First off, you can’t dispute a principle of economics with a single example. Econ is not that precise. Whatever general principle you come up with, there will be an instance where the opposite occurred.
Secondly, and more importantly, there was, simultaneous with Brownback’s tax cutting (which I agree was too much all at once) was a dropoff of 50% in farm commodity prices related to Kansas.
If you’re an ag state, I don’t care what party is running the show; if your tax revenues fall through the floor based on commodity prices, your economy is going to blow up.
So, what’s the takeaway from the Kansas experiment? Well, states need revenue to survive. Duhhh. Texas doesn’t have a state income tax for individuals and corporations. but it has some of the highest property taxes in the nation (which, incidental, is why Texas never appears on any list of “best places to retire”). So, it adequately funds its health care, education, and infrastructure, and always has.
In the Kansas case, Brownback’s cuts were deep, but not replaced by any other source of revenue. When you combined that with substantially losses from crop revenues, badda boom!
Does that refute the low-tax concept? Not at all. What Kansas tried, because of the commensurate dropoff in form revenue, was a (for all practical purposes) a NO-TAX scheme, and I don’t care what side of the political spectrum you fall on, that dog don’t hunt.