Even you need to realize how utterly absurd your point is, and you're not using your own link well. If you look at per capita federal contributions you will once again see that California is nowhere near the top. Why would you look at total contributions? By your logic a million homeless people each with a dollar to their names are really part of the top 1% in America, far richer than a single man with $500,000 in his bank account.I just went by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
They look the top to me. No need to split out to median to make your argument, techs didn't, so I didn't either. He's treating the entirety of CA as an individual, I can't help that. As such, that "individual" looks to me (unless they've slipped down since 2007, quite possible), to be "the 1%". Following lib "logic", that means they need to pay more. Heck, pay more than even they're paying now.
Since we're targeting the 1% - or, 2% as you point out - and we're treating states as individuals, then you'd jack up the state income tax since it's the state that needs to pay more.
So, start paying CA! Jack up those state tax rates so you "rich" 2%'ers can "pay your fair share" to the rest of the poor states!
Haha, love it...
Really, this is embarrassing.