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.
The cost of living affords their SS and pensions to go farther. It is a simple life.
The no income tax states, gain the most with those retiring on a fixed income.
Most people have better things to do than retire in the regressive swamp of the South.
Let's be real, states like Mississippi would be 3rd world status if they were cut off
Seems like the birth control use in these kind of states are not talked about. Never understood people who can't support themselves, then begin to have babies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Most people have better things to do than retire in the regressive swamp of the South.
Retirees go to Florida and Arizona mostly.
Pensions were not a part of the map. They know if this was shown, people would see our country is going to be sinking deep in years to come.
The cost of living affords their SS and pensions to go farther. It is a simple life.
The no income tax states, gain the most with those retiring on a fixed income.
The cost of living in most of rural America is reasonable, not just in the south. If you live in rural Michigan or Wisconsin, you'd have a hard time making me believe that it's more expensive than living in rural Georgia or Louisiana.
The South doesn't have a lock on living a simple life. Not even close.
Your tax argument has some validity, but only 3 southern states have no income taxes. Even then, that doesn't mean your overall tax bill will be less overall than if you lived in a state with an income tax.
What the South has going for it is weather. If Minnesota had the same weather as South Texas, Minnesotans wouldn't leave regardless of the COL.
There is a distinct correlation to the New England States, and the West coast, losing representation in the US House.
There are reasons for many demographics to leave a hell hole.
None of those states are losing population, they are losing proportion. (Hint: this means they aren't gaining population as fast as Southern States).
Also, keep in mind Southern States are bolstered a lot by immigration from Mexico, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
There is a difference. New England States are losing representation because the boomers are retiring from their corporate lives and moving to Florida (and to a lesser extent, Arizona).
Blanket statements about a state based on if they are 'red' or 'blue' are hugely simplistic. For purposes of threads like this, which way a state leans in the Presidential elections determines if the entire state is Conservative or Liberal. Most states only lean about 10-15% one way or the other; branding an entire state red or blue when 6 out of 10 people lean one way is extremely simplistic.
In addition, many red states Liberals point to as examples of the failure of Conservatism are full of poor Democrats that are heavily dependent upon the government. Similarly, Libs who brag about their rich blue states supporting poor red states do so because there are so many rich Republicans that live in their cities paying the lion's share of taxes.
Examining exit polls is a much more accurate way to determine this information -- and they show that Democrats are on average much poorer than Republicans, and thus more reliant on government aid. Other studies confirm that Democrats are significantly more likely to receive handouts than Republicans. It does't matter if they live in a red or blue state, its generally not Republicans who are feeding at the trough.
The cost of living in most of rural America is reasonable, not just in the south. If you live in rural Michigan or Wisconsin, you'd have a hard time making me believe that it's more expensive than living in rural Georgia or Louisiana.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
The South doesn't have a lock on living a simple life. Not even close.
Your tax argument has some validity, but only 3 southern states have no income taxes. Even then, that doesn't mean your overall tax bill will be less overall than if you lived in a state with an income tax.
Florida gets away with it because of hotel / tourism taxes. Also, keep in mind the states with little to no income tax pay for it with awful school systems. They also have extremely high property taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
What the South has going for it is weather. If Minnesota had the same weather as South Texas, Minnesotans wouldn't leave regardless of the COL.
Only Florida has decent weather. There isn't much difference weather wise between the Northeast Corridor and the Southeast. They are in the same climate zone, due to ocean currents. The difference is roughly... 5 degrees. People in the Midwest get the rough winters, but the East Coast is pretty mild all the way up to Boston.
Texas has horrible weather; volatile winters but absolutely intolerable from May to September.
What is very much in their control and dictated by political choices is the percentage of the state budget funded by the federal government. This paints a far more mixed picture.
That's not necessarily true because many of those dollars would be federal programs administered by the state, interstate funds for example. Those are not distributed evenly, it's based on interstate costs. While many of the states in middle America benefit from I-80 that runs from San Francisco to NYC it's not a road they would build for themselves. The primary beneficiary is those on either coast shipping products across the country. When you get on that road here in PA most of which is rural it's like a conga line of trucks heading to NYC...
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.