Which State has the most Tax Burdened population?

[OfTheCross]

NY, that's who.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

Unlike tax rates, which vary widely based on an individual’s circumstances, tax burden measures the proportion of total personal income that residents pay toward state and local taxes. And it isn’t uniform across the U.S., either.

To determine the residents with the biggest tax burdens, WalletHub compared the 50 states across the three tax types of state tax burdens — property taxes, individual income taxes and sales and excise taxes — as a share of total personal income in the state.

 

[Pressure]

Here you go with the right wing propoganda again.

@DEAD7 is rubbing off on you.

 

[OfTheCross]

Here you go with the right wing propoganda again.

@DEAD7 is rubbing off on you.

Not at all...I'm just trying to start healthy discussions

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Wouldn't this depend on a lot of other factors that aren't reflected in that superficial OP?


A state with a wealthier population will have a higher tax burden than a state heavy with poor people who can't be taxed at any meaningful rate.

A state that relies heavily on federal money to subsidize its programs will have a lower tax burden, but that's deceptive because it's literally drawing tax income from the residents of other states.

A state that uses tax money wisely will allow its residents to pay less for quality health care, education, infrastructure, etc. that in the other states will either come out of pocket or unavailable.


Without information on the poverty rate, use of federal tax dollars, and social benefits gained from state spending, the list alone is useless.

 

[OfTheCross]

Wouldn't this depend on a lot of other factors that aren't reflected in that superficial OP?


A state with a wealthier population will have a higher tax burden than a state heavy with poor people who can't be taxed at any meaningful rate.

A state that relies heavily on federal money to subsidize its programs will have a lower tax burden, but that's deceptive because it's literally drawing tax income from the residents of other states.

A state that uses tax money wisely will allow its residents to pay less for quality health care, education, infrastructure, etc. that in the other states will either come out of pocket or unavailable.


Without information on the poverty rate, use of federal tax dollars, and social benefits gained from state spending, the list alone is useless.

The average household’s wealth in every US state revealed | lovemoney.com

Delaware and Alaska, for ex., are some of the wealthiest in the US yet are at the bottom of the list as far as tax burden.

 

[OfTheCross]

Wouldn't this depend on a lot of other factors that aren't reflected in that superficial OP?


A state with a wealthier population will have a higher tax burden than a state heavy with poor people who can't be taxed at any meaningful rate.

A state that relies heavily on federal money to subsidize its programs will have a lower tax burden, but that's deceptive because it's literally drawing tax income from the residents of other states.

A state that uses tax money wisely will allow its residents to pay less for quality health care, education, infrastructure, etc. that in the other states will either come out of pocket or unavailable.


Without information on the poverty rate, use of federal tax dollars, and social benefits gained from state spending, the list alone is useless.

Delaware is also the least dependant State of Federal funds yet they still have a low burden

https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The average household’s wealth in every US state revealed | lovemoney.com

Delaware and Alaska, for ex., are some of the wealthiest in the US yet are at the bottom of the list as far as tax burden.

Alaska gets massive oil income combined with a very low population, low birthrate (due to heavily male population) and minimal infrastructure, they're an obvious anomaly.

Delaware is a tax shelter.

 

[OfTheCross]

Alaska gets massive oil income combined with a very low population, low birthrate (due to heavily male population) and minimal infrastructure, they're an obvious anomaly.

Delaware is a tax shelter.

Keep going down the list. Debunk them all.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Keep going down the list. Debunk them all.

What do you mean by "debunk"? I just explained the tax situation in those two states. You literally want my take on the tax situation in all 50 states?

 

[OfTheCross]

What do you mean by "debunk"? I just explained the tax situation in those two states. You literally want my take on the tax situation in all 50 states?

You've questioned the validity of the numbers in the OP by saying that those States with low taxes are poor and/or receive heavy subsidies from the Federal government.

I gave you examples of States that don't meet that criteria, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you try to justify your POV by explaining away the reasons AK. and DE. have low taxes.

The fact is, the list in the OP is a ranking of States where citizens are most tax burdened. It is what it is.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You've questioned the validity of the numbers in the OP by saying that those States with low taxes are poor and/or receive heavy subsidies from the Federal government.

I gave you examples of States that don't meet that criteria, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you try to justify your POV by explaining away the reasons AK. and DE. have low taxes.

The fact is, the list in the OP is a ranking of States where citizens are most tax burdened. It is what it is.

I didn't question the "validity", I gave some context. All three of the points I made are obviously true, none of them is uniquely determinative. If you have a problem with any of those points, challenge the point. If you just want to provide random counterexamples for lolz, then we don't have a conversation. Is your suggestion that any general principle with a single counterexample becomes invalid?


"Taller people are more likely to make the NBA."

"But my friend is 6'8" and can't play basketball at all, meanwhile there are 5'11" men in the NBA!"


What do you actually want in the conversation, a low-information listing with no context? That will serve us....how exactly?

 

[OfTheCross]

I didn't question the "validity", I gave some context. All three of the points I made are obviously true, none of them is uniquely determinative. If you have a problem with any of those points, challenge the point. If you just want to provide random counterexamples for lolz, then we don't have a conversation. Is your suggestion that any general principle with a single counterexample becomes invalid?


"Taller people are more likely to make the NBA."

"But my friend is 6'8" and can't play basketball at all, meanwhile there are 5'11" men in the NBA!"


What do you actually want in the conversation, a low-information listing with no context? That will serve us....how exactly?

I appreciate the context, but you didn't even try to prove any of the assumptions in your OP. Kinda like you were just throwing crap on the wall the see what stuck. Then when I showed that some of them were wrong, you pretended to be confused.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I appreciate the context, but you didn't even try to prove any of the assumptions in your OP. Kinda like you were just throwing crap on the wall the see what stuck. Then when I showed that some of them were wrong, you pretended to be confused.

I didn't try to "prove" any of them cause I assumed most posters here could see right away that they were true. Are you actually contesting any of those points?

And no, you didn't "show they were wrong" by providing a single counterexample. We already went over why a counterexample does not invalidate a generalization. Which of those generalizations do you think is actually false?

 

[OfTheCross]

I didn't try to "prove" any of them cause I assumed most posters here could see right away that they were true. Are you actually contesting any of those points?

And no, you didn't "show they were wrong" by providing a single counterexample. We already went over why a counterexample does not invalidate a generalization. Which of those generalizations do you think is actually false?

Quite possibly all of them. You've chosen not to prove 'em. I've provided a couple of examples already of them being off, but it's on you to argue in favor of your assumption.

The numbers in the OP are what they are.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Quite possibly all of them. You've chosen not to prove 'em. I've provided a couple of examples already of them being off, but it's on you to argue in favor of your assumption.

The numbers in the OP are what they are.

Breh, my initial comment stands on its own just fine. I pointed out that the numbers were superficial and meaningless without more context. You're the one who wants to "have a discussion" on the topic, I think the list is meaningless so why should I put forth a bunch of energy on it? If you think the list without any context is a great proof of.....something, then well good on ya.


And this is the 3rd time I've had to say this, but no, counterexamples do not disprove generalizations. I don't know what about that statement hasn't gotten through.