Massachusetts Budget and Policy updated its favorite topic for 2007 and spun its view of the most recent ranking of Massachusetts as a tax collector:
Massachusetts dropped in rank from 35th among all states in 2006 to 38th in 2007 (including the District of Columbia). Measuring taxes as a share of total personal income allows for a meaningful comparison among states.
The conclusion begs the question: does measuring taxes as a share of total personal income allow for a meaningful comparison?
If a citizen of a rich state a poor one pays $1.00 to adequately light the collective street light, because the rich state pays a lower percentage of income for the same priced light, does that imply that the rich state can or should pay more in taxes, to get, say, a brighter light, or more lights or a more highly paid state employee to change light bulbs as necessary.
Or this. A quick look at the two leaders, Alaska and New York. That these two states lead the pack as tax collectors in 2007 says little as a comparison except that Alaska pays a lot on energy profits and New York pays a lot from profits on Wall Street. Interesting comparison maybe; meaningful hardly. Massachusetts ranking in the lower 1/3 says more about its wealth and taxes derived from large city Boston spread over a relatively small state.
Mass Budget and Policy is as usual spinning red meat for its blue causes. It's giving scant political cover so the tax raising politicians can proclaim we're in the bottom third of the tax collecting states (whisper: read the fine print).
Let bias: Taxfoundation. In per capita state tax paid, the State was in 2007 ranked number 23. High enough.
Comments