Don’t Blame State Budget Problems on Progressive Income Tax

March 28, 2011 at 1:42 pm

A Wall Street Journal story on Saturday suggested that some states set themselves up for budget problems by relying too heavily on income tax revenue from wealthy residents.  The reality is far more complicated.

The story focused on California, which has had legendary budget problems and — yes — a progressive income tax, which taxes higher incomes at higher rates.  On the other hand, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Washington have no income tax, yet all have had above-average budget shortfalls in one or more recent years, as our analysis of state budget conditions shows.  So a state can’t protect itself against revenue busts by doing without an income tax.

Nor does it help much to have a flat-rate income tax instead of a progressive one.  Several states with flat systems like Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which tax all income at the same rate, have faced budget gaps comparable to states with progressive income taxes.

Volatility in state revenue systems reflects a number of factors:  the nature of a state’s economy, the structure of its tax system, the nature of its spending programs, and so on.  The last two recessions were accompanied by steep drops in the stock market resulting in large declines in income tax revenues, but the next recession might be different — it might hit hardest at states that rely on sales taxes or natural resources taxes, for instance.  That’s why states should — and often do — choose a balanced portfolio with a diverse array of revenue sources, just as smart private investors do.

And there are very good reasons why states should enact progressive taxes.  While states with a progressive income tax face a short-term cost if the stock market crashes, states without a progressive income tax face an even greater long-term cost. Without a progressive income tax, state tax systems tend to erode over time and become more dependent on sales and excise taxes, both of which generally grow more slowly than the economy.  That makes it harder and harder for a state to continue providing health care, education, and other necessities to a growing population.

It’s wise for states to address revenue volatility and the threat of recessions without abandoning progressive income taxes.   One way is to shore up “rainy day” reserve funds.  Another is to set aside more money in boom years for one-time expenditures, debt repayments, and the like.

Blaming progressive income taxes for state problems masks an important issue:  large and growing shares of the nation’s income and wealth are in the hands of a small number of taxpayers.  If more people had higher incomes, the progressive tax couldn’t be attacked for relying on a relatively small number of households to provide much of the revenue. While states can’t address growing inequality all on their own, a progressive income tax is part of the solution — not part of the problem.

Print Friendly

More About Nicholas Johnson

Nicholas Johnson

Johnson serves as Vice President for State Fiscal Policy. You can follow him on twitter @NickCBPP.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. 1

    “One way is to shore up ‘rainy day’ reserve funds. Another is to set aside more money in boom years for one-time expenditures, debt repayments, and the like.”

    While I don’t buy the progressive income tax argument, too many advocates for all sorts of solutions never mention the basics as you did here. These are things we should be doing right now while we argue over the best approaches, if any are needed, beyond following basic fiscal sense. The secret is to actually do them as intended, not pretend to do them using bookkeeping tricks.


  2. David Liebschutz #

    I wish that Nick’s analysis could get the same coverage as the WSJ’s really incomplete analysis of the problem. As usual, when someone proposes a “really neat and tidy” solution to a public policy problem, it is often wrong.

    Well done, Nick!

Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact

two − = 0

 characters available