Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lengthy hearing on proposed statewide payroll tax to fund 'Well Washington'
Loading...
Summary
House Finance heard House Bill 2,100 and a proposed substitute to create a 5% payroll expense tax on wages above the Social Security wage limit for large operating companies, fund the 'Well Washington Fund' for health, housing, higher education and other programs, and include credits for local payroll taxes; testimony was sharply split between labor, social‑service advocates and business groups; no vote was taken.
House Finance devoted the remainder of Thursday’s hearing to House Bill 2,100, a broad proposal to levy a statewide payroll expense tax on large operating companies and deposit a majority of revenues into a new Well Washington Fund for higher education, health care, cash assistance, energy and housing programs.
Committee staff outlined the proposed substitute and administrative details. Tracy Taylor said the tax in the substitute would be "5% of the total annual employee wages that exceed the Social Security wage limit," administered by the Employment Security Department. Under the substitute, a large operating company must employ 250 or more people and have at least $7,000,000 in annual payroll; the substitute excludes hospitals, health‑care providers and certain public entities, and allows a credit against the state tax for eligible city payroll taxes.
Prime sponsor Representative Scott framed the bill as a progressive, targeted measure to protect vital state programs from anticipated federal cuts. "House Bill 2,100 is designed to build on the progress that we have made in Washington in recent years while protecting vital programs from federal divestment," Scott said. He described the proposal as a way to stabilize funding for programs that serve vulnerable residents.
The hearing record included extensive and sharply divided testimony. Labor unions, poverty‑action groups, caregivers and health‑policy advocates urged passage, describing imminent harms from federal actions and arguing the fund would protect vulnerable populations. Supporters included the Statewide Poverty Action Network, Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, UAW 4121, Washington Federation of State Employees and others who pressed urgency and argued the policy is progressive.
Business associations, chambers, construction and retail groups and some independent business witnesses opposed the measure. They warned of job relocation risks, higher operating costs, and sectoral impacts to groceries, hospitality, construction and technology. Several business witnesses cited Seattle's jumpstart payroll tax as a cautionary example and said thresholds and credits as drafted would still reach many employers outside the intended top 1 percent.
Committee members asked detailed questions about credits for local payroll taxes, whether cities and counties could retain or implement local payroll taxes, and whether the substitute precludes local action; staff and the sponsor said some issues would be clarified offline. No committee vote was taken; the hearing record remained open for submitted testimony and technical follow‑up.
