It's hard to do this just based on raw tax numbers. For instance, Alaska, Wyoming and South Dakota all have large scale extraction operations as a fraction of

It's hard to do this just based on raw tax numbers. For instance, Alaska, Wyoming and South Dakota all have large scale extraction operations as a fraction of population. These supply a large fraction of income and are obviously tied to a particular geographical. My guess is that states with more social services aren't necessarily going to have fewer people below the poverty line, but that being poor is not as bad there (via access to health care, food/rent subsidies, etc). That's obviously harder to pin a number on though.