[thewebguyd]

> The best example I can think of for >$1M W2 earners are highly specialized physicians, and maybe some even more specialized (and prolific) attorneys. Aren't they already contributing a lot?

That depends on how much they are consuming within the state and paying sales tax. If they are W2 earners, they aren't contributing via B&O tax like businesses do, and so essentially they just contribute the same as anyone else in the state, via all the other regressive taxes, just proportional to how much money they spend.

[pc86]

> they aren't contributing via B&O tax like businesses do

Well they're not businesses so that makes sense.

> "just" proportional to how much money they spend (emphasis mine)

Yeah, which for most of them is going to be a lot more than someone earning a fraction of what they earn, so they do actually contribute more in absolute terms, even if for some reason you think that their contributing less on a percentage basis is for some reason bad.

Good luck finding someone making $2M/yr who isn't spending a lot more in the local economy than someone earning $40k/yr.

[thewebguyd]

Prior to the tax, the bottom 20% of Washington earners pay between 13-17% of their income in state and local taxes through the regressive tax system. The top 1% of earners pay closer to 3%.

In absolute terms, yes, of course someone making $2M/year will spend a lot more money than someone earning $40k, but they don't spend 50 times more. They don't need 50 times more food, or 50 times more gas, etc.

For the $2M earner, any surplus likely isn't spent locally but is invested instead, which leaks the money out of the state into global markets.

And that's the problem with regressive tax codes in general, the tax base is disconnected from the state's actual wealth growth. Washington's regressive tax system makes the state fund itself using only money from the working class while the state's largest pool of potential revenue remains locked away in global markets.

[pc86]

> Prior to the tax, the bottom 20% of Washington earners pay between 13-17% of their income in state and local taxes through the regressive tax system. The top 1% of earners pay closer to 3%.

What percentage of the total state income gets contributed by the bottom 20% compared to the top 1%?

> They don't need 50 times more food, or 50 times more gas, etc.

Of course not and I didn't imply that they did, but I'm sure we could find things they do spend 50x more on (or even more). And I'm sure those things are taxed as well.

> For the $2M earner, any surplus likely isn't spent locally but is invested instead, which leaks the money out of the state into global markets.

Framing someone investing their own money as "leaking...out of the state" is kind of ridiculous. It's not the state's money.

Do you think $1,000 is better off in the stock market or given to the state?

> the tax base is disconnected from the state's actual wealth growth

So follow the state constitution and tax everyone the same rate. A uniform flat tax is much more "connected to the state's actual wealth growth" than anything else, isn't it?

> Washington's regressive tax system makes the state fund itself using only money from the working class...

Absolute nonsense. I'd bet my next two paychecks the top 1% in Washington pays more into the state coffers than the bottom 20%.

> ...while the state's largest pool of potential revenue remains locked away in global markets.

I think you said the quiet part out loud? It's not "potential [state] revenue" and framing it that way is disgusting.