The Tax Foundation has just released its third State Business Climate Index, in which it presents its rankings of each state's "business-friendliness" with regard to taxation. Links to more information about the study are available at the Tax Foundation's blog, which includes a static table listing the rankings of the states by alphabetical order.
But really, is that kind of data presentation good enough anymore? We here at Political Calculations believe that data presented in tables on the Internet should do more than just sit there. Oh no. We believe that data presented this way should dance on the reader's command, rearranging itself to allow the reader to gain more insight than by having to search through hundreds of individual data points to find out if their state scored higher in one category than another.
That's why we're presenting our own dynamic version of the Tax Foundation's state-by-state rankings. Just select any of the column headings below to rank the presented data according to the category you select, either from low to high or from high to low (by clicking again!) We've also highlighted the individual states of Arizona (green), since it came in the middle of the Tax Foundation's overall rankings, as well as the highest ranking state Wyoming (red), and the lowest ranked state of New York (blue).
| Tax Foundation 2006 State Business Tax Rankings |
|---|
| State | Overall Rank | Business Tax Index Rank | Individual Income Tax Index Rank | Sales and Gross Receipts Tax Index Rank | Unemploy-ment Insurance Tax Index Rank | Wealth Index Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 14 | 14 | 17 | 11 | 4 | 6 |
| Alaska | 3 | 48 | 4 | 1 | 43 | 18 |
| Arizona | 25 | 29 | 20 | 40 | 12 | 12 |
| Arkansas | 41 | 44 | 32 | 37 | 41 | 13 |
| California | 40 | 39 | 47 | 38 | 20 | 7 |
| Colorado | 12 | 6 | 14 | 26 | 21 | 14 |
| Connecticut | 39 | 16 | 19 | 33 | 26 | 50 |
| Delaware | 8 | 25 | 26 | 3 | 11 | 10 |
| Florida | 4 | 13 | 4 | 20 | 1 | 16 |
| Georgia | 21 | 8 | 27 | 7 | 32 | 27 |
| Hawaii | 33 | 26 | 44 | 43 | 22 | 3 |
| Idaho | 24 | 21 | 37 | 17 | 46 | 2 |
| Illinois | 23 | 15 | 13 | 41 | 37 | 44 |
| Indiana | 11 | 20 | 10 | 14 | 7 | 19 |
| Iowa | 42 | 46 | 45 | 13 | 28 | 29 |
| Kansas | 34 | 45 | 23 | 28 | 15 | 33 |
| Kentucky | 44 | 40 | 30 | 23 | 48 | 30 |
| Louisiana | 36 | 34 | 22 | 49 | 9 | 28 |
| Maine | 45 | 47 | 38 | 10 | 42 | 39 |
| Maryland | 22 | 7 | 39 | 8 | 17 | 37 |
| Massachusetts | 27 | 36 | 15 | 9 | 49 | 41 |
| Michigan | 26 | 49 | 11 | 32 | 40 | 20 |
| Minnesota | 38 | 41 | 36 | 34 | 35 | 15 |
| Mississippi | 29 | 33 | 16 | 46 | 2 | 26 |
| Missouri | 20 | 4 | 25 | 29 | 8 | 17 |
| Montana | 9 | 17 | 21 | 5 | 24 | 23 |
| Nebraska | 43 | 42 | 34 | 36 | 14 | 42 |
| Nevada | 5 | 1 | 7 | 47 | 38 | 11 |
| New Hampshire | 6 | 38 | 8 | 2 | 44 | 31 |
| New Jersey | 49 | 50 | 46 | 27 | 27 | 46 |
| New Mexico | 28 | 31 | 24 | 48 | 18 | 1 |
| New York | 50 | 30 | 50 | 39 | 47 | 43 |
| North Carolina | 37 | 22 | 43 | 35 | 5 | 40 |
| North Dakota | 31 | 35 | 42 | 18 | 36 | 4 |
| Ohio | 47 | 37 | 48 | 45 | 13 | 48 |
| Oklahoma | 17 | 8 | 28 | 15 | 3 | 21 |
| Oregon | 10 | 24 | 33 | 4 | 30 | 8 |
| Pennsylvania | 16 | 32 | 12 | 19 | 16 | 45 |
| Rhode Island | 48 | 27 | 40 | 30 | 50 | 49 |
| South Carolina | 30 | 12 | 29 | 12 | 45 | 32 |
| South Dakota | 2 | 1 | 1 | 42 | 31 | 9 |
| Tennessee | 15 | 11 | 9 | 44 | 33 | 38 |
| Texas | 7 | 18 | 4 | 21 | 6 | 34 |
| Utah | 18 | 5 | 31 | 24 | 23 | 5 |
| Vermont | 46 | 43 | 49 | 16 | 10 | 47 |
| Virginia | 19 | 8 | 18 | 6 | 25 | 36 |
| Washington | 13 | 19 | 2 | 50 | 39 | 24 |
| West Virginia | 35 | 28 | 41 | 31 | 34 | 22 |
| Wisconsin | 32 | 23 | 35 | 25 | 29 | 25 |
| Wyoming | 1 | 1 | 2 | 22 | 19 | 35 |
About the Dynamic Table
The table sorting function used by Political Calculations to provide this dynamic capability was developed by the minds of the Daily Kryogenix who, in addition to creating the function, have provided really good instructions for implementing the capability onto web sites (or, in this case, blogs.)