THE present system of state and local taxation might be characterized by a critical observer as a hodgepodge, born of expediency, nurtured by political force, and preserved by inertia. Even the kindest critic might concede that the framework has come into being without benefit of architectural plan. But whatever its evolution, this complex of state and local tax systems is a significant challenge to the descriptive powers of the economist. This challenge is nowhere more striking than in the simple question: How does State A compare in tax burden with State B and the other states? This question is of practical concern to many policy-forming groups. How well it has been answered is the subject of this paper. Traditional methods of measuring state tax burden' are simple in design and construction, but their simplicity is that of the unweighted average which, far from being without weight factors, is based upon an arbitrary and often unrealistic system of equal weights. Traditional methods of measuring state tax burden rest upon equally arbitrary assumptions, not generally made explicit, which may be adjusted within logically valid limits to produce widely varying results. It will be the specific purpose of this paper to strip from these methods their superficial covering in order that we may appraise their structure, operation, and end product. I