I'll start by saying that it's difficult to compare states. They all have their pluses and minuses, and no two of us have the same priorities. Therefore, what matters to you might not matter to me.
When it comes to taxes, states don't even tax the same things, much less at the same rates. Consider California - which, I think most would agree, taxes pretty heavily. But it has NO tax on most foods. That's something I really miss! When I hit the grocery stores out here, one of the first things I noticed was that things like lettuce and oranges are not only way more expensive here, but they're worse quality AND get taxed by the state.
If I had a big family to feed, I'd be the exception rather than the rule and California's lack of a sales tax on food might give me grounds for forgiving its other weighty taxes.
In many ways, I think you too are an exception. You're a business owner, you've got a high income, and you have an accountant providing you with sound advice. How many of us are in your shoes? Not many, I should think.
Forbes couldn't possibly think that way when assessing the various states. They'd have an impossible task. I'm not sure what methodology they used - we'd probably have to buy the magazine to find out - but it's undoubtedly unfair in numerous ways.
There IS a fair way to assess the states, a way that doesn't need to concern itself with the differences in the states' tax systems. Since states produce nothing, their outlays (employee payrolls, spending and interest on debt) must be derived from taxes + new debt. Find out what the states' per capita spending is and rank them by that. Those that spend the most must be taxing the heaviest, right?
I don't know anyone who has done that, though. The results would be interesting.
| 
