U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2010, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC NoVA
1,105 posts, read 1,947,579 times
Reputation: 775

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Lakes View Post
What he is talking about is how blue states typically pay more into the federal government while red states typically receive more funding than they put in. On a federal government level the red states are generally leaching off of the blue states.

Here is the proof:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf (broken link)

The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
states like louisiana and alabama are poor still, they haven't [yet] had a boom. them being behind has nothing to do with being red states. they're mainly simple people leading simple lives with a low cost of living and since they don't have a lot of money those states don't contribute to these 'federal' taxes as much as a state like new york in which you have donald friggin trump types (which also tend to be republicans) giving this country 95% of its federal taxes. a lot of these 'poor' people in the south are blacks voting democrat and they're really the main receivers for government "intervention" in their lives such as food stamps, welfare, and section 8 housing. call it leaching off blue states all you want, because something like 95% of the money you claim these red states are "leaching" off of blue states is mainly coming from rich republican voters and business owners who employ liberals in those blue states.

Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 12-22-2010 at 12:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2010, 01:45 PM
 
8 posts, read 6,724 times
Reputation: 19
And ironically, median incomes declined the sharpest in the south during the past few years, with 'high tax' Northeast and West doing the best. The south dramatically lags the United States in general as fare as incomes go. Most people who move to the south are welfare leaches who don't pay taxes. LOL.

Huge population increases aren't necessarily a good thing.

Last edited by CA790; 12-22-2010 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
1,954 posts, read 4,504,703 times
Reputation: 1817
Quote:
Originally Posted by ric75 View Post
Sorry, but they aren't when you are trying to pretend that these states are being written checks directly by the federal government and are on some kind of welfare dole. The budget for one large military facility is enormous but do you think anyplace but the very nearby geographical area benefits from it? Military bases are almost completely self-sufficient and they don't pay taxes to the State and localities for the often valuable space they occupy. Like I said, you can make those number say whatever you want.
Huh? They also put military basis in rural states. And I seriously doubt military funding counts towards a states budget. Did you even read what I posted? It's by the Tax Foundation and hardly biased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride View Post
states like louisiana and alabama are poor still, they haven't [yet] had a boom. them being behind has nothing to do with being red states. they're mainly simple people leading simple lives with a low cost of living and since they don't have a lot of money those states don't contribute to these 'federal' taxes as much as a state like new york in which you have donald friggin trump types (which also tend to be republicans) giving this country 95% of its federal taxes. a lot of these 'poor' people in the south are blacks voting democrat and they're really the main receivers for government "intervention" in their lives such as food stamps, welfare, and section 8 housing. call it leaching off blue states all you want, because something like 95% of the money you claim these red states are "leaching" off of blue states is mainly coming from rich republican voters and business owners who employ liberals in those blue states.
You are pretty much correct. Our nations biggest economic generators are in blue states, and it does not really have to do with politics. You may notice that Texas is a red state and also a net giver because it generates a lot of economic activity.

FYI: A lot of rich people are liberals in blue states. Marin County for example.

Last edited by 5Lakes; 12-22-2010 at 02:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC NoVA
1,105 posts, read 1,947,579 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA790 View Post
And ironically, median incomes declined the sharpest in the south during the past few years, with 'high tax' Northeast and West doing the best. The south dramatically lags the United States in general as fare as incomes go. Most people who move to the south are welfare leaches who don't pay taxes. LOL.

Huge population increases aren't necessarily a good thing.
of course when you have nyc, boston, chicago and whatever in the north there's going to be a higher median income than places in the south where lots of people are mechanics or working at a hardware store. having a higher median income doesn't really mean much when the difference isn't enough to say that people in the north are living much different compared to someone in the south with 1/2 the salary.

the median income in connecticut is around $68,000 p/yr. the median income in alabama is about $42,000 p/yr. but i bet a family in alabama making 42k is in less debt than someone making 68k in connecticut. the cost of living is a lot lower in alabama. either way, you can thank a rich likely republican for your job. and did you forget your history? right wing capitalism built new york, san francisco, and chicago.

and like i said, places like alabama and louisiana aren't even in the game yet. you never know if birmingham will come out and turn into the next charlotte. and you never know if new orleans will become the next 'cool' place to live. even baton rouge. the south is a new economic powerhouse and is turning into a powerhouse thanks to the north's now failure. the south is stealing your population and your business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,435,830 times
Reputation: 1440
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride View Post
of course when you have nyc, boston, chicago and whatever in the north there's going to be a higher median income than places in the south where lots of people are mechanics or working at a hardware store. having a higher median income doesn't really mean much when the difference isn't enough to say that people in the north are living much different compared to someone in the south with 1/2 the salary.

the median income in connecticut is around $68,000 p/yr. the median income in alabama is about $42,000 p/yr. but i bet a family in alabama making 42k is in less debt than someone making 68k in connecticut. the cost of living is a lot lower in alabama. either way, you can thank a rich likely republican for your job. and did you forget your history? right wing capitalism built new york, san francisco, and chicago.

and like i said, places like alabama and louisiana aren't even in the game yet. you never know if birmingham will come out and turn into the next charlotte. and you never know if new orleans will become the next 'cool' place to live. even baton rouge. the south is a new economic powerhouse and is turning into a powerhouse thanks to the north's now failure. the south is stealing your population and your business.
Houston, Texas, is one of the fastest-growing about income growth, and yeah it's southern city, same thing for Austin, Dallas and Albuquerque.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
1,954 posts, read 4,504,703 times
Reputation: 1817
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride View Post
of course when you have nyc, boston, chicago and whatever in the north there's going to be a higher median income than places in the south where lots of people are mechanics or working at a hardware store. having a higher median income doesn't really mean much when the difference isn't enough to say that people in the north are living much different compared to someone in the south with 1/2 the salary.

the median income in connecticut is around $68,000 p/yr. the median income in alabama is about $42,000 p/yr. but i bet a family in alabama making 42k is in less debt than someone making 68k in connecticut. the cost of living is a lot lower in alabama. either way, you can thank a rich likely republican for your job. and did you forget your history? right wing capitalism built new york, san francisco, and chicago.

and like i said, places like alabama and louisiana aren't even in the game yet. you never know if birmingham will come out and turn into the next charlotte. and you never know if new orleans will become the next 'cool' place to live. even baton rouge. the south is a new economic powerhouse and is turning into a powerhouse thanks to the north's economic failure turning into bankruptcy. the south is stealing your population and your business.
I get what you are saying, but it does not fully explain the discrepancy. I get how places like Boston, NYC, or San Francisco fall into the high earner category. But then you also have states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin that get the short end of the federal dollars they put in. Like the south, these states also have a low cost of living compared to high-priced coastal cities.

Also, you may what to check what states are hurting right know. The south has been hurt by the current tough economy more than the north because much of the boom was based on the now dismal building industry that brought many jobs to the south prior to the burst of the housing bubble. Texas is of course doing OK, but places like Florida, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Arizona have really dropped off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 03:02 PM
 
5,012 posts, read 4,716,338 times
Reputation: 4631
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA790 View Post
And ironically, median incomes declined the sharpest in the south during the past few years, with 'high tax' Northeast and West doing the best. The south dramatically lags the United States in general as fare as incomes go. Most people who move to the south are welfare leaches who don't pay taxes. LOL.

Huge population increases aren't necessarily a good thing.
The people leaving New York are the high earners:
Middle Class New Yorkers Fleeing State - WSJ.com

Statewide, departing families have income levels 13% higher than those moving in, while in New York County (home of Manhattan) the differential was even more severe. Those moving elsewhere had an average income of $93,264, some 28% higher than the $72,726 earned by those coming in.
In 2006 alone, that swap meant the state lost $4.3 billion in taxpayer income. Add that up from 2001 through 2008, and it translates into annual net income losses somewhere near $30 billion. That trend is part of a larger march for New York: In 1950 the state accounted for 19% of all Americans, but by 2000 that number had fallen to 7%.

Welfare recipients typically have little funds or motivation to move. The people moving are moving for jobs or lower taxes on their high incomes. Either way, they are generally contributers to the new states and a loss of tax revenue from the state they left.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,435,830 times
Reputation: 1440
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl View Post
The people leaving New York are the high earners:
Middle Class New Yorkers Fleeing State - WSJ.com

Statewide, departing families have income levels 13% higher than those moving in, while in New York County (home of Manhattan) the differential was even more severe. Those moving elsewhere had an average income of $93,264, some 28% higher than the $72,726 earned by those coming in.
In 2006 alone, that swap meant the state lost $4.3 billion in taxpayer income. Add that up from 2001 through 2008, and it translates into annual net income losses somewhere near $30 billion. That trend is part of a larger march for New York: In 1950 the state accounted for 19% of all Americans, but by 2000 that number had fallen to 7%.

Welfare recipients typically have little funds or motivation to move. The people moving are moving for jobs or lower taxes on their high incomes. Either way, they are generally contributers to the new states and a loss of tax revenue from the state they left.

Exactly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 06:04 PM
 
8 posts, read 6,724 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl View Post
The people leaving New York are the high earners:
Middle Class New Yorkers Fleeing State - WSJ.com

Statewide, departing families have income levels 13% higher than those moving in, while in New York County (home of Manhattan) the differential was even more severe. Those moving elsewhere had an average income of $93,264, some 28% higher than the $72,726 earned by those coming in.
In 2006 alone, that swap meant the state lost $4.3 billion in taxpayer income. Add that up from 2001 through 2008, and it translates into annual net income losses somewhere near $30 billion. That trend is part of a larger march for New York: In 1950 the state accounted for 19% of all Americans, but by 2000 that number had fallen to 7%.

Welfare recipients typically have little funds or motivation to move. The people moving are moving for jobs or lower taxes on their high incomes. Either way, they are generally contributers to the new states and a loss of tax revenue from the state they left.
Ridiculously misleading statistics.

New Yorkers (and CA/NJ/CT residents) don't take their high salaried jobs with them to North Carolina and Florida (or Nevada). I've never heard of someone "fleeing" New York or CA to a higher salary in poor Nevada, Tennessee, Florida or North Carolina. LOL. The vast majority of the nation's wealth still resides in these same high tax cities -- namely in NY/NJ/CT/CA. I would say these areas control of the nation's wealth have even increased during the past decade or so.

These numbers are also highly skewed by snowbird retirees, since the average person moving out of NYC is much older than the newcomer who obviously will have a lower salary. The retirees do not bring a salary to Florida or the Carolinas so its of no use there.

The article also fails to address if the salaries are pre-NYC or post-Manhattan. If it's pre-Manhattan, the salaries will be boosted because New Yorkers Still Have Highest Wages in the Nation- NYTimes.com.

At the end, the south still remains poor,... even after all the alleged wealth transfer. The salaries have still declined more than Northeast and Western salaries from 2000-2010. Where did all those rich CA and NYers salaries go to? Oops. Out of control foreclosure activities from the welfare kings fleeing unaffordable places bringing their problems. Pick up any "richest areas" in the United States list, and you will not see a single southern county, just more "unaffordable" areas with NY/NJ/CT/CA leading the pack.

The south's salaries are still much below US average. The education levels are still much below United States levels, crime still higher.

Let's face it, the wealth creators of the country will stay firmly planted on the coasts since they'll always be the most desirable locales (if money is not an issue). Texas is the only Southern state I'll make an exception for.

Last edited by CA790; 12-22-2010 at 06:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 07:02 PM
 
Location: St Paul, MN - NJ's Gold Coast
5,256 posts, read 11,960,068 times
Reputation: 3080
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
But at the same time, those exact states are way ahead of the game in terms of wealth, education, accessibility and safety.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top