Wisconsin Ranks #4 in State & Local Tax Burden

The Tax Foundation:

For nearly two decades the Tax Foundation has published an estimate of the combined state-local tax burden shouldered by the residents of each of the 50 states. For each state, we calculate the total amount paid by the residents in taxes, then divide those taxes by the state’s total income to compute a “tax burden.” We make this calculation not only for the most recent year but also for earlier years because tax and income data are revised periodically by government agencies.
The goal is to focus not on the tax collectors but on the taxpayers. That is, we answer the question: What percentage of their income are the residents of this state paying in state and local taxes? We are not trying to answer the question: How much money have state and local governments collected? The Census Bureau publishes the definitive comparative data answering t hat question.

2 thoughts on “Wisconsin Ranks #4 in State & Local Tax Burden”

  1. Yet, there are other states in the union with much lower “tax burdens” that have worse state balance sheets than WI.

  2. How sad that our standard for decision making is to make sure that no state pays its workers more than we do, nor pays for more services than we do. No doubt we can win the race to the bottom if that’s what we really want to do, but personally, that’s not a race I want to win. I also think that before we decide we want to be smack in the middle, we should make sure we know what that means too.
    I would be curious to know more about the oft touted states with strong ACT scores, lower tax rates and no unionization of its teachers: in those states, what does private school enrollment look like? It’s not a “savings” if the only route to a good education is for families to shell out thousands per child each year in order get one (I am raising a question I don’t have an answer to at this point). My biggest fear is that the moves our elected officials are making will serve to increase the gap between the shrinking ranks of the “haves” and the growing ranks of the “have nots”.

Comments are closed.