Washington State's unofficial state motto has long been "Al-ki" which means either "bye and bye" or "by and by" in Chinook. The former meaning now seems official as Gov. Jay Inslee pushes for a "wealth tax." Wealthy citizens are already saying bye to the state in anticipation of what one Democratic billionaire recently called a "boneheaded" move.

The problem is that rich people can move. Unlike fixed assets like a mansion, they can take their wealth and taxes to other states without such laws.

The post from Senate Democrats supporting Senate Bill 5486 said, "The first $250 million of assessed value is exempted, meaning only the wealthiest people in Washington would pay the tax, including some of the wealthiest individuals in the world."

I have previously written against wealth taxes from both constitutional and practical perspectives in the federal system. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has long been a proponent of wealth taxes and the Biden Administration supported the effort.

The Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania found that Warren's legislation would raise $2.7 trillion in revenue, but it would also reduce capital by 3.1%, depress average hourly wages by 1.2%, and reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 1.2% in 2050.

The federal constitutional problems are not barriers to the states. However, the effort to hammer the wealth has never worked for states or countries. France previously saw a massive exodus after it attempted to clip the most wealthy and had to reverse its policies.

Putting aside expected legal challenges, Democratic donor Nick Hanauer criticized state Democrats for the push and said he had already spoken to the wealthiest citizens about fleeing the state.

"Even if it clears the legal, implementation & other challenges, it's unlikely to raise much [money] given every wealthy person I've spoken to in the last few days has said they will leave the state. I believe them. Thoughtful taxes don't actually drive people away, boneheaded taxes do."

That is the problem with eating the rich . . . they have to stay put to be eaten. These wealthy individuals are already willing to pay some of the highest taxes in blue states for income. However, a wealth tax would expose their property to what is likely to become an irresistible target for politicians unwilling to make tough budget choices.

Of course, Washington could follow California in seeking a retroactive tax. Rather than try to keep the most wealthy citizens, it could seek to make them pay to leave the state like a giant Venus Flytrap.

We previously discussed the push in California to impose a retroactive tax on the many citizens and companies fleeing that state due to its high taxes and other problems. Warren wants to do the same nationally. So, if businesses are fleeing the country due to these policies, they would have to essentially pay for the freedom in a type of captivity tax. It is incredibly short-sighted. They need these businesses and they will not be able to coerce them into staying by trying to make it more expensive to leave.

The wealth tax campaigns combine fiscal negligence with political opportunism. Rather than imposing budgetary restraints and reducing budgets, Democrats promise to fleece the superrich. This short-term appeal is likely to cost the state dearly as the wealthy leave for less predatorial states.

You can stay in Washington state and get hit with a wealth tax or you can "bye and bye" and move out of the way. It appears that millionaires are already training with a financial expert in Washington to move out of the way of the wealth tax: