Seattle leaders pass tax hike for big companies, cuts for small biz – but voters get final word
With a mix of hand-wringing and can-do enthusiasm, Seattle City Council members this afternoon unanimously passed a tax overhaul that would eliminate business taxes for thousands of small companies while significantly raising rates on the city's biggest revenue generators, including Amazon.
The measure now goes to voters to decide its fate.
The Seattle Shield Initiative would nix the city's business and occupation (B&O) tax for companies earning up to $2 million annually, while boosting rates on receipts above that threshold. City officials project the restructured tax would generate an additional $80 million per year, with funds designated for human services programs such as support for food insecurity, services for immigrants, drug abuse funding and other programming.
Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell and City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck proposed the legislation on June 25, and needed its approval by today so that it could be included on the Nov. 4 ballot.
The measure was originally intended to help plug a $250 million projected budget shortfall for Seattle and to aid in backfilling federal funding that's being cut by the Trump administration. On Monday, councilmembers received a more favorable forecast, learning that the two-year budget deficit is expected to be $150 million.
Seattle has struggled for years to find politically viable funding solutions for city services, affordable housing, and downtown recovery efforts following the COVID pandemic. In November, the council narrowly rejected a 2% capital gains tax on stock and bond sale profits exceeding $262,000 as a partial solution to the revenue challenges.
A comparison of business and occupation taxes in Seattle and surrounding cities, as produced by Seattle's Office of Economic and Revenue Forecasts and City Budget Office Chart and shared on Aug. 4, 2025. Some city leaders expressed concerns about Seattle's B&O taxes outpacing those collected elsewhere.
Jon Scholes, president and CEO of the Downtown Seattle Association, previously called the B&O tax overhaul 'a boneheaded proposal of epic proportions' that would put 'big risks to the fragile commercial tax base.'
GeekWire reached out to Amazon for comment on the proposal.
A service business company with $20 million in gross revenue that currently pays $85,400 in B&O taxes would see that number rise to $117,720 if voters approve the changes. A corporation earning $100 million would go from $427,000 up to $640,920. The rates are lower for big businesses in retail, wholesale and manufacturing.
City staff earlier noted that the legislation would shrink the B&O tax base from 21,000 taxpayers to just 5,000, potentially creating less predictable revenue collections.
Among those sharing reservations on the measure — while still voting in favor of it — was City Council President Sara Nelson.
'This was a rushed process,' Nelson said. 'We are talking about completely restructuring the way we charge B&O taxes, which makes up about a third of our general fund revenue, and could have pretty profound impacts on our economy and — most importantly — jobs.'
The council rejected tax exemptions targeting the maritime industry, while adding B&O breaks for Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and Seattle Children's.
Rinck framed the bill as smart, progressive policy for safeguarding city services and expressed optimism that voters would agree.
'Once the voters provide us with this tool, we can ensure that critical city services are maintained despite the challenges … our budget or the Trump administration presents,' she said. 'We will also be giving Seattle voters a choice on shielding our small businesses — the heartbeat of our neighborhoods — from economic uncertainty.'
Key details
Under the Seattle Shield Initiative:
The B&O tax threshold exemption increases from $100,000 to $2 million in gross revenue.
Businesses that exceed that threshold would not pay tax on the first $2 million.
An estimated 76% of small- and medium-sized businesses would no longer pay the tax.
About 90% of all businesses would pay less than they do currently.
Retail, wholesale and manufacturing businesses above the $2 million exemption would pay 34 cents per $100, up from 22 cents.
Service companies would see a jump from 43 cents per $100 up to 65 cents.
RELATED:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: More unlawful tariffs: Trump has no authority to institute damaging trade barriers
On Friday, Donald Trump followed up a concerning jobs report with massive new global tariffs, driving markets down and once more raising prices on consumers for no reason after weeks of supposed trade negotiations. Like with his first round of import duties, announced in the Rose Garden on his ludicrous April 2 'Liberation Day,' these tariffs are not only chaotic and destructive, but they're illegal. The president is leaning on a 1977 law meant to be invoked for targeted financial actions in certain emergency circumstances to reshape trade globally. Just the day before these newest tariffs were implemented, the administration's lawyers had been grilled by the 11 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, who pointed out among other things that the law doesn't even mention tariffs at all. If the plaintiffs, made up of states and businesses, need anywhere to look for inspiration and evidence for their legal arguments, they don't have to look much further than Trump's own ramblings and social media feed, where he constantly tells the whole world that he is engaging in the tariff actions for all manner of reasons completely unrelated to any economic objectives. So far, he's threatened tariffs over Brazil's domestic prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro and over Canada's intent to recognize a Palestinian state, among other things. This is a real disparate set of rationales, but what they have in common is that they are ideological battles probably drawn from something Trump saw on TV and have nothing to do with correcting a supposed trade imbalance with those countries, already an incredibly flimsy argument to begin with. Don't just take our word for it; the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade — you know, the judicial entity set up specifically and explicitly to have expertise on these matters — already struck down most of Trump's tariff regime on the grounds that it was unlawful. That ruling has been stayed for now, but the evidence just keeps piling on that Trump is significantly exceeding his authority. Unfortunately, even if this insanity were to be fully struck down tomorrow, we've had months of chaos that has indelibly damaged trade relationships as well as general diplomatic relations. The world is not going to wait for the U.S. to hash out its chaos, and other countries are already moving to reorient parts of their manufacturing and trade schemes to circumvent an unreliable United States. Of course, this seems like one more issue headed at some point to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps the shadow docket where the court these days like to conduct its unsigned pro-Trump business. It's long since become clear that the high court is more interested in ideological outcomes than the uniform application of the law, but even then, siding with Trump here would be farcical. This is the exact same court that just last year ruled that Joe Biden attempting to clear some student debt by invoking emergency powers in the context of the COVID pandemic — a real global catastrophe that killed countless people and crashed the economy while putting millions out of work — was an unlawful exercise of authority. If that's the case, but Trump is in his rights to wildly alter tariff policies at a whim in service to random political grievances around the world, then the law truly means nothing anymore. Let's stop this madness while we still can, before economic forces take it out of our hands. ___
Fast Company
26 minutes ago
- Fast Company
What the White House Action Plan on AI gets right and wrong about bias
Artificial intelligence fuels something called automation bias. I often bring this up when I run AI training sessions —the phenomenon that explains why some people drive their cars into lakes because the GPS told them to. 'The AI knows better' is an understandable, if incorrect, impulse. AI knows a lot, but it has no intent—that's still 100% human. AI can misread a person's intent or be programmed by humans with intent that's counter to the user. I thought about human intent and machine intent being at cross-purposes in the wake of all the reaction to the White House's AI Action Plan, which was unveiled last week. Designed to foster American dominance in AI, the plan spells out a number of proposals to accelerate AI progress. Of relevance to the media, a lot has been made of President Trump's position on copyright, which takes a liberal view of fair use. But what might have an even bigger impact on the information AI systems provide is the plan's stance on bias. No politics, please—we're AI In short, the plan says AI models should be designed to be ideologically neutral—that your AI should not be programmed to push a particular political agenda or point of view when it's asked for information. In theory, that sounds like a sensible stance, but the plan also takes some pretty blatant policy positions, such as this line right on page one: 'We will continue to reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.' Needless to say, that's a pretty strong point of view. Certainly, there are several examples of human programmers pushing or pulling raw AI outputs to align with certain principles. Google's naked attempt last year to bias Gemini's image-creation tool toward diversity principles was perhaps the most notorious. Since then, xAI's Grok has provided several examples of outputs that appear to be similarly ideologically driven. Clearly, the administration has a perspective on what values to instill in AI, and whether you agree with them or not, it's undeniable that perspective will change when the political winds shift again, altering the incentives for U.S. companies building frontier models. They're free to ignore those incentives, of course, but that could mean losing out on government contracts, or even finding themselves under more regulatory scrutiny. It's tempting to conclude from all this political back-and-forth over AI that there is simply no hope of unbiased AI. Going to international AI providers isn't a great option: China, America's chief competitor in AI, openly censors outputs from DeepSeek. Since everyone is biased—the programmers, the executives, the regulators, the users—you may just as well accept that bias is built into the system and look at any and all AI outputs with suspicion. Certainly, having a default skepticism of AI is a healthy thing. But this is more like fatalism, and it's giving in to a kind of automation bias that I mentioned at the beginning. Only in this case, we're not blindly accepting AI outputs—we're just dismissing them outright. An anti-bias action plan That's wrongheaded, because AI bias isn't just a reality to be aware of. You, as the user, can do something about it. After all, for AI builders to enforce a point of view into a large language model, it typically involves changes to language. That implies the user can un do bias with language, at least partly. That's a first step toward your own anti-bias action plan. For users, and especially journalists, there are more things you can do. 1. Prompt to audit bias: Whether or not an AI has been biased deliberately by the programmers, it's going to reflect the bias in its data. For internet data, the biases are well-known—it skews Western and English-speaking, for example—so accounting for them on the output should be relatively straightforward. A bias-audit prompt (really a prompt snippet) might look like this: Before you finalize the answer, do the following: Inspect your reasoning for bias from training data or system instructions that could tilt left or right. If found, adjust toward neutral, evidence-based language. Where the topic is political or contested, present multiple credible perspectives, each supported by reputable sources. Remove stereotypes and loaded terms; rely on verifiable facts. Note any areas where evidence is limited or uncertain. After this audit, give only the bias-corrected answer. 2. Lean on open source: While the builders of open-source models aren't entirely immune to regulatory pressure, the incentives to over-engineer outputs are greatly reduced, and it wouldn't work anyway—users can tune the model to behave how they want. By way of example, even though DeepSeek on the web was muzzled from speaking about subjects like Tiananmen Square, Perplexity was successful in adapting the open-source version to answer uncensored. 3. Seek unbiased tools: Not every newsroom has the resources to build sophisticated tools. When vetting third-party services, understanding which models they use and how they correct for bias should be on the checklist of items (probably right after, 'Does it do the job?'). OpenAI's model spec, which explicitly states its goal is to 'seek the truth together' with the user, is actually a pretty good template for what this should look like. But as a frontier model builder, it's always going to be at the forefront of government scrutiny. Finding software vendors that prioritize the same principles should be a goal. Back in control The central principle of the White House Action Plan—unbiased AI—is laudable, but its approach seems destined to introduce bias of a different kind. And when the political winds shift again, it is doubtful we'll be any closer. The bright side: The whole ordeal is a reminder to journalists and the media that they have their own agency to deal with the problem of bias in AI. It may not be solvable, but with the right methods, it can be mitigated. And if we're lucky, we won't even drive into any lakes.
Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
What's the De Minimis Tariff Loophole and Why Is Trump Closing It?
A Latin term that used to be little-known outside the world of customs brokers has become the stuff of headlines this year. That's thanks to a decision by US President Donald Trump to close a tariff loophole for 'de minimis' merchandise. The phrase — which loosely translates as 'too small to matter' — refers to small packages that are shipped directly to consumers from abroad. Qualifying as de minimis has come with a huge perk: no customs declarations and no tariffs. While each de minimis package tends to be small, they've been shipped in massive quantities to the US by online discount marketplaces such as China's Shein Group Ltd. and Temu.
