Skip to main content

Top-Ten in Low Taxes, But Oklahoma Still Has Much Room for Improvement


In a comparison of states’ total taxes as well as spending in certain broad categories that the 1889 Institute has just published (Oklahoma Government Revenues and Spending in Perspective – Update), some interesting facts arise. Using federal data, we compared states by looking at the percentage of personal income collected in state and local government revenues. We also looked at the percentage of personal income spent in six broad spending categories: higher education, public education, public welfare, hospitals, highways, and corrections.

The data shows that in 2017 Oklahoma’s state and local governments:

  • Extract 13.2 percent of Oklahomans’ personal income in taxes and fees, moving Oklahoma into the Top Ten lowest-taxing states, ahead of Texas. 
  • Spend 12.38 percent of personal income on the six featured spending areas (which include federal dollars), only a little below the national average of 12.7 percent. While 9th overall (least spent being first), Oklahoma is not that much better than the 25th-ranked state.
  • Spend a higher percentage of our income on higher education than 28 states.
  • Spend a higher percentage of income on public education than seven states, including Arizona, a leader in educational choice and progress, but making us a Top-Ten state in how well we hold schools’ feet to the fire for their spending. 
  • Spend a higher percentage of state personal income on public welfare than 24 states.

In addition, we calculate that if Oklahoma’s state and local governments increased efficiency by 10 percent, doable given the examples of other states, $2 billion would be available to enhance existing services, provide new ones, or be returned to taxpayers.

Unfortunately, compared to two years earlier, the personal income per capita (average per person) numbers, which are adjusted for cost of living, show Oklahoma having lost some ground relative to other states. In fact, the unadjusted personal income per capita actually fell from 2015 to 2017. After all, when the oil industry sneezes, Oklahoma catches cold. 

Nevertheless, Oklahoma is still in the top half of states when it comes to average personal income. A big reason for this is due to the adjustment for cost of living. Oklahoma has a low cost of living compared to the vast majority of states. We’re not just Top-Ten in that category; we’re Top-Five. It’s a distinction we should strive to keep.

It’s now arguable that Oklahoma is a low-tax state. But when it comes to specific spending categories, we’re all over the place. We can get a lot better overall if we become more like Florida or New York on higher education, Texas or Virginia on welfare, Georgia or Arizona on highways, and Massachusetts or Illinois on corrections.

We should strive to be the leanest and most efficient of all states in every category of spending at all levels of government. Doing so, we would extract as little as possible from citizens, leaving the greatest possible amount of resources in the private sector, where our free choices cause resources to migrate to their highest valued uses.

Oklahoma has not yet achieved the status of being a low-spending state, but it would be something to celebrate. Some seem to think that high spending and high performance are synonymous, but every value-adding organization on earth knows better. Unbridled spending shows a lack of accountability and an uncritical willingness to take from hard-working taxpayers. It’s a path toward weakness, not strength.

Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at bschlomach@1889institute.org. 

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About COVID-19: Better Than You Think

As the media turns its attention back to COVID-19, there is a renewed push to shut down the economy. Some states have even begun to scale back reopening plans for their economies; others continue to delay opening. It is essential to look past their catastrophizing and focus on the facts of COVID-19. One fact to consider: while testing has risen 23%, the rate of positive results has only risen 1.3 percentage points to 6.2%. Even as alarmists point to the rise in cases, they still admit that the boost in testing has played a role in the rise in the total number of known cases. Therefore, the total number of positive cases is not of much use in this case, as it only paints a partial picture. The rate of increase in total positive cases is a more meaningful measure, and it has barely increased. Even more important is who is getting infected. The data show that recent cases are primarily younger people. But that’s a good thing; these are precisely the people that are key to building herd ...
Read more

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...
Read more

Why Oklahoma's Method for Selecting Judges Is a Bad Idea

The state of Oklahoma selects supreme court justices using a system known as the Missouri Plan, which is a form of merit selection. Advocates paint a rosy picture of the plan, claiming that it is a more sophisticated system than the federal model or the election model and that it strikes the perfect balance between the other two systems. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. Here is how the plan works: the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), a board of individuals who review candidates for vacancies on the supreme court, selects three candidates to present to the governor. The governor must select one of these candidates. If he does not, after 60 days, the Chief Justice selects one of the candidates to fill the vacancy. Once on the court, justices face an uncontested “retention election” every six years; however, not one justice has been voted off the court in the half century that this system has been in place. On its face this system might seem like a good idea, but...
Read more