Millionaires' tax could ‘revolutionize’ WA education, OSPI chief says92%

By Noel Gasca0%

2/6/2026, 5:05:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, In-Group Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Politically Left Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 66.9% saturation with 370 hits. Analysis detected 1,997 faulty-reasoning hits from 566 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.9% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,762 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.00% of the article peer group.

State School Superintendent Chris Reykdal says a Democratic plan calling for a so-called "millionaires' tax" has the potential to "revolutionize" education in Washington state. 
State Democrats estimate the proposed tax would raise $3.7 billion from high-income earners making more than $1 million, and would tax 9.9% of income over $1 million. 
"If it was almost solely focused on families trying to raise kids and giving young people the greatest opportunity, we would revolutionize education in the state, particularly higher ed access," Reykdal said. 
Speaking from Olympia on Thursday afternoon, Reykdal threw his full support behind the legislation. 
"I want to say unequivocally, if not a single amendment happened to that bill, the Legislature should pass that," Reykdal said. 
According to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington's public schools are funded primarily through by the state, with smaller funding pools coming from levies and federal support. 
However, unlike most of the country, Washington does not have an income tax. 
That's led some progressives to hail the proposed "millionaires' tax" as a way to rectify the state's "upside-down" tax code. 
While Reykdal, a former Democratic House member, stated his role as state superintendent is not to participate in negotiations over the bill, he did appeal to the potential impact the tax could have on Washington's public K-12 schools, after several years of "persistent" budget challenges for the state. 
This year, lawmakers in Olympia will tackle how to address a projected $2.3 billion shortfall. 
"This is a state that invests in young people, so I always start with, 'What are we trying to achieve in the state?' And then, does the tax code meet that?" Reykdal said. 
"The lawmakers are working very hard on this question right now." 
Rekydal proposes using $760 million from Democrats' projected revenue to fully fund K-12 education in the state, fund free school meals for all public school students, and pay for two years of free in-state college tuition for all Washingtonians. 
He says the tax revenue could also be used to cover fees for all dual credit programs, like Advanced Placement tests. 
"You're a high school kid. We don't charge high school students to take classes  that's a basic ed right," Reykdal said. 
"If you're in Running Start, you shouldn't pay fees for that." 
The investments could help close college completion rates, according to Reykdal. 
He said more than 70% of high school students in Washington leave their school with college credit. 
Only 55% then go on to attend a "traditional college." 
Reykdal estimates that more than a million Washingtonians have started college but have not received a degree. 
"What they increasingly tell me is, 'My family doesn't qualify for aid, and they didn't save up the tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars between housing, tuition, fees, and food for me to sit on a campus for four or five years,'" Reykdal said. 
But Washington Republicans, and Gov. Bob Ferguson are pushing back against the bill in its current form. 
"Washingtonians have rejected income taxes again in again because they know better," Rep. Travis Couture (R–Allyn) said in a statement to KUOW earlier this week. 
Reykdal acknowledged the potentially rocky road ahead for the bill. 
"It clearly needs to get through the courts, and it's clearly going to go to the voters," Reykdal said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.5%Noel Gasca: 2.9%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias10.5%This article: 20.8%Noel Gasca: 1.8%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias20.8%This article: 8.5%Noel Gasca: 2.9%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.9%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.8%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Noel Gasca: 1.6%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias7.2%This article: 60.9%Noel Gasca: 7.9%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect60.9%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 1.1%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.5%Noel Gasca: 0.7%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.3%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 23.0%Noel Gasca: 5.6%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias23.0%This article: 2.7%Noel Gasca: 1.5%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias2.7%This article: 1.8%Noel Gasca: 3.5%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias1.8%This article: 8.7%Noel Gasca: 1.6%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.8%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 54.2%Noel Gasca: 2.9%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias54.2%This article: 3.1%Noel Gasca: 0.5%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.1%This article: 2.0%Noel Gasca: 5.2%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 1.0%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.5%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.3%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.1%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 2.0%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.7%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.4%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.3%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 2.4%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.2%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Noel Gasca: 0.8%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 36.0%Noel Gasca: 6.5%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion36.0%This article: 13.6%Noel Gasca: 1.1%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question13.6%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 2.3%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.5%Noel Gasca: 5.6%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal8.5%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.3%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.6%Noel Gasca: 1.2%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.6%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.5%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 4.5%Noel Gasca: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy4.5%This article: 8.0%Noel Gasca: 0.9%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote8.0%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 1.9%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 66.9%Noel Gasca: 2.2%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias66.9%This article: 7.6%Noel Gasca: 0.6%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Noel Gasca: 0.3%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

553 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.