That old debate over California’s tax burden is making its
familiar reappearance due to a couple of articles I read recently.
First came Dan Walters’ Sacramento Bee column last Friday titled, "Just the Facts on California’s Tax Burden." Walters acknowledged that,
"Sorting through the tax rhetoric is not easy." He produced data compiled by
The Tax Foundation,
using the measure of taxation as a percentage of personal income, which ranks
California as sixth-highest in the nation based on 2008 figures.
Walters notes this calculation occurred before the 2009
temporary tax increases in the Golden State that the governor hopes to extend.
However, he acknowledges other states have also raised taxes during the
recession and concludes that, "California has one of the nation’s highest
state-local tax burdens."
The Public Policy Institute of California sees it
differently. Looking at similar data, PPIC concludes that California has a moderate state-local tax burden. In
PPIC’s updated "California 2025" project, we are told the Golden State is the
ninth-highest revenue state and based on a share of personal income California
drops to 13th nationally.
That old saying about lies, damned lies, and statistics,
popularized by Mark Twain but not attributed to him,
comes to mind when trying to discern the truth about tax burden numbers.
PPIC states that California relies less than other states on
property tax because of Proposition 13. That may be true, but it also leaves an
impression in the PPIC report that property taxes here are low.
Walters, using the Tax Foundation information, points out
because the high value of California property, while the percentage of value on
owner occupied houses is 44th in the nation, the median California
property tax bill is 10th highest in the nation.
I think I’ll borrow Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of
pornography to cut through the statistical weeds: "I know it when I see it."
The tax burden seems awfully high to me.