Posted on 11/12/2004 7:40:41 AM PST by BlueStateLiberal
Clearly, those of us in the thinking part of the country are at odds with the red(neck) states. Why not formalise the irreconcilable differences between us by having a go at sovereignty? That way, we can rejoin the civilised world, and you can create your Taliban-style theocracy that you so obviously desire.
Some major flaws in this:
"New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connectictut are among the biggest net contributors, per person, to the federal government. The costs of the Big Dig notwithstanding"
To not include the Big Dig is ridiculous. It is the largest federally-funded infrastructure project in the country. The problem is that when you include it in the figures, suddenly the arguement for the article flies out the window. Sort of like saying, Kerry won, red states not withstanding. Basically, the non-inclusion makes the entire article suspect.
Other problems: Breaking the data down by state. A much more accurate depiction would be by county, as most "blue states" are truly only "blue cities". This also affects the per capita numbers. The problem with this logic is commuters. Many commuters are in red counties while going to a blue city, so productivity number should be adjusted to account for the percentage of commuters driving to another area for work. For instance, Boston has a population of roughly 1/2 million. However, a couple of million people are in the city every day to work. The 1.5 million additional people are not included in the per capita numbers. In Boston this isn't a problem since the Sheeple all vote Dem anyway. In Illinois, that would greatly skew the numbers as Chicago is surrounded by red counties. All of these people are contributing to the production data, but not the population numbers.
You could argue that the red county population commutes to the blue city because they need the job, but you can also argue that production will come to a screeching halt if there are no workers.
Hey, at least you admit you know nothing.
You want bizarre?
A Brit pretending to be an American from NEW ENGLAND.
Ever taken a Civics Class? Congress passes the laws, the judiciary is supposed to enforce the law - not make new laws just because they don't agree with the ones already on the books. Your talking points are really stale. Maybe you need to read a little more. Start with the U.S. Constitution; the Federalist Papers are good too.
News Release
October 7, 2004
Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill: New Mexico gets $1.99 for every dollar in taxes, New Jersey only 57 cents
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Some states feast at the expense of others, according to the Tax Foundation’s latest annual analysis of federal taxing and spending patterns.
All taxpayers know that the federal government uses tax and spending policy to redistribute income from citizens with high incomes to those who make little, but citizens are less aware about geographically based income redistribution.
In a forthcoming Tax Foundation study to be released next week, Senior Economist Scott Moody compares the federal tax burden in each state with Census Bureau data (2003) on federal spending in each state. The result is a ranking of which states got the best deal in 2003 from Uncle Sam’s tax and spending policies. (See data tables here).
Federally Favored States
“During fiscal 2003, taxpayers in New Mexico benefited the most from the give-and-take with Uncle Sam,” said Moody
New Mexico received $1.99 in federal outlays for every $1.00 the state’s taxpayers sent to Uncle Sam. Other big winners were Alaska ($1.89), Mississippi ($1.83), and West Virginia ($1.82).
The District of Columbia’s Special Status
Though not comparable as a state, the District of Columbia is by far the biggest beneficiary of federal spending: In 2003 it received $6.59 in federal outlays for every dollar its taxpayers sent to the U.S. Treasury.
“The District’s share of federal largesse amounted to $60,109 for every man, woman and child,” said Moody. “That’s more than ten times the national average.”
States That Help Others
If some states are beneficiaries, then naturally some must be benefactors—those states where so much is collected in federal taxes that any federal spending they receive is overwhelmed.
New York has often been the biggest payer in the Tax Foundation’s annual comparison of taxes to spending, which inspired Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the Kennedy School of Government to launch their annual reference book comparing state taxes with spending (www.ksg.harvard.edu/fisc99) more than 25 years ago. In recent years, however, other states have eclipsed New York for the “blessing” of being the state that gives far more than it receives.
Combining the third highest tax burden per capita with the ninth lowest federal spending, New Jersey had the lowest federal spending-to-tax ratio (57¢). Other states that had low federal spending-to-tax ratios in FY 2003 are New Hampshire (64¢), Connecticut (65¢), Minnesota (70¢), Nevada (70¢), and Illinois (73¢).
Changing Ranks
The state that raised its ratio the most over the past ten years is Alaska where federal spending rose from $1.30 to $1.89 for each dollar in taxes. This 59-cent increase beats out Alabama, where federal spending increased 35¢ per dollar of tax, West Virginia (33¢ more spending per dollar), and Kentucky (32¢ more spending per dollar).
States where the ratio dropped most are Colorado and Massachusetts. Colorado has seen its federal spending-to-tax ratio fall 20¢ from $1.00 in FY 1994 to 80¢ in FY 2003. Massachusetts’s has dropped 18¢.
What Affects Rankings?
Federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful Members of Congress, and state governments can grab more federal grant money by skillfully manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.
However, demography may be more influential than politics. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other large federal entitlements are bound to rank fairly high. Similarly, the high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.
On the tax side of the equation, states with higher incomes per capita— New Jersey stands out—pay much higher federal taxes per capita because of the income tax’s progressive structure. The citizens in these high-income, high-tax states do not always live better or save more than people in low-income, low-tax states because the cost of living is usually that much higher or more. (See data tables here).
Best known for its annual calculation of Tax Freedom Day®, the Tax Foundation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that has monitored fiscal policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3940565060&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
Has anyone seen this on ebay? I thought they would have pulled it, I wanted to post it over at DU.
DRat!
I step away for a minute and WHAM..
*sigh*
Nice shootin' AM.
And that guy's got a surprise in store for him if he thinks those companies will STICK AROUND after the Blue States secede and and create their business-killing socialist utopia.
-Dan
Sweetie pie,
Darlin'....
I bet you are one of those culturally inbred, socially isolated, removed from reality folks that thinks chicken comes from the grocery store, bread comes from the bakery and veges come from the freezer.
My advice:
Learn how to container garden and fast.
(as for the meat, I hear there are some mighty big rats up your way ;) )
My first live zotting! Thanks! :o)
Try not to bite the hand that feeds you So just how many farms do you have in New York City and Los Angelos? By the way, I like your governer, California. Can we have him?
Lol
LOL - .45MAN told me about it yesterday. The seller has 5 bids - I'm *impressed*!
I have no interest in reading your gasbag comments but this ex-New Yorker, ex-accountant and ex-corporate executive knows stupidity when it jumps off the computer screen.
Your statistics are worthless because of the impact of corporate headquarters location. NY, NJ, CT, CA, PA even DE (think DuPont) are the site of hundreds of large corporation's headquarters. The goods produced in red-state factories of Heinz (for example) are counted as blue state because Heinz is hq'd in PA.
I'll bet your statistics even include the overseas revenues of multinationals like Heinz.
Being a snotty elitist is hard work. You obviously aren't up to the job.
Go ahead. Nobody's stopping you.
We aren't slack-jawed, pea-brained inbred, semi-literate sister-shagging, Bud-swilling, country music listening, NASCAR watching, bible-thumping intolerant redneck hillbillies, and you are.
Brain dead-Christians
This is tolerance?
Sorry. I forgot. Tolerance is only for those who agree with you, right?
Regarding the figures on income and tax distribution...
I'd like to know where these figures come from. My suspicion is that the figures on productivity and income are generated by corporate centers - I seriously doubt that each individual corporation's income and productivity is broken down by division/plant/state and then re-aggregated by state.
Since taxes are paid from the corporate centers, of course these figures would indicate the everything is "generated" in the blue states and distributed country-wide. At a high level, its only an observation of how the tax system is "designed".
You'd have to look much, much deeper to get a real sense of how productivity, income and taxes are generated and distributed to get a real sense of geographic balance.
On a related note, if government at all levels weren't so involved in meddling with business, just how many corporations would locate their headquarters near city centers? A big reason they do so is to be close to government so they can have some influence on the onslaught of taxes and regulations.
Furthermore, a good question to ask is why did we build interstates, railroads and communications lines networked to the city centers? Is it to move products/services in, in support of the cities, or out, to distribute to the rest of the country? How much physical product is flowing out of the city centers? A lot of money flows there, to be sure, but that isn't the same thing as product or productivity.
Good graphic for us Windows XP users with dial-up!!
See my 377. I think we were thinking the same thing at the same time.
I think you were much more concise though...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.