It must be including the royalties the oil companies pay. The personal taxes are not that high there.
massbudgetsays
Marcus Graly is right about the “Alaska Anomaly.” As we note in a footnote in the report: “Alaska’s very high ratio of state and local taxes to State Personal Income (33.4 percent) is the result of taxes collected from corporations on oil extracted from public lands.”
One somewhat surprising thing that the chart displays: the rates between all the states doesn’t vary all that much.
<
p>This is another reason why the Republican obsession with the impact of taxes on the business atmosphere and private investment is misplaced. Taxes are just one cost of doing business, and not one that varies much from state to state.
eugene-v-debssays
A Stein supporter.
<
p>Wuahahhahahaaa!
roarkarchitectsays
They are NY NJ CT and CA and they all appear on the high end of the graph.
hoyapaulsays
But the correct way would point out that some states on the high end of the graph (like Kansas, North Dakota, and Wyoming) have relatively good fiscal outlooks while some states with low taxes (Nevada, South Carolina, Florida) are doing much worse.
roarkarchitectsays
You need to compare states with have conditions equivalent to Massachusetts to draw any conclusions. Just as AK has the “highest tax rate”, North Dakota has population .6M, Kansas has a strong farm economy and I think the data on Wyoming is suspect in the same way as AK. Nevada and Florida are suffering from the real estate boom/crash and I have now idea what is up with South Carolina (crazy governor?).
<
p>New York , NJ and California are all fair comparisons with Massachusetts and they all have much higher local tax burdens and much worse unemployment.
dhammersays
First off, their budget shortfall, is larger than Massachusetts’ entire budget (by the way, that is the World Socialist Web Site, I’m linking to, today Google returned the fourth international as the third search result for “Massachusetts Budget” after the state’s own page and the Mass Budget and Policy Center – a good sign, I think…)
<
p>Secondly, the housing bust in CA is pretty bad – Florida had 2% of it’s households in foreclosure, California had 1.9% – fourth worst in the country. As to New York – it too is a much, much bigger economy than Massachusetts, plus it’s unemployment rate is LOWER than Massachusetts and has been for the last nine months. On Jersey, you’re right, it does have a very high tax burden. So unless you’ve got something that shows a correlation and hints at causation between tax rate, unemployment and the fiscal health of a state, I think Hoyapaul’s comment stands.
roarkarchitectsays
You can make a strong case the higher the tax burden (excluding special states) the larger the state deficit. Giving a state a pile of money doesn’t mean they will spend it correctly, California has poor schools and bad roads and high taxes.
<
p>I was surprised about NY state unemployment rate – but on closer reading it’s all public sector jobs.
<
p>
kbuschsays
doesn’t mean that people believe them.
<
p>And the belief that Massachusetts has high taxes is nearly unshakable. Comparative figures like those above cannot be experienced. They’re as abstract as protons.
<
p>Since the belief has become unshakable, the reaction of many on reading the above is to conclude that someone is lying to them or trying to fool them with statistics.
p>In 1928, which isn’t really that long ago, the Boston Ward & Watch banned Candide by Voltaire for God’s sake. These days the same type of people would probably break down in tears of joy if their teenage children came home with a copy of Candide.
<
p>Things change.
dhammersays
And the attacks on Doctor Pangloss, who did invest both calculus and the binary system, seem a little unfair. While I want my kids reading Candide, I want them to love Émile.
kbuschsays
In the end, we are all dead.
<
p>I’m sure future generations will appreciate your work.
seascrapersays
Thanks for pointing this out. I will direct my friends at One Massachusetts to your list next time they propose to tax the hell out of us.
<
p>Do you think it would be good for Massachusetts to have a 12% tax rate on capital gains such as California has, rather than our 6%?
<
p>If not, do you support the federal government raising taxes in January by letting the Bush tax cuts expire? If 6% is better than 12%, isn’t the current 18% better than Obama’s proposed 40%?
What I’m saying is that most of what the GOP says about MA is, well, not true. Why don’t you “direct your friends” at the Republican party to this post the next time they start talking about how taxes are too high around here.
<
p>To answer your peculiar questions: we do have a 12% tax rate on short-term capital gains. Seems reasonable to me. AFAIK a 6% tax rate does not exist in MA (maybe you meant 5.3%, the rate on most long-term capital gains). And I think the Bush tax cuts should expire on the wealthy but should be preserved on the middle class.
stomvsays
Way to take one point and apply it willy nilly nonsensical.
<
p>Hey David, are you saying that MA could raise taxes a smidge and still have lower than average tax rates? Are you saying that we should use that added revenue to build as many Newton North high schools as possible? Are you saying that you think that our public school system needs help like this, despite it’s high marks? Are you saying that union teachers are bad because they’re union? Are you saying that?
if we just agreed to tax (progressively) at the national average, our budget problems would largely go away and our services would be greatly improved. $1.6 billion would go a long way toward improving the MBTA, our public higher education, and local aid — as well as protecting our health care bill. Couple that with taking a serious look at our $1.5b-and-growing annual corporate tax credits, getting rid of the worst offenders and any that aren’t delivering what they need to, and we could really start looking at expanding public transportation and public higher ed access — which would be two of the best ways to increase opportunity and create permanent jobs in this state (which would, in turn, grow revenue)… all without having taxes higher than the national average. Why aren’t we doing this?
It must be including the royalties the oil companies pay. The personal taxes are not that high there.
Marcus Graly is right about the “Alaska Anomaly.” As we note in a footnote in the report: “Alaska’s very high ratio of state and local taxes to State Personal Income (33.4 percent) is the result of taxes collected from corporations on oil extracted from public lands.”
<
p>– Tom Benner, MassBudget
They’re the most socialist!
One somewhat surprising thing that the chart displays: the rates between all the states doesn’t vary all that much.
<
p>This is another reason why the Republican obsession with the impact of taxes on the business atmosphere and private investment is misplaced. Taxes are just one cost of doing business, and not one that varies much from state to state.
A Stein supporter.
<
p>Wuahahhahahaaa!
They are NY NJ CT and CA and they all appear on the high end of the graph.
But the correct way would point out that some states on the high end of the graph (like Kansas, North Dakota, and Wyoming) have relatively good fiscal outlooks while some states with low taxes (Nevada, South Carolina, Florida) are doing much worse.
You need to compare states with have conditions equivalent to Massachusetts to draw any conclusions. Just as AK has the “highest tax rate”, North Dakota has population .6M, Kansas has a strong farm economy and I think the data on Wyoming is suspect in the same way as AK. Nevada and Florida are suffering from the real estate boom/crash and I have now idea what is up with South Carolina (crazy governor?).
<
p>New York , NJ and California are all fair comparisons with Massachusetts and they all have much higher local tax burdens and much worse unemployment.
First off, their budget shortfall, is larger than Massachusetts’ entire budget (by the way, that is the World Socialist Web Site, I’m linking to, today Google returned the fourth international as the third search result for “Massachusetts Budget” after the state’s own page and the Mass Budget and Policy Center – a good sign, I think…)
<
p>Secondly, the housing bust in CA is pretty bad – Florida had 2% of it’s households in foreclosure, California had 1.9% – fourth worst in the country. As to New York – it too is a much, much bigger economy than Massachusetts, plus it’s unemployment rate is LOWER than Massachusetts and has been for the last nine months. On Jersey, you’re right, it does have a very high tax burden. So unless you’ve got something that shows a correlation and hints at causation between tax rate, unemployment and the fiscal health of a state, I think Hoyapaul’s comment stands.
You can make a strong case the higher the tax burden (excluding special states) the larger the state deficit. Giving a state a pile of money doesn’t mean they will spend it correctly, California has poor schools and bad roads and high taxes.
<
p>I was surprised about NY state unemployment rate – but on closer reading it’s all public sector jobs.
<
p>
doesn’t mean that people believe them.
<
p>And the belief that Massachusetts has high taxes is nearly unshakable. Comparative figures like those above cannot be experienced. They’re as abstract as protons.
<
p>Since the belief has become unshakable, the reaction of many on reading the above is to conclude that someone is lying to them or trying to fool them with statistics.
One pixel at a time.
<
p>In 1928, which isn’t really that long ago, the Boston Ward & Watch banned Candide by Voltaire for God’s sake. These days the same type of people would probably break down in tears of joy if their teenage children came home with a copy of Candide.
<
p>Things change.
And the attacks on Doctor Pangloss, who did invest both calculus and the binary system, seem a little unfair. While I want my kids reading Candide, I want them to love Émile.
In the end, we are all dead.
<
p>I’m sure future generations will appreciate your work.
Thanks for pointing this out. I will direct my friends at One Massachusetts to your list next time they propose to tax the hell out of us.
<
p>Do you think it would be good for Massachusetts to have a 12% tax rate on capital gains such as California has, rather than our 6%?
<
p>If not, do you support the federal government raising taxes in January by letting the Bush tax cuts expire? If 6% is better than 12%, isn’t the current 18% better than Obama’s proposed 40%?
What I’m saying is that most of what the GOP says about MA is, well, not true. Why don’t you “direct your friends” at the Republican party to this post the next time they start talking about how taxes are too high around here.
<
p>To answer your peculiar questions: we do have a 12% tax rate on short-term capital gains. Seems reasonable to me. AFAIK a 6% tax rate does not exist in MA (maybe you meant 5.3%, the rate on most long-term capital gains). And I think the Bush tax cuts should expire on the wealthy but should be preserved on the middle class.
Way to take one point and apply it willy nilly nonsensical.
<
p>Hey David, are you saying that MA could raise taxes a smidge and still have lower than average tax rates? Are you saying that we should use that added revenue to build as many Newton North high schools as possible? Are you saying that you think that our public school system needs help like this, despite it’s high marks? Are you saying that union teachers are bad because they’re union? Are you saying that?
<
p>Gee, this is fun. And dumb. Fundumb.
if we just agreed to tax (progressively) at the national average, our budget problems would largely go away and our services would be greatly improved. $1.6 billion would go a long way toward improving the MBTA, our public higher education, and local aid — as well as protecting our health care bill. Couple that with taking a serious look at our $1.5b-and-growing annual corporate tax credits, getting rid of the worst offenders and any that aren’t delivering what they need to, and we could really start looking at expanding public transportation and public higher ed access — which would be two of the best ways to increase opportunity and create permanent jobs in this state (which would, in turn, grow revenue)… all without having taxes higher than the national average. Why aren’t we doing this?