In Kansas, more debunking of the benefit of high taxes

From Kansas Policy Institute.

Proponents of high taxes are again quoting a study from the Institute for Taxation and Economic policy (ITEP). The study argues high-income tax states perform as well or better than states without an income tax.

The result runs contrary to findings by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based organization comprised of 34 developed countries, including the United States. The OECD study concluded: Growth-oriented tax reform measures include tax base broadening and a reduction in the top marginal personal income tax rates.

ITEP comes to their counter-intuitive conclusion by carefully choosing three measures: Per Capita Real Gross State Product (GSP) Growth, Real Median Household Growth and Average Annual Unemployment rate. One needs only a simple drawing to see why these variables are inappropriate measures.

In the first scenario our state has nine individuals; seven earning an income and two unemployed. GSP per capita is $3, Real Median Household Income is also $3, the Unemployment Rate is 22 percent and lastly our overall wealth is $28. Now suppose the four low-income-individuals decide to seek opportunities in another state. Now our state looks like this:

Our GSP per capita and Real Household Median Income rose to $5, the Unemployment Rate decreased to 0, and our overall wealth declined to $25. The out migration of the low income earners caused our GSP per capita and Real Household income to grow 66 percent and our Unemployment rate to drop 100 percent. Although, not one person’s wealth increased and in fact our state is worse off, we have fewer jobs and less wealth.

This is precisely what the IRS’ Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) data suggests is happening. From 2000 to 2009 the average AGI for each tax return leaving the nine states with the highest-income taxes was $59,502 (2010 dollars), which is $5,000 lower than the average AGI for all tax returns in those nine states, over the same period. Now we see why ITEP carefully chose those measures.

Thanks to this map, put together by the Tax Foundation, we can see that the nine states without-an-income tax gained a $117.6 billion from interstate migration whilst the nine high-income tax states lost $105.8 billion between 1999 and 2009.

Data from the Census Bureau shows that during this time nearly 4 million fled the high-income tax states, while nearly 3 million found a new home in the states without-an-income tax. Just as the pictures above illustrate; ITEP’s chosen measures can go up, even as wealth leaves.

2 thoughts on “In Kansas, more debunking of the benefit of high taxes”

  1. This article is a great example of mis-informing the public on a report that runs counter to a political talking point. ITEP’s report is focused on de-bunking an article written by Arthur Laffer titled “Rich states, poor states, 5th edition”, which itself claimed that states without personal income taxes are outperforming states with personal income taxes. ITEP’s report makes the EXACT same argument listed above: it argues that Laffer ’s claims “rely on cherry-picking a number of blunt, aggregate measures of economic growth that are closely related to population trends.” ITEP claims that “Laffer’s simplistic analysis fails to account for the fact that states without income taxes often choose not to levy such a tax precisely because they possess unusual economic advantages that allow them to raise revenue (and grow their economies) in ways that other states cannot”. In short, ITEP offers a counter-point to an article that looks like it was written to falsely claim that personal income tax design has a significant impact on a state’s economy when it has little to no impact. In addition, the OECD report that you say purports to argue against the ITEP report is also false: The intent of the OECD report (from their executive summary) is: “This report focuses on tax structures rather than levels as cross-country differences in overall levels largely reflect societal choices…” In short, I found this article written by a “guest author” to be intentionally deceiving and disingenuous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>