In early December, the Washington State Tax Structure Committee, commissioned by the state Legislature in 2001, released its long-awaited report about problems in the current state tax structure and possible solutions (dor.wa.gov/content/WAtaxstudy/Final_Report.htm).

Its findings were entirely predictable. We get detailed confirmation of the main problem: The greatest burden of state tax falls upon those with the lowest incomes, while the rich get off easy. The solution? A major tax shift, replacing all or some of our extremely high, regressive sales tax with an income tax (which all but three other states have in some form). Neither a degree in economics nor a direct line to Miss Cleo was necessary to predict this conclusion.

Sadly, initial public skepticism has been equally predictable, from both establishment sources and confused taxpayers. Lawmakers in Olympia seemed to say, "Yeah, sure, but what can we really do?" The Seattle Times editorialized against reducing sales tax with an income tax, relying primarily on the Trojan-horse argument that instituting any new tax would just lead to an overall tax increase. The P-I liked the shift in concept, but also stressed the political difficulty. Even letters to the editor (published ones, anyway) have been predominantly skeptical.

Bullshit. Don't believe the naysayers who proclaim the political inevitability of remaining stuck with the most regressive tax system in America.

The only people that benefit from the current state tax system are those with incomes of six digits or more. The rest of us get the shaft. Anyone who calls it unrealistic to correct this sorry situation with an income tax is, wittingly or unwittingly, only reaffirming a sweetheart deal for the rich. Period.

Even the rich acknowledge the inequity of our current system. Remember that the state tax committee was chaired by Bill Gates, Sr., whose son makes a mountain of money and reportedly supports a state income tax.

The report's numbers clearly illustrate the extreme injustice of our current tax system. Those with the highest incomes pay taxes at less than a third of the rate paid by those with the lowest incomes, and about half of middle-income taxpayers. Justifying such an arrangement is difficult; fixing it to benefit the majority is easy.

You can see for yourself by using a simulation program on the tax study website (dor.wa.gov/content/WAtaxstudy/Tax_Design.htm) to design your own state tax structure. (You need Microsoft Excel to run it (thanks, Mr. Gates!). Although the model allows for control over just a limited number of variables (which keeps it simple to use), it offers anyone who uses it the opportunity to see the effects of various tax shifts. The results of this exercise are very instructive. Every Washington state taxpayer should try it.

I took a whack at improving the tax system using the model. In a matter of minutes, I was able to devise a structure in which the percentage of personal income paid in taxes stayed fairly consistent across various income levels. I did this by decreasing state sales tax from 6.5% to 1.5%, replacing lost revenue with a personal income tax with graduated rates of 2%, 4.2%, and 6.7% (after a $20,000 standard deduction) and a corporate income tax of 5%.

This yields a similar tax rate across all income categories over $20,000/year, and amounts to a tax reduction for all households with incomes less than $80,000 (a substantial majority, since median household income is about $46,000 in Washington). Savings would be roughly $500/year for most people earning less than $60,000. Even households between $80,000 and $100,000 see a tax increase of less than $200; only households over $100,000 see tax increases of any significance. Even these top-end increases hardly amount to class war against the rich--they merely ask the rich to pay the same share as the rest of us.

And that's not all! State income taxes can be deducted for federal income tax purposes, resulting in additional tax savings.

Even business comes out ahead in my scenario, since businesses would save more in sales tax than they would pay in corporate income tax.

You can quibble with the specific rates I've chosen; I just use them to illustrate how easy it is to devise a system that benefits the great majority of individual taxpayers and business as well. This can even be done while raising more revenue to help plug the $2 billion hole in the state budget (my scenario nets about $100 million).

Hmm, a proposal that raises more money for government services while reducing taxes for business and the vast majority of taxpayers--this is called politically unrealistic?

It's true that there are significant obstacles to be overcome (timidity in Olympia, public misperceptions, the possible need for a constitutional amendment, rich people using their influence to cling to a sweet deal) but it basically boils down to how well the issue is understood and how people act on that understanding. If enough people clamor for a shift toward tax fairness, we'll get it; if not, we won't.

If Tim Eyman can get people to vote against the public interest in favor of personal self-interest, progressives should be able to figure out how to get people to favor something that serves both personal self-interest and the public interest. Let's get busy.

--Lansing Scott, ETS! volunteer and coordinator of the Tax Reform working group of the Green Party of Seattle. For more info, contact: 206-632-2162, or issues@seattlegreens.org