(The Center Square) – House Democrats proposed a sugar tax on Thursday that would impose another 3-cent charge per fluid ounce of applicable beverages, amounting to a 72-cent tax on a 24-ounce coffee.
The sugar tax would be in addition to other state and local taxes, including Seattle’s sugar tax, which amounts to a 1.75-cent-per-ounce tax on distributors of “sweetened beverages.” The money would go toward expanding food assistance programs, despite studies showing that it could decrease sales.
Rep. Chipalo Street, D-Seattle, and Rep. Alex Ramel, D-Bellingham, recognized this potential outcome when filing House Bill 2734, citing Seattle and other cities with sugar taxes as public health evidence.
They think the excise tax will address public health issues by reducing sales, while generating revenue for the state. However, when sales drop, so can revenues, leaving more budget holes for the taxpayers to fill.
“Whatever happens in Seattle never stays in Seattle,” Rep. Travis Couture, R-Allyn, told The Center Square.
“All those bad ideas eventually come to the statehouse, and they’re just hungry for revenue,” he said.
Like Seattle’s, this sugar tax falls on distributors, who could raise prices to offset it; however, HB 2742 allows distributors facing Seattle’s tax to take a credit against the state’s, so the rate tops out at 3 cents.
State spending has more than doubled since 2015, leading to multi-billion-dollar deficits last year and another in 2026. Democrats passed a $12 billion tax increase to fill the last one, but are now blaming the Trump administration for the current deficit, despite the party increasing spending year after year.
The Center Square was unable to immediately reach either bill sponsor by phone before publishing.
HB 2742 claims that the sugar tax is necessary because the state lacks a dedicated funding source for food assistance programs. The Legislature supports those programs with the general fund and federal tax dollars, so they aren’t without funding; they just don’t have a special tax to expand those services.
Street and Ramel cite federal policy affecting food assistance programs as jeopardizing the programs.
Couture is worried that Democrats will divert sugar tax revenue to the general fund to cover future deficits if it passes later this session, on the promise to fund food assistance.
“People find out later, like cannabis money, like lottery money, like so many other different things, it’s not funding the thing that we want,” Couture said. “Even the capital gains tax, they said we’re going to fund this education account … the governor’s budget completely zeros it out for their budget deficit.”
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress passed last July, includes a projected $186 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, over the next decade. Those cuts are largely due to eligibility changes that limit the program to lawful residents and refocus the program on nutrition.
HB 2734 would prohibit Washington state from excluding “sugar-sweetened beverages” from the list of eligible items in those programs, as other states realign the use of benefits to proper nutrition. Street and Ramel broadly define those beverages as any drinks that contain one or more caloric sweeteners.
The proposal exempts milk, beverages with medical uses, cough syrup, infant formula, liquids sold for weight loss, natural juices and concentrates, alcohol, and low-calorie beverages from the sugar tax.
The University of Washington conducted a study in 2023 on the impact of Seattle’s sugar tax, concluding that it didn’t affect prices despite businesses passing the costs on to customers.
“The tax was essentially passed through to customers without any residual effect on snack or food prices or small business closures or revenue,” according to a blog from the UW School of Public Health.
If approved, HB 2742 would begin imposing the tax in 2028.
