New Jersey Has America's Highest Lifetime Taxes: $1.36 Million

How much money do you have to pay in taxes over a lifetime?

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, maps the estimated lifetime tax bill for a single filer in every U.S. state, including federal and state income taxes, as well as sales, property, and vehicle taxes.

The data for this visualization comes from Self Financial, with estimates as of June 2026.

The analysis assumes a 45-year working life with constant earnings and tax rates, a life expectancy of 79.6 years, homeownership beginning at age 40, and ownership of five vehicles over a lifetime.

New Jersey Tops the Ranking

New Jersey has the highest estimated lifetime tax bill in the country at $1.36 million.

Rank State Lifetime taxes per person 1 New Jersey $1,359,406 2 Massachusetts $1,297,130 3 Connecticut $1,249,749 4 New Hampshire $1,125,478 5 New York $1,084,561 6 California $1,075,061 7 Maryland $1,060,255 8 Illinois $1,033,447 9 Minnesota $1,018,872 10 Rhode Island $999,704 11 Vermont $953,322 12 Virginia $911,706 13 Wisconsin $851,139 14 Colorado $839,899 15 Pennsylvania $835,067 16 Washington $816,217 17 Oregon $775,976 18 Nebraska $761,072 19 Maine $758,818 20 Michigan $753,076 21 Delaware $731,824 22 Iowa $730,349 23 Kansas $711,966 24 Utah $709,803 25 Alaska $702,376 26 Arizona $698,824 27 Hawaii $684,028 28 Montana $669,934 29 Missouri $665,381 30 Georgia $655,532 31 Indiana $643,299 32 Tennessee $632,562 33 South Carolina $626,485 34 North Dakota $626,340 35 Idaho $621,705 36 Texas $615,932 37 New Mexico $605,411 38 West Virginia $593,639 39 North Carolina $591,911 40 Alabama $591,168 41 Kentucky $588,953 42 Louisiana $575,122 43 Ohio $569,376 44 Mississippi $560,448 45 Wyoming $546,617 46 Nevada $535,652 47 Oklahoma $526,333 48 Arkansas $517,942 49 South Dakota $515,732 50 Florida $508,980

Massachusetts follows at nearly $1.30 million, while Connecticut ranks third at $1.25 million. New Hampshire and New York round out the top five, highlighting the Northeast’s strong presence near the top of the ranking.

Florida Has the Lowest Lifetime Tax Bill

At the other end of the ranking, Florida has the lowest estimated lifetime tax bill at $508,980.

Florida’s lower total is helped by the absence of a state individual income tax, reducing the tax burden that residents pay on their earnings over time.

South Dakota is next at $515,732, followed by Arkansas at $517,942 and Oklahoma at $526,333. Together, the four lowest-ranked states have estimated lifetime tax bills ranging from about $509,000 to $526,000.

States in the Middle of the Pack

Several large states fall closer to the middle of the ranking. Texas has an estimated lifetime tax bill of $615,932, while Georgia comes in at $655,532 and Arizona at $698,824. Pennsylvania ranks higher at $835,067, putting it well above these states but still below the million-dollar mark.

Having no state individual income tax does not necessarily translate into a low overall lifetime tax bill. Washington, for example, ranks 16th at $816,217, above many states that levy an individual income tax. The estimates also account for federal income, property, sales, and vehicle taxes.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: U.S. States With the Widest Wage Gaps on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/28/2026 - 06:55

WHO's High-Price Pandemic Plan

Authored by David Bell and Ramesh Thakur via Brownstone Institute,

The recent release of Anthony Fauci's diaries, followed by his refusal to answer questions in an appearance before a US Senate committee by invoking the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination 111 times, highlighted a stark divide in how the Covid pandemic was handled by public health authorities. This is as true of Australia as of the US.

Repeatedly, against certainty expressed in public to justify official statements on the origins of the virus and on lockdown, mask, and vaccine policies, their private contemporaneous conversations confirm that even the top scientists were making decisions based on scientific uncertainty.

Consequently, one of the key legacies of the public-private gap is growing distrust of official claims. That scepticism should extend to the future pandemic agenda. We rely on the World Health Organisation to coordinate among countries to prevent scourges such as pandemics reaching our shores, or at least mitigate their effects. In doing so, we must defer to an army of international bureaucrats who work in such institutions. A deference that relies on trust.

Their salaries and careers depend on convincing us to part with more of our money to support their work. Yet, according to a new article on international pandemic financing in the Cambridge journal Health Economics, Policy and Law, the WHO and World Bank rely on dubious assumptions to calculate the return on investment case on which all major international efforts to mitigate future pandemics rely.

This should alarm governments. Mitigation is worth investing in, as pandemics will occur from time to time. But the article shows that current investments will have an overall detrimental effect on global health. Most starkly, it suggests a deep rot in the quality of institutions we rely on as stewards of this commonly accepted global good.

The WHO and World Bank report, produced at the request of the G20 in 2022, proposes an annual $31.1 billion budget for pandemic preparedness and prevention, about $10.5 billion of which would come through foreign aid (including Australia). About $26 billion would come from low and middle-income countries already struggling with economic issues including burgeoning Covid debt. For context, the entire WHO budget for 2024-25 was just $3.8 billion a year.

The point of the WHO and World Bank's argument is that if we spend such resources on preparing for pandemics, we will reap orders of magnitude greater return on investment down the road, more than a thousandfold in some wealthy countries - a bargain difficult to refuse if true.

The article from Leeds University shows that the financial arguments are based on smoke and mirrors. They rely on assumptions on the quality-adjusted life years lost to pandemics as against the big three global infectious diseases of HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; on the share of global funds to be devoted to pandemics in comparison to the other three per life saved in each case; and on the benefits to be gained from investments in vaccines and other pharmaceutical products instead of in the more basic determinants of health resilience in the population such as nutrition, sanitation, water, and hygiene. These are the factors, along with antibiotics and gains in medical advances, that have reduced the mortality toll from pandemics since the Spanish flu of 1918.

Furthermore, the WHO and World Bank also discount the adjustments made to human behaviour to mitigate health risks as they become obvious, collateral costs of the pandemic response measures, and the likely benefits of investing in those measures.

This matters because our government has signed on to the amended International Health Regulations, is expecting to sign the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement, and looks set to sign a UN political agreement this September advocating for yet more money for the authors and beneficiaries of the growing pandemic industry. They are promising a lot of money based on the WHO's costings.

It matters because most Australians assumed that we could trust international institutions and that they valued rigour rather than engage in false accounting and subterfuge.

Unfortunately, incentives without accountability are a poor basis for health governance. It matters because funds to finance the pharmaceutical corporations, research institutions, and bureaucrats who stand to benefit from the pandemic agenda will have to be diverted from programs that work. International funding for the big endemic diseases and basic priorities such as nutrition is already falling, while the pandemic agenda expands. The Leeds authors call for simple transparency and honesty in assessing global health priorities, and in paying for them. Not a big ask. The Australian government has a choice to be constructive on behalf of its taxpayers and require better, or through blind acquiescence remain part of the problem.

Republished from The Australian

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/28/2026 - 06:30

Turkey Recruits Trump Insiders For New Washington Lobbying Push

Via Middle East Eye

The Turkish government hired a lobbying firm with close ties to US President Donald Trump earlier this month under a year-long contract worth $2.4m, according to US Justice Department filings reviewed by Middle East Eye.

Ballard Partners, led by Brian Ballard, a prominent Florida Republican fundraiser who also worked on Trump’s presidential campaign, signed the agreement with Turkey’s Ministry of National Defense on August 8. The firm will receive $200,000 per month.

via AFP

Under the contract, Ballard Partners pledged to provide “government relations services, strategic consulting and advocacy services” before the federal government, and keep its client informed about developments in Congress and US policy.

This is not the first time Ballard Partners has worked for Turkey.

In 2017, during Trump’s first term, Turkey hired the firm under a $1.5m contract. It was one of Ballard Partners’ first major deals in Washington after opening an office there.

At the time, the firm reportedly focused on the sanctions-evasion case against Turkish state-owned lender Halkbank. The Trump administration’s Justice Department dropped the charges against the bank earlier this year.

The new contract differs from the previous agreement because Turkey’s defense ministry is the principal client. Ankara is seeking to rejoin the F-35 fighter jet program after being removed in 2019 over its purchase of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system.

Middle East Eye reported last month that Ankara was considering selling the S-400 system to a third country, potentially the United Arab Emirates, in an effort to persuade Washington to lift sanctions against Turkey.

Ankara also hopes to take delivery of six F-35s that were manufactured for Turkey but have remained in storage in the US for years.

According to the Justice Department filings, the Ballard Partners team working for Turkey includes former Democratic congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, a prominent pro-Turkish voice who co-founded the Congressional Caucus on US-Turkey Relations and Turkish Americans in 2001.

Wexler is also president of the S Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace in Washington and is known for his connections to pro-Israel circles.

Another member of the team is Thomas Boodry, who served as a special assistant to Trump and senior director for legislative affairs at the National Security Council until April 2025. Boodry was dismissed amid the removal of former US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.

Reports at the time suggested that Trump fired Boodry and five other officials shortly after meeting far-right activist Laura Loomer, who presented opposition research on several staff members and argued that they were disloyal to the president.

REPORTER: "Prime Minister Netanyahu opposes sending the F-35s to Turkey..."

PRESIDENT TRUMP: "Nobody tells me what we should be selling or not. Turkey has been a tremendous ally." pic.twitter.com/F0sdwvIYfE

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 27, 2026

The team also includes Syl Lukis, a senior partner at Ballard Partners and one of Ballard’s closest associates.

Bloomberg reported earlier this year that Ballard Partners’ alums include White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and former Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The firm generated more than $30m in federal lobbying revenue during the first quarter of 2026, more than any other firm on Washington’s K Street.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/28/2026 - 03:30