At the 1999 Multistate Tax Commission annual meeting, a tax administrator announced, “State tax systems are in trouble” (Brunori 2001, 1). In the last eight years this has remained true; states are making little movement towards reforming their out-dated, inadequate systems. Yet, government officials are not solely to blame for this increasingly problematic issue, rather the electorate holds a substantial amount of the power to improve state tax systems.
The fundamental structure of state tax systems has not been changed much since they were implemented more than fifty years ago, despite the fact that Americans live in a vastly different economy. No longer is the United States dominated by manufacturing, farming, or local business; today there is national and international trade, a growing service industry, and intellectual property (Brunori 2001, 2). “The political, economic, and technological changes that the world is experiencing are affecting how the world works, plays, shops, and communicates” (Brunori 1998, 2). So, it would seem fitting that the tax structure that has the most direct effect on citizens’ lives should also change. The question remains, why are citizens not expecting or demanding change?
The tax system in Alabama is arguably the most troubled in the United States. The income and sales taxes place a heavy burden on low-income taxpayers, which is coupled with significant tax advantages for wealthy Alabamians on income and property taxes (Hamill 2003, 437). The state is severely under funded, with both the General Fund and Education Trust Fund falling far short year after year. Particularly troubling is the lack of reliable budgeting and the system of proration, which calls for across the board cuts when revenue is not as expected. This is a result of improper reliance on income and sales taxes, which are subject to economic fluctuations and the overall inadequacy of the system. The implications of such an ineffective, inefficient, and inequitable tax system are far-reaching and detrimental throughout the state; therefore, for progress and real improvement in Alabama, reform is necessary.
The purpose of state taxes is to collect revenue to fund services and public works as demanded by state residents and the federal government. In the past, states have funded services such as state police, prisons, higher education, and highway maintenance. But increasingly, states are becoming responsible for services that were traditionally funded partially or entirely by the federal government and local governments such as elementary and secondary education, Medicaid, highway construction, and welfare. In what is commonly referred to as “devolution,” the federal government has shifted responsibilities to state governments. “Devolution” includes the funding and administration of many programs that the state often cannot support without raising or shifting revenue (Brunori 2001, 3). In addition, state responsibility for elementary and secondary education has occurred because of disparities in local school districts where the tax base was wealthy and that of poor school districts. Since this was creating substantial gaps in public education, the federal government mandated state oversight and funding.
State governments generate revenue through a variety of taxes. The main ways are through income, consumption, and property taxes. Income taxes can be further broken down into personal income tax and corporate income tax. Personal income tax accounts for one-third of state revenue and maintains the most public support of all taxes. Corporate income tax, on the other hand, generates very little revenue for states—less than six percent. Many experts question the long-term viability of this revenue source if there is not substantial change (Brunori 2001, 9). Sales and use taxes, which also constitute one-third of state revenue, are another important part of state taxation, however the stability and fairness of these taxes are under constant pressure. Sales tax, which generally applies only to goods, may decline with the shift to intellectual property, electronic commerce, and a service-based economy (Brunori 2001, 8). Finally, property taxes are divided mainly by residential and business property. Property taxes are relatively stable, however without protections for low-income families, they can be considered unfair (ITEP 2005, 22).
An old adage among tax lawyers says that an old tax is a good tax. Since state taxation systems have seen very little change in the last fifty to sixty years, it would seem that the United States has fairly complete and successful systems (Brunori 2001, 2). But this is far from true today—many state governments are facing revenue inadequacies and the fairness of tax systems is being questioned across the country.
There are several benchmarks for evaluating tax policy: adequacy, efficiency, equity, neutrality, and accountability (Lehe 2007). Adequacy measures whether a tax system raises enough funds—both in the short term and in the long term—to maintain public services (ITEP 2005, 5). An inadequate tax system is unsuccessful at the very core. A second standard by which tax systems are evaluated is efficiency, which measures how difficult taxes are to comply to and administer (Brunori 2001, 22).
The next measure for evaluation is equity, for which there are two components: vertical equity and horizontal equity. Vertical equity assesses how families from different income levels are affected by a tax and horizontal equity measures how taxpayers with similar incomes are affected by a tax (ITEP 2005, 5). A tax system that is not equitable is considered a regressive tax, which collects a greater percentage of income from low-income citizens than wealthy citizens. In contrast, a progressive tax is considered equitable and collects a greater portion of income from the wealthy than the poor. Regressive and progressive are terms used in evaluating vertical equity. Horizontal equity generally applies to tax breaks and incentives (Brunori 2001, 19). For example, a tax would not be horizontally equitable if it affects wage earners more than investors.
Neutrality is another benchmark of tax policy. A tax should not alter economic choices or behavior. An example of a violation of neutrality can be seen in the sales tax on goods and not services—this may affect citizens’ decision of how to spend their income, which is in violation of tax principles (Lehe 2007, 33:20). Finally, the last evaluative benchmark for tax policy is accountability. Citizens must know what they are responsible for paying to the state. Income and property taxes generally follow accountability principles because they are clearly outlined in paychecks, annual assessments, and so forth. However, sales and excise taxes do not follow this principle—most citizens have no idea how much they pay in sales tax to the state (Brunori 2001, 25).
As previously stated, the Alabama tax system is in trouble. This begins with the very basics of how and who the state taxes. The revenue collected by the state comes just about equally from the federal government and state tax revenue. The majority of federal money comes from matching funds for services such as public education, Medicaid, and transportation. Generally, Alabama contributes the minimum necessary to receive federal funding; additionally, the state forfeits federal funding in some areas altogether because of revenue shortages (Arise 2005, 11). An example of this funding shortage is evident in the state’s bare bones Medicaid program (Arise 2006, 1). If Alabama contributed an additional $30 million to the state Medicaid program, the state would “draw down” approximately an additional $70 million in federal matching.
The second source of state revenue is state taxes—including income, sales, fuel, utilities, insurance premium, property, and alcohol and tobacco taxes. Alabama relies heavily on income taxes and sales taxes, while drawing only 3% of state taxes from property taxes. The other taxes also generate relatively small percentages of state revenue. Overall, Alabamians pay relatively low taxes—about 8.8% of income in state and local taxes each year compared to an 11% average for the rest of the country (Tax Foundation 2007).
Income tax in Alabama is written into the constitution, and until recently taxed families starting at $4,600 of income annually. Finally in 2006, the income tax threshold was raised to $12,600, which is still far below the federal poverty level. An interesting fact about Alabama’s income taxes is that in the 1930s, Alabama’s income tax structure was considered progressive. However, since the state has not kept up with increases in income and inflation, it is now the least progressive income tax in the nation (Arise 2005, 22). Most states follow federal guidelines for deductions and exemptions, while Alabama has its’ own system. Only small deductions and exemptions for families to their state income taxes owed are permitted, which affects low-income families more than wealthy. In addition, a 1965 amendment allows for a significant advantage to wealthy citizens by allowing Alabamians to deduct federal income tax paid from their taxes owed to the state (Hamill 2003, 439).
Alabama relies on sales taxes for about half of the state’s tax revenues. Additionally, sales tax is not dictated by the state constitution, therefore local governments and the legislature rely heavily on sales taxes to generate revenue (Government Performance Project 2003). The most recent change to sales tax was in 1963 when the rate was raised to 4% for all retail sales of tangible personal property, including clothing, appliances, medicine, and groceries (Arise 2005, 27). Alabama is one of only a handful of states that still taxes necessities like groceries and medicine. Alabamians paid 122% of the national average of sales tax in 1998 (Williams 2002, 105). Sales tax, particularly as used in Alabama and when compounded with local sales taxes, is considered highly regressive.
By analyzing Alabama’s extremely low property taxes, the reliance on sales tax by the state and localities is largely explained. Alabamians pay the lowest per capita property taxes in the nation: only $394 a year. The average property taxes in the United States are $1,132 per capita a year. Even in comparison to other southeastern states, Alabama is still significantly less: Georgia—$899, Mississippi—$676, Florida—$1,148 (Tax Foundation 2005). Like the income tax structure, Alabama’s property tax structure is written into the state’s constitution; the property tax structure strongly favors agriculture and rural property owners, such as the owners of timberland.
Current use law is an intriguing and complex aspect of Alabama’s property tax laws. This constitutional provision states that land is to be taxed on how the owner is using it, not at market value. The chief reason this has a negative effect on revenue is with the taxation of timberland. Despite the fact that the timberland may be generating sizable revenue or the market value may be significant, it is taxed at a relatively low rate (Hamill 2003, 443). Timberland accounts for approximately 70% of Alabama’s total landmass, but accounts for only 2% of property tax revenue. So while current use law was intended to protect agriculture and farmers in the state, it is actually benefiting timber corporations the most.
The final aspect of taxation in Alabama that demands attention is taxes on business. Over the last twenty years, the revenue generated by corporate income tax has declined by more than 50% in Alabama. This is due in large part to corporate tax loopholes and breaks intended to encourage economic development. Businesses in Alabama do pay a substantial amount in property taxes because of the rate applied to commercial property (Arise 2005, 41). However, similar to the deduction allowed for personal income tax owed to the state, the state also allows businesses to deduct federal income taxes paid from what they owe to the state, which results in their actual income tax rate to the state averaging only 4.2% (Arise 2005, 43).
The government must collect revenue to produce results as seen in public services and improvements in the state. Alabama’s tax system is failing to produce results because of severe inadequacies in the system. Compared to the rest of the nation, Alabama collects only two-thirds per capita in taxes. Therefore, Alabama is trying to produce similar results with one-third less money (Williams 2002, 102). The implications of such an inadequate system are evident in every day life in Alabama, from roads to healthcare to education.
According to James W. Williams, Jr., in his essay “Alabama’s Revenue Crisis,” the state’s inadequate revenue cannot be written off by pointing to the smaller tax base in Alabama—meaning that Alabama is just poor. Williams notes that while Alabama’s tax base is only 78% of the national average, state and local governments generate only 67% of tax revenue of the national average. He also points to five other states that have an even smaller tax base and collect more revenue from citizens.
The state simply does not collect enough revenue to fund needed services. The Education Trust Fund and General Fund do not come close to meeting the needs of the state. The revenues from income and sales taxes are earmarked by the Constitution and therefore required, almost solely to fund education (Moody 2002, 92). This is both unreliable and inadequate. When revenues do not meet the expectations of the legislature, proration occurs and spending cuts are required. This can happen during the middle of a school year and proration has occurred fourteen times over the last forty years in Alabama. A recent example was during the 2001-2002 school year when the already lean public education budget was cut by more than 6% half way through the school year. Additionally, there are actually cuts predicted for the 2008-2009 school year based on tax revenue predictions (Havner 2007, 1).
The General Fund, which encompasses everything outside of education, basically receives whatever revenue is left over after earmarked education revenues. Vital programs like Medicaid, prisons, and highway maintenance are grossly under funded (Arise 2005, 13). With constant demands for resources and no growth in sight, Alabama’s fiscal problems are only going to grow in the coming years (Government Performance Project 2003). Prisons are already overcrowded, the state’s Medicaid program is minimal at best, and it was estimated that there was a $1.6 billion backlog in highway and bridge repairs in 2005.
In the 2007 video essay by Lewis Lehe, state taxation expert David Brunori of George Washington University states, “Alabama is among the most regressive of all states” (Lehe 2007, 30:34). Alabama taxes low-income families such that it is very difficult for them to improve their economic status. Susan Pace Hamill, a professor at the University of Alabama Law school and staunch advocate of tax reform in Alabama, notes in her 2003 essay for the Cumberland Law Review the absolute necessity of reforming the income and sales tax structures in Alabama (Hamill 2003, 447).
The income tax structure was finally updated in Alabama in 2006, however there remains much room for improvement. Alabama state income tax still begins taxing families making far less money ($12,600) than what the federal poverty rate is ($19,600). And while the cost of living is less in Alabama, it is far from $5,000 less and this is not providing low-income Alabamians with opportunities for improvements
The sales tax in Alabama is particularly troublesome. Sales tax on goods, as a general rule, is a regressive tax, affecting low-income citizens at a far greater percentage of their income than wealthy citizens. For example, in 2002, the lowest 20% of earners paid 10.6% of their income to the state in taxes, while the wealthiest 1% paid barely 4% to the state (Arise 2005, 18). This is due in large part to the sales tax on goods, specifically on groceries, medicine, and other necessities. While these levels have been rectified slightly because of the raising of the income tax threshold in 2006, the sales tax is primarily responsible for such disparities in the tax burden.
Jim Williams, the Executive Director of the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama states: “If we want a situation where people have the opportunity to better themselves, than what you want to do is avoid taxing them [to] where they can’t do that, where they become dependent on the state. And so the more we can give people their own money to use and avoid taxing people at the bottom of the scale, the better off they’ll be in terms of taking care of themselves” (Lehe 2007, 32:13). Williams is speaking to the repercussions of such vertical inequity. If Alabama does not allow low-income citizens to help themselves, it will be very difficult for them to escape their circumstances and improve their economic position.
The Alabama tax system is fortunately not terribly difficult or costly to administer, however it is extremely complex to understand and nearly impossible to reform or adjust according to changes in demographics or economic situations (Government Performance Project 2003). Furthermore, the strict system of earmarking contributes to a dysfunctional state government (Moody 2002, 92). Alabama earmarks nearly 87% of tax revenue, which results in little flexibility and accountability for government. Earmarking and reliance on income and sales taxes, which are unstable, also leads to the wholly inefficient system of proration and inability to create a reliable budget. Finally, another inefficient aspect of the Alabama tax system is the failure of the Alabama system to align with federal levels, deductions, and exemptions. This only further complicates the tax structure and prevents progress in Alabama.
Alabama’s tax structure also does not follow the tax principle of neutrality, mainly because of the heavy taxation of goods. Neutrality states that individual’s economic decisions should not be influenced positively or negatively by taxes. Unfortunately, the tax code in Alabama influences the decisions of both businesses and individuals. Businesses are provided deductions and steep incentives (Brunori 2001, 18). And while there are several provisions that create incentives and breaks for citizens individually, one of the most glaring aspects is the taxation or goods and not services. In particular, since wealthy citizens spend a greater percentage of their income on services than goods, and low income citizens on goods than services, this can be seen as a heavy influence on how citizens spend their income (Arise 2005, 29).
Proponents of the sales tax often tout the seemingly “pennies at a time” approach. However, not only do sales taxes quickly add up, citizens most likely do not know their responsibility or total taxes paid to the state, which is a fundamental accountability issue (Arise 2005, 30). A separate accountability issue with the Alabama tax system is the fact that because of earmarking, the legislature is totally unaccountable to the citizens for budget decisions and spending (Moody 2002, 92).
Reforming the tax system and 1901 state constitution are inseparable. As previously noted, much of the tax code is written into the Constitution and has brought the state into the 21st century lacking resources and failing in many areas. Although tax policy should be addressed in the constitution, the framework of government should never serve as the tax code. Rather the tax code and details of taxation should be left to statutory laws that can be changed more readily to comply with taxpayers demands, the needs of the state, and changes in economic circumstances. Also detrimental to the state is the fact that the constitution provides specific instructions for income and property taxes and almost nothing about sales tax. This has left the state with a reliance on regressive and unstable sales taxes, contributed to the income tax threshold remaining so low, and led to inadequate revenue from property taxes.
There are two ways to achieve tax reform, both of which call for the legislature to allow the citizens to vote on the final outcome. The first is through constitutional amendment and the second is through the rewriting of the entire state constitution through a Constitutional Convention. There is a strong grassroots movement, led by the Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform, for a comprehensive and holistic rewriting of the state constitution to reflect the needs of Alabamians in the 21st century and provide the state with a document that can truly bring improvement and progress into the state. In addition to the issues with the tax structure, there are several other reasons the constitution demands complete revision, not the least of which is the fact that the framers of the 1901 Constitution intended to oppress and take rights away from the poorest Alabamians and black citizens, which is exactly what has been achieved.
Aside from the direct policy problems with the unfairness and inadequacy of the Alabama tax system, it continues to lead to a plethora of other policy problems in the state. Most notable are the lack of quality education in Alabama, persistence of poverty, and substantial gaps in achievement and progress in the state.
Alabama must provide children, “the most powerless and voiceless segment of the population,” with at least a minimum opportunity to improve their lives by achieving a quality education (Hamill 2002, 34). Children of low-income families suffer the greatest negative effects of Alabama’s education system, including state dependency and imprisonment later in life. In 1992, Wayne Flynt and Keith Ward, prominent historians in Alabama, noted the substantial cost to the state later when quality education is not provided to begin with (Flynt 1992, 8). Flynt and Ward asserted that in 1989, 65% of welfare and food stamp recipients, 90% of prison inmates, and 70% of Medicaid recipients were high school dropouts. Sadly, the state has not made the drastic changes needed to produce radical change.
Anne Permaloff, public administration professor at Auburn University of Montgomery, offers an excellent review of the economic-cultural and political gaps produced by the Alabama Constitution and tax system. Permaloff discuses the quality of life in Alabama and attributes the shortcomings directly to the constitution (Permaloff 2002, 115). Despite the fact that industries and developments are occurring in the state, particularly with chemical and steel plants in south Alabama, there are still long standing problems that need to be resolved. Even if companies are coming to the state, factors like education, healthcare, environment, and housing may have a significant impact on both current companies and future recruiting for the state (Permaloff 2002, 127). For example, if Alabama is to house these industries, the education system must be improved so that more Alabamians receive a quality education and complete schooling and can actually support the industries. Permaloff also directly attributes income and poverty to the lack of quality education. The per capita income levels of Alabamians are significantly lower than the national average consistently and if Alabamians are not given the education, which is perhaps the most valuable resource, then citizens and the state as a whole cannot escape poverty (Permaloff 2002, 117).
In 2003, Governor Bob Riley proposed broad changes to the tax structure of Alabama. He proposed both raising taxes and redistributing the burden to be more equitable. The proposal included further aligning the Alabama structure with the federal system of deductions and exemptions, reducing the federal income tax deduction for corporations, and substantial reforms to property taxes (Alabma Stamp 2004, 36). The proposal was presented as a referendum to the electorate. Unfortunately, the measure failed by a two to one margin. Therefore, it would seem that tax reform is not politically feasible in Alabama.
There were a few reasons for the defeat of the tax proposal, the first two being lack of faith in government and the fact that the majority of citizens are unaware as to how tax dollars are used currently. Many see legislators as being mere puppets of special interest groups and large corporations—which is actually enabled and encouraged by the current constitution. The Alabama government has much work to do to improve citizen’s faith in their abilities (Government Performance Project 2005). In order to convince citizens that the government is effectively utilizing current revenue, the government has begun significant disclosure with the Smart Budget Program.
Antitaxation politics and an overwhelmingly conservative electorate also contributed greatly to the failure of the tax proposal. Gerald and Roberta Webster studied the reasons for failure in a 2004 article for the Southeastern Geographer. The pair notes that those who actually supported Riley in his gubernatorial election are the same who voted against his tax proposal and that those who supported his Democratic opponent voted in favor of the proposal. This can be largely explained by the fact that Riley’s base was overwhelmingly white, conservative, self-identified Christians, who generally oppose taxation and reform in any form (Webster 2004, 193).
Additionally, the movement towards antitaxation has been growing consistently throughout the latter 20th century. In the 2003 Government Performance Project, it was noted that between 1978 and 1999 there were 41 anti-tax initiatives passed on statewide ballots (Government Performance Project 2003). Constituents, despite the obvious contradictions, coupled this with demands for more public services and works. Yet, politicians continue to run on tax-cut platforms and citizens continue to vote for tax-cuts (Brunori 2001, 4)
The influence of race is also important and deserves attention. Bailey Thomson, the most influential and compelling advocate for constitutional reform to date, stated: “there often seems to be a connection between inadequate school revenues and whites’ unwillingness to invest in the education of African Americans” (Thomson 2002, 173). It is an issue that many try to ignore, but nonetheless is ever present and most likely partially responsible for the failures of tax reform. Exactly what the framers of the 1901 Alabama Constitution set out to accomplish is still happening over one hundred years later. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is simply unethical for this to continue. It is foolish, ignorant, and increasingly unbeneficial for the state to continue operating under this tax system. The saying goes “pay now or pay more later” and if Alabamians do not rectify the wrongs of the past, this will continue well into the 21st century (Flynt 1992, 9).
Complete revision and restructuring of the Alabama tax system is needed for the state to have an adequate and equitable system that represents the interests of Alabamians and the current economy. First and foremost, the tax code must be separated from the constitution and local taxing powers must be expanded so that every change does not have to come from the state legislature or constitutional amendment. Once this happens, the tax code can be simplified and altered as needed and demanded. Since Alabamians are generally opposed to tax increases, the structure should first be reformed to become more stable and equitable and then tax increases should be proposed.
The first aspect of tax reform can come by further raising the income tax threshold to align with the federal poverty level. In addition, the state needs to align its’ system of exemptions and deductions with the federal system to offer more equitable taxation of low-income families. In order to raise more money with the income tax and compensate for revenue lost from aligning the state’s system with the federal system, the state should repeal the federal income tax paid deduction from state income taxes owed for individuals and businesses. This is largely a benefit for the wealthy and by repealing it the state would still be able to collect substantial revenue from income taxes. Lastly, by raising income taxes one percent for the very wealthy, those earning more than $680,000 per year, the state can generate much needed revenue. These reforms should all be politically feasible, because they either already exist on the federal level or they affect a minimal number of voters.
The next area of reform is sales tax. While the tax on groceries, medicine, and other necessities should be removed, this would probably not be a politically feasible option initially. Therefore, a revenue-neutral change should be made. This would include lowering the sales tax rate and expanding the tax base to include services. So, while this may not generate additional income initially, it would provide for a more stable tax and would be much more equitable. If large-scale reform is not feasible, this would be one possible step towards at least affecting the unfairness of the Alabama tax system.
Reform is also needed with the entire property tax structure. All property taxes should be raised eventually, but in order to keep the reform politically feasible such change should not be recommended. Rather, raising the assessed value, and thus eliminating the current use law shortcomings, while dramatically reducing the rates would probably be most successful (Williams Jr. 2002, 110). In addition, creating a homestead and farmstead exemption would protect low-income citizens and small farmers. The addition of farmstead exemptions would also address the actual intentions of current use law, therefore the taxes on timberland could be raised to generate more revenue for the state and more accurately tax the market value of the land.
Another aspect of large-scale reform should only be addressed after an independent study of the benefits of the Alabama economic development and incentive packages. The 2003 Government Performance Project determined that Alabama has the most aggressive tax incentives to foster economic development and bring in business. And while opinions differ, the benefits of such incentives and tax breaks to business are questionable. For example, in the recent deal with Thyssen Krupp, Alabama will directly spend more than $460 million in job training, site preparation, and road improvements and the state will lose another $350 million in tax breaks (Rawls 2007, 1). This is a substantial amount of lost revenue and taxpayer’s money spent. At the very least, Alabama must perform a comprehensive review of tax incentives to ensure that they are worthwhile. And depending on the results, considering lowering incentive and tax break packages to cut revenue losses and expenditures.
The final aspect of reform necessary in Alabama is concerning earmarking and government accountability. The nearly 90% of the budget that is earmarked by the state constitution must be removed so that the legislature can have flexibility and funding can go where it is most needed. This is not only a critical step in getting funding where it is needed, but it is also vital in holding the government accountable for their decisions and budgeting.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” And in every state, taxes are levied to pay for services that benefit all citizens—such as education, roads, public safety, and public health (Williams 2002, 101). Each state has a responsibility for the safety, wellbeing, and education of its’ people. Every citizen depends on the state for something and it is the duty of every citizen to contribute to this common good. Alabama deserves an adequate and equitable system and it is up to citizens to make needed reform a reality.
While a solid factual argument is necessary, so much of opposition to constitutional and tax reform comes from conservative Christians, so it seems fitting to offer a compelling moral argument. Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama law professor, makes an argument based on solid facts in all of her works, but she also calls on Judeo-Christian ethics to make her case for reform complete. Since 90% of Alabamians and almost the entire legislature of the state identify themselves as Christian, it will hopefully be an effective argument: “All Alabamians of goodwill […] have a unique opportunity to confront those manipulating the truth and to demand a fair and just tax structure for all Alabamians, especially the poorest, who lack the power, knowledge, and resources to effectively speak up for themselves” (Hamill 2002, 80).
Alabama needs a comprehensive tax system that is in the best interest of Alabama and its’ citizens, not this piecemeal, inadequate, unfair system currently in place. Bailey Thomson concluded his work, A Century of Controversy: Constitutional Reform in Alabama, by saying: “We can write a new constitution and show ourselves—and the world—what kind of people we aspire to be” (Thomson 2002, 178). The people of Alabama must throw out the old and bring in a new constitution and tax system that represents the entire state and its’ people.