Thanks for the poster, ELI! I really liked the bar graph you posted today. That was more affecting. Can you make that into a poster also?

Thanks!

@1: It's in the poster. The image you see here is just a poster snippet—click on that poster snippet and you'll get a PDF download of the whole thing.

I just saw it :D

@3: But, now that you mention, the image is a little confusing. I've fixed it so that you can see the whole poster.

The pyramid graph doesn't makes sense. It implies two different things about those who make $200K+.

@5 beat me to it. It makes no sense, there's no citation to original data. I think this hurts the argument the poster is supposed to be making.

@8: From my article, and the caption under the poster's pyramid image:

As the debate heats up over Initiative 1098, you're going to be hearing a lot about "the taxpayers of Washington State." But it's a very small minority of high-income earners—only about 38,400 of them—who would be paying the new income tax. That's because it's a tax only on individuals who earn over $200,000 in a year or on couples who file a joint tax return that shows them collectively earning more than $400,000 in a year. (Meaning that if you're half of a wealthy couple and together you earn $399,999 a year, you don't have to pay any income tax under I-1098. Hence that segment of the pyramid, right below the top, where you see 72,858 tax returns from people who earn more than $200,000 per year but wouldn't have to pay. Those are returns from couples who are well-off but don't hit the $400,000-per-couple threshold.) The new income tax on the 38,400 wealthiest Washingtonians would bring in about $2 billion annually for education and health-care programs—programs that help working families and the middle class the most.

The source is noted on the poster: "Internal Revenue Service and Washington State Office of Financial Management."

The beauty of having 50 states is that each can try out different ways of making things work. The argument that Washington's tax structure is different so it must be bad is lazy. Seems like a smart thing to be structured a bit differently during these difficult times. Maybe our system attracts more rich people who create jobs. Or maybe it causes more poor people to move elsewhere where it will be more easy to leech from strangers.

Remember that, even with this tax, the rich will still pay less of their income as a percentage of total income (before deductions) than the poor do.

It's how the system works.

The pyramid graph tripped me up too. I think it would be better labeled as "individuals" making $200,000 at the top instead of "people."

This is a great poster, Eli! Look for it to pop-up on random telephone poles in Belltown!

Ok, fine, but first we must bathe the filthy poor.

If this bill had replaced the sales tax that disproportionately taxes poor I would have voted for it, assuming it only collected the same amount as sales tax does now but through and income tax . All it did in lou of taking away the sales tax was create a extra tax and money grab for the government to not get there house in order like we have to as tax paying citizens, without giving relief to the poor they supposedly care about more then taxing the rich. It also would create two levels of tax beaurocracy for businesses that already incur a significant cost to collect sales tax for the government, and larger government agencies to execute it.

It is also not acknowledged the rich create most of the jobs in society so generated taxes for government through individual job earnings also, and that the rich give more to charity then all the rest of society combing, not to mention the rest of the world, created all the great hospitals, and universities, etc, etc. Not to say they shouldn't pay there share, but I trust the rich to spend the rest of there fair share better then the government.

To say that rich don't give there share is kind of disingenuous. If people answer honestly whether they preffer the rich to continue to pay a smaller percentage then others or leave the state, I can guarentee the real value and contributions of filthy rich job creators would be more honestly appreciated. That said I don't have a problem with the rich paying there share.

If this bill had replaced the sales tax that disproportionately taxes poor I would have voted for it, assuming it only collected the same amount as sales tax does now but through and income tax . All it did in lou of taking away the sales tax was create a extra tax and money grab for the government to not get there house in order like we have to as tax paying citizens, without giving relief to the poor they supposedly care about more then taxing the rich and getting more tax money. It also would create two levels of tax beaurocracy for businesses that already incur a significant cost to collect and file slaes tax, and larger government agencies to execute it another tax.

It is also not acknowledged the rich create most of the jobs in society so generated taxes for government through individual job earnings also, and that the rich give more then all the rest of society combing, created all the great hospitals, and universities, etc, etc. Not to say they shouldn't pay there share, but I trust the rich to spend the rest beyond there fair share better then the government.