Pollsters Test Anti-Wealth Tax Messaging Ahead Of Inevitable Referendum

As the Washington State Legislature cobbles together a wealth tax policy in the final days of session, pollsters are already testing messaging to persuade Washingtonians to reject it at the ballot box in an almost certain referendum battle later this year. If the pollster's questions serve as any indication of the arguments conservatives plan to trot out, weatlth tax proponents don't have much to worry about.

The pollsters asked likely voters to rank how convinced they felt by the following arguments against the wealth tax:

1. “If this tax is kept in place, we’ll be taxing people every year for what they own. We already pay a sales tax, a real estate tax, capital gains taxes, and a federal income tax. But this taxes people for what they have, and does it on a year-in and year-out basis. It is fundamentally anti-American.”

   
   

This first point offers perhaps the richest text of all. The pollsters open strong by pretending to clutch their pearls over something as routine and mundane as a literal property tax, a revenue stream Washington relies on heavily in place of an income tax. And as the only state in the union to shift more Democrat in the 2024 election, I don’t think that a random appeal to patriotism is going to land with the average voter here in our current political climate.

2. “Washington politicians have been wasting taxpayer money for years. Instead of keeping this new tax, our government should live within its means, so we get more for the taxes we already used to pay.”

   
   

This point may have legs—it won the Seattle City Council elections in 2023 (in part). But still, proponents for the wealth tax can easily one-up them. Washingtonians responded really strongly to messaging that spelled out what programs were at risk if voters repealed the capital gains tax. Anticipating this, the pollster also collected some feedback for pro-tax messaging, asking respondents to rate the persuasiveness of the following: “The Trump administration is cutting funding for critical services in Washington such as education, health and mental health care, and programs for people with disabilities. This wealth tax is needed to protect important services that Washington families rely on.”

3. “These tax increases affect small business owners, family farmers, and innovators who work hard for everything they have and contribute so much to our local economy. Washington needs to become an easier place to do business, not a harder one.”

   
   

The facts of the policy clear this one up pretty quick. The wealth tax, as proposed in either chamber, would only kick in at $50 million worth of assets. Small business owners don’t have $50 million worth of assets just laying around—and if they did, there’s really no reason to consider their point of view in a minimum wage debate ever again. Old McDonald doesn’t have a nine-figure stock portfolio, and even if his farmland was worth more than $50 million, the tax applies to intangible property, not real estate. And the next computer whiz to launch a startup from her parents' garage probably hasn’t thought about how bad the taxes will be once she makes it big—she’s probably just excited to quit her day job.

4. “This tax violates our Constitution. If it is challenged in Court, it will likely be overturned, leaving us with a budget deficit, and we will urgently need to raise taxes or cut services.”

   
   

The Democrats will have to work out some messaging for this one. Gov. Bob Ferguson made waves earlier this month when he blasted Democrat lawmakers' wealth tax proposal as legally risky. But the weight of this argument largely depends on if lawmakers approve a big, bold wealth tax, or take Ferguson’s advice and write up a smaller one as a legal test balloon.

5. “The tax burden in Washington is already too high. We have high property taxes and high sales taxes. The last thing we need is more taxes. We need to send a message to the tax-and-spend politicians in Olympia and reject another tax.”

Yes, it’s absolutely true that working people feel the pain of taxation every time they swipe their debit card or their landlord passes along the cost of a new levy in their rent. But again, the wealth tax will only collect revenue from about 4,300 of the richest households in the state. And because of Washington’s infamously regressive tax code, those people are actually burdened much less than the poorest Washingtonians relative to their income. The right fears that will be a tough point to overcome. The pollsters also asked for feedback on the pro-tax talking point: “Wealthy people make most of their money from stocks and hedge funds, instead of what they earn from working, and they pay lower taxes on this money than we pay on our salaries. This wealth tax allows Washington to make sure that the 4,300 of those who get their money from stocks and hedge funds pay their fair share.”

6. “Wealthy people can live anywhere they want to and often own homes all over the world. If Washington keeps this tax in place right after keeping a capital gains tax, wealthy people will just leave the state and we’ll end up losing money.”

   
   

There’s not a ton of great research into “capital flight” on either side from what I can tell. But it's worth noting that Washington boasts an exceptionally regressive tax code, and rich people will have a hard time finding a more friendly place to live. Well aware of the talking point, progressives have done a decent job recruiting a few altruistic rich people to testify in support of paying more in taxes.

7. “Some stocks and properties don’t make money and some even lose value in a given year, but this tax applies regardless of whether the stock is going up in value. People lose money and then have to pay extra taxes despite the loss.”

   
   

I haven’t seen any anti-tax lobbyist making this argument. Maybe because it sucks. It’s hard to feel bad about a rich guy losing money from his passive income stream. Besides, if said rich guy’s assets lost value, he now owes less tax. Welcome to math.

8. "This was such a bad idea that both Republicans and Democrats opposed it. All of the Republicans in the legislature opposed it, as did Democratic Governor Bob Ferguson because they understand it’s not a tax we can rely on to actually produce money to fund services."

   
   

Yeah, Ferguson is not being very strategic about how he speaks publicly about the wealth tax if he wants to help it pass. But the messaging here really relies on how voters feel about Ferguson and the Republicans in the state legislature. Just a few months into his term, Ferguson’s attracted some negative press, from weathering a personnel scandal to a union leader calling him a “ratfink.” And Democrats, if they can get themselves organized, will have a counterexample in every lawmaker who votes to support the wealth tax.

Sure, there's some points of legit criticism proponents will have to overcome, but honestly, if this is all they got

bring it on!