Taxachusetts no more? Right.

We have several issues with the editorial in today"s GLOBE trumpeting the "progress" made by Massachusetts in terms of the tax burden it levies on its citizens, according to a study by the National Tax Foundation, which compares the total annual state and local tax burden for each state with annual income to come up with a "tax burden" index, which the Globe somehow likens to a wind chill factor. The "progress" in question is the fact that Massachusetts ranks 23rd this year in terms of the state rankings, a significant advancement from its second place showing in 1980. Like many statistical studies, however, it pays to look a little deeper and unpeel the onion.

Among the data included in the STUDY (scroll down to 2008) is the total annual amount of state and local taxes paid, per capita, for each state. Expressing the total tax amounts on a per capita basis allows for comparisons between states of various sizes. Ranking the states on this basis, however, shows that Massachusetts ranks sixth with $5,377 per capita vs. the average for the US of $4,283. If our taxes are ranked relatively high, then it must be the income numbers that are pushing down the tax burden ranking.

According to the study, Massachusetts ranks second, behind only Connecticut in terms of per capita income at $56,661, compared with a national average of $44,254. Who knew we were living in such high cotton? But even assuming that this number is correct, what does it imply for tax policy. The Globe, and perhaps the National Tax Foundation is telling us that we shouldn't complain as we have the means to pay taxes at a rate 25% above the national average. In other words, don't worry, be happy and pay up for the T deficits, the Big Dig overrides, free health care and, of course, those marvelous pensions. If the recently passed pork-filled budget represented anything close to fiscal responsibility, maybe the "tax burden" argument might hold water.

Another point that deserves a further look is the comparison being drawn between the current ranking and the 1980 ranking. If there has been progress since 1980, it would seem that the prime driver would be the limitations on growth in property taxes due to the adoption of Proposition 2 1/2. With the growth in property taxes essentially capped, the growth that has put us in sixth place is primarily due to increases in state taxes, which, it would appear, has more than offset the relief from 2 1/2.

The editorial's last paragraph provides us a glimpse of what is behind this smokescreen:

"In November, voters will be faced with a ballot question to eliminate the state income tax. The tax foundation's report shows Massachusetts moving in the right direction. It should help inform a debate based on facts, not slogans."

The fact is that the most effective tax containment measure on the books is proposition 2 1/2. While eliminating the state income tax (Question No. 1 on the November Ballot) could be seen as heavy-handed, it has increasingly become clear that this may be the only way for the taxpayers to rein in the big spenders on Beacon Hill.