Introduction
This article explores the debate over whether all 50 states should eliminate income taxes, contrasting states with high and low tax burdens and the trade-offs involved. Given questions about why residents in blue states support spending on social programs, public transportation, and housing, this fact-check provides clarity on the claims presented and the underlying reasons for differing policy choices.
Historical Context
The question of state-level income taxation has shaped American migration and budget policy for decades. Some states have historically funded robust social safety nets and public services using higher taxes, while others, particularly in the Sunbelt and Mountain West, have drawn new residents and businesses with lower or zero income tax policies. In recent years, rising costs, pandemic-era population shifts, and debates over government priorities have intensified comparisons between “red” and “blue” state approaches.
Fact-Check Specific Claims
Claim #1: “As of 2025, there are nine states that do not impose a general state income tax on wages and earned income.”
This claim is accurate. As of January 1, 2025, nine states — Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming — have no state income tax on wages or general earned income. New Hampshire’s repeal of its tax on interest and dividends is confirmed by recent reports and tax review sources (Kiplinger).
Claim #2: “Blue states typically have higher overall tax burdens due to their expansive social programs and regulatory costs.”
The article’s assertion that blue states tend to levy higher income, property, and sales taxes to fund broad social programs, public transit, and housing initiatives is substantiated by current research. Data shows that states such as California and New York have top income tax rates well above 10%, while also imposing higher overall tax burdens as a share of resident income. This higher taxation directly supports a wider array of public services and is shaped by voter support for such programs (Townhall).
Claim #3: “There is significant out-migration from high-tax blue states to low-tax or no-income-tax states.”
This statement is supported by migration and moving industry data. Studies, including U-Haul’s annual report, demonstrate net population losses in states such as California and New York, while Florida and Texas have seen gains — driven in part by tax policy but also by factors such as cost of living, job availability, and weather. Migration patterns do not always reflect single-issue causality, but taxation is an influential factor (Townhall).
Claim #4: “Voters in blue states do not reduce spending on social programs, public transportation, and housing because they broadly support these services.”
Directly addressing the user’s question, available polling and research show strong and sustained support for social spending among blue state voters. Majorities in these states regularly endorse candidates and measures promoting robust social programs, public transit, and affordable housing. Surveys conducted by the Center for American Progress and Data for Progress reveal bipartisan agreement on the importance of such supports, even amid debates around government efficiency and taxes (American Progress, CBPP). Thus, blue state residents often vote to maintain — rather than reduce — funding for social services, reflecting collective priorities rather than a lack of fiscal concern.
Conclusion
The article accurately details which states lack income taxes and the alternative revenue streams they use. Its explanation of higher tax burdens and expansive services in Democratic-leaning states is supported by migration trends and state tax data. Where nuance is needed is in explaining that residents in blue states vote for sustained social spending because of deep-seated policy preferences and perceived benefits, not simply habit or neglect of fiscal matters. Ultimately, the claims examined in the article are broadly supported by current research, although robust policy debates — especially over efficiency and priorities — continue. For readers wanting to stay ahead of misinformation in complex policy debates like this, verification makes a critical difference.
Take Action Now
Want to stay empowered against misinformation? Download the DBUNK App and submit your own fact-check requests for free.
Link to Original Article
