> would see no benefit from the CA tax

Well, no benefit except for the 70% of his time he spends there.

But, what benefit is he getting during his temporary stays there that is worth anything close to the 13% they're taking?

California's budget is about 35% health care (his doctor is probably back in Texas), 20% education (his kids if he has any go to school in Texas), and about 20% to pensions for state workers, which he obviously derives no benefit from. So how do you justify taxing someone who doesn't live here based on the "benefits" they receive?

> what benefit is he getting during his temporary stays there that is worth anything close to the 13% they're taking?

Things that keep people healthier and smarter, and provide infrastructure and livable wages, do in fact benefit people in the state, resident or not.

I mean, if he's in the 13% marginal tax bracket, that means he's making $1M+ a year. ( https://www.tax-brackets.org/californiataxtable ) The fact that California has such jobs while other states don't have as many is at least partially because the state provides an environment in which such jobs can exist.

If he feels he's not getting sufficient benefit, because of a belief he doesn't live there, he's of course free to choose not to work there.

He's already stated that he's not going to take another $1M+ job in California again. I wish him the best of luck.

He doesn’t benefit from state workers in California? Without those workers the streets would be worse than what they are now. There would be fewer police and a non-functioning judicial system. Certainly his work benefits from a governmental entity that handles contract law disputes. The workers of the company that he works at benefit from state employees. Would the job exist if those workers didn’t exist?

True, if he doesn't really care about his family in TX then he should have no reason to care about his taxes not going to benefit them.

He may not live in California but he WORKS in California.

He is in California five days a week, including at least 4 nights of sleep. He benefits from the airports, roads, police and fire protection, water, and all other services. He also receives such a high income due to the fact that his employer is based in California.

Why shouldn’t he contribute to the state that is providing him with income and the services to support that income?

I see now. I was focusing on not being too upset at 13% being taken in one scenario but not being upset if taken in another scenario.

Other than flying into a California airport, traveling on public streets, having suppport of local police, fire and other services while in California. That said, there are some services taxes go to that he would not receive benefit from. So paying the same tax rates as a resident does not make as much sense.