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.
Not really. An awful lot of blue states spend more than 50% of the state budget propping up the bottom 10% to 20% between Medicaid, cash transfers to failed school systems in poor cities, and the rest of the safety net programs. If you're in a rural state with no real cities that need the cash infusion for all the poor people, or you're in a red state with a "F the poor" public policy, the tax burden is very different.
We all have the metrics that are important to us. Mine look nothing at all like what the OP uses. Tax burden in a particular state or town within a state varies wildly depending on your income, your income sources, home ownership choices, and general spending pattern. You can live in the bluest of blue states and have a low tax burden. You really have to do an apples vs apples comparison based on income, housing, and spending pattern.
State and local taxes combined are still a tiny fraction of "cost of living" taken as a whole, and already a component within it, but are weighted as three times as much impact.
Notice that the "best" states, despite this weighting, are still the ones that are most attentive to welfare, public health, schools, etc.
But never mind, you still preached to the anti-welfare choir and confirmed their bias.
I think a lot of people are missing the elephant in the room here.
Of course rural states with no major cities have a higher average quality of life. Crime tends to bloom where there is a high density of impoverished people, especially in proximity to affluent people, because there are a lot of opportunities for crime to happen and the phenomenon of other people living way better than you are is a visible reality.
But never mind, you still preached to the anti-welfare choir and confirmed their bias.
I live in the bluest of blue states. It's not "anti-welfare choir". It's acknowledging that more than half the state budget is chewed up propping up the bottom-10% which starves infrastructure projects. All that money does exactly zero to solve the generational poverty problem. My state is highly rated because it has Harvard, MIT, Mass General, Logan Airport, a thriving high tech and biotech industry, and all the smart and highly educated people that kind of economy attracts. The LBJ Great Society approach didn't work. The generational poverty problem is worse now than it was in 1960. It's completely killed labor mobility for the bottom-10%. It rewards poor parenting. I have no problem spending money to actually fix the problem but it's insanity to simply perpetuate the problem.
Wyoming is the best state overall....maybe if you are 6th generation native, white, Gen X, working in energy, who likes driving 4wds, and doesn't mind gale force winds 6 months out of the year.
Herein lies the rub with strictly crunching numbers to arrive at a "best of" list. Overlay these results with job availability, education, recreation, or other number of quality of life factors and the order will change dramatically and will vary from person to person. Whats best for me may not be best for someone else.
I live in the bluest of blue states. It's not "anti-welfare choir". It's acknowledging that more than half the state budget is chewed up propping up the bottom-10% which starves infrastructure projects. All that money does exactly zero to solve the generational poverty problem. My state is highly rated because it has Harvard, MIT, Mass General, Logan Airport, a thriving high tech and biotech industry, and all the smart and highly educated people that kind of economy attracts. The LBJ Great Society approach didn't work. The generational poverty problem is worse now than it was in 1960. It's completely killed labor mobility for the bottom-10%. It rewards poor parenting. I have no problem spending money to actually fix the problem but it's insanity to simply perpetuate the problem.
The anti-welfare choir thanks you, again.
Over in the History Forum is a discussion of debtors prisons, which did solve all their problems. You'd have been proud of 'em.
My points system is a bit more granular since there are such a wide variety of different kinds of places within a state.
I look at voter precinct. If a place voted for Trump they get a 0. For my tastes if a place votes for a morally corrupt, racist, litigious, fascist, whoring, greedy, superficial mafioso imbecile like him they are not a place I would consider living. Hillary Clinton was also morally corrupt but at least she was competent.
If a place has an ocean, Great Lake or mountains within 100 miles it gets a 1. Otherwise 0.
If a place has a homicide rate in it's metro area above 5/100,000 it gets a 0.
Every place else gets judged subjectively cause it's my list and my system.
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.
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.
