Here in Oregon we have a law you would probably like, called the "kicker law". Whenever state revenues exceed predicted revenues by more than 2%, the entirety of the excess amount above the prediction must be returned to the taxpayers. It is the only such law in any of the 50 states and it has been in place long enough (over 20 years at least) to gauge its effects.

Personally, I don't care for the effects. Because state budgets must be balanced (which is good) and they address future spending (which is unavoidable), the only rational way to know how to balance the budget is to make a stab at guessing how much tax revenue you'll raise. This is the best any state can do, but it is a very inexact system.

The fact that revenues exceeded predictions has absolutely nothing to do with the state collecting "too much" money, as it has to do with a mismatch between some economist's guesswork about the future and what really happened. Most of all, the revenue that was predicted has nothing to do with the amount of money needed to pay for the services the people need or want.

Say there's a recession (not too farfetched, right?) and there's not enough money to fix roads or pay for state troopers. Those needs go unmet. Not enough money. Now imagine that there's actually more money than you budgeted for those things. In Oregon, those needs remain unmet much longer, even when there's money to pay for them, because of the kicker law. The net result is that state services are underfunded more frequently and the backlog of problems that pile up in lean times are rarely caught up with when lean times end. The state's basic infrastructure, including its schools, roads and parks, has been sinking slowly for decades now.

That's just how I view it. Every attempt to repeal the kicker in Oregon gets shouted down, so obviously some people here like it.