Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east
|
Mike,
I urge people to take these kind of studies with a great big grain of salt. Many of the studies simply take tax collections made by state and local governments from all sources, and then divide that by the population to get the per capita tax burden number. That seems logical, but it has some basic flaws. A great example is Wyoming. Wyoming consistently ranks poorly in most of these studies--showing a very high per capita tax burden. What is left out of the calculation in Wyoming's case is the fact that around 75% of the taxes collected in the state come from the mineral industry--not from the citizens of Wyoming. If those dollars are removed from the tax collection figure before the per capita calculation of tax burden is made, Wyoming drops to 49th or 50th in
per capita tax burden actually paid by Wyoming residents. I would suspect that there are numerous anomalies in the calculations for other states, as well. I'm frequently amazed how often organizations make these calculations without doing any more than cursory research of the data underlying the figures. As one who analyzes statistics as part of my work, that's pretty scary.