According to
http://openbudget.seattle.gov/#!/year/default2013: 4.32Billion
2014: 4.72Billion
2015: 5.14Billion
2016: 5:41Billion
2017: 5.71Billion
Tax revenue is increasing enormously.
> Your second link is just a big "data dump" and doesn't point me to the relevant facts, so I'll just share what I saw out of it: tax revenue is growing, even though tax rates aren't being increased. So, amongst other factors, this is likely due to population growth. This actually makes the opposite point of what you want to make.
My point is that increasing taxes is not the way to solve poverty. Increasing tax rates is a proxy to leevying taxes, its not meaning per se. Its not that if you tax 40% you have poverty and if you tax 41% you have equality. What matters is how much money is taking and how much is given from top top bottom.
But lets say we want to talk only in percentages. Its not about the legal increase of rates, its about the effective rate. Seattle gathers most of its income with property taxes, which, even with the tax rules unknown to me, have to have been increasing with the increase of prices of land and properties, I'm confident. To the very least, it shows in the revenue.
> ou provided no evidence for other points I raised, and the evidence you did provide were for mostly for questions I did not ask. In my first post, I clarified that I want data that shows cause and effect you claim:
increases in tax rates (not revenue!) => increases in city spending => increases in homelessness
I did not say that increasing tax rates increases homelessness. I said increasing taxes does not necessarily decrease homelessness. SF and Seattle are examples of increased revenue (and effective rates, considering income and prop taxes respectively) and increasing homelessness.
So to the one that says that a steeper progressive taxation will reduce poverty, I shall answer nay.