shutterstock_167801732.jpg
  • Image courtesy of shutterstock.com

Everybody knows Arizona is a low tax state. Our legislature has been cutting rates for decades, and as a result, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, we’re number 35 in overall state taxes; only 15 states have rates lower than ours. Not so if you’re poor, however. If you make $27,000 or less, your tax rate is the fifth highest in the nation for your income level.

Why do the poor pay shoulder so much of the burden? The simple answer: low income tax rates.

[H]aving low personal income taxes comes at a cost. In order to pay for state and local government services, Arizona’s sales and excise taxes are 27 percent above the national average. Measured relative to personal income, Arizona has the 8th highest sales and excise tax collections in the entire country. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the poorest 20 percent of Arizona households spend 8.3 percent of their income on these taxes, compared to just 1.1 percent of income for the state’s most affluent residents.

The last figure in that paragraph bears repeating. If you’re poor, you spend 8.3 percent of your income on sales and excise tax. If you’re affluent, you pay 1.1 percent. A rate almost 8 times higher for the poor than the rich. That’s regressive taxation with a vengeance.

Governor-elect Doug Ducey says he doesn’t plan to raise taxes, but it’s possible that the reality of an impending $1 billion deficit — and that doesn’t count the $300 million-plus the courts say the state owes to schools — will force him to change his mind. If it does, you can bet he’ll go with a sales or excise tax hike. If you’re gonna stick it to anyone, might as well stick it to the poor.

This article appears in Nov 20-26, 2014.

14 replies on “Arizona Is The 5th Worst State To Be Poor, Tax-Wise”

  1. They don’t need to raise taxes…just close TUSD.

    It sounds like you want a tax cut. Have the County start with property taxes so that homes can become “keepable.” Our ratio of rate/service is pitiful.

  3. Before attacking Governor-elect Ducey on the supposition he would balance the state’s budget on the backs of the poor perhaps Mr. Safier should ask his colleague, Ann-Eve Pedersen, why she worked so hard on the initiative making the 1% “temporary” increase in the state sales tax (supposedly for schools) permanent. The information in this column also explains why so many pro-education voters decided they could not afford to pay for schools through an increase in the sales tax. The fact that so little of the additional “temporary” money actually wound up in classrooms around the state also contributed to the defeat of the initiative.

  7. David, David, David. Is it time for you to fully retire? What is your point here? What does it have to do with education? Could it be you’re trying to demonstrate how a poorly researched thesis can be written? Will there be a Part II soon that breaks down into dollars the actual amount the lowest 20% pays vs the top 1% have paid? Do you hate puppies because McSally doesn’t?

  8. When you are talking about tax burden the aggregate tax borne by the 1% isn’t the issue. Burden is another way of expressing ability to pay. I hope there is a Part ll, Arizona tax policy is extremely regressive. It benefits the rich and penalizes the poor. The sales tax is one example, the automobile personal property tax is another. Even the poor have automobiles since there is no meaningful public transportation in the desert, so tax the bejesus out of automobiles. My favorite AZ tax is the one on newspapers. If you keep people ignorant, maybe they won’t vote you out of office.

  9. No it doesn’t. It is flat. Sales tax is based on consumption. You constantly pay to play. The more the rich spend the more tax they pay at the same rate. Don’t blame others because the poor are spending way too much of their income.

    They like to smoke and buy lottery tickets. leave them alone.

  10. Of course this would have been a more credible piece if the author had acknowledged the philanthropy of that 1% but he is too busy fomenting envy. If he had pointed out the diversity of the various state tax codes, including property and special taxes levied against property owners to support the municipal infrastructure. If he had actually used more than a secular study conducted by a group only intending to agitate.
    All of us are familiar with the car dealer, appliance salesman and law firm who promote themselves and their philanthropy with TV commercials. Local shelters quietly supported by many other of those same 1%.
    Nah, this is just another hack piece as we head into what should be a season about giving. I hope this is the last of these type writings that offer no real substantiation while being intentionally divisive.

  11. Harold, just a quick note about your questions, “What is your point here? What does it have to do with education?” The answer is, though most of what I write is about education, I also write about other issues. I’ve written about a number of issues that aren’t directly related to education before, here and on my old home, Blog for Arizona, and I will again.

  12. David, David, David. You didn’t get to the point but then why would anyone even bother answering a rhetorical question? You continue doing what you do so poorly and we’ll continue grading your efforts. Of course you could try being positive like most teachers do in the classrooms but then where would we go to read such pitiful cynicism?

  13. The poor pay no specific income tax only consumption stands to reason that more affluent pay consumption plus income so your numbers are quite wrong unless the rich pay no income tax.

Comments are closed.