Fair enough. There is a meaningful difference in taxes based on payroll vs the individuals net income. And that's not exactly germane to this article or thread.

Fair enough. There is a meaningful difference in taxes based on payroll vs the individuals net income. And that's not exactly germane to this article or thread. I should have been even more explicit in saying this is a payroll expense tax. The authors are very explicit that this is tax on the business and not any sort of tax born by the employee: > 5.45.090.S “Payroll expense” means the compensation paid in Seattle to employees. > 5.38.030.B The amount of the payroll expense tax due shall be the payroll expense of the business ... multiplied by the following rates: > 5.38.030.C The tax imposed by this Chapter 5.38 is levied on businesses. A business may not make any deductions from employees’ compensation to pay for this tax. > 5.38.090 ... taxes shall be levied upon, and collectible from, the person engaging in the business activities herein designated and that such taxes or fees shall constitute a part of the operating overhead or cost of doing business of such persons. And this all matters because as soon as it looks like a non uniform property tax (ie a graduated income tax) it's prempted by WA state constitution Article VII Section 1.