Introduction
This article exploring whether all 50 states should eliminate income tax has sparked debate over state funding priorities and taxpayer migration. It was flagged for fact-checking due to its evaluative statements on blue states’ spending and taxation policies, and to clarify why citizens in these states may not decrease investments in public programs, transportation, and housing as often as the article suggests. We address both the article’s major claims and the user’s specific question with the latest research and facts.
Historical Context
Taxation and state-funded social programs have long been ideological dividing lines in U.S. politics. “Blue states” often fund expansive social safety nets, public transit, and housing initiatives, supporting them with progressive income taxes. In contrast, many “red states” prioritize lower taxes and leaner government budgets, relying on different revenue streams and spending approaches. Recent years have intensified debate over the consequences of each model, especially as population shifts occur and states revisit their tax codes to stay competitive.
Fact-Check Specific Claims
Claim #1: “Voters in blue states often demand expansive social safety nets, public transit, housing programs and environmental regulations, all of which cost money.”
This claim is substantiated by polling and budget data. Surveys such as a June 2025 AP-NORC poll confirm that a broad base of Americans—especially in Democratic-leaning states—support the maintenance or expansion of social programs, including Medicaid, public transportation, and affordable housing. Legislative records from blue states like New York and California also show consistent investments in these areas, aligning with constituent preferences. However, while voter support is largely present, funding levels are tempered by budgetary limitations, as seen in recent New York budget debates.
Claim #2: “Many blue states adopt steep marginal brackets to fund ambitious social programs that often fail miserably.”
The first part of this claim—regarding the use of higher tax brackets to fund social programs—is accurate. States such as California (13.3% top rate) and New York (around 10.9%) have established progressive state income tax structures to support a range of public investments. However, the assertion that these programs “often fail miserably” is not supported by a balanced review of evidence. Research consistently indicates that many blue state initiatives have contributed positively to public health, education attainment, and social mobility, even if challenges exist. For instance, access to Medicaid and housing support in these states has helped reduce uninsured rates and expand services, according to nonpartisan analyses. Claiming failure as a blanket judgment omits the complexity and the benefits recognized by both constituents and independent reviews.
Claim #3: “Why don’t citizens of blue states vote to reduce money spent on social programs, public transportation and housing programs?”
The research indicates that most citizens in blue states continue to support these programs due to both ideological beliefs and practical outcomes. AP-NORC surveys in June 2025 found strong public approval for maintaining or increasing funding for Medicaid, food assistance, and housing. Even when facing fiscal strain (for example, when New York’s 2025 budget was pressured by federal cuts), state lawmakers only partially reduced or froze spending, rather than making dramatic cuts, in response to sustained public demand. Political culture and a view that these investments drive community and economic benefits play a major role. Additionally, intergovernmental fiscal relationships—such as the perception that blue states “subsidize” red states via federal taxes—sometimes reinforce a desire to maintain robust state-level programs.
Claim #4: “On average, blue states levy more in income, sales and property taxes (as a percentage of income) than red states.”
This statement is accurate. Nonpartisan reviews (such as those from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy) confirm that blue states often have higher combined state and local tax burdens—especially on higher earners—in order to fund a broader range of services. However, high overall taxation is typically accompanied by higher median incomes and expanded public investments, resulting in different cost-benefit dynamics than in lower-tax states.
Conclusion
The article accurately describes several structural differences between blue and red states when it comes to taxation and public spending. Citizens in blue states often do not vote to significantly reduce spending on social programs, public transportation, or housing because they generally support these services for both ideological and practical reasons, as recent polling and budget debates demonstrate. Statements suggesting that these programs “often fail miserably” are misleading and lack comprehensive evidence, as many blue state initiatives have generated measurable benefits even in the face of funding challenges.
If you want to help fight misinformation and play an active role in keeping news honest, you can Download the DBUNK App and submit your own fact-check requests for free.
