One of the key ways of controlling state and local tax burdens, according to this map from the Tax Foundation, is to not have an income tax.
But that’s not too surprising. States have just a couple of ways of generating significant tax revenue, so it stands to reason that states without an income tax would have relatively low tax burdens.
The more important question is whether this approach leads to better economic performance. The evidence is pretty clear that zero-income-tax states grow faster and create more jobs.
I’ve already shared some important research on this topic, including this review of research in the Cato Journal by Richard Rahn, as well as this summary of similar analysis in Rich States, Poor States by Art Laffer and Steve Moore.
There’s even some evidence that people is low-tax states are happier than those in high-tax states, though I’m not sure that I trust that kind of subjective research since there’s also a study showing people are happier in high-tax nations. (at least, unlike Brazil, nobody in the U.S. is talking about making happiness a responsibility of government).
Let’s return to the more substantive topic of taxes and economic performance. There’s a column examining this issue in today’s Wall Street Journal. Authored by two experts from the Kansas Policy Institute, it finds that states with no income tax have a lower burden of government spending.