The problem is the behavior this engenders. A quick look at their previous tax amnesties reveals the effect this kind of program has on New Jersey taxpayers:

• During the first amnesty, in 1987, the state expected $50 million in back taxes. These taxes covered taxes for all prior years.

• In 1996, another amnesty planned on collecting $80 million in back taxes for the previous nine years, and got $90 million instead.

• In 2002, a tax amnesty plan raised far less than the $150 million expected for the previous eight years.

• And now, the plan is collecting about $600 million, possibly more, from the previous seven years.

In short: every tax amnesty covers less time and expects more back taxes. Why? Because every time New Jersey does a tax amnesty, every taxpayer factors that into their decision to pay taxes. We’ve gone from expecting $9 million a year in accumulated back taxes (the $80 million projected haul from the 1996 amnesty) to expecting almost $30 million a year in back taxes ($200 million divided by the seven years since the 2002 amnesty) — and it looks like we’re actually seeing about $90 million per year in repaid taxes.

In theory, a tax amnesty is a fine idea. And it certainly does bring in the revenue. But every amnesty plan trains taxpayers to take fines and interest less seriously. Over time, it leads to exactly what is happening in New Jersey: newer, bigger amnesties, at a faster and faster pace.

As CNN reports on tax hikes:

Already, 16 states have taken this unpopular step this fiscal year, and another 17 have proposed tax hikes for the coming year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a policy group. In many cases, they are making small increases in specific taxes, rather than imposing a broad rate hike.

At a time when jobs are scarce, retirement funds are decimated, and the economy is on the edge, high taxes may have many state residents worried. Here’s what you should keep in mind:

• They aren’t here to stay: In most cases, these temporary tax hikes really are temporary. States are making up their current revenue shortfal, but few of them intend to permanently raise income taxes or state taxes. More specific measures, like higher alcohol and cigarette taxes, are more likely to stick around, though.

• Not every state is in trouble: Although many states are in the headlines, there are only a few real danger spots: California, Arizona, Florida, and Nevada are in trouble because of the real estate crash (the vast majority of foreclosures are happening in these states). New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachussets are suffering because of high spending on social services, combined with reduced income from the financial industry. Meanwhile, states like North Dakota and Alaska have seen fewer defaults and less economic trouble (so far, at least).

• They’re designed to keep you afloat, not sink you: States are raising taxes so they can keep spending money on services people need most in a tough economy. So they’ve tried to design current taxes to minimize job loss and keep people from leaving the state altogether. So if you find your new taxes overwhelming, you’re probably going to get a sympathetic hearing. State tax authorities are often able to help you extend your payment, negotiate for more time, or even help reduce the amount you owe.

The current state tax situation is certainly worrisome, but it’s not as bad as it looks. With the economy likely to recover, and state spending set to drop, the current shortfalls are not likely to last. And if the situation deteriorates, the Federal government may step in with a bailout rather than force states to raise taxes and cut services even more.