknowledges that there is a $1 million standard deduction.

That's an income tax with a big deduction. It's not a "millionaires tax."

We don't rename the federal income tax because taxpayers get a standard deduction. A sales tax doesn't become a “non-grocery tax” because groceries are exempt. The deduction or exemption tells us who pays. The tax base tells us what the tax is.

And here, the tax base is income.

There's a difference between saying “Washington's income tax applies above a $1 million threshold” and simply renaming the thing a “millionaires tax.”

One describes the policy. The other brands it. And that's where the media is shirking an important responsibility.

A reporter's job isn't to take the most politically advantageous label attached to a controversial policy and turn it into newsroom shorthand. Journalists should tell readers what a law actually does, explain how each side describes it and let people make up their own minds.

If supporters christened a bill the “Tax Fairness and Puppies Act,” presumably that wouldn't obligate television stations to put “Puppies Act” in the chyron every night.

The same principle ought to apply here.

In fact, supporters themselves occasionally dispense with the branding. State Rep. Liz Berry, a Democrat who supported the legislation, described the proposal earlier this year as the “High Earner’s Income Tax” before noting that some call it the Millionaires Tax.

House Speaker Laurie Jinkins was similarly direct, describing it as “a 9.9% income tax” on households making more than $1 million annually.

So this isn't some characterization invented by critics.

It's an income tax.

The distinction matters even more now because voters will decide Initiative 645 in November.

Call the policy an income tax, and Washington voters are reminded of the much larger and longstanding debate over whether their state should tax individual income at all.

Call it a “millionaires tax,” and you've subtly changed the question to something else: Should millionaires pay more taxes?

Those aren't the same question.

And I-645 itself goes beyond one tax. The initiative would repeal the new tax and address the broader ability of state and local governments to impose taxes on individual income. That's a considerably bigger policy question than whether millionaires ought to write a larger check to Olympia.

There is also some history worth remembering.

Washington has spent years wrestling with individual income taxation. That history is precisely why the terminology matters. When lawmakers themselves acknowledge they're creating an income tax, and the agency implementing the law calls it Washington's “new income tax,” voters ought to hear those words when the policy is reported on.

Instead, we're treated to linguistic gymnastics.

Supporters are free to make their case. They can argue that only a small percentage of Washingtonians will pay the tax. They can argue that its revenue is necessary to pay for government services and tax reductions elsewhere. House Democrats make exactly that case in their lengthy defense of the policy.

But the media has a different job. It shouldn't make the branding decision for voters.

The state agency administering the law isn't confused about what Washington enacted.

The media shouldn't be either.

It's an income tax. Call it what it is.