It's time for the Blue States to fire the Red States for their own good. These states are pathetic, and deserve far fewer electoral votes than they have. Why should the economically well off people in some states even have to put up with this redistribution of wealth? Why should these slacker states even get any federal dollars for infrastructure?...just because they decided to live out in the sticks?... I don't want any of my federal income tax dollars to be unfairly redistributed to these government tax dollar parasites. And wouldn't ya guess?....9 out of 10, RED STATES, and shame on you New Mexico. Mississippi, $28,066.00/year Idaho, $29,030.00/year Utah, $29,334.00/year West Virgina, $29,375.00/year Arkansas, $29,833.00/year South Carolina, $29,845.00/year Kentucky, $30,012.00/year New Mexico, $30,452.00/year Alabama, $30,549.00/year Indiana, $31,447.00/year And the tax payers of these states pick up the slack. Good for you Alaska and Wyoming, the only RED STATES on this list. Connecticut, $50,398.00/year Massachusettes, $46.394.00/year New Jersey, $45,700.00/year Maryland, $44,120.00/year New York, $43, 997.00/year Wyoming, $43,064.00/year Virginia, $40,284.00/year Alaska, $39,754.00/year New Hampshire, $39,673.00 Rhode Island, $38,319.00/year http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0681.pdf
There was an infographic floating around about this for a while: I believe the usual counter argument is that there are more military bases in those red states. I haven't seen that corroborated though. I don't like that they used the word socialism, it dumbs the argument down but the irony is palpable.
But land is cheaper, and taxes lower, so there is a lower cost of living. Incomes may be less, but each dollar goes further. New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, and North Dakota have specific reasons for why they get more than they give that has nothing to do with political affiliation. And this is not entirely a coincidence either. New Mexico and Mississippi have higher levels of poverty, so recieve more federal welfare. New Mexico because of all the undocumented Hispanic immigration, Mississippi because the state was traditionally a rural slave-dependant economy, and 37% of the population is Black. North Dakota gets corn subsidies because of the federal push for ethanol fuel. Alaska is a remote wilderness so gets additional subsidies from the federal government for its transportation (fewer people who require longer roads), and in addition there are huge areas of federally-owned land in Alaska. I think there certainly is a link between political orientation and income levels, it is not entirely coincidence. But it is not a simple direct cause-effect relationship. For example, rural areas tend to be more conservative. I would be interested to see what income levels would be if adjusted for cost of land and differences in taxation. The average person in a red state might actually have more disposable income. And do not forget all those Blacks in the South. What would income levels look like if the Blacks and recent descendants of undocumented immigrants were not counted? I reject the notion that being a Red or Blue state causes differences in income. If anything, this correlation might even suggest that people with less money are more likely to be Conservative.
The people calling themselves "conservatives" these days are more likley than Democrats to live in the sticks, be Christians, and vote Republican. Thats a no brainer. I do however resist generalizations about why "so called conservatives" are less likely to live in big cities. My point was this...blues state pay more in personal income taxes to the federal government than red states...and those personal income taxes go to pay for military spending, which is dissproportiantlly distributed to military contractors and facilities in red states. But thats not even the thing that really bugs me. I think people who chose to live in the sticks, still seem to expect a vote weighted dissproportianatlly in their favor because of the electoral college. Not to mention the extra advantage people in WY, AK, and others have in the senate. That whole mess had it's day...but with technology, not so much anymore
No, the statistics did not show this. If you want to make this claim, you will have to provide the appropriate statistics. The statistics only showed that the average income was lower in states which were Red. In many cases, the average incomes are lower because these states have seen so much illegal immigration. In fact, Arizona has been trying to petition the federal government for special funds to deal with all its illegal immigrants, and all the poverty they bring, without success. You jumped to a false assumption, which is that the conservatives who are are for military spending are not the ones paying for it. You falsely assume that the ones paying most of the taxes in the Blue states are Democrats against war. In many of the Red States, the conservatives are the ones paying most of the taxes, while all the poor minorities keep the average income statistics down. Blue and Red States are not people. Every state contains a mixture of political affiliations. So you cannot make such generalisations.
That the blue states pay more in taxes points out the problem with our tax code. $100K in taxable income in NYC is near poverty, $100K in taxable income in small town Nebraska is upper middle class to outright rich. The tax code is blind to cost of living, so collects the same amount from both. Democrats want to tax the rich even more to "correct the inequity", making this situation even worse.
I don't like the man much, and I think he's a dweeb......but I quote........."You can have anything you want but you better not take it from me"...Axl Rose.
They make more and apprently enjoy it less. Compare the average cost of a new home in those same states before the latest depression and lets not forget that those states generally have a lot higher percentage of state and local government workers than the red states. Longevity of congress critter in each state also effects the amount of money they get back.
I think the taxes should be lower in areas with lower populations. It might encourage people to spread out more, easing congestion. One of the biggest costs is often the cost of housing. Creating more jobs in the rural areas may be better because these jobs do not have to pay as much to be decent jobs, since costs of living are less.
From a pure, cost of living perspective I agree, but not with why. With congestion comes a greater diversity of goods and services, something apparently a lot of people really enjoy, otherwise we wouldn't continue to see people moving into dense urban areas. I live in a growing suburban area, but can't find a good Indian or Korean BBQ place anywhere near me, but if I head into Atlanta, I can find a plethora of both I prefer the scenario where people choose diversity over congestion or visa versa rather than trying to engineer the solution you think is best.
To your point, I have yet to see a description of where that money goes. Do the Red States have higher welfare rates? I live in California, with 10% of the US population, and 30% of the total US welfare recipients - yet it's Blue. Is it military bases? Are Red stated a better places to retire (SSI & Medicare make up almost 1/2 of Federal spending), Blue states do have higher costs of living.
Tons of stuff, every legislator works to "bring stuff home" to his constituents, the imbalance comes because many of those states have lower populations and thus contribute less to the federal coffers. To be frank I think the infographic is pretty stupid, but it chides the far right around here and I enjoy that immensely. That certainly explains some of it, I live in GA and have one of the largest bases in the country, Fort Benning, it accounts for some of the discrepancy but not all. A lot of those are warm, southern states.
Prove to me it is Democrats paying those taxes in Blue States and not a bunch of Conservative businessmen being raped by the State.
how about highest welfare? highest spent on pensions? by the way what is your source of info this seems wrong? also have you factoed in the much lower prices of goods in such states? bet not!!! 20k is a lot of rent is 200!!!! not so in manhatan! lol basic economics my good man!!! youtube tom woods
why don't you pull up the welfare/food stamp stats for the red states, and you might find out they receive more in federal aid than the blue states. According to you, it is because of all the black and minority people in those states? what is the black/hispanic population in S.Dakota, N. Dakota, and Montana?
Seeing how it is much cheaper to live in a Red State because the progressives have not risen the cost of living so the average pay has to keep up yet they probably still live at a higher level than those in the Blue States at the higher income. Let's not forget that the whole point of this thread is to support more central government as a "patriotic" duty. Collectivists, you can't afford to live with them and you can't shoot em.
It's impossible to live at a higher level when your state is just one big corn field. I know there is the romanticism of a Little House on the Prairie existance, but I don't see it
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38148092/States_With_the_Highest_Cost_of_Living?slide=11 Top ten highest cost of living states. RI, MA, NY, VT, CT, MD, AK, NJ, CA and HA.
