Huckabee vs. Romney
State+Local Tax Burden

Summary

As a percent of income, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee & Arkansas: 0.11%
Romney & Massachusetts: 0.175%

In terms of actual, inflation-adjusted dollars, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee and Arkansas: $70.98
Romney and Massachusetts: $139.19

Analysis That Yields These Statistics

Huckabee vs. Romney - Tax Burden as a Percent of Income

The following charts demonstrate the comparison between Huckabee and Romney with respect to tax burden as a percent of total income during their tenures as governor.

Arkanasas' Tax Burden as a Percent of Income
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html

Using 1996 and 2007 for Huckabee, we see that the state+local tax burden for Arkansans went from 10.1% of income to 11.3% of income for an increase of 1.2% over 11 years (Governor Huckabee serving for 10 and a half of those), or an average of .11% per year.

Massachusetts' Tax Burden as a Percent of Income
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html

Using 2002 and 2006 for Mitt Romney, we see that the state+local tax burden for Massachusettsians (?) went from 9.8% to 10.5% over 4 years for an increase of .7% over 4 years, or an average increase of .175% per year.

Conclusion:
Under Huckabee, increase of .11% per year.
Under Romney, increase of .175% per year.

Huckabee vs. Romney - Tax Burden in Actual Dollars (inflation adjusted to the year 2000)
http://www.pnreap.org/United_States/comparative-trends-analysis.php?indicator=Per_Capita_Income
(choose Arkansas then Massachusetts on the right, then click on "Generate & Display Output"; when the next screen appears, scroll down to the graph at the bottom: "Arkansas and Massachusetts: Per Capita Income, 1969-2006")

Arkansas' tax burden in actual dollars, inflation adjusted to the year 2000:
1996: $20,232 per capita income * 10.1% state+local tax burden = $2,043.43
2006: $24,804 per capita income * 11.1% state+local tax burden = $2,753.24

Increase over 10 years = $2,753.24 - $2,043.43 = $709.81
Increase per year = $70.98

Massachusetts' tax burden in actual dollars, inflation adjusted to the year 2000:
2002: $37,536 per capita income * 9.8% state+local tax burden = $3,678.53
2006: $40,336 per capita income * 10.5% state+local tax burden = $4,235.28

Increase over 4 years = $4,235.28 - $3,678.53 = $556.75
Increase per year = $139.19

Conclusion:
Under Huckabee, increase of $70.98 per year.
Under Romney, increase of $139.19 per year.

Update (March 2011): Per Capita Income Source Link
The old link above does not work. The site has updated their data and now includes numbers based on an adjustment for the year 2005. Here is the new link: http://united-states.reaproject.org/ana ... ta_income/
Select Arkansas and Massachusetts on the right, then click "Generate & Display Report."

What is the original link for that? That is some great stuff there...

I did some googling to come up with the tax-burden-as-percent-of-income charts for Arkansas and Massachusetts:

Arkansas - http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html
Massachusetts - http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html

And then also the page where you can run a comparison of Arkansas and Massachusetts that yields the chart of their per capita income figures:

http://www.pnreap.org/United_States/comparative-trends-analysis.php?indicator=Per_Capita_Income

On a separate note, I'm a novice at this, so I didn't know how to include the charts in the post. If anyone tells me how to do that, I'll see if I can update the post, or, if anyone wants to re-do my post with the charts included, that'd be super.

Also, I tried to be careful, but if anyone sees any errors in my math or methodology, point them out. I think that even if I messed up a little, the basic information is there indicating that Huckabee was, at worst, about the same as Romney, and at best, better than Romney when it came to the effect of their policies on the increase of the tax burden of their respective citizens.

The post was my running of the numbers from the charts mentioned above. It'd be great if anyone wanted to independently confirm my calculations (and the validity of the charts I used - they seemed to be official numbers from non-biased sites).

God bless,
D-Dawg

You know this is seriously some good work

Great job oh and to put links into a post right click the image select properties on the pop up menu and in the section marked location select to whole address and copy it with ctrl c

now type



So lets use this.





It's simple really html and java is a lot more confusing...

Thanks for the compliment and the info on including images!

The per capita chart doesn't seem to be included on its page as an image, at least not in the sense of being able to right-click on it as an image. The tax-burden-% charts are FlashPaper documents and don't seem to work like regular images.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,
D-Dawg

This kind of side-by-side comparison is exactly what I'm talking about in this thread. Excellent job D-Dawg. I hope your findings are indeed accurate.

_________________
What The Huck

Is there a way to discount the local tax burden and just calculate the state tax burden alone?

_________________

F3 Coalition [Faith, Family and Freedom]
Forum: http://forum.f3coalition.org
Blog: http://blog.f3coalition.org

D-Dawg...A+ research!

This seriously needs to be a sticky...

_________________
Leave no question in anyone's mind as to where you stand. --L. Aldin Porter

Put your John Hancock on the Special Forces list! http://www.save08.org/
Let the Nation know that you are not going to allow 'Business as Usual' to continue in government--you will vote! Then go and find two more like-minded people to sign up as well.

http://www.ragbrai.org
I'm done with winter now.

Earned my supreme kudos! Your math is flawless as I see it.
Thanks for the references!

_________________
*The FairTax is the best idea since the Constitution!
Save Talk Radio..my blog

Bump! Great stuff here! Why is Romney not called out on this stuff???

_________________
- Shawn T.

"The best form of leadership is the kind that is earned"

Props.

Well done.

Updated 3/17/11


Huckabee vs. Romney
State+Local Tax Burden


Summary

As a percent of income, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee & Arkansas: 0.08%
Romney & Massachusetts: 0.15%

In terms of actual, inflation-adjusted dollars, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee and Arkansas: $76.49
Romney and Massachusetts: $149.06



Analysis That Yields These Statistics


Huckabee vs. Romney - Tax Burden as a Percent of Income

The following charts demonstrate the comparison between Huckabee and Romney with respect to tax burden as a percent of total income during their tenures as governor.

Arkanasas' Tax Burden as a Percent of Income
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html

Huckabee
Using 1995 (the starting point – i.e. what it was the year before he took office – note: he began serving in July of 1996) and 2006 (what it was for the last full year he was governor), we see that the state+local tax burden for Arkansans went from 9.1% of income to 10.0% of income for an increase of 0.9% over 11 years (Governor Huckabee serving for 10 and a half of those), or an average of 0.08% per year.

Massachusetts' Tax Burden as a Percent of Income
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html

Romney
Using 2002 (the starting point – i.e. what it was the year before he took office) and 2006 (what it was for the last full year he was governor), we see that the state+local tax burden for Bay Staters went from 9.6% to 10.2% over 4 years for an increase of 0.6% over 4 years, or an average increase of 0.15% per year.

Conclusion:
Under Huckabee, increase of 0.08% per year.
Under Romney, increase of 0.15% per year.



Huckabee vs. Romney - Tax Burden in Actual Dollars (inflation adjusted to the year 2005)
http://united-states.reaproject.org/ana ... ta_income/
(choose Arkansas then Massachusetts on the right, then click on "Generate & Display Output"; when the next screen appears, scroll down to the graph at the bottom: "Arkansas and Massachusetts: Per Capita Income, 1969-2009")

Arkansas' tax burden in actual dollars, inflation-adjusted to the year 2005:
1995: $22,257 per capita income * 9.1% state+local tax burden = $2,025.39
2006: $28,668 per capita income * 10.0% state+local tax burden = $2,866.80

Increase over 11 years = $2,866.80 - $2,025.39 = $841.41
Increase per year = $841.41 / 11 = $76.49

Massachusetts' tax burden in actual dollars, inflation-adjusted to the year 2005
2002: $42,541 per capita income * 9.6% state+local tax burden = $4,083.94
2006: $45,884 per capita income * 10.2% state+local tax burden = $4,680.17

Increase over 4 years = $4,680.17 - $4,083.94 = $596.23
Increase per year = $596.23 / 4 = $149.06

Conclusion:
Under Huckabee, increase of $76.49 per year.
Under Romney, increase of $149.06 per year.


Huckabee and Romney both grew government in terms of tax burden.
Romney grew Massachusetts' government almost twice as fast as Huckabee grew Arkansas'. The data from their records show that Huckabee is to the right of Romney fiscally.



Appendix

State+Local Tax Burden Comparison for the Last Year of Their Respective Governorships
Tax burden for Huckabee's Arkansas in 2006: 10.0%
Tax burden for Romney's Massachusetts in 2006: 10.2%

Thanks for the great research and data we can use.

Another reminder of Mike's frugal nature, he and his family chose to live in a double wide mobile home on capitol grounds for over a year while the governor's mansion was being renovated. Mike was teased and even ridiculed by many in the media but I am sure the tax payers appreciated his frugality. I can't think of any other governors willing to do this, certainly not Romney.

Footnote - My governor, Rick Perry, is ready to cut essential programs from the budget, but he and his wife have been living in a rented extremely high dollar home at the tax payers expense for about two years and perhaps for the next 2 years due to the arsonist who destroyed the lovely Texas mansion. I wonder if the tax payers could convince him to live in a double wide mobile home on capitol grounds!!

D-Dawg,
You should put this on a blog so we can link outside of HucksArmy. If you don't have a blog, send Jack memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=182 a PM and ask him to put it on the WiseRepbublic for you.

Do you think you should include your entire updated post in your first post by editing it so that everyone realizes it was totally updated with the new data?

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

Thanks, D-Dawg for re-posting this updated version for comparing Romney to Huckabee. If he runs for President this time, we will have a wealth of work done for us from the 2008 race.

And hopefully we will see more of the dedicated supporters from 2007 coming back to HA! I am a novice in comparison.

_________________

D-Dawg I agree with Granny-T, this should definitely be posted on WR. But, and this is my personal opinion, I think you should hold this until the race actually begins. I think it will get much more coverage, more people will be interested during the actual race and will have a more widespread effect if you were to wait. For instance, maybe you could post it after a debate where Romney touts his fiscal conservativism over Gov. Huckabee's. It could really have a great effect on people in that moment.

_________________
Soli Deo Gloria

Thanks for all the kind words, guys!

I went back to the old post due to comments over at Redstate on Erick Erickson's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," (referenced in a recent topic here on HA) calling Governor Huckabee fiscally liberal. Despite the many positives in GH's record and in his stated positions since he left the governorship, many do not believe he is fiscally conservative.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to an issue of trust. Many politicians say many things, many of which square with one part of their record, but don't quite square with another part, and we the voter are left trying to determine what the net effect of all the data is.

Regarding fiscal matters, I believe Governor Huckabee when he talks about a trillion things we don't need from Washington. I trust that he sincerely desires to see the Fair Tax implemented to help simplify government and improve everyone's economy. I recall his establishment of the Tax Me More Fund*, which effectively said, "I don't have a desire to tax people more, but if you think we should have higher taxes, feel free to donate."

But some people don't trust him. Hopefully, reminding people of his record and continually pointing out his stated viewpoints will help win them over.

*Here's a good article from last September at American Thinker referencing the Tax Me More Fund: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/ ... posal.html

Hope you don't mind. I am posting this on facebook!

Can you do a similar comparison with Pawlenty? This is good information but it might not be Huckabee vs. Romney like 2008.

Don't mind at all