Bragging about no sales tax while paying a higher income / property taxes was a pretty funny / American thing to do..
Seems to me for local taxes land-value tax is clearly the most sensible. It aligns the intensives much better.
On state and federal level you can use flat or progressive income tax.
I don't understand why anybody would do sales or value added tax.
But recently I have been thinking if land-value tax for everything just didn't make sense.
Obviously this is a cherry picked example and can't represent but .1% of the population. But each lever you pull for tax rewards/punishes a different group. A famous example if FL has no income tax, letting retirees stretch their fixed pensions further.
In general, if a state has a lot of tourists coming to it. They won't get property tax nor income tax on the visitors, but they WILL get sales tax. So it makes sense to raise the sales tax, so that you can lower the property / income tax for people that live there yearround.
Tourists will make some locations more valuable then others, so it should have an impact on property tax.
* Income Tax
* Property Tax
People in all states pay some combo of those 3. Some say no income tax (FL). But that means higher sales tax and property tax. Others have all 3 taxes, but in lower amounts.
Do you really think in New Hampshire you pay less total tax then someone like me, living in the Midwest? You likely do better than NY/Cali, but not the Midwest..