TLDR: No. The Millionaires Tax can’t apply to union pensions, no matter what some are claiming, because no one in a union is getting $84,000/month pension checks. Just 0.6% of Washingtonians are getting that kind of income and they are more likely to busting unions than joining them.

Say it again: 84,000 per month is what a retiree would have to get from their retirement to hit the $1,000,000 threshold for Washington’s new Millionaires Tax. A teacher "would have to work for 278 years to earn $1 million in annual pension benefits – this is impossible,” writes the Economic Opportunity Institute (EOI) in its analysis.

So why doesn’t the Millionaires Tax explicitly exclude pensions and retirement accounts? Because the 23,000 super-rich who should be paying the Millionaire Tax could use that as a loophole to defer income and avoid paying what they owe. We know that they already exploit tax loopholes to avoid paying their share, putting bigger responsibilities on the rest of us.

Writes EOI:

An incredibly small fraction of Washington households has retirement distributions AND income sufficient to pay the Millionaires Tax.

Just 0.6% of tax filers (23,370 households) in Washington have annual income over $1 million dollars. Of those households, only 3,870 have taxable individual retirement income and just 2,870 have taxable pensions and annuities.

This means out of all the households in Washington state, 0.1% have retirement income and 0.08% have pensions plus additional income that brings total annual AGI over $1 million. Households with over $1 million in adjusted gross income are making an average of $2.6 million per year, with only $104,543 (on average per year) derived from retirement income.

In other words: the average tax filer with over $1 million in AGI who will be subject to the Millionaires Tax receives nearly all their income in the form of wages, business income, dividends, and/or capital gains – not retirement accounts.

Source: https://investwanow.org/iwn-updates/millionaires-tax-cant-apply-to-union-pensions

Initiative 638 would require invasive sex inspections of all girls before they are allowed to be on elementary, middle and high school teams. The initiative would not allow parents to use a birth certificate to prove their girls’ sex. In fact, this poorly written initiative would mandate that families make an appointment, take time to drive to a medical office to get a doctor to conduct a medically-unnecessary “reproductive anatomy” exam, or pay out of pocket to send their daughters’ blood to a lab for genetic or hormone tests.

Few parents will be able to afford the time and money to jump through these new hoops just so their daughters can play after-school soccer or ultimate frisbee. They won’t have to go through all of this for their sons though, because boys are exempt from these new sports physical requirements. So much for fairness in youth sports.

Any family physician, pediatrician or school nurse can tell you that sports physicals do not involve invasive genital inspections. Sports physicals are where we look for factors that could raise health risks to children, like heart, bone and lung conditions, not pulling down their pants to look at their private parts.

I've seen a lot of misinformation and but also honest questions about this MAGA initiative that we are voting on in (checks calendar) 40 or so day. Here's some answers to those questions:

Are girls already genitally inspected during sports physicals ?

• No. Today in Washington sports physical forms and sports eligibility forms do not require children to be genitally inspected or sex certified. Family physicians and pediatricians confirm all girls and boys keep their pants on during sports physicals.
• “All  major organizations, including the AAFP, the AAP and the USPSTF, do not recommend genital exams for girls as a part of sports physicals. Many encourage a focus specifically on cardiovascular, musculoskeletal and neurologic health. From a medical, safety and developmental perspective, I-638 is unnecessary, not backed by clinical guidelines, and would create unwarranted stress and harm for young girls.” - Dr. Maddie Gore
• If I-638 passes, at least every two years all girls who want to participate in sports will have to be sex certified by a doctor as a new part of their sports physicals using “reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.” 
• To comply with I-638, many girls seeking a sports physical will have to be genitally inspected by a stranger because an estimated 150,000 school age girls in Washington do not have access to a regular family doctor. Still others may rely on group settings for sports physicals offered by their schools, where they will have to be sex inspected in public.

Why can’t parents use birth certificates to avoid putting their daughters through these intrusive inspections?

• Nothing in I-638 allows parents to use birth certificates. While backers of this initiative claim parents can use hospital birth records, there is nothing in the initiative saying this. Most parents do not have access or time to hunt down old hospital documents, especially if they’ve moved. As a result an estimated 150,000 school age girls who do not have a regular family doctor or pediatrician, so they will have to be inspected by a stranger if they want to participate in sports.

What are doctors looking for during I-638’s sex inspections?

• I-638 is poorly written and vague, directing doctors to inspect “reproductive anatomy” but doctors say this could require pelvic exams for some children. 
• “All major organizations (ACOG, AAFP, USPSTF, AMSSM) advise against routine pelvic exams for asymptomatic adolescent females. The USPSTF goes as far as to say that harms caused by these unnecessary exams include “the psychological harms, pain and discomfort from the examination, and the potential for these to serve as a barrier for women to receive medical care.” - Dr. Kevin Glover 
• The initiative also directs doctors to conduct genetic or testosterone tests to determine a child’s sex, but doesn’t say what they are looking for.  Children naturally have a wide range of genetic variations other than XX and XY genes. Girls may have many reasons for varying testosterone levels, including: 
  • Ovarian tumors
  • Adrenal tumors
  • Polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS or PCOS)
  • Congenital adrenal hyperplasia
• “The initiative allows verification through hormone testing or genetic analysis — evaluations that typically require lab work and, in some cases, specialist interpretation. It does not set testosterone thresholds, define documentation standards or explain how cases involving intersex traits, delayed puberty or natural hormonal variation would be handled.” - Dr. Glenna Martin

How many transgender girls play sports now in Washington schools?

• Out of 1.2 million students, an estimated 5 - 10 transgender children play school sports in our state, according to statements from Superintendent for Public Instruction Chris Reykdal and from Justin Kesterson, assistant executive director of the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA). To exclude a tiny handful of trans girls, I-638 requires tens of thousands of girls to be invasively inspected to play sports. 
• I-638’s sponsors claim that “biological boys” are pretending to be transgender girls just to play elementary, middle or high school girls sports. In this highly unlikely hypothetical situation, the school can and should deny that student’s eligibility.

Shouldn’t we protect girls’ sports?

• Trans girls are not a threat, but I-638 is. I-638’s invasive requirements will drive even more girls, and their parents, away from sports by imposing new burdens, costs, humiliation, and possible harm. Because Black, brown, and immigrant girls also face more historical barriers to health care and access to regular family doctors, I-638’s sex inspection requirements and expenses will further limit their access to sports. 
• If we are truly concerned about protecting girls who play sports, then we must address the real physical threats facing girls who play sports - including sexual harassment and abuse.
• “If anyone is actually afraid about biological males in the locker room, they should be worried about the coaches, not a trans girl just trying to fit in and be a part of a team.” - Kate Starbird, former WNBA Storm player and Naismeth College Player of the Year.

Source: https://nohateinwastate.org/about-i-638#faq

"It’s unclear who, if anyone, mega-millionaire Brian Heywood consulted when drafting this initiative. It’s one of the most complex, confusing, and poorly written measures I’ve ever seen. Parents already have strong rights when it comes to their children in school, and this initiative actually weakens some parents’ rights while also putting children in danger."

"As a former school nurse and the parent of girls who were both very active in school sports teams, I am appalled that MAGA interests are playing politics with girls’ bodies and lives."

That’s why I’m voting No on Washington Initiative 001.

How do you enforce who is “girl enough” to play sports? In my home state of Washington, the most extreme proposal of its kind is before voters on the November ballot. Measure I-638 would require all girls—but not boys—to be medically sex certified before they can play sports.