IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v32y2010i12p1803-1806.html

Death and taxes: Child health and the state tax freedom race

Author

Listed:
  • MacKenzie, Michael J.
  • Tucker, David J.

Abstract

Each year the Tax Foundation releases rankings of U.S. states on time to Tax Freedom, or the day that the average taxpayer has met their tax burden. The current analysis sought to contextualize the tax freedom day rankings, by examining the association between state tax burden and key indicators of child wellbeing. The 2009 measure of days to tax freedom by state was correlated with ten key indicators of child wellbeing from the Casey Foundation's KIDS COUNT 2009 data. Each of the wellbeing indicators and the overall composite wellbeing rankings were also regressed on days to Tax Freedom and Gross State Product. As the days to tax freedom decrease, indicating a lighter tax burden, all of the following increase significantly -- the infant mortality rate, child and teen death rates, teen birth rate, rates of school dropout and disconnected youth, and numbers of children in poverty. These findings all held even after controlling for Gross State Product. Public attitudes and choices about paying taxes have important consequences for the health of children in our society. The broad appeal of Tax Freedom Day highlights a disconnect between the act of paying taxes and recognition of the benefits to children those taxes provide.

Suggested Citation

  • MacKenzie, Michael J. & Tucker, David J., 2010. "Death and taxes: Child health and the state tax freedom race," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 1803-1806, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:32:y:2010:i:12:p:1803-1806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190-7409(10)00227-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alesina, Alberto & La Ferrara, Eliana, 2005. "Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 897-931, June.
    2. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    3. Chung, Haejoo & Muntaner, Carles, 2006. "Political and welfare state determinants of infant and child health indicators: An analysis of wealthy countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 829-842, August.
    4. Currie, Janet & Gruber, Jonathan, 1996. "Saving Babies: The Efficacy and Cost of Recent Changes in the Medicaid Eligibility of Pregnant Women," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1263-1296, December.
    5. Sheila B. Kamerman & Michelle Neuman & Jane Waldfogel & Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, 2003. "Social Policies, Family Types and Child Outcomes in Selected OECD Countries," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 6, OECD Publishing.
    6. Kawachi, I. & Kennedy, B.P. & Lochner, K. & Prothrow-Stith, D., 1997. "Social capital, income inequality, and mortality," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(9), pages 1491-1498.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sophie Cetre & Max Lobeck & Claudia Senik & Thierry Verdier, 2018. "In search of unanimously preferred income distributions. Evidence from a choice experiment," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) halshs-01863359, HAL.
    2. Corneo, Giacomo & Fong, Christina M., 2008. "What's the monetary value of distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 289-308, February.
    3. Brock, J Michelle, 2018. "Inequality of opportunity, governance and individual beliefs," CEPR Discussion Papers 12636, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    4. Grosfeld, Irena & Senik, Claudia, 2010. "The emerging aversion to inequality - Evidence from subjective data," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 1006, CEPREMAP.
    5. Cabeza Martínez, Begoña, 2023. "Social preferences, support for redistribution, and attitudes towards vulnerable groups," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Yann Algan & Pierre Cahuc & Marc Sangnier, 2016. "Trust and the Welfare State: the Twin Peaks Curve," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(593), pages 861-883, June.
    7. Ilpo Kauppinen & Panu Poutvaara, 2012. "Preferences for Redistribution among Emigrants from a Welfare State," ifo Working Paper Series 120, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    8. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Xavier Ramos, 2010. "Inequality Aversion and Risk Attitudes," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 271, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    9. Kuhn, Andreas, 2011. "In the eye of the beholder: Subjective inequality measures and individuals' assessment of market justice," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 625-641.
    10. Alexandru Cojocaru & Mame Fatou Diagne, 2021. "Redistributive preferences in Europe and Central Asia, 2006–2016," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 151-172, January.
    11. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Ulrich, Volker, 2013. "You can't always get what you want - East and West Germans' attitudes and preferences regarding the welfare state," MPRA Paper 47240, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Jørgen Andersen, 2012. "Costs of taxation and the size of government," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 83-115, October.
    13. Marcel Preuss & Germ'an Reyes & Jason Somerville & Joy Wu, 2025. "Are Elites Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking? Evidence from MBA Students," Papers 2503.15443, arXiv.org, revised May 2026.
    14. Grimalda, Gianluca & Kar, Anirban & Proto, Eugenio, "undated". "Everyone Wants a Chance : Initial Positions and Fairness in Ultimatum Games," Economic Research Papers 270638, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    15. Alexandru Cojocaru, 2023. "Flaunt them If you’ve Got them? Informal Connections and Beliefs About Prospects of Upward Mobility in Transition Economies," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 65(3), pages 416-441, September.
    16. Guenther, Isabel & Tetteh-Baah, Samuel Kofi, 2019. "The impact of discrimination on redistributive preferences and productivity: experimental evidence from the United States," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203652, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Andreas Kuhn, 2012. "Redistributive Preferences, Redistribution and Inequality: Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries," NRN working papers 2012-08, The Austrian Center for Labor Economics and the Analysis of the Welfare State, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    18. Erik Lindqvist & Robert Östling, 2013. "Identity and redistribution," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 469-491, June.
    19. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "Redistribution in Whose Favor? Preferences with Regard to Nationality and Type of Beneficiaries," MPRA Paper 119465, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Monica Bozzano & Simona Scabrosetti, 2024. "What Drives Gender Gaps in Preferences for Redistribution? New Evidence from the European Social Survey," Working papers 118, Società Italiana di Economia Pubblica.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:32:y:2010:i:12:p:1803-1806. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.