The total State tax burden is pretty Regressive and the Rich don't pay.

[JanMichael]

And by "Don't pay" I mean proportionally (By State not Federal but including the tax offset given to the wealthiest) and how we don't really have anything close to a Progressive Tax structure in America. Plus it's getting worse over the last 15 years.

Try reading this report but careful it's a pdf so it may take time to open.

It's called "Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States" and it covers the whole kit n' kaboodle from income tax to excise tax to property tax to sales tax etcetera.

It shows the total tax burden by quitile and by state.

It's really an eye opener.

Edit:

The average state and local tax rate on the best-off one percent of families is 7.3 percent before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, the effective tax rate on the best-off one percent is a mere 5.2 percent.

# The average tax rate on families in the middle 20 percent of the income spectrum is 9.9 percent before the federal offset and 9.6 percent after—almost twice the effective rate that the richest people pay.

# The average tax rate on the poorest 20 percent of families is the highest of all. At 11.4 percent, it is more than double the effective rate on the very wealthy.

A second key finding of the study is that overall, changes in state and local taxes over the past decade have made state tax systems even more regressive. While lawmakers in many states have taken steps to provide low-income tax relief through earned-income tax
credits and similar mechanisms, these progressive changes have often been insufficient to offset the growing use of regressive consumption taxes—and many states have not enacted substantial low-income tax relief at all. At the same time, many states have actually lowered taxes on their best-off residents. State and local taxes in the United States as a whole rose slightly as a share of income from 1989 to 2002, as states were required to assume additional program responsibilities abdicated by the federal government due to its budget problems. Fair enough. But because of the way those tax increases were structured, state and local taxes rose most on poor and middle-income families, and least—or not at all—on upper-income families.

[Igel]

1. State taxes only.

It leaves out federal income tax, which presumably is more progressive (until you factor in deductions).

Looks like the average state's income tax is also progressive; it's the sales taxes and, to a slightly lesser extent, property taxes, that make the overall state tax structures regressive.

I'm not sure I would have thought to include property tax in a principled way.

I wonder if there are additional taxes.

Interesting PDF.

[JanMichael]

2. Edited...

What's interesting is how the total tax burden has been rising on the bottom and middle quitiles and dropping on the top, go figure.

EDIT: Whoops the offset is there it appears without the total burden, actually let me re-read it and I'll get back.

Double Edit: I'm not certain how the Federal Income Tax Offset works here, I suppose it's the amount deducted from the Fed IT from the State IT paid? Either way States are not Progressive on the aggregate and it's getting worse due to cuts in Federal revenue.

[ultraist]

3. Great report!

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf

The average state and local tax rate on the best-off one percent of families is 7.3 percent before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, the effective tax rate on the best-off one percent is a mere 5.2 percent.

# The average tax rate on families in the middle 20 percent of the income spectrum is 9.9 percent before the federal offset and 9.6 percent after—almost twice the effective rate that the richest people pay.

# The average tax rate on the poorest 20 percent of families is the highest of all. At 11.4 percent, it is more than double the effective rate on the very wealthy.

A second key finding of the study is that overall, changes in state and local taxes over the past decade have made state tax systems even more regressive. While lawmakers in many states have taken steps to provide low-income tax relief through earned-income tax
credits and similar mechanisms, these progressive changes have often been insufficient to offset the growing use of regressive consumption taxes—and many states have not enacted substantial low-income tax relief at all. At the same time, many states have actually lowered taxes on their best-off residents. State and local taxes in the United States as a whole rose slightly as a share of income from 1989 to 2002, as states were required to assume additional program responsibilities abdicated by the federal government due to its budget problems. Fair enough. But because of the way those tax increases were structured, state and local taxes rose most on poor and middle-income families, and least—or not at all—on upper-income families.

[JanMichael]

4. I guess we can start calling the Rich "Lucky Duckies" eh?

his sort of analysis is perfect when dipshits start calling for a Federal Flat Income Tax which would blow the doors off the States even the ones that WANT to do good by their lower income residents.

[LiberallyInclined]

9. i could be very much for a Flat-tax...

as long as it exempted the first $25,000-30,000 per person in wages. and NO deductions- except maybe for kids and mortgage interest.

doing that makes a flat tax fairly progressive, as lower incomes actually end up paying a smaller overall percentage, and for the uber-rich, a $30,000 exemption is fairly meaningless, percentage-wise

[JanMichael]

10. That isn't "Flat" it's just two tiered Progressive.

Then throw in the deductions and voila, back where we are now.

[LiberallyInclined]

11. no- it would be a flat-rate percentage-

that exempts the first $30,000 in income...figure your total income, subtract $30,000, and pay 17%(just to use a number) of that amount.

personally, i'd be against deductions- but there's no way in hell they'll ever get rid of the mortgage interest deduction...and kids should probably count for something at tax time.

[JanMichael]

12. Just a question: What's wrong with a 4 or 5 level Prograssive Tax?

What's so bad about incremental taxation? You know, the concept.

Also I still wonder what people think is going to happen to the State budgets with declining Federal revenue. It's as if they expect the Budget Fairy to wave a fiscal wand and voila problem solved.

[LiberallyInclined]

13. nothing really, as long as people are honest.

i only said that i could be very much for a flat-tax (with the $25-30,000 exemption), not that i would prefer it.

[JanMichael]

5. I just added some of your post to the body of my original post.

The pdf might have been a turnoff thus the sinking thread...

[KG]

6. whats worse is when working folks try to justify a regresive tax system.

my ditto-head brothers phrase: 'punishing success' :eyes:

[JanMichael]

7. It's fabulously frusterating.

Actually infuriating.

Just another example of how the Corpo Media and Public Schools have failed us.

How's St. Pete?????

[KG]

8. can't blame this one on public schools - he's just willfully obtuse

except for the big-assed hurricane heading my way - every thing cool here. heard from shakeydave?