NC GOTP, facts, we don't need no stinking facts

The report itself is worth looking at and is relatively short to read. Here is a link and I will post some quotes below for those who don't have time to read the whole.

http://www.itep.org/pdf/lafferhighrate.pdf

This report tells clearly why Laffer's proposals for state taxation are not based on solid ground and what factors other than the ones he chose to look at are influential in determining any particular state's rate of growth. Emphasis added is mine.

How was Laffer able to reach such dramatically different conclusions? In short, his argument relies on cherry-picking a number of measures of economic growth that are closely related to population trends (total income, total economic output, and total jobs) and simply asserting that tax policy is a leading force behind the migration trends that fuel this growth.

Cutting taxes requires difficult tradeoffs regarding which state services should no longer exist, or which other taxes should be raised to make up the difference. But as Laffer has explained in previous reports:

Of course, Americans want to live in states with good schools, clean parks, safe neighborhoods, good roads, prisons that keep the criminals off the streets and all the vital services that state and local governments provide.

Eric Spiegel, President and CEO of Siemens Corp., recently explained his company’s decision to open a large plan in Charlotte, North Carolina by pointing out that:
The reasons you bring a plant like this to the United States are higher-skilled labor, access to the world’s best research and development, and good, sound infrastructure. ... If you read all the studies about what it’s going to take for the U.S. to grow, it’s really about two things. Modernizing the infrastructure and retooling the education system. Those are the two big keys to creating more-productive, higher-paying jobs.

Businesses in Oklahoma, after learning about plans to repeal their state’s income tax, made clear that they have a very similar view of the public services they need to continue operating efficiently:

If our ability to educate and train employees for a 21st century economy is damaged through lack of funding , if we can’t maintain our roads and bridges, strong health care system, robust research and technology infrastructure, safe streets, etc., then the benefits of a reduction in the income tax rates may be limited.

— Chris Benge, Tulsa Metro Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President for Government Affairs
I can’t sit here and say having no income tax, having low property tax, whatever, is going to make a big difference. We have to have a state that’s known for excellence.

— Wes Stucky, Ardmore Chamber of Commerce President
Progressive income taxes have long played a central role in allowing state governments to provide the services that individuals and businesses alike need to prosper. Abandoning these sustainable and fair sources of revenue would come at great economic cost, both in the form of reduced public services, and potentially through shifting the responsibility for paying taxes more heavily onto middle and low-income families—the consumers whose purchasing power is central to the success of any economy.

The report's conclusion:

Residents of the states that levy income taxes—including residents of those states with the highest top tax rates—are experiencing economic conditions at least as good, if not better, than those living in states lacking a personal income tax. Arthur Laffer’s claims
to the contrary rely on cherry-picking a number of blunt, aggregate measures of economic growth that are closely related to population trends, and incorrectly asserting that tax policy is a leading force behind the migration trends that fuel this growth. More fundamentally, Laffer’s simplistic analyses fail to account for the fact that states without income taxes often choose not to levy such a tax precisely because they possess unusual economic advantages that allow them to raise revenue (and grow their economies) in ways that other states cannot. Finally, the theory Laffer uses to argue in favor of cutting state income tax rates downplays or even ignores the importance of public investments like education and infrastructure to the success of state economies