This report identifies the most regressive state and local tax systems and the policy choices that drive that outcome. Many of the most upside-down tax systems have another trait in common: they are frequently hailed as “low tax” states, often with an emphasis on their lack of an income tax. But this raises the question: “low tax” for whom?
This study finds that very few states achieve low tax rates across the board for all income groups, and those that do usually rely heavily on energy or tourism sectors that cannot realistically be replicated elsewhere. Alaska is the only state that ranks among the bottom 10 lowest-tax states for all seven income groups included in the study. New Hampshire and North Dakota are among the lowest-tax states for six of their seven income groups. Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming have low taxes for five of their income groups.
The absence of an income tax, or low overall tax revenue collections, are often used as shorthand for classifying a state as “low tax.” These two measures are, in fact, reliable indicators that taxes will be low for the highest-income earners, but they tell us next to nothing about the tax level being charged to low-income families.
Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington all forgo broad-based personal income taxation and have low taxes on the rich, yet they are among the highest-tax states in the country for poor families. These states are indicative of a broader pattern. Using the data in this report, we find a modest negative correlation between tax rates charged to the lowest and highest income groups. In other words, if a state has low taxes for its highest-income earners, it is more likely to have high taxes for its lowest-income residents.
Similarly, we find that the overall level of tax revenue collected in a state has almost zero correlation with the tax rate charged to that state’s lowest-income families. Put another way, states that collect comparatively little tax revenue tend to levy tax rates on poor families that are roughly on par with those charged in other states. And, as a group, states collecting higher amounts of revenue do not do so with above-average tax rates on the poor.
For high-income families, on the other hand, overall revenues are highly correlated with their own personal tax bills. This suggests that high-income families receive a financial windfall when a state chooses to collect a low level of tax revenue overall, though that windfall comes at the cost of fewer or lower-quality public services.
before you go hustling for new work on these internets and fediverses, if you were laid off, HEAD TO THE CLOSEST #LABOR DEPARTMENT OFFICE AND DEMAND YOUR #UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
🗣️ LEARN #LABOR SOLIDARITY REAL QUICK BY DEMANDING YOUR #UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
we need all the high income workers storming the Labor Department. why? because your employer is obligated to pay the other half portion of your benefits.
YOU ARE LITERALLY GIVING MONEY TO #TECHBROS BY NOT CLAIMING YOUR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
Where the hell does a #news station get off characterizing #overtime#pay as an #income transfer like the #government & #worker are stealing from #employers ?
.
“In its first year, the rule is expected to result in an income transfer of about $1.5 billion from employers to workers..”
Texas Attracted California Techies. Now It’s Losing Thousands of Them. (www.texasmonthly.com)
The “Texas Miracle” loses some of its magic as Oracle announces it’s moving its new HQ out of Austin and Tesla lays off nearly 2,700 workers.