Forbes Magazine from March of this year says:
Texas, for instance, lacks a state income tax, an omission it touts far and wide in its economic development efforts. But the Lone Star State more than makes up for that with a hefty sales tax and the nation’s third-highest property tax (measured as a percent of fair market value). These taxes are not touted far and wide.
Result: Texas ranks only in the middle on tax burden.
It if ranks in the middle, clearly the other taxes don’t “more than make up” for the lack of income tax.
I happen to think income tax is a good way of collecting money, to a point, but it’s nice that each state can decide how to collect the money they need to run their state.
Apparently, the people of Texas seem to be happy enough, as the state has one of the fastest-growing populations.
Texas government costs somewhere around 1/4th of Alaska’s on a per-capita basis, so clearly the total tax burden of the state isn’t too bad.
Of course, I can’t figure out what this has to do with having the ability to be a conservative President; it’s not like business is afraid Perry is going to pass new federal taxes on business.
Result: Texas ranks only in the middle on tax burden.
Actually, according to the Tax Foundation, Texas has the 5th lowest state tax burden in the country. Alaska has the lowest. Both had those positions before either Perry or Palin took office, so I don't know that either can take credit. From 2000-2009, per capita state taxes went up in Texas by 41%. In Alaska, they went up by 116%. If we just look at the years 2006-2009 (Sarah's years in office), the per capita state tax burden went up in Texas by 14% - in Alaska, it went up 62%. (These numbers are not adjusted for inflation.)
You are right.