Oregon state is our neighbor and shares with Washington many political, cultural, and geographic identities: A large block of progressive voters, big metro centers on the west side, rich natural resources like agriculture and timber, renowned music scenes, a coastline along the Pacific Ocean, and miles and miles of hiking trails in gorgeous mountains.  

One thing that is distinctly not shared is our tax structures. Oregon has one of the more progressive state tax codes in the country. Washington has one of the most regressive. These structural differences have set the stage for very different ballot fights this November. Importantly, these different tax fights show us that fiscal structures can strongly influence what we think is politically possible, but that real change is possible if we organize to change those very structures.  

First, some background. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s definitive report on state tax systems lists Oregon as #42 – within the top ten – of least regressive tax codes in the country (D.C. and Minnesota are #51 and #50, respectively). In Oregon, the lowest 20% of households by income pay 12 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while the top 1% pay 10.4 percent. What contributes to this relatively fair system is that Oregon’s tax code does not have a sales tax and does have: 

• a state income tax that is progressive, meaning there are higher tax rates for higher incomes 
• an estate tax and  
• several refundable tax credits (such as a Child Tax Credit).  

On the other end of the spectrum is Washington’s tax code, second only to Florida in its regressivity or unfairness.  Washington gets most of its public revenue from the sales tax, followed by the property tax. We lack a state income tax of any kind.  

Prior to 2019, Washington had the most unfair tax code in the nation. The passage of both the Working Families Tax Credit and Capital Gains tax helped move us from most regressive tax code to second place. Still, in Washington, the poorest 20% of households by income pay 13.8 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while the top richest 1% pay just 4.1 percent.  

Unfortunately, that progress is being challenged on the ballot this fall. Multi-millionaire and right-wing activist Brian Heywood poured his own money into signature gathering campaigns last year to successfully get three ballot measures into our November election.  

One of those initiatives, Initiative 2109 (I-2109), proposes to repeal the capital gains tax on the wealthy. The capital gains tax is an excise tax on the sale of assets in which the yearly profit from taxable sales exceeds $250,000. The tax targets the very wealthy: Among other exemptions, capital gains from the sale of real estate and retirement accounts are not taxed.  

In its first couple of years of implementation, the tax collected nearly $1 billion in revenues from several thousand Washingtonians, mostly living in or near King County. The proceeds from the tax go toward early learning, childcare, and public-school construction projects across the state. As described in a recent report from the Washington Budget & Policy Center, 75% of the revenue raised went to school construction projects outside of King County. Furthermore, the revenue raised from this tax on the very wealthy has infused direly needed dollars into supporting kids’ learning. In the 2023-2025 biennium, $383 million was invested into childcare and early learning through the Education Legacy Trust Account, up from only $28 million in the prior biennium.  

It is very important that we soundly reject this right-wing roll back of critical early learning and school funding. Make sure to vote no this November on I-2109, and go a step further: get involved!  

In contrast to the right-wing driven measures that will be on Washington’s November ballot, Oregon has a completely different type of ballot fight going on. In Oregon, folks are debating the merits of Measure 118. Measure 118 would institute a 3% tax on corporations’ profits above $25 million and send the proceeds to all Oregon residents as a rebate. The campaign website states that the median rebate would be $1,600; because it goes to minors as well, they estimate that a typical family of four would see over $6,000 in additional cash in their pockets as a result of this corporate tax. 

Interestingly, many Democratic lawmakers, including Oregon’s governor, are allied against the measure. The arguments against Measure 118 have to do with its lack of targeting those most in need of financial assistance, its potential interaction with public funding streams and concerns about how families who receive public benefits may be disqualified from receiving those benefits due to the income they receive from the Measure 118. The progressive Oregon Center for Public Policy (opposed to Measure 118) outlines some of these arguments in a recent blog post. 

Putting aside the details of this important policy discussion, let us focus on the big picture conversation. In Oregon this fall, everyday people, lawmakers and policy designers are debating the merits of a proposal for cash assistance, which would be made possible by a new tax on large, profitable corporations. Meanwhile in Washington, we are playing defense to maintain a tax on the very wealthiest residents to keep critical funding going to public schools and early learning. These differences illustrate how the structures of our government are partially determinative of the political conversations we have. And, it suggests that passing policy to make our tax code more progressive will set us up for a more expansive imagination about what is possible in Washington.