Top Five State Tax Charts

April 15, 2013 at 5:00 am

To accompany our Top 10 Federal Tax Charts, here are five charts focusing on state tax issues.

First, let’s look at what state taxes pay for.  By far the largest areas of state spending, on average, are education (both K-12 and higher education) and health care, as the first chart, below, shows.

But states also fund a wide variety of other services, including transportation, corrections, pension and health benefits for public employees, care for persons with mental illness and developmental disabilities, assistance to low-income families, economic development, environmental projects, state police, parks and recreation, housing, and aid to local governments.

The second chart, below, shows that state tax revenues fell sharply during the Great Recession and still haven’t fully recovered. Nationally, revenues remain 5 percent below pre-recession (fiscal year 2008) levels, after adjusting for inflation.  Until revenues have recovered further, new tax cuts — which several states are considering — would make it difficult to fund education, health care, and other programs.

Every state taxes middle- and low-income families more than wealthy families, according to a recent report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), on which the third chart, below, is based.  This is one reason why recent proposals in some states to swap their income taxes for sales taxes would be ill-advised.  Those proposals would only worsen tax systems that are already highly regressive.

Cutting or eliminating state income taxes is also a poor strategy for promoting economic growth.  As the fourth chart, below, shows, the five states that enacted the deepest tax cuts during the boom years of the middle and late 1990s saw job growth over the next full economic cycle (2000-2007) of less than 0.3 percent per year, on average, compared to 1.0 percent for the other states.  They also had slower income growth than the rest of the nation on average.

One of the most common arguments for income tax cuts is that they’d encourage small businesses to grow and create jobs, since most small firms pay taxes on their profits under the personal income tax.  But, as the fifth chart shows, personal income tax cuts are a very poor way to stimulate job creation among small businesses:  only 2.7 percent of personal income taxpayers own a bona fide small business with any employees other than the owner or owners, according to a Treasury Department study.

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 CBPP.org

1 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. Thomas Jenkins #
    1

    While Michigan blames the recession for all of its woes the state leadership still refuse to concede that it is in part for the severity of the recession in Michigan. The state started handing out tax cuts in a never ending stream, all the through 2005, the first year of the Grandholm administration, cuts which were enacted by John Engler, governor prior to Jennifer Grandholm. These were funds that should have been available to fund the bare maintenance of our crumbling roads and the on going support of our public schools and universities. Instead we have one of the worst highway systems and one of many of the Great Lakes states who fail to promote their greatest asset to get manufacturing to return…..the water supply. When you don’t have the water you need, right to work isn’t worth the paper its written. It seems to be something these states seemed to have overlooked. Tax cuts don’t attract new industry to bolster your tax revenues. Abundant resources of ready, willing, and able labor and natural resources are. Far too many states were seduced by the idea that cutting their tax rates would lure new industry. History has shown it doesn’t. In many of these states, most legislators are afraid to the restore some of the tax revenues they so very generously gave away and received no return on their investments.



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 communications@cbpp.org.



 characters available