“BYE” Mayor Sparks Millionaire Tax Fury

Seattle’s socialist mayor is brushing off warnings that Washington’s new “millionaires tax” could push job creators and investment out of the state—literally laughing and waving “bye.”

Quick Take

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson dismissed concerns about wealthy residents leaving Washington after the state adopted a 9.9% income tax on households earning over $1 million.
Washington’s first-ever income tax was signed March 30, 2026, by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson, marking a major shift for a state long defined by no income tax.
Business owners say the new tax is already fueling uncertainty and fear that lawmakers will expand it beyond millionaires over time.
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced he and his wife are relocating to Florida for their “retirement phase,” a high-profile move that intensified the political fight.

What Mayor Katie Wilson Actually Said—and Why It Landed Like a Taunt

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson drew national attention after dismissing claims that wealthy residents would leave Washington in response to the newly enacted millionaires tax. In a clip circulating online, Wilson said the idea that millionaires will flee is “super overblown,” and added that for “the ones that leave,” it’s “bye.” The remark matters because it frames tax-migration warnings as a culture-war talking point rather than a practical economic risk.

Wilson’s comment also underscores a larger political divide in deep-blue cities: progressive leaders frequently argue that raising taxes on top earners is both popular and necessary, while business groups argue it signals hostility toward the very people funding payrolls, risk-taking, and local philanthropy. On its face, her statement doesn’t prove an exodus is happening at scale—but it does confirm that city leadership is not treating the threat as a priority to prevent.

Washington’s New Millionaires Tax: A Turning Point for a No-Income-Tax State

Washington’s law created the state’s first-ever income tax: a 9.9% levy on households earning more than $1 million. Gov. Bob Ferguson signed it on March 30, 2026, after Democrats pushed it through the legislature. Supporters describe it as targeted and fair, while opponents argue it breaks a long-standing political promise and opens the door to future expansion. The shift is significant because tax structures tend to grow once the precedent is set.

Critics point to a familiar pattern from other states: “temporary” or “targeted” taxes often become normalized, then broadened when budgets tighten. In this case, business owners told reporters they fear they are “next,” reading the millionaires tax less as a one-off revenue tool and more as a signal that additional levies could follow. A Wall Street Journal editorial board critique, cited in coverage, warned the tax will “inevitably capture the middle class,” reflecting that broader concern.

Business Owners’ Core Concern: Investment Decisions Are Made on Predictability

Small and mid-sized employers cannot easily absorb uncertainty about what their tax burden will look like next year, let alone five years from now. Business owners speaking in reporting said the new tax is “scaring people off,” not only because of the rate but because it suggests a direction of travel for state policy. That anxiety is amplified in sectors like tech and professional services, where entrepreneurs and executives can relocate with fewer operational constraints than manufacturers.

Since 2020, remote work has made those relocation decisions easier. Coverage noted that many workers were able to leave the Seattle area while keeping Seattle-level salaries, then eventually find new jobs elsewhere—and some “never came back.” That context matters because a state doesn’t need a dramatic, headline-grabbing exodus to feel real fiscal stress; it only needs a steady leak of high earners, founders, and highly compensated employees who disproportionately support the tax base and local consumption.

The Howard Schultz Move: A Symbol, Not Proof of a Mass Exodus

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz added fuel to the debate when he announced in a LinkedIn post that he and his wife were relocating to Florida for their “retirement phase,” ending nearly 50 years in Washington. Some commentators suggested the timing—near the approval of the income tax—looked tax-motivated. However, the available reporting also notes a key limitation: Schultz did not explicitly cite the millionaires tax as the reason for his move.

Even without a stated motive, high-profile departures shape perception. For supporters of the new tax, one retirement relocation does not establish a trend, and Wilson’s stance suggests confidence that the state will do fine. For skeptics, Schultz’s move illustrates how mobile wealth has become and how quickly capital can respond to policy signals. In a period when many Americans believe government prioritizes politics over results, the “bye” posture reads as indifference to predictable consequences.

The Bigger Political Problem: Voters Sense a Government That Doesn’t Feel Accountable

The fight over Washington’s millionaires tax is not only about revenue; it is about trust. Many conservatives see the tax as another step toward bigger government and a politics of punishment for success. Many liberals see it as a corrective for inequality and underfunded services. Yet both sides increasingly share a frustration that elected leaders can sound more focused on scoring points than on measuring real outcomes, like business formation, job growth, and long-term affordability.

Socialist Seattle mayor dismisses millionaires leaving Washington state by waving 'bye' to them https://t.co/XEYExo5wq5 pic.twitter.com/TkAqBdmYX4

— New York Post (@nypost) May 1, 2026

The practical test will be whether leaders track measurable indicators—migration patterns, business registrations, employment growth, and revenue stability—and adjust if the numbers move the wrong direction. Wilson’s “super overblown…bye” framing may energize activists, but it also raises the stakes: if the policy leads to less investment or a shrinking tax base, dismissing concerns now could make future course-corrections harder to sell. For taxpayers watching from across the country, this is a case study in how quickly “tax the rich” can become a governing identity.