Then, I went here, the census page showing per capita tax rates. In his article, Pawlenty talked about using census data, and this table shows Minnesota in fourth place for all taxes, which his article also cites, so I am assuming that this is the table he's talking about.
I then arranged the GSP data in order according to tax rank, and found the average GSP growth for the top ten tax states, as well as the bottom ten tax rates. To nobody's surprise, the top ten tax states beat out the bottom ten tax states in terms of GSP growth by over half a percentage point, 5.03% per year to 4.47% per year. This isn't a lot, but by Pawlenty's logic, the top ten tax states should be seeing lower growth due to a lack of jobs, so any amount of growth over and above the lower tax states is proof that he is dead wrong.
|Fictional State||Per capita tax||Per capita income||Tax burden|
For example, Minnesota is ranked 4th in per capita taxation. Texas is ranked 50th. But the median income for a 4 person household is $72,000 in Minnesota and only $51,000 in Texas. The median Minnesota family would net $60,400 a year. The median Texas family would net $45,500. According to Pawlenty, the Texas family is far better off.