Top
Best
New

Posted by peter_d_sherman 1 day ago

Where each U.S. state gets its tax revenue from(www.visualcapitalist.com)
72 points | 86 comments
delichon 1 day ago|
Alaska gets a huge portion of its revenue from taxes on extracting oil and gas. This is a model that any state could apply to data centers extracting compute from local resources. And if demand for compute is actually heading up the Kardashev scale, it could eventually fund the whole state and subsidize resident incomes. It would act as a hedge against possible disruptions by AI.
estearum 1 day ago||
Land Value Tax does this with effectively zero enforcement complexity and across all forms of communal wealth creation (which ultimately gets baked into land values).
barumrho 1 day ago|||
Could you explain this? I thought the idea of Land Value Tax was that the value of land gets taxed regardless of how much value is generated by use of that land. (e.g. a vacant lot is taxed the same as a lot with rental properties built on top given everything else equal.)
bryanlarsen 1 day ago||||
Data centers use small amounts of cheap land.
s1artibartfast 1 day ago|||
No it doesn't. Land tax doesn't target data centers, which usually want cheap land.

Further, when land taxes are passed down, they focus of physical goods and ignores IP and contract value. This means they are more flatly distributed throughout the population.

Third, many high return activities require almost no land. A stock trader or bank might make millions with the nanowatt of natural resources needed to flip a bit in a database. A plumber might need a lot of natural resources to fix your toilet

HDThoreaun 1 day ago|||
End of the day big tech would find a friendly government to work with before paying massive data center taxes. The fossil fuel extraction taxes work because the fossil fuels are literally in the state. If you want them you gotta work with the states government. Data centers dont have nearly the same physical restrictions
labcomputer 1 day ago||
The other reason fossil fuel extraction taxes work so well is because you're effectively taxing the residents of other states. The people who bear the impact of the taxes don't get to vote on the taxes.
smallmancontrov 1 day ago||
"Datacenters" is needlessly narrow -- as capital eats the world, we need to tax capital. Simple as.

We already tax houses, and by comparison stocks are more liquid than a firehose and easier to value than a $2 bill. There is no excuse.

As I have grown my small business, I have come to an appreciation for how comically lopsided the tax code is to push all of the taxes out of the invest/return economy and into the work/consume economy. It's really quite something. Anything to avoid the right side of the Kuznets Curve!

jawns 1 day ago||
I'm a Delawarean, and I have done research and reporting about the state's unique role in corporate America.

You may wonder why two-thirds of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware. Is it because the cost of incorporation is lower than in other states, or because corporate tax rates are lower? Those are factors, but they are not the primary reason. The primary reason is risk avoidance, and in particular legal risk avoidance.

Delaware benefits from a flywheel effect: Because so many companies are incorporated in the state, its Chancery Court has a more developed set of case law than other states, and so outcomes of lawsuits involving corporations are more predictable -- which makes it an even more attractive place to incorporate, which continues the flywheel effect.

The down side is that the state is incredibly dependent on corporate licensing fees and escheatment. States like Nevada have, in recent years, been competing against Delaware as a corporate haven, and if we start to see a significant migration, we'll be in a real pickle, because the state imposes no sales tax and has relatively low property taxes.

red-iron-pine 1 day ago||
DE law is also, broadly speaking, favorable to corpos -- they didn't just go there because common law got hashed out. Plenty of other east coast states with long histories and lots of lawsuits.

but the parent poster is correct: it is unambiguous and well litigated in its benefits and downsides.

even if the benefits are only mild, it makes it easy to map out and control the legal risks.

abtinf 1 day ago||
Off topic: I’ve never seen a flywheel analogy that actually understands what a flywheel is. People love to use it to describe a forever growing thing, when it’s actually just a buffer.
stackbutterflow 1 day ago|||
I was about to comment on this too. Isn't what the parent comment describes a virtuous circle?

A quick online search returns mostly business related articles so I guess it's some corporate analogy.

NekkoDroid 21 hours ago||
> Isn't what the parent comment describes a virtuous circle?

I'd rather call it a positive feedback loop.

antisthenes 1 day ago||||
In this case, the flywheel analogy only demonstrates is that there is low friction in the legal system aspect.

If we are talking about a flywheel as an energy storage, low friction is a key component of its ability to store energy as a buffer. If this was not the case, the flywheel would lose its energy quickly on its own and the buffer would be gone.

> People love to use it to describe a forever growing thing, when it’s actually just a buffer.

A thing has other characteristics other than its intended purpose. Your assumption that you need to use intended purpose for a successful analogy is false.

abtinf 20 hours ago||
The parent was not making an argument about low friction.
tylermk04 1 day ago|||
Ah yes, I too have noticed the "prevalence of flywheel-analogy-misuse" flywheel.
kevin_thibedeau 1 day ago||
They need to show distribution of federal funds because it is not fairly allocated.
gwerbin 1 day ago|
This is about tax revenue, not overall stock of usable funds.
kevin_thibedeau 1 day ago||
It's about the proportional distribution.
red-iron-pine 1 day ago||
this is about how states raise their own money, not how much money they have to spend, or on what. FeddyGov money is not part of this discussion.
justindz 1 day ago||
Florida passed their ballot initiative (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/what-the-new-florida-h...) to begin exempting non-school portions of property tax (a bit over 1/3 of state revenue). This is a concern in my industry, which derives budgets primarily from property taxes. But, more generally: what is the plan for the revenue shortfall? Any Floridians have insight? Does FL not need this money, assume they will make it up in a sales tax because of increased disposable income, or they are just fine with the services based on this revenue getting rinsed?
Den_VR 1 day ago||
Its a homestead exemption. Folks just living in their homes will be under less pressure to sell. Folks renting out homes will continue to pay full tax. With the behavior of property valuations, this seems rather humane.
techlover14159 7 hours ago|||
This will push housing providers (landlords, especially those who own 1-4 unit properties, primarily mom and pops) to sell to those who want to live there.

This means the supply of 1-4 unit homes will go down over time for those who want to rent.

justindz 1 day ago||||
My question was about the impact to state revenues and associated services. Are you suggesting that because it doesn't apply to "investment" homes, the actual impact to state coffers will be minimal?

Not being nitty, just didn't follow how your point connected and wanted to make sure I understood it.

Den_VR 1 day ago|||
I suppose my point is mainly to look at the equation from the other side. Sure, “the market” might be more efficient if people without sufficient income, have to leave their houses that are high valued and that allows for more affluent people to live in those homes and pay more taxes.

But we might say it does not feel very humane

Timon3 20 hours ago||
I didn't read GP as expressing any explicit judgement - it's a simple question of the political reality, no matter what position you take. If the state takes in fewer taxes, the shortfall must be balanced by some combination of:

- increases in other taxes/other income sources

- decreases in services

- public debt

As someone who shares your view that housing shouldn't be purely market-driven, IMO it's especially important to consider the other side of the equation, because some people invest a lot of time, effort and money to prevent the first option.

One "obvious" income source would be to hire more tax collectors and let them focus on the largest conglomerates, but not like that's ever gonna happen.

hnburnsy 1 day ago|||
Doesn't affect the state just localaties like counties and cities.
HDThoreaun 1 day ago|||
Around 45% of FL property wealth is a homestead. Thats a huge amount of money the state will be leaving on the table. Just like prop 13 the magnitude of the tax breaks will grow and grow and grow until eventually newcomers are fucked and incumbents form a landed gentry. Florida will face a revenue crisis because of this but itll be a decade+ from now
hnburnsy 1 day ago||
Options are increase millage rate, increase user fees, spending cuts, state revenue sharing, and sales tax increase (limited and must be voter approved)
hbarka 1 day ago||
Interesting as a percentage but convert the axis to actual dollars for the real story.
abeppu 1 day ago|
But that would just show you some states are much bigger than others? I think per capita dollars, or normalized to that state's median income would be more informative.
beembeem 1 day ago||
A few observations (these are all on a relative basis, as the chart shows):

- NH gets nearly 2/3 of its revenue from property taxes

- OR raises more of its revenue than CA in income tax

- TN/AZ are a close 2nd/3rd to WA in sales tax revenue

kristjansson 1 day ago||
Well, yeah, OR doesn't have a general sales tax so it's proportionally more dependent on income tax. vice versa for WA, no personal income tax so depends more on sales tax.

This is an interesting chart, but it really is showing one policy dimension - choice of tax base.

PyWoody 1 day ago|||

  - NH gets nearly 2/3 of its revenue from property taxes
No sales or income tax will get you that. I sold my house and went back to renting because my town doubled my already ludicrously high property taxes.
apercu 1 day ago||
Won't you still be (indirectly) paying property tax, as your landlord needs to recoup?
throwup238 1 day ago|||
Yes but you can get below market rents from owners who don’t have a mortgage to pay.
HDThoreaun 1 day ago|||
Landlords are price takers. They respond to the market by setting rent at the highest anyone will pay them. Of course they might decide to sell, but if they dont then they cant just raise rent whenever they face a supply shock.
y-c-o-m-b 1 day ago|||
Oregon, where we get taxed to hell on both income and property yet still have decrepit infrastructure, declining publicly funded healthcare(OHA), and poor education.
goatlover 1 day ago||
Eastern or Western Oregon? Because there are big political, economic and geographical differences between the two.
jolt42 1 day ago||
The WA sales tax I suppose explains why a fast food burger requires a down payment.
jolt42 1 day ago||
although it seems the workers aren't relying on tips as their salary, which hopefully means you can actually tip when it makes sense to.
jasomill 1 day ago||
Interesting that federal funding isn't included in this comparison, given that a quick web search suggests[1] it comprises anywhere from 20%-40% of state revenues.

[1] https://reason.org/commentary/ranking-the-states-most-and-le...

somat 1 day ago||
I suspect "other" is mining or equivalent natural exploitation(oil)

And pet peeve, personal income tax and corporate income tax are almost the same thing. With few exceptions the individual person does not pay their income tax, the corporation does, and for those exceptions the individual is the corporation. Income tax is really a sales tax on a corporation biggest expense, it's payroll.

yuliyp 1 day ago|
Corporate income tax is a very different thing from an employer withholding wages. Withholding is still considered the individual paying the tax, just they never get to hold the money. Corporate income tax is money the corporation pays based on its own income vs expenses.
throwup238 1 day ago||
You can also just go to your employer’s HR software and change withholding to 0% everywhere I’ve worked, giving you a bigger paycheck but moving the burden of paying the IRS on you.
what 1 day ago||
You still need to do the withholding or pay a penalty at tax time. I suppose you can pay quarterly instead of biweekly (or whatever), but is it worth it?
BobaFloutist 1 day ago||
I guess if you have a credit card that gets enough points/cashback to offset the fee for paying with a credit card you could get a marginal benefit?
y-c-o-m-b 1 day ago|
11% corporate income tax in Idaho surprised me, given how heavily conservative they tend to vote.
More comments...