And if the ones that leave, like, bye.
In a spring forum at Seattle University, Mayor Katie Wilson dismissed fears that Washington's new 9.9% millionaire income tax would drive wealthy residents away — a casual 'bye' that became a flashpoint in the enduring tension between progressive governance and economic pragmatism. The Washington Post editorial board, itself no stranger to liberal sympathies, responded with rare sharpness, pointing to Starbucks relocating 2,000 jobs to Nashville and former CEO Howard Schultz departing for Miami as evidence that the exodus Wilson minimized was already underway. At stake is a question cities across the country are quietly asking: whether the pursuit of redistributive ideals can survive contact with the mobility of capital and talent.
- Mayor Wilson's dismissive 'bye' to departing millionaires went viral, turning a policy disagreement into a cultural flashpoint about who Seattle's leadership believes the city is for.
- Starbucks is closing Seattle stores and moving 2,000 jobs to Nashville, while its former CEO Howard Schultz has relocated to tax-free Miami — concrete departures that undercut Wilson's claim that concerns are 'super overblown.'
- Microsoft president Brad Smith publicly declared he is more worried about Washington's business climate than at any point in the last thirty years, a warning that carries weight when it comes from one of the region's largest employers.
- The Washington Post editorial board broke from its usual ideological alignment to call Wilson 'arrogant,' signaling that the mayor's posture has unsettled even observers sympathetic to progressive goals.
- The deeper question now is whether the tax revenue Washington hoped to capture will actually materialize — or whether the departure of high earners will hollow out the very base the policy was designed to tax.
On a spring afternoon at Seattle University, Mayor Katie Wilson waved off a question about wealthy residents fleeing Washington's new 9.9% income tax on millionaires. "The ones that leave — bye," she said. The gesture was casual. The fallout was not.
The Washington Post editorial board responded with unusual force, calling Wilson arrogant and titling their piece "Seattle's mayor waves goodbye to prosperity." The traditionally liberal paper noted that nine days after winning the mayoral election, Wilson had joined Starbucks baristas on a picket line — a symbolic act that seemed to preview her administration's posture toward the business community.
The departures Wilson dismissed as overblown were, in fact, already happening. Starbucks announced store closures in Seattle and the relocation of 2,000 jobs to Nashville. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, long a Seattle fixture, announced he and his wife were moving to Miami, where no state income tax awaits. These were not warnings. They were conclusions.
Wilson's background as a progressive activist and co-founder of the Transit Riders Union had shaped her for ideological battles, but the economic consequences of aggressive taxation operate on different terrain. Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, added his voice to the concern, saying he was more worried about Washington's business climate than at any point in the last thirty years — a statement that carries particular weight given Microsoft's role as one of the region's foundational employers.
What the Post found most troubling was not the policy itself but the indifference behind the wave — the suggestion that Wilson was unbothered by consequences she had not fully reckoned with. Whether the tax revenue materializes as hoped, or whether the exodus accelerates and erodes the very base it was meant to reach, remains the open question hanging over Seattle's political experiment.
On a spring afternoon at Seattle University, Mayor Katie Wilson stood before an audience gathered to discuss progressive governance and waved dismissively at the camera. The gesture, captured on video, would become the visual shorthand for a deepening clash between the city's new socialist leadership and the business establishment alarmed by its tax policies.
Wilson's comment came during an April forum where she was asked about concerns that Washington's newly enacted 9.9% tax on annual incomes above $1 million would drive wealthy residents away. She brushed off the worry as exaggerated. "I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are, like, super overblown," she said, then added with a wave: "And if—the ones that leave, like, bye." The moment went viral, crystallizing a debate that had been simmering beneath Seattle's progressive politics for months.
The Washington Post editorial board seized on the exchange last Friday with unusual force. In a piece titled "Seattle's mayor waves goodbye to prosperity," the traditionally liberal newspaper called Wilson arrogant and warned that her dismissal of business concerns reflected a dangerous detachment from economic reality. The board did not soften its language. It described Wilson as someone who, nine days after winning the November mayoral election, had joined Starbucks baristas on a picket line and pledged to boycott the company until their union succeeded—a symbolic act that seemed to set the tone for her administration.
The Post's critique pointed to concrete evidence of the exodus Wilson had minimized. Starbucks, the Seattle-based coffee giant, had announced it was closing stores in the city and shifting 2,000 jobs to Nashville, Tennessee. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who had long called Seattle home, announced he and his wife were relocating to Miami, where there is no state income tax. These were not hypothetical departures; they were happening.
Wilson's background as a longtime progressive activist and co-founder of the Transit Riders Union had prepared her for ideological combat but perhaps not for the economic consequences of the policies she championed. During her activist years, she had pushed for a "Solidarity Budget" that would have cut Seattle Police Department funding by half. Now, as mayor, she was overseeing a city grappling with the real-world effects of aggressive taxation.
The Post was not alone in its concerns. Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, had publicly stated he was "probably more worried right now about the business climate in Washington than at any point over the last 30 years." When the leader of one of the region's largest employers expresses that level of anxiety, it signals something beyond partisan disagreement. It suggests a genuine fracture between the city's political direction and the interests of the companies that have anchored its economy.
Wilson's dismissal of these warnings—the casual "bye" to departing millionaires—struck the Post as emblematic of a broader arrogance among Washington's political elites. The editorial suggested that the mayor's comments revealed not confidence in her policies but indifference to their consequences. Whether that indifference reflected ideological commitment or political miscalculation remained unclear, but the damage to the city's reputation as a business-friendly place was already visible. What happens next depends on whether other companies and wealthy individuals follow Schultz's lead, and whether the tax revenue the state hoped to collect actually materializes once the exodus accelerates.
Notable Quotes
I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are, like, super overblown. And if—the ones that leave, like, bye.— Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson
Probably more worried right now about the business climate in Washington than at any point over the last 30 years.— Microsoft President Brad Smith
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the Washington Post, a paper that usually aligns with progressive causes, come down so hard on Wilson?
Because she dismissed something they could see happening in real time. Schultz had already left. Starbucks was already closing stores. When a mayor waves goodbye to departing wealth, she's not being clever—she's being blind to the mechanism that funds the city.
But isn't some level of wealth departure inevitable when you raise taxes on the wealthy?
Sure. But there's a difference between accepting that as a trade-off and actively mocking it. Wilson's "bye" suggested she didn't care, or worse, that she wanted them to leave. That's a political message, not a policy position.
What does Brad Smith's comment about Microsoft tell us?
That this isn't about ideology anymore. When the president of a company that employs tens of thousands says he's more worried about the business climate than he's been in 30 years, you're hearing genuine fear. Not partisan complaint. Fear.
Could Wilson be right that the exodus is overblown?
Possibly. But she had no evidence for that claim, and she had evidence against it sitting right in front of her. Schultz. Starbucks. That's not overblown. That's real.
What's the deeper tension here?
It's whether a city can pursue aggressive redistribution without losing the tax base that makes redistribution possible. Wilson seems to have decided the answer is yes, or that it doesn't matter. The Post is saying that's a dangerous bet.