Who pays more state taxes? A 50 state analysis

[footstepsfrom#27]

This 2002 study ranks all 50 states to evaluate regressive vs. progressive tax policies. Regressive taxation policies shift a disproportionate burden to the poor and middle class while progressive policies move more responsibility to the wealthy. The study analyzes consumption (sales & excise) taxes as well as income taxes to arrive at the total tax burden states impose. http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf

Enjoy...

[Spider]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

This 2002 study ranks all 50 states to evaluate regressive vs. progressive tax policies. Regressive taxation policies shift a disproportionate burden to the poor and middle class while progressive policies move more responsibility to the wealthy. The study analyzes consumption (sales & excise) taxes as well as income taxes to arrive at the total tax burden states impose. http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf

Enjoy...

off topic but
I was down by the Stadium in Irving 183 and the 12 loop ...... little truck stop there ...... that little Hispanic girl that work there is damn friendly

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Spider

off topic but
I was down by the Stadium in Irving 183 and the 12 loop ...... little truck stop there ...... that little Hispanic girl that work there is damn friendly

Would Mrs. Spider like her?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Would Mrs. Spider like her?

No hell no in fact Mrs spider wold have went ballistic when that subway gal showed me her boobs
damn tempting

[BroncoBuff]

There's a shocker .... Washington is the MOST regressive taxing state.

As the bluest of blue states, that's hard to process.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

There's a shocker .... Washington is the MOST regressive taxing state.

As the bluest of blue states, that's hard to process.

Texas ranks 5th...not a surprise. They trumpet their no state income tax here but the consumptions taxes kill ya. One of the common denominators of regressive tax policies is no state income tax.

Look at the national stats on page 1.

[BroncoBuff]

You're so right ... it might seem 'nice' that there's no state income tax, but income tax is in fact where the PROgressive tax structure rubber meets the road. We have no state income tax here, either, and I've heard and read since I moved here that Washington was on the ctting edge of the user-tax, consumption tax model starting several decades ago. Hadn't ever thought through how such a model was regressive, but they're right, it really can be.

Funny, because this state is TRULY progressive and liberal, in many serious ways. Depending on how meaningful these rankings are, Washington prolly took a wrong turn when they embraced that concept several decades ago.

I see a real discrepancy in these rankings though ... Nevada is ranked high because of a big difference between 'lowest 20' and 'top 1' percent tax burdens. But as a % of income, the lowest NV 20% pay less than half of the lowest WA 20%.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

I see a real discrepancy in these rankings though ... Nevada is ranked high because of a big difference between 'lowest 20' and 'top 1' percent tax burdens. But as a % of income, the lowest NV 20% pay less than half of the lowest WA 20%.

Yeah...FYI and a word of warning; this study was funded by a left leaning think tank (note that the Stesisand Foundation is included among the grantors) which in and of itself does not tell you whether its data is accurate, inaccurate, biased or unbiased. I actually checked on who did their computer modeling...and it's the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP)...and they also have some left of center leanings. However, they profess to use the same basic modeling system as the GAO and the CBO, and hold one of only (I think) four such systems in the country.

It isn't the data itself however (it's unlikely any think tank is going to forge easily available data-to easy to check), but the emphasis on what is included or excluded in their conclusions that interests me. Example: to arrive at the conclusion that the poor pay essentially twice as much as the top 1% you have to factor in property taxes which is of course perfectly legitimate. Obviously many poor live in appartments and pay no property taxes (you could make the case it's included in their rent however). But even for those that do, property tax rates are the same in every county reguardless of how much the property is valued at. However...consider that the bottom 20% undoubtedly spends a far higher percentage of their income on property taxes for obvious reasons. If you make only 25K in a two income household and live in a house valued at 50K (there are such houses believe it or not), then your property taxes, while considerably less in real dollars than the guy living in a house valued at $500K...none the less constitutes a higher percentage of your income. I doubt anyone will argue that rent/mortgage...and by extention the percentage paid in property tax...is much higher as a percentage of net income for the poor.

That's got nothing to do with a regressive policy however, at least as far as the family home (you could argue that investment properties receiving tax advantages constitute regressive policy). It's simply a fact of life that if you're poor you're spending a far higher portion of money on rent or mortgage. Consumption taxes on the other hand, are a different story. A lot of consumption taxes seem to target the poor...so called "sin" taxes for example...cigarettes and alcohol are the best examples. Sales taxes are fixed in each community so there's little that can be done about that. I suspect that the biggest culpret for the poor is lack of access to the professional financial services that the rich can easily afford to help them reduce taxation. People in the bottom 20% of the income ladder can't afford CPA's, tax attornies, professional money managers, estate planners, etc...and in many cases they have no additional income to invest so they can't take advantage of tax breaks the wealthy have access to. Even philanthropic giving favors the wealthy because the tax deduction you get is tied to your income bracket, making the deduction higher on the dollar for those in higher tax brackets.

At the end of the day it's clear that the wealthy, for whatever reason, are paying less than their fair share of the burden. This is true no matter how you slice it, but in many cases I think the solution might lie more in opening access to the poor to some things they're excluded from at present. Eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits seems like a given but we ought to also be seeking empowerment strategies for entrepreneurs in the inner city on a much wider scale. Some tools exist for this already (CDFI's for example) but few people who can take advantage of the available opportunities possess the know how to do so. This problem ought to be looked at as a multi-faceted one that demands more than a single strategy like higher taxation on the rich. Eliminating the capital gains tax entirely for those in the lowest 20% might also help somewhat. The fact that the top 1% of the income ladder pays more than 5 times the percentage of income taxes that the bottom 20% do and yet still pay only half as much percentage-wise in overall state taxes as the poor speaks to the fact that the consumptions taxes heaped on the poor are making a huge difference here.

[Spider]

Wyoming has no state tax either , but we are on a flat rate 5% except on food , food here isnt taxed ( passed that in 2004 ) works well here , except we cant afford to fix I 80 , so there is talk of turning it into a toll road

[Arkie]

Seems like most tax laws are really for the rich. I find it ridiculous that we need a complex 121 page report to explain our taxes to us. I'm for a flat rate across the board even if it means other expenses like toll roads. Put the burden on those that directly create the wear and tear on the roads. Freight prices would go up. Food, etc. would go up, but everthing would work itself out naturally. The tax burden on the poor would shift away as all the loopholes for the rich are gone.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Seems like most tax laws are really for the rich. I find it ridiculous that we need a complex 121 page report to explain our taxes to us. I'm for a flat rate across the board even if it means other expenses like toll roads. Put the burden on those that directly create the wear and tear on the roads. Freight prices would go up. Food, etc. would go up, but everthing would work itself out naturally. The tax burden on the poor would shift away as all the loopholes for the rich are gone.

Thats the problem , things wont work out ....... I drive alot ,toll roads , Interstate , SH road ways etc ..... Toll roads are good if managed right , limited accesses to travel over 50 miles... take the buckeye toll road , good trucking , but I can do the same going to 77 then get on 6 , and truck across the buckeye and hoosier( Hoosier toll road is ran by the state ) right into the land of lincoln , without the over priced service plazas ,pot holes etc .. .then you have the toll road in Pa , pot holes big enough to bury my truck in , just a mess .......but these private companies dont really dish out the monies to fix these roads ...... Kansas has a nice toll road though

[Bronco_Beerslug]

States with the highest overall taxes (as of 2005)...

----------------------------------------------------------
The Tax Foundation, a policy research group, estimated the average taxpayer's total state and local tax burden for 2005 in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. That burden reflects what residents pay in state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes and fuel taxes, among others. States below are ranked from least to most tax friendly.

Click on column headings to re-sort »

State-Local Tax Burdens, Calendar Year 2005 Rank State State/Local taxes as % of per capita income U.S. average 10.10% 1 Maine 13.00% 2 New York 12.00% 3 Hawaii 11.50% 4 Rhode Island 11.40% 5 Wisconsin 11.40% 6 Vermont 11.10% 7 Ohio 11.00% 8 Nebraska 10.90% 9 Utah 10.90% 10 Minnesota 10.70% 11 Arkansas 10.50% 12 Connecticut 10.50% 13 West Virginia 10.50% 14 New Jersey 10.40% 15 Kansas 10.40% 16 Louisiana 10.40% 17 Maryland 10.30% 18 Indiana 10.30% 19 Kentucky 10.30% 20 California 10.30% 21 Arizona 10.20% 22 Michigan 10.10% 23 Wyoming 10.10% 24 Washington 10.00% 25 Iowa 10.00% 26 Mississippi 10.00% 27 Idaho 10.00% 28 North Carolina 10.00% 29 New Mexico 9.90% 30 Illinois 9.80% 31 Georgia 9.80% 32 Massachusetts 9.80% 33 South Carolina 9.70% 34 Virginia 9.70% 35 Pennsylvania 9.70% 36 Oregon 9.60% 37 Colorado 9.50% 38 Nevada 9.50% 39 Montana 9.50% 40 Oklahoma 9.40% 41 Missouri 9.40% 42 North Dakota 9.40% 43 Texas 9.30% 44 Florida 9.20% 45 South Dakota 8.80% 46 Alabama 8.70% 47 Tennessee 8.30% 48 Delaware 8.00% 49 New Hampshire 7.40% 50 Alaska 6.40% District of Columbia 12.20% Source: Tax Foundation, 2005