[fruser1]

The writers math is off a bit based on how they explain this.

If CA pays 12% due to having that % of the population then WVA paying 10 times that rate means 120% of the population lives in WVA.

[Sequoyah101]

WVA raises the same tax per person but each person there, on average makes less than in CA and so the tax rate per person is higher on average.

Not what we do now where the poor pay at a lower rate than the less poor.

They are arguing that a progressive tax is unConstitutional and I agree with that but nobody has cared much anyway since 1913 or so. I guess they dance around that by saying that income tax is different than a “direct” tax.

[Nabron]

“The writers math is off a bit based on how they explain this.

If CA pays 12% due to having that % of the population then WVA paying 10 times that rate means 120% of the population lives in WVA.”

Their math isn’t off, they’re just not explaining it adequately. The authors aren’t math-types, and, apparently, they don’t have an editor to help them along (say, for example, by editing their writing).

If Congress passes, and a President signs, such a wealth tax, a massive amount of number-crunching gets initiated in Fedzilla’s bowels. Afterwards, each state gets a bill. Each state pays a percentage based on that state’s percentage of the federal population.

The State of California will pay 12% of the wealth tax, because 12% of the people live there. However, the authors allege the tax rate will have to be higher in West Virginia for their population to pay their share, and the rate will be lower in Connecticut.

The authors appear to imagine the states enacting an “extra” tax. Or raising existing income tax rates to accommodate the wealth tax.

[Svartalfiar]

The writers math is off a bit based on how they explain this.
If CA pays 12% due to having that % of the population then WVA paying 10 times that rate means 120% of the population lives in WVA.

Not quite. You're looking at the wrong numbers there. The populations to share are a 1:1 ratio. So both will pay the 'same' amount based on population percentage.
BUT, WV is rather poor while CA is pretty well off. So for each people to pay their amount, WV will have to pay a much higher amount of their wealth, while CA will pay very little as a percentage of wealth.

For example, CA has 90 people with $100 - $9M. WV has 10 people with $50 - $500, for a total of $9500. A 10% tax is $950. So split on population, WV owes 10% or $95, while CA owes 90%, or $855. $9.50 per person. But, since CA people are twice as wealthy, that means the flat $$ amount is hitting WV twice as hard. They'd be paying a 19% tax rate, whereas CA's rate is only 9.5%.