Public safety is not merely a government service. It is the foundation that allows businesses to open their doors, hire workers, and serve customers with confidence. Our guiding principle is simple and straightforward. Public safety is essential for a high-quality life and secure community. We strive to balance empathy with the need to ensure a safe environment. Collaboration between local communities and service providers strengthens public safety and minimizes negative impacts on businesses. This principle helps us maintain our focus on both people and prosperity.


Safe streets and commercial areas help stores, restaurants, and offices to thrive. When crime is low and emergency response is strong, customers feel comfortable visiting local shops and attending events. Workers feel secure when commuting to and from their jobs. Insurance costs can be lower, property values can hold steady, and neighborhoods can remain active. In the Tri-Cities, this means more foot traffic in our downtowns, steady shifts at industrial sites, and a better experience for families and visitors to the area.


Collaboration is the means by which we achieve this. Businesses, law enforcement, firefighters, schools, service providers, and cities play important roles. Partnerships on issues such as lighting, security design, mental health response, and prevention programs reduce harm before it occurs. These efforts also help avoid rules that place extra burdens on employers without solving the root problems. When we sit at the same table, we find practical fixes that keep people safe and the economy moving.


This guiding principle also shapes how the Chamber evaluates the public policy. When a proposal is made, we ask clear questions. Does it improve safety outcomes in a measurable manner? Does it support fair enforcement? Does it coordinate with local partners? Does it avoid costly mandates that do not match risk? We weigh both empathy and accountability. We support policies that reduce crime, improve emergency readiness, and protect customers and workers while limiting unintended harm to businesses.
​

Our message is straightforward: a safe community is a strong economy. By applying this principle, the Chamber works to ensure that public safety efforts are smart, balanced, and effective. We will continue to bring partners together, review proposals carefully, and advocate for solutions that protect people and help local businesses grow.

Thanks to everyone who joined us for the ribbon cutting for Pro Made Homes' Columbia Shores townhome community! You can check them out at 11545 W. Court St., Pasco, WA 99301.

Thank you to everyone who joined us for the November Membership Luncheon: State of the Cities on Wednesday, November 19. We were honored to welcome our mayors who shared compelling perspectives on growth, community partnership, economic development, and the future of our region.

Washington is famous for not having a statewide income tax. That’s part of our story as a “business-friendly” state, and it is one reason many companies and workers choose to be here.

However, as the state looks for more stable funding for schools, roads, and services, the idea of a state income tax keeps coming back. For the business community, this is not just politics. It concerns costs, competitiveness, and long-term planning.
Here’s a more conversational, big-picture look at what a statewide income tax could mean for Washington’s businesses and local economies.

Why Some Support a State Income Tax

Supporters first focus on stability. Washington relies heavily on sales tax, the B&O tax, and other excise taxes. When the economy slows, people spend less, businesses pull back, and state revenue can drop rapidly. This often leads to budget gaps, rushed fixes, and sudden cuts to services.

A statewide income tax could smoothen these fluctuations by creating a more predictable revenue stream. This can help keep funding steady for schools, roads, transit, and healthcare —key systems that employers depend on. For businesses, fewer budget “crises” can mean more reliable investments in infrastructure and workforce development.

Finally, a new revenue source might give the state more flexibility to rethink other taxes that directly affect employers’ profits. With income tax revenue in place, legislators could have room to adjust the B&O or certain sales taxes. In theory, that could lead to a more balanced mix: less pressure on gross receipts and more focus on the ability to pay, while still funding the services that make it possible to operate and grow in Washington.

Why Others Are Worried
​
Opponents focus on costs and competitiveness. A statewide income tax could increase the total tax bill for business owners and high-wage employees. This might cause some companies to rethink where they expand or place key staff. Employers may feel pressured to raise compensation to offset new taxes, which can be difficult for smaller firms with tight margins. Less cash on hand can mean fewer hires, slower wage growth or delayed investments.

There is also the risk that an income tax does not replace much; it just stacks on top of what already exists. If sales, business and occupation (B&O), and other taxes do not meaningfully decrease, the overall tax burden could rise for both residents and businesses. In a competitive landscape where states use tax policies to attract employers and talent, Washington may be less appealing than lower-tax states.

Design and administration are other concerns. A complicated income tax system can be hard and expensive to comply with, especially for small businesses, self-employed workers, and companies that operate in multiple states. Added complexity means more time spent with accountants and less time focused on running the business.

Finally, there is the issue of mobility. High-income individuals and some businesses can relocate. If they decide that Washington’s tax environment no longer makes sense, they may shift to states with lighter tax loads. If enough of them leave, the tax base shrinks, undercutting the stability the tax was meant to create. Local governments might then feel pressured to lean more on property taxes or local fees or cut services. Moreover, a new income tax would almost certainly generate political and public pushback, adding uncertainty to the business climate.

What This Could Mean for Your Business

If Washington adopts a statewide income tax, most businesses will need to revisit their numbers. Cost structures, budgets, hiring plans, and compensation strategies are all on the table. Companies might also take a fresh look at where they locate their offices, where they expand, and how they compete for talent.

However, the real impact would depend on the details. If an income tax came with real relief on B&O or sales taxes and the revenue was clearly invested in infrastructure, education, and workforce training, many employers could see long-term benefits, even if they paid more in one area. Stronger roads, better schools, and a skilled workforce are powerful assets for the country.

If, instead, the income tax simply layered new costs on top of existing taxes or reduced consumer spending, local businesses—especially in smaller communities—could feel the strain of reduced sales. Less disposable income for residents often results in slower retail sales and weaker demand for local services.

The Bottom Line
​
A statewide income tax in Washington is not automatically good or bad for business. It is a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on how it is designed and used.

On the upside, it could stabilize revenue, support fairer tax sharing, and fund public systems that businesses rely on. However, it could raise overall tax burdens, add complexity, and push some employers and high-income residents to look elsewhere.
For the business community, the key questions are simple but critical: Will other taxes really decrease? Will the new revenue clearly support infrastructure and talent? Will the system remain simple enough to manage without overwhelming compliance costs?
​
As the debate continues, Washington’s employers should remain at the table. The final design—rates, exemptions, trade-offs with other taxes, and spending priorities—will decide whether a state income tax strengthens the state’s business climate or makes it harder to compete.

​References
“A Guide to Washington State Taxes 2025: Income, Property and Sales.” AARP.
“Washington Tax Rates & Rankings.” Tax Foundation.
“Income Tax.” Washington State Department of Revenue.
“Key Conclusions from the Evaluation of the Current Washington Tax Structure.” Washington State Department of Revenue.
“Are No Income Tax States Better to Live In?” Kiplinger.
“Pros and Cons of No State Income Tax.” SoFi.
“Washington May Not Have an Income Tax … But We Pay More Than You Think.” Washington Policy Center.
“Hidden Costs of Moving to a No‑Income‑Tax State.” Optima Tax Relief.

​Congratulations to The Peacock in Kennewick on their ribbon cutting! Be sure to visit their new location at 910 S. Columbia Center Blvd., Ste. G, Kennewick, WA 99336!

Thanks to everyone who joined us for our Business After Hours at Piton Wealth! We hope you made some valuable business connections.

Welcome to the first part of our blog series on personal income tax in Washington State. In this article, we explore why Washington does not have a statewide personal income tax and what would be required to establish one. We also consider how this tax structure impacts businesses, local communities, and the broader economy. Future parts of the series will take a deeper look at the advantages and disadvantages of introducing an income tax, how much revenue it could generate, and what policy designs might look like.
​
Washington is one of the few states that does not tax personal income. Instead, it relies heavily on sales and business and occupation (B&O) taxes. This unusual mix is rooted in old court decisions and policy choices, which shape how both residents and employers experience the cost of government. For business owners, understanding this history is important because any move toward an income tax would change the state’s overall tax landscape.
 
In 1932, voters approved a personal income tax, but in 1933, the Washington Supreme Court struck it down. The court stated that income should be treated as property under the state constitution, which requires uniform tax rates. A graduated income tax, where higher earners pay higher rates, was ruled to be unconstitutional. In response, lawmakers adopted the Revenue Act of 1935 and created the sales, use, and B&O taxes that still form the backbone of state revenue.
 
Consequently, Washington relies more on taxes paid at the cash register and gross business receipts rather than on income or profits. For households, this means that more of the tax load shows up in purchases and fees instead of paychecks. For businesses, especially small ones, the B&O tax can be challenging because it applies to gross receipts rather than net profit. A low-margin firm pays the same rate as a high-margin firm with the same revenue, which can squeeze cash flow when times are tight.
 
If Washington chooses to adopt a personal income tax, it must first address the constitutional barrier. This likely means a constitutional amendment approved by voters. Lawmakers must then decide which types of income to tax, such as wages, investment earnings, or business income, and whether to use a flat or progressive structure. They would also have to determine what exemptions, credits, or deductions to allow, which would influence both fairness and complexity.
 
For the business community, the key questions would focus on costs and competitiveness. How would an income tax interact with existing taxes, such as B&O and sales tax? Would it replace part of those taxes or simply add a new layer? How would it treat pass-through income for partnerships, LLCs, and sole proprietors? Depending on the design, some firms could face higher overall tax burdens, while others might benefit if income taxes allowed for reductions in other areas.
 
Any income tax proposal would also raise broader questions about how to use new revenue. Supporters might argue that it could stabilize funding for education, transportation, and public safety, which businesses rely on. Critics might worry about higher living costs, reduced disposable income, or the perception that Washington is less attractive for investment purposes. In the end, whether Washington keeps its current structure or considers an income tax, the business community will be central to the debate because employers feel the impact of tax changes in both their balance sheets and workforce.
 
As this series continues, we will look more closely at the pros and cons of implementing a personal income tax in Washington, including how it could be structured and what effects it could have on families, workers and the economy. By understanding the history and complexity of this issue, we can have better conversations about the future of our state’s tax system.