October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan

« In for a Penny, in for a Pound | Main | Talkin' Turkey »

November 21, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5b4753ef00e54f8b093b8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hut, Hut, Hike! :

Comments

Chip

I don't know if it would change the analysis, but I would suggest making the comparison on the basis of combined state and local tax burdens.

States vary in the extent to which they rely more heavily on state or local taxation. They also vary in the extent to which they respond to changes in the economy by changing state or local taxes.

During the period in question, (1) some states have avoided raising the overall tax burden, (2) some have increased state taxes, and (3) some have avoided state tax increases by decreasing aid to local governments or increasing local responsibilities, resulting in local tax increases.

Making the comparison based only on state tax burden, lumps states in groups (1) and (3) together.

Like I said, it may not change the outcome of the analysis, but I think that would be a more valid comparison.

Chip

I guess I should add: (4) some states raise the state AND the local tax burdens.

The comments to this entry are closed.