Do Kansans need a constitutional amendment to protect them from their elected representatives? According to State Rep. Brenda Landwehr, they do. In support of an a constitutional amendment that would impose numerical limits on the rate of growth of state expenditures based on inflation and population growth, she asserts that “the Legislature had not been able to maintain control over spending, so the people should” (Lawrence Journal World, Dec. 6, page 5A).

Despite the arguments of Rep. Landwehr and other anti-tax advocates, however, there is no evidence to suggest that state spending or taxes are running out of control. Federal and state tax codes are complex sets of rules that specify an array of different tax rates on income, property, retail purchases, and other activities, while providing deductions and other incentives for desirable activities. These details are extremely important, and have a major impact on individual decisions. But they can prevent us from seeing the big picture.

Driving across Kansas on Interstate 70, one gets a very different view than if one is flying across the state at 30,000 feet. Both perspectives have their value, but as one gets up to higher altitudes a sense of the overall landscape emerges that was not visible from the ground. To understand the impact of taxation it is helpful to take a look from the equivalent of 30,000 feet, rather than trying to comprehend the impact of specific tax code changes.

One way to do this is to look at total tax revenues divided by the state population. In 2003, the most recent year for which figures are available, the state collected $1,838.62 from the average Kansas. The bulk of state tax revenues come from sales taxes and individual income taxes, which together account for almost three-quarters of all state general fund revenues.

Are state taxes too high? A bill of more than $1,800 per person certainly sounds like a lot, but for the average Kansan this figure works out to just 6.2 percent of their income in 2003. More importantly, contrary to the view that state tax bills are growing out of control, tax revenues have grown more slowly than average incomes over the past decade. In 1993, the state tax bill for the average person was 6.4 percent of their income. In other words, Kansans today take home a slightly larger portion of their income than they did 10 years ago.

Tax revenues are of course used to fund a variety of activities, and ultimately the question is do we get good value — in terms of the services provided — for the dollars we send to Topeka. Compared to other states, we seem to be doing about average. In 2003, the tax burden of the average Kansan ranked 26th out of 50 states, and was slightly less than the average figure across all 50 states.

Compared both to what is happening in other states and to the ability of state residents to pay there is simply no basis for arguing that the state Legislature is increasing taxes irresponsibly. Of course, many anti-tax advocates may believe that the size of state government is too large, and that the best way to reduce the activities of the state is to starve it of funding. There are legitimate grounds for disagreement about the appropriate size of state government programs. But the discussion should focus on these issues rather than on misleading assertions about the growth of state spending.

— Joshua L. Rosenbloom is professor of economics and director of the Center for Economic and Business Analysis in the Policy Research Institute at Kansas University.