The Maine Senate last year killed a $63 million annual tax break for retirees with no better information than that the state probably couldn’t afford it. But thanks to a recent study by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Maine has evidence that rejecting the plan probably was a good idea. Better, the study is good news overall for the state’s retirement industry.

Maine has been aware of the value of attracting retirees for many years, but got rolling on the project in 1997, when the State Planning Office produced a report endearingly called “A Golden Opportunity.” It outlined a marketing strategy and three other areas that Maine should emphasize to build on the nationally huge and growing business of retirement communities: intellectual pursuits, especially the arts; safety, including environmental health; and wealth retention, meaning lowered taxes.

The SPO report did not offer a clear direction on taxes. It concluded that, “Taxes are strong factors that influence where a retired person decides to relocate,” but then offered several caveats in its tax section — that despite the high tax burden felt because of low incomes, Maine’s actual state and local tax levels are close to the national median. That lowering everyone’s taxes was more important than reducing them for a single group. That doing anything short of eliminating taxes for seniors probably wouldn’t make much difference for them in deciding whether to leave the state or, if from away, move here.

Given that mixed message, the propensity of lawmakers to battle over taxes just to keep in fighting shape and the fact that Maine is one of only eight states that doesn’t — at least doesn’t yet — offer an exemption on retirement earnings, last year’s debate was no surprise. So Maine went through a tax fight, lines were drawn in the sand, etc., and the tax plan’s defeat was concluded with the usual amount of bitter feelings.

Now, at the request of the Libra Foundation, comes the Kennedy School to expand on the SPO’s observations, and what its researchers Jack Donahue and Dutch Leonard found could easily be used to encourage the many positive developments in the industry. (As a bonus, their study should be considered among the best discussions available of Maine’s state and local tax systems.)

On retirees, it concluded the following:

“For a majority of people — even those with high incomes — taxes appear to be secondary considerations in their choice of residence. Given the state’s special virtues, the ‘price’ of being a Mainer is seen as worth paying by many current and prospective retirees. There are those, to be sure, who find the price of Maine citizenship to be prohibitive. … But for those whose location decisions are driven by income tax liability — particularly retirees with very high incomes — tinkering with the tax code is not likely to change their minds.”

Short of a major overhaul of the state tax system — an event not expected soon — this latest study re-emphasizes the state’s strengths outlined in the SPO work: Maine is a safe place with a healthy environment that, with more coordination, could provide greater educational and artistic offerings to retirees. That is, Maine’s perceived weakness in attracting more retirees — its tax system — may turn out to be the least important factor while what it does best are more important.

Lawmakers can use this study to refine the work already done in Maine and invest in areas where Maine is likely to get the most return. And, while they’re at it, the primer on state and local taxation is must reading.