Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Nick Hanauer called the proposed Washington wealth tax “impractical,” arguing that it could face legal and implementation challenges and might prompt wealthy residents to leave. Those were Hanauer’s political judgments—not a court ruling or a measured forecast. The 2023–24 proposal he criticized, Senate Bill 5486 and its companion House Bill 1473, did not pass.
What Hanauer objected to
In a December 24, 2024 report, Hanauer said the proposed tax would draw a different response from wealthy residents than Washington’s capital-gains tax. He wrote that supporters had helped create the conditions for the capital-gains tax, but “the opposite will be true for this tax.”
Hanauer also argued that the proposal could face legal and implementation hurdles and was unlikely to raise much revenue because wealthy people he had spoken with said they would leave Washington. He said he believed them and characterized the proposal as a “boneheaded” tax. These remarks describe his conversations and expectations; they do not establish how many residents would move or how much revenue the tax would raise. The December 24, 2024 report attributes the comments to Hanauer.
What the 2023–24 proposal would have taxed
The Department of Revenue described SB 5486 and HB 1473 as a property tax on extreme wealth held in financial intangible assets, including stocks and bonds. Under the proposal, the tax rate would have been 1% on covered worldwide financial intangible assets above an exemption of up to $250 million. Assets would have been valued as of December 31 of the tax year. These figures describe the 2023–24 bills, not later proposals. The Department of Revenue’s November 1, 2024 study summarizes the proposal.
#1 Best Overall
Calling it a “wealth tax” can obscure the legal framing: the department explained that Washington proposals treated this levy as a property tax on intangible financial assets. That classification matters because property taxes face state constitutional requirements.
Why the state identified legal and administrative challenges
Constitutional questions
The Department of Revenue said a tax of this kind would likely be considered a property tax and therefore subject to constitutional constraints, including uniformity requirements and an aggregate property-tax rate limit of $10 per $1,000 of assessed value. This was the department’s analysis, not a court decision on SB 5486 or HB 1473. It does not establish that a specific proposal would necessarily be upheld or struck down.
Valuation, compliance and migration
The department identified practical difficulties in determining who owns covered assets, valuing assets that are not traded on public markets, and assessing compliance with self-reported information. It also discussed possible taxpayer migration and other behavioral responses. The department cautioned that evidence from national wealth taxes does not directly predict what would happen under a state tax, where moving may be easier.
Revenue estimates
Because data on actual wealth is limited and compliance and behavior are difficult to predict, the department said its fiscal model could not forecast exact revenue. It nevertheless concluded that it believed it could administer a wealth tax if one were enacted. Thus, “hard to estimate” and “impossible to administer” are not equivalent conclusions. The study discusses both the uncertainties and the department’s assessment of its administrative capacity.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Rank #3
Did the proposal become law?
No. SB 5486 and companion HB 1473 were heard in committee but did not pass. The Legislature’s bill records show SB 5486 retained in present status in 2024 and identify HB 1473 as its companion. SB 5486’s legislative history and HB 1473’s legislative history track those measures.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Later proposals are different bills
Washington considered other measures after the 2023–24 proposal. Their terms and status should not be attributed to the proposal Hanauer discussed.
Quick Recap
Best Value
| Measure | What the cited material says | Status in the cited record |
|---|---|---|
| SB 5486 / HB 1473 (2023–24) | 1% on covered financial intangible assets above an exemption of up to $250 million; valuation as of December 31 of the tax year, according to the Department of Revenue. | Heard in committee; did not pass. |
| SB 5797 (2025) | A Senate staff report describes a proposed $5 per $1,000 tax on specified financial intangible assets above $50 million. | The Senate passed it 26–21 on April 27, 2025, according to the staff report. The SB 5797 report concerns this separate proposal. |
| HB 1319 (2025–26) | A separate wealth-tax bill requested by the Office of Financial Management. | The bill page records its first referral to House Finance in 2025 and reintroduction with retention in present status in January 2026. That entry alone does not establish enactment or a later final disposition. The HB 1319 bill page gives its recorded history. |
| ESSB 6346 (2026) | A separate proposal for a 9.90% tax on individual income above $1 million beginning in 2028, as described in a 2026 House report. | This is an income-tax proposal, not a tax on wealth or assets. The ESSB 6346 House report describes that measure. |
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
