interesting fact on states in trouble

[dmarc117]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...t-85763392.html

 

Forbes magazine has completed a comprehensive look at "The Global Debt Bomb" and in the course of compiling the results found this very interesting tidbit:

 

"The five states in the worst financial condition--Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey--are all among the bluest of blue states. The five most fiscally fit states are more of a mix. Three--Utah, Nebraska and Texas--boast Republican majorities and two--New Hampshire and Virginia--skew Democratic."

 

"Why do Democratic states appear to be struggling more than Republican ones? It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership.

 

"'Unions in general have more influence in Democratic-controlled states,' he says. 'This isn't to say that unions are bad, but where they're strong you have bigger demands for social services and coalitions with construction companies, road builders and others that push up debt.'"

 

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...l#ixzz0gwJO0FHW

 

Edited March 1, 2010 by dmarc117

[bpwallace49]

But that doesnt fly with Illinois having a VERY low income tax. I thought all Dems just wanted to do is tax people? Isnt that very contradictory? Shouldnt a state like IL have a much higher income tax if the partisan model is strictly applied?

[dmarc117]

But that doesnt fly with Illinois having a VERY low income tax. I thought all Dems just wanted to do is tax people? Isnt that very contradictory? Shouldnt a state like IL have a much higher income tax if the partisan model is strictly applied?

 

 

come on now. apply every single tax we have to pay.

[Perchoutofwater]

But that doesnt fly with Illinois having a VERY low income tax. I thought all Dems just wanted to do is tax people? Isnt that very contradictory? Shouldnt a state like IL have a much higher income tax if the partisan model is strictly applied?

 

I would think it would be overall taxes not just the income tax. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

[Azazello1313]

But that doesnt fly with Illinois having a VERY low income tax. I thought all Dems just wanted to do is tax people? Isnt that very contradictory? Shouldnt a state like IL have a much higher income tax if the partisan model is strictly applied?

 

is your argument that illinois is not controlled primarily by democrats?

 

according to this, illinois' overall per capita tax burden is 25th out of 50 states, so right in the middle. so not ridiculously high, but not particularly low as you suggest either. just right in the middle. but that's not a factor the original article even looks at, so I'm not sure what your point is in bringing it up.

[bpwallace49]

come on now. apply every single tax we have to pay.

 

But you know just as well as I do that isnt evenly applied across the whole state. Chicago has massive sales taxes (highest in the country) but that doesnt necessarily pay for the state programs. That is all local. Wouldnt it stand to reason that in a massively blue state that the impetus for taxation would START at the state level first with income taxes? Hell . . . if so then maybe our state wouldnt be in the horrible financial situation we are in now . .

 

dmarc I know what we need . . . more red-light camera systems!!!

[dmarc117]

But you know just as well as I do that isnt evenly applied across the whole state. Chicago has massive sales taxes (highest in the country) but that doesnt necessarily pay for the state programs. That is all local. Wouldnt it stand to reason that in a massively blue state that the impetus for taxation would START at the state level first with income taxes? Hell . . . if so then maybe our state wouldnt be in the horrible financial situation we are in now . .

 

dmarc I know what we need . . . more red-light camera systems!!!

 

 

those f'ers!!!! they are all over the place. in chicago, one thing they are doing is nabbing people for permit violations. few years ago they were too bust to get people cause of the housing boom.

 

i really dont mind be tougher with tickets and laws,just so it doesnt affect safety. if you speed, get a ticket. if you cheat, get a ticket.

Edited March 1, 2010 by dmarc117

[bpwallace49]

is your argument that illinois is not controlled primarily by democrats?

 

according to this, illinois' overall per capita tax burden is 25th out of 50 states, so right in the middle. so not ridiculously high, but not particularly low as you suggest either. just right in the middle. but that's not a factor the original article even looks at, so I'm not sure what your point is in bringing it up.

 

tax burden of local municipalities that are not necessarily funneled up to the state level (like the high taxes in Chicago that get used for strictly CHicago projects) is different than STATE receipts. the STATE is in hguge financial distress Az . . Ithought you were smart enough to know the difference

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-bo...cific/sales.cfm

 

Look at the bottom two graphs Az . . . while sales taxes are high, the amount shared and realized as state revenue is . . . . zero. You would think with a predominantly democrat state that state tax levels would be higher to support the general label of "tax raisin' Democrats", right? More a surprise that the income taxes for IL are as low are they are . . . I really thought they would be higher . . .

[bpwallace49]

those f'ers!!!! they are all over the place. in chicago, one thing they are doing is nabbing people for permit violations. few years ago they were too bust to get people cause of the housing boom.

 

i really dont mind be tougher with tickets and laws,just so it doesnt affect safety. if you speed, get a ticket. if you cheat, get a ticket.

 

I had a to go to court to fight a ticket last week for having expired plates and not having my insurance card. After going to court to prove that I had BOTH (card was replaced ONE~DAY before the end of the month in my wallet, and someone stole my registration sticker) the court all but admitted that they are issuing more tickets and hoping people do not challenge them to get in more revenue. Just like the scumbags on the tollway IPASS system with "violations" they send out hoping they are not challenged . . .

[dmarc117]

I had a to go to court to fight a ticket last week for having expired plates and not having my insurance card. After going to court to prove that I had BOTH (card was replaced ONE~DAY before the end of the month in my wallet, and someone stole my registration sticker) the court all but admitted that they are issuing more tickets and hoping people do not challenge them to get in more revenue. Just like the scumbags on the tollway IPASS system with "violations" they send out hoping they are not challenged . . .

 

 

the city could raise a boatload of money if they simply gave tickets for speeding and crosswalk violations.

[Duchess Jack]

perhaps the fact that the places listed were hit more than any other place by the financial problems - seeing as there are corporate hubs - has somethnig to do with it. I'd be interested in seeing which of these states generated the most income in the last 30 years.

[Perchoutofwater]

tax burden of local municipalities that are not necessarily funneled up to the state level (like the high taxes in Chicago that get used for strictly CHicago projects) is different than STATE receipts. the STATE is in hguge financial distress Az . . Ithought you were smart enough to know the difference

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-bo...cific/sales.cfm

 

Look at the bottom two graphs Az . . . while sales taxes are high, the amount shared and realized as state revenue is . . . . zero. You would think with a predominantly democrat state that state tax levels would be higher to support the general label of "tax raisin' Democrats", right? More a surprise that the income taxes for IL are as low are they are . . . I really thought they would be higher . . .

 

Texas has much lower taxes and is in much better shape. Of course it isn't in better shape just because it has lower taxes, but because it has lower spending as well. It leaves more up to the local governments which make the bureaucracy smaller, and also makes those in power more accountable as their neighbors know where they live.

 

Lower taxes help attract businesses to your state, but if low taxes are not coupled with lower spending then you end up in trouble.

[bpwallace49]

the city could raise a boatload of money if they simply gave tickets for speeding and crosswalk violations.

 

+ infinity

[Ursa Majoris]

but that's not a factor the original article even looks at, so I'm not sure what your point is in bringing it up.

In an article dedicated to hammering unions, it's hardly surprising that other very significant factors wouldn't get brought up. I'll exempt Texas from this broad brush statement since it's clearly an exception but in general the red states are not dealing with the hugh cities that the blue states are. Guess what? Those cities cost more to run than Bumf0ck, Idaho and also generate a crapload more money, most of which goes to federally subsidize the states who don't seem to be having the budget issues the blue states are having.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Azazello1313]

tax burden of local municipalities that are not necessarily funneled up to the state level (like the high taxes in Chicago that get used for strictly CHicago projects) is different than STATE receipts. the STATE is in hguge financial distress Az . . Ithought you were smart enough to know the difference

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-bo...cific/sales.cfm

 

Look at the bottom two graphs Az . . . while sales taxes are high, the amount shared and realized as state revenue is . . . . zero. You would think with a predominantly democrat state that state tax levels would be higher to support the general label of "tax raisin' Democrats", right? More a surprise that the income taxes for IL are as low are they are . . . I really thought they would be higher . . .

 

again, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. that illinois is not mostly controlled by democrats? again, the point of the linked article was:

Why do Democratic states appear to be struggling more than Republican ones? It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership.

are those two things not true of illinois, regardless of what their state income tax rates happen to be?

[Perchoutofwater]

perhaps the fact that the places listed were hit more than any other place by the financial problems - seeing as there are corporate hubs - has somethnig to do with it. I'd be interested in seeing which of these states generated the most income in the last 30 years.

 

Texas has Dallas, Houston, San Antonion and an up and coming Austin. Those are some pretty big corporate hubs, and yet Texas is in better shape than most. It probably does have more to do with the the size of government than anything else. Theses states that are struggling so much were providing too many services and when income dropped tax receipts dropped and they had less of a cushion than states that don't provide as many services.

[bpwallace49]

Texas has much lower taxes and is in much better shape. Of course it isn't in better shape just because it has lower taxes, but because it has lower spending as well. It leaves more up to the local governments which make the bureaucracy smaller, and also makes those in power more accountable as their neighbors know where they live.

 

Lower taxes help attract businesses to your state, but if low taxes are not coupled with lower spending then you end up in trouble.

 

Perch that is the wierd thing about Illinois . . . local sales taxes are high along with other local-based taxes) but low on a state level. yet the state is what needs the money more, and in a "Democrat state" I would expect the opposite . . . . very contradictory.

 

Perch you also have industries that other states do not have that bring in TONS of revenue from fossil fuels. really isnt apples to apples comparison . . IL produces felons, traders and farmers . . .

[bpwallace49]

again, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. that illinois is not mostly controlled by democrats? again, the point of the linked article was:

 

are those two things not true of illinois, regardless of what their state income tax rates happen to be?

 

The point is I would expect income taxes to be much higher in a democrat-strong state . . that fulfills more of the traditional labels placed on Dems. That theory hasnt applied to IL . . even though we have the spending to justify a higher state income tax versus the hodgepodge of local sales taxes . .

[Azazello1313]

Perch that is the wierd thing about Illinois . . . local sales taxes are high along with other local-based taxes) but low on a state level. yet the state is what needs the money more, and in a "Democrat state" I would expect the opposite . . . . very contradictory.

 

well it's the state that's on the hook for all the welfare payments, for most of the public pensions, etc. in other words, all the stuff that precipitates a coming crisis are primarily state-level liabilities. and the bluest states are the ones in the worst shape, illinois being right there among them....nothing contradictory about it.

[Ursa Majoris]

Texas has Dallas, Houston, San Antonion and an up and coming Austin. Those are some pretty big corporate hubs, and yet Texas is in better shape than most. It probably does have more to do with the the size of government than anything else. Theses states that are struggling so much were providing too many services and when income dropped tax receipts dropped and they had less of a cushion than states that don't provide as many services.

 

:ahem:

 

In an article dedicated to hammering unions, it's hardly surprising that other very significant factors wouldn't get brought up. I'll exempt Texas from this broad brush statement since it's clearly an exception but in general the red states are not dealing with the hugh cities that the blue states are. Guess what? Those cities cost more to run than Bumf0ck, Idaho and also generate a crapload more money, most of which goes to federally subsidize the states who don't seem to be having the budget issues the blue states are having.

 

[dmarc117]

In an article dedicated to hammering unions, it's hardly surprising that other very significant factors wouldn't get brought up. I'll exempt Texas from this broad brush statement since it's clearly an exception but in general the red states are not dealing with the hugh cities that the blue states are. Guess what? Those cities cost more to run than Bumf0ck, Idaho and also generate a crapload more money, most of which goes to federally subsidize the states who don't seem to be having the budget issues the blue states are having.

 

 

union pensions are the number 1 problem for every big city.

[Azazello1313]

In an article dedicated to hammering unions, it's hardly surprising that other very significant factors wouldn't get brought up. I'll exempt Texas from this broad brush statement since it's clearly an exception but in general the red states are not dealing with the hugh cities that the blue states are. Guess what? Those cities cost more to run than Bumf0ck, Idaho and also generate a crapload more money, most of which goes to federally subsidize the states who don't seem to be having the budget issues the blue states are having.

 

a few points here:

1) "if you just leave out the exception that disproves my rule..."

2) larger cities are generally the bluest places on the map. so, in a sense, yeah, states with big cities are going to tend to be bluer.

3) what exactly is your evidence that a city "costs more to run" per capita than a less densely populated area?

[Perchoutofwater]

a few points here:

3) what exactly is your evidence that a city "costs more to run" per capita than a less densely populated area?

 

I'd argue that one as well. Rural areas you have to have more emergency personnel per capita in order to get to the people in time. Busing is the same. I know we are talking about cities, but you should see the busing costs to rural school districts. For every 20' of water main in a big city you might service 100 people on average in a big city. In order to serve 100, people in where I live it's going to take a couple of miles of water main. Sewer is the same way. If it cost more to run a big city it because of the union wages and lack of productivity you get from unions, not because they are big cities.

[Yukon Cornelius]

 

u guys trying to say costs are higher in rural areas is humor.

[Perchoutofwater]

u guys trying to say costs are higher in rural areas is humor.

 

Utilities in smaller less dense cities are going to cost more per capita, as is road maintenance and transportaion.