economics 101 - arthur betz laffer, jonathan small y wayne winegarden

Economics is all about incentives.Because people really do care aboutafter-tax income, pro-growth economicpolicies really do matter. The results ofrecent Laffer/OCPA research areconsistent with economic theory,historical facts, academic and policyliterature, and common sense:incentives drive economic behavior.

February 2012

Arthur Laffer, Ph.D.Jonathan Small, CPAWayne Winegarden, Ph.D.

About OCPA

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) is an

independent, nonprofit public policy organization—

a think tank—which formulates and promotes public

policy research and analysis consistent with the

principles of free enterprise and limited government.

Guarantee of Quality Scholarship

OCPA is committed to delivering the highest quality and most reliable research on policy issues.

OCPA guarantees that all original factual data are true and correct and that information attributed to

other sources is accurately represented. OCPA encourages rigorous critique of its research. If the accu-

racy of any material fact or reference to an independent source is questioned and brought to OCPA’s

attention with supporting evidence, OCPA will respond in writing. If an error exists, it will be noted in an

errata sheet that will accompany all subsequent distribution of the publication, which constitutes the

complete and final remedy under this guarantee.

OCPA’s speakers don’t disappoint.OCPA’s speakers don’t disappoint.

E C O N O M I C S 1 0 1 • F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 2 1

If you have the law on your side,

pound on the law.

If you have the facts on your side,

pound on the facts.

If you have neither facts nor law,

pound on the table.1

States are leading a pro-growth counterrevolution

across the country.2 Two states at the forefront of these

pro-growth changes are Oklahoma and Kansas.3 In

response to this nationwide state pro-growth political

momentum, those who believe that state income tax

Economics 101: The Basics of People, Work, and Taxes

G. Lynch, January 1998), the Institute on Taxation and

Economic Policy (ITEP) concurs that taxes can change

behavior. That ITEP study argues for a broad carbon

tax as a means to change behavior and reduce pollu-

tion: “A more sophisticated approach [to improve en-

vironmental conditions] that would impose a broader

carbon tax could also be adopted. It could treat differ-

ent polluting fuels evenhandedly instead of targeting

just gasoline.”

When discussing a carbon tax, ITEP gets the theory

of taxation just right: high taxes discourage economic

behaviors. What is true for pollution is just as true for

economic activity and income: high taxes on income

discourage income-producing activities.

The historical record is consistent with the theory

described above. As presented in the Laffer/OCPA

study, multiple other studies, and this document, those

states that tax too much, spend too much, or levy a

high and progressive marginal income tax tend to ex-

perience slower rates of economic growth; states that

implement the opposite policies (a pro-growth policy

environment) tend to experience more robust rates of

economic growth.

The results of the Laffer/OCPA analysis are also

consistent with the vast academic and policy litera-

ture (cited in the appendix) that confirms the relation-

ship between robust economic growth and pro-

growth economic policies.

rates don’t matter and who believe that progressive

income taxes are necessary to redistribute income

are opposing these supply-side economic policy re-

forms. Those who have this view have written critiques

attempting to counter the research that Dr. Arthur

Laffer, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA),

and others have directed in support of these pro-

growth policy changes. The national discussion now

taking place about the efforts of Kansas and Okla-

homa provides a great opportunity to consider “Eco-

nomics 101.”

From a theoretical perspective and in everyday life,

incentives drive all economic behavior. Taxes are

a negative incentive. People do not work, invest, or en-

gage in entrepreneurial activities in order to pay

taxes. They engage in such economic activities in or-

der to earn after-tax income. When the government

increases its share of the income earned by its citi-

zens, the incentive to engage in growth-enhancing

economic activities falls; alternatively, the disincentive

to these activities rises. The higher the tax on the next

dollar earned (the marginal tax rate), the larger the

disincentive.

By lowering the income tax rate in Oklahoma and

Kansas, both states will reduce the costs of work and

investment compared to leisure, encouraging more

work and investment. The primary benefits to the

economy from phasing out Oklahoma’s income tax

are:

• Work effort

• Work demand (and subsequently wages)

• Savings

• Investment and, subsequently, greater capital ac-

cumulation

The results of the Laffer/OCPA analysis/model are

consistent with economic theory, historical facts, aca-

demic and policy literature, and reality.

In its analysis “Tax Strategies for a Strong Minne-

sota” (Michael P. Ettlinger, Tyson Slocum, and Robert

2 E C O N O M I C S 1 0 1 • F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 2

Economics 101: People Follow Incentives

Since people do not work to pay taxes and since

they respond to incentives, it makes sense that

people in a free society move where the incentives to

work, and the return from work, are greatest.

In its paper entitled “‘High Rate’ Income Tax States

Are Outperforming No-Tax States,” ITEP makes one

and only one point to counter the view that people and

businesses move from state to state to take advantage

of favorable economic conditions resulting from low

state taxes. ITEP argues that the U.S. population is

naturally moving to regions that happen to be where

the zero personal income tax rate states are located

(e.g., the south and west). According to ITEP, “Demog-

raphers have identified a large number of reasons for

the population growth occurring in the south and west

that are completely unrelated to these states’ tax struc-

tures. Lower population density and more accessible

suburbs are important factors, as are higher birth rates,

Hispanic immigration, and even warmer weather.”

According to ITEP, the Laffer measures of success

are driven solely by these population flows. ITEP

states that “the growth of states lacking an income tax

is no more than coincidental.” For proof, ITEP points to

factors other than state tax rates that motivate migra-

tion from state to state, thus implying that state tax

rates do not matter. These non-tax motives create the

very prosperity we find to be correlated with tax rates.

ITEP states, “Since a larger population brings with it

more demand, it’s only natural that states experienc-

ing the fastest population growth would also experi-

ence more growth in the total number of jobs and total

amount of economic output.”

ITEP then cites as proof that tax rates do not matter

the fact that real state GDP per capita growth and

median household income growth are higher for

some of the higher-taxed states than they are for some

of the no-income-tax states.

Separately, Dr. William Terrell, in testimony to the

Kansas Senate Tax Committee, compares Kansas to

the no-income-tax states and all other states based on

state per capita personal income growth, tax revenue

growth, and unemployment rates. He concludes that

because different categories of states (high tax, low

tax, etc.) create different growth rankings, “it is very

difficult to know which states [Kansas should] use” to

base its tax policy changes upon.

Criticisms not based on sound economics

1. The sources of error in these studies are the follow-

ing:

a. Just because some high-tax-rate states perform

well from time to time does not mean that high

tax rates do not retard growth. The issue is

whether high tax rates raise or lower the likeli-

hood of a state achieving prosperity—not

whether there is the occasional exception.

The field of cancer research provides a per-

fect illustration of this issue.4 According to a

2006 study in Europe, the risk of developing lung

cancer for male smokers was 15.9 percent.5

This also means that 84.1 percent of male smok-

ers will not develop lung cancer. Simply be-

cause many male smokers will not develop lung

cancer does not mean that smoking does not

cause lung cancer. We are all well aware of the

fact that there are a number of other factors in-

fluencing both cancer and state economic per-

formance. Based on the ITEP and Terrell logic,

one would have to argue that because some

smokers do not get lung cancer, smoking must

not be an important factor. This is not sound

thinking. Just as smoking reduces one’s

chances of being healthy, so too high taxes re-

duce a state’s prospects for achieving prosper-

ity. And high taxes do reduce a state’s prospects

for prosperity.

b. Taking this analogy further, smokers are not the

only people who develop lung cancer. In the

same 2006 study in Europe, 0.2 percent of men

who never smoked developed lung cancer (i.e.,

out of every 1,000 nonsmoking males, 2 will con-

tract lung cancer at some time during their lives).

Just as there are cases where nonsmokers


develop lung cancer, so too there are states with

pro-growth policies that at times do not outper-

form states with significantly higher tax policies.

Again, we are all well aware that while some

high-tax states can from time to time perform

well, we are also aware that some low-tax states

can from time to time perform poorly. One swallow

does not a summer make. The issue again is

whether high tax rates raise or lower the likelihood

of a state prospering. And high tax rates most defi-

nitely lower the likelihood of a state prospering.

c. From a statistical economic perspective,

whether highly progressive state income tax

rates are likely to lead to a slower growing

economy depends upon whether there is an

overwhelming correlation between high state

progressive personal income-tax rates and di-

minished economic performance. While corre-

lation in and of itself does not prove causation,

correlation is necessary for causation. In addi-

tion to correlation, proof of the certainty of cau-

sation requires “isolation” of the one variable

from other correlated variables and also the “in-

troduction” of the one variable into a controlled

situation to be complete. And, while certainty in

economics is almost never achieved, correla-

tion increases the likelihood of causation, espe-

cially when the cause is politically determined

and when both the correlation is widespread

and overwhelming causation is highly likely.

d. In the figure and two tables below, Figure 1

shows the excess 10-year population growth dif-

ferences of the zero-income-tax-rate states with

the same number of the highest-income-tax-

rate states from 1970 to the present; Table 1a

presents the past 10-year (2001–2010) relation-

ship between the 9 lowest tax burden states and

the 9 highest tax burden states (both including

and not including Alaska and Wyoming)6 and a

series of key state metrics; Table 1b is the same

as Table 1a for the period 1998–2007 (Terrell’s

preferred time period); and lastly, Table 2 exhib-

its what was the experience of each of the 11

states that introduced a progressive personal

income tax since that tax was introduced during

the past 50 years. The historical evidence pre-

sented is overwhelming: pro-growth economic

policies really do matter.

Figure 110-year Population Growth Rate for No Personal Income Tax States and 10-year Population Growth Rate for Stateswith the Highest Personal Income Tax Rate and Premium (dark) for No Personal Income Tax States 1970–2010


that implemented a progressive state personal in-

come tax, exemplify the overwhelming correlation

between higher state tax rates and slower eco-

nomic performance.

a. Until 1966, New Jersey had neither a general

2. In addition to the comprehensive cross-section

time series data on all states, individual case stud-

ies show that income taxes diminish economic

growth consistently over time. The histories of New

Jersey and California, as well as those of the states


sales tax nor a progressive personal income

tax; a progressive personal income tax was not

introduced in New Jersey until 1976. While New

Jersey winters have always been cold, during

the pre-1966 period New Jersey was consistently

one of the top-growing states in the nation, at-

tracting population from everywhere, and the

state had a balanced budget.

In 2010, just prior to Governor Christie’s taking

office, New Jersey had one of the highest sales-


tax rates in the country, one of the highest per-

sonal-income-tax rates in the country, and one

of the higher property-tax burdens in the coun-

try. New Jersey was also one of the slowest-

growing states in the country, repelling people

profusely, and its budget was a mess.

b. California is also a textbook example of how

high tax rates chase people and income out of

the state, only to be encouraged back in again

once the punitive tax rates have been repealed

or lowered.7

c. Over the past 50 years, 11 states have intro-


duced a progressive personal income tax. In

each case—with no exception—the share of the

national economy and national population rep-

resented by each one of these states is smaller

now than it was prior to the introduction of the

progressive personal income tax. Again, these

are basic economic principles.

3. ITEP fails to differentiate between income growth

and population growth—and the causal relation-

ship between the two. The reason why personal in-

come per capita data across states fail to show a

consistent correlation with tax burdens is simply

that tax burdens impact both population and in-

come data negatively. Lower tax burdens create

greater income growth and greater population

growth. Higher tax burdens create less income

growth and less population growth. What happens to

personal income per capita in either the prospering

states or the stagnating states is not determinable;

nor is the unemployment rate for similar reasons.

a. Texas is one of the fastest-growing states be-

cause people are moving into it. People are also

moving into Texas because there is economic

opportunity there. It is pretty straightforward;

good state tax policy attracts both people and

income.

b. Of course, population growth helps spur addi-

tional income growth, but that is the whole point.

Good policies attract people, especialy job cre-

ators. Creating a pro-growth environment of

prosperity encourages people to relocate to a

state, increases in-migration, and increases

state income growth.

c. As people leave the high-income-tax states, in

pursuit of better economic opportunities and fol-

lowing the job creators, it is natural for the un-

employment rate to remain relatively compa-

rable or even slightly lower, as those remaining

are doing so because they have been able to

tolerate and withstand anti-growth policies. The

basic principles of supply and demand explain

this point. Where there is less opportunity to suc-

ceed and find work, there will be less present

looking for those opportunities. Moreover, many

things factor into a state’s unemployment rate,

which is just a snapshot in time of those working

and those not working in that particular state.

d. Oklahoma, as noted in the Laffer/OCPA analy-

sis, is performing better than the national aver-

age and better than some no-income-tax states

in some years. Oklahoma’s success over the

last few years is a result of its adoption of pro-

growth policies such as Right to Work, elimina-

tion of death taxes, and cutting its personal in-

come tax rate by 20 percent over the last de-

cade. According to IRS data, which are the most

sound source for in-depth comparisons of mi-

gration between two states, Oklahoma has

fared slightly better than Texas in terms of mi-

gration over the last two years. But when one

considers a longer period, Texas is beating

Oklahoma soundly in terms of migration be-

tween the two8 and many other measures. Okla-

homa and Kansas must compete with their

southern neighbor, which historically is beating

them and the nation soundly in several eco-

nomic measures. Oklahoma and Kansas do not

seek simply to do better, they seek to be the best—

and to remove any competitive advantage that

Texas or any other states in the region may have.

4. Save for Louisiana in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina,

climate does not usually change all that much, yet

population flows change dramatically when state

economic policies change, encouraging people to

change where they live and work.

a. A key part of the nine-state comparisons is that

people and businesses move to states with pro-

growth tax environments.

b. Population flows help top-line GDP grow faster

in the states into which people migrate. Popula-

tion inflows into a state in turn create an offset

for GDP per capita increases (higher popula-

tion flows increase the denominator, while

higher income flows increase the numerator).

The effect on GDP per capita is a combination

of these two effects and is generally unknown.


c. When people are leaving a state, income

growth on the top line falls because there are

fewer people; again changes in per capita GDP

growth are unknown.

5. Neither ITEP nor Terrell provide a theory that shows

why higher tax rates, or increasing income-tax

rates, increase economic growth. And the reason

that they do not provide such a theory is that such a

theory makes no sense. Whether we are looking at

countries, states, or counties, it stands to reason

that people and businesses will move from loca-

tions where opportunities are absent and/or de-

clining to locations where opportunities are high

and/or rising. State tax policies are one important

factor in determining the level and change of eco-

nomic opportunities. Taxes do not just redistribute

income; they redistribute people.

Ask yourself the following question: If there are two

locations, A and B, and then taxes are raised in B and

lowered in A, where do you think people and business

will move from and to? This is not rocket surgery; it is

common sense. Economics is all about incentives.

Our position on the role of taxes and economic

growth is supported by a vast literature over many

generations. A small sampling of that literature can

be found at the end of this document.

Economics 101: People Care About After-Tax Income

When analyzing and modeling the behavior of

people to tax-policy changes and its impact on

the economy, it is important to consider all income

taxes faced by the individual. This is the soundest

modeling because of the simple fact that people can

only use after-tax income, no matter which level of

government is taxing it. If only one level of income

taxes is considered when analyzing and modeling the

behavior of people with respect to taxes, this will yield

distorted results which don’t account for the complete

impact on the economy of the individual’s income.

Taxpayers do not care about which entity is collecting

the tax revenues; taxpayers care about their after-tax

rate of return, including all taxes.

In its own analysis, “Tax Strategies for A Strong

Minnesota” (Michael P. Ettlinger, Tyson Slocum, and

Robert G. Lynch, January 1998), ITEP concurred that

federal income taxes are an important consideration

when examining state income tax policy. In describing

recommendations for Minnesota, the ITEP report at-

tempted to justify higher income taxes on the rich by

arguing, “Tax increases that affect only higher income

taxpayers are offset to a large degree by lower fed-

eral income taxes.” While their argument fails to con-

sider the important incentive effects, the argument

does recognize the importance of all income taxes

from the taxpayer’s perspective.

Economics 101: Every State Is Unique, But People Respond the Same

One of the great things about the United States of

America is its diverse terrain and the unique

sectors that are found across the states. Each state

relies on a unique conglomeration of industries, but

this still does not change the response of people to in-

centives. Some states also have many industries in

common—for instance, Texas and Oklahoma both

rely heavily on the mining and oil industries. Whether

a state generates a lot of activity from agriculture,

mining or energy, manufacturing, tourism, or technol-

ogy, if the incentives are right, people will move where

they can maximize the return on their investment and

minimize the extraction of their returns in the form of

taxes. With the advancement of technology, rapid

transportation, and the fluid mobility of capital, every

state has the possibility to support existing and new

industries.

For example, the development of horizontal drilling

and what many refer to as “fracking” has turned a

northern state such as Pennsylvania into a state with a

mining boom almost “overnight.” Pennsylvania has

seen significant economic returns, while its neighbor

to the north, New York, which has much of the same

fossil-fuel opportunities, has suffered because it has

succumbed to high regulatory and tax burdens.

It is no secret that Oklahoma is a state with a mining

presence and is home to some of the largest produc-

ers of fossil fuels. One needs only to look at

Oklahoma’s state revenue sources to see how impor-

tant the mining or energy sector is to Oklahoma. Ac-

cording to 2010 census data on state tax collections,

severance taxes comprised 10.5 percent of

Oklahoma’s tax collections. Comparatively, state tax

collections from severance taxes comprised 4.4 per-

cent of total state tax collections in Texas. With

Oklahoma’s legacy and leadership in the energy and

mining industry, and its success and potential in the

agriculture, manufacturing, and health sectors, com-

paring Oklahoma to other states with significant en-

ergy or mining sectors and other states across the

nation is necessary. Moreover, it reveals the endless

opportunities for Oklahoma if further pro-growth poli-

cies, such as phasing out the state personal income

tax, are implemented.

States like California, which are losing population

to lower-tax states with less-desirable weather and at-

tractions—such as Colorado, Nevada, Oklahoma,

and Texas—provide evidence that maximizing after-

tax returns is a more important consideration than

geography or weather.

Finally, for any state competing for people, what

better way for a state to position itself against a state

with perceived industry advantages than to create the

economic environment where people can receive the

greatest after-tax return on their income? �


Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

1401 N. Lincoln Blvd. • Oklahoma City, OK 73104

Tel: 405.602.1667 • Fax: 405.602.1238 • ocpathink.org

Appendix

• Bania, Neil, Jo Anna Gray, and Joe A. Stone. “Growth, Taxes, and

Government Expenditures: Growth Hills for U.S. States.” Na-

tional Tax Journal 60, no. 3 (June 2007).

• Barone, Michael. “The Fall of the Midwest Economic Model.” The

Wall Street Journal, August 16, 2011.

• Barone, Michael. “The Great Lone Star Migration.” The Wall

Street Journal, January 8, 2011.

• Barro, Robert J. “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Coun-

tries.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, no. 2 (May 1991).

• Batchelder, Bill, Jack Boyle, and Dick Patten. “Ohio Shows the

Way on Death Tax Repeal.” The Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2011.

• Becsi, Zsolt. “Do State and Local Taxes Affect Relative State

Growth?” Economic Review 81, no. 2 (March/April 1996).

• Campbell, Colin D., and Rosemary G. Campbell. A Compara-

tive Study of the Fiscal Systems of New Hampshire and Vermont,

1940–1974. Hampton, NH: Wheelabrator Foundation,1976.

• Canto, Victor A., and Robert I. Webb. “The Effect of State Fiscal

Policy on State Relative Economic Performance.” Southern Eco-

nomic Journal 54, no. 1 (July 1987).

• Finley, Allysia. “The Chicago Expulsion Act of 2011.” The Wall

Street Journal, December 17, 2011.

• Fund, John. “California Dreamin’—of Jobs in Texas.” The Wall

Street Journal, April 22, 2011.

• Gordon, John Steele. “The Rise and Needless Decline of the

Golden State.” The Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2011.

• Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson, and Randall Holcombe. The Size

and Functions of Government and Economic Growth. Report pre-

pared for U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, April 1998.

• Hall, Arthur P., Scott Moody, and Wendy P. Warcholik. “The

County-to-County Migration of Taxpayers and Their Incomes,

1995–2006.” Technical Report 09-0306, Center for Applied Eco-

nomics, March 2009.

• “The Heartland Tax Rebellion.” The Wall Street Journal, February

8, 2012.

• Holmes, Thomas J. “The Effect of State Policies on the Location of

Manufacturing: Evidence from State Borders.” Journal of Politi-

cal Economy 106, no. 4 (August 1998).

• Landau, Daniel L. “Government Expenditure and Economic

Growth: A Cross-Country Study.” Southern Economic Journal 49

(January 1983).

• Malanga, Steve. “How California Drives Away Jobs and Business.”

The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 2011.

• “Maryland’s Son of Obama.” The Wall Street Journal, February

7, 2012.

• Mitchell, Daniel J. “The Impact of Government Spending on Eco-

nomic Growth.” Executive Summary Backgrounder 1831, Heri-

tage Foundation, March 31, 2005.

• Moody, J. Scott. “Leaving Illinois: An Exodus of People and

Money.” Tax and Budget Brief, Illinois Policy Institute, January 12,

2011.

• Moody, J. Scott. “Still Leaving Illinois: An Exodus of People and

Money.” Policy Brief, Illinois Policy Institute, December 20, 2011.

• Moody, J. Scott, and William J. Felkner. “‘Leaving Rhode Island’:

Policy Lessons from Rhode Island’s Exodus of People and

Money.” Ocean State Policy Research Institute, January 2011.

• Moody, J. Scott, and Wendy P. Warcholik. “Voting With Their

Feet.” Policy Brief, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, April 29,

2010.

• Moody, J. Scott, and Wendy P. Warcholik. “Oklahoma Losing Tax-

payers to No-Income-Tax States.” Policy Brief, Oklahoma Coun-

cil of Public Affairs, January 5, 2012.

• Moore, Stephen. “Can Rick Scott Put Florida to Work?” The Wall

Street Journal, December 31, 2010.

• Moore, Stephen. “The Most Important Non-Presidential Election

of the Decade.” The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2012.

• Moore, Stephen. “The Taxman Cometh to Illinois—With a 75%

Hike.” The Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2011.

• Reed, Robert W. “The Robust Relationship between Taxes and

U.S. State Income Growth.” National Tax Journal 61, no. 1

(March 2008).

• Scully, Gerald W. “Taxes and Economic Growth.” NCPA Policy

Report no. 292, National Center for Policy Analysis, November

2006.

• Strassell, Kimberley A. “Wisconsin 1, Illinois 0.” The Wall Street

Journal, January 14, 2011.

• Vedder, Richard. “Right-to-Work Laws: Liberty, Prosperity, and

Quality of Life.” Cato Journal 30, no. 1 (Winter 2010).

• Vedder, Richard. “Taxation and Migration.” The Taxpayers Net-

work, March 2003.

• Vedder, Richard, Matthew Denhart, and Jonathan Robe. “Right-

to-Work and Indiana’s Economic Future.” Indiana Chamber of

Commerce study, January 2011.

Endnotes1 Barrister proverb.2 Arthur B. Laffer, “The States Are Leading a Pro-Growth Rebellion,”

The Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/

article/SB10001424052970203711104577201391354733460.html;

Stephen Moore, “The Most Important Non-Presidential Election of

the Decade,” The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2012, http://

o n l i n e . w s j . c o m / a r t i c l e / S B 1 0 0 0 1 4 2 4 0 5 2 9 7 0 2 0 4 5 7 3 7 0 4 5

77186830049178636.html; and “The Heartland Tax Rebellion,” The

Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052970203889904577200872159113492.html.3 In Oklahoma, the idea of phasing out the personal income tax is

under consideration, thanks in part to the publication of a recent

report by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and Arduin, Laffer

& Moore Econometrics (“Eliminating the State Income Tax in Okla-

homa: An Economic Assessment,” November 2011). Wisconsin,

Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, and New Jersey, among others, have all

recently implemented strong pro-growth policies.

4 Siddhartha Mukherjee, The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography

of Cancer (New York: Scribner, 2010).5 Lynne Eldridge, “What Percentage of Smokers Get Lung Can-

cer?” February 28, 2011, http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-

Cancer-And-Smoking/f/Smokers-Lung-Cancer.htm.6 Alaska and Wyoming have exceptionally large severance taxes,

which some people argue make them less comparable to other

states. Of course, every state is in some ways different from every

other state, which alone does not invalidate all comparisons. But

when significant differences do appear, the research analyst must

be careful.7 See Arthur Laffer and Wayne Winegarden, EUREKA! How to Fix

California (Pacific Research Institute, 2012) for more on this topic.8 Moody, J. Scott and Wendy P. Warcholik. “Oklahoma Losing Tax-

payers to No-Income-Tax States.” Policy Brief, Oklahoma Council of

Public Affairs, January 5, 2012.

economics 101 - arthur betz laffer, jonathan small y wayne winegarden

Documents