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.
It depends. There is not one government taking care of 300+ million people, most functions are delegated to the state level and many US states have ~ 5 million people (or less), just like Finland. There's no reason why they should have more difficulty managing their own state affairs. Many of the poorest states in the US (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas) have less than 5 million people.
And with half of them living in poverty, where do you expect the money to come from to take care of them?
And with half of them living in poverty, where do you expect the money to come from to take care of them?
Exactly my point! Having a small population does not automatically make it easier to balance the budget. If half the population is poor, like you said, it makes it very difficult to manage state affairs properly with the little income you have.
It depends. There is not one government taking care of 300+ million people, most functions are delegated to the state level and many US states have ~ 5 million people (or less), just like Finland. There's no reason why they should have more difficulty managing their own state affairs. Many of the poorest states in the US (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas) have less than 5 million people.
You really should get of this point. Your not doing a good job explaining you argument.
Here is the 2009 per capita debt for the states above.
Alabama $1,500
Mississippi $2,006
South Carolina $3,401
Arkansas $1,593
Most debt come from bonds for special programs or projects.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the US but has a per capita in come of $20,000
Finland is $36,000 but consider how much higher taxes are and cost of living you about even.
Good job Finland your Europe's Mississippi
Indexes Difference
Consumer Prices in Finland are 25.76% higher than in United States
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Finland are 18.79% higher than in United States
Rent Prices in Finland are 2.51% higher than in United States
Restaurant Prices in Finland are 40.25% higher than in United States
Groceries Prices in Finland are 19.05% higher than in United States
Local Purchasing Power in Finland is 30.86% lower than in United States
I think Finland should send a delegation to the South and see how its done.
U.S. States
Every U.S. State, other than Vermont, has some form of balanced budget provision. The precise form of this provision varies from State to State. Indiana has a state debt prohibition with an exception for "temporary and casual deficits," but no balanced budget requirement. It has around $18 billion in outstanding state debt. The governor is not legally required to submit a balanced budget, the legislature is not required to approve appropriations that are within available revenue, and the state is not required to end the year in balance.[9] An unusual variant is the Oregon kicker, which bans surpluses of more than 2% of revenue by refunding the money to the taxpayers.
So your wrong the federal government funds most programs for the States.
Exactly my point! Having a small population does not automatically make it easier to balance the budget. If half the population is poor, like you said, it makes it very difficult to manage state affairs properly with the little income you have.
You think people in US states like Mississippi are poor, but actually the people are better of then Europeans because of low cost of living.
You really should get of this point. Your not doing a good job explaining you argument.
Here is the 2009 per capita debt for the states above.
Alabama $1,500
Mississippi $2,006
South Carolina $3,401
Arkansas $1,593
Most debt come from bonds for special programs or projects.
We were talking about whether or not it is easier for smaller countries/states to balance a budget. Take a look at this list: State budget deficits, it appears that the smaller US states suffer budget deficits just like bigger US states do. The fact that they're smaller doesn't automatically make it easier to balance the budget, there are a lot more factors involved. Ireland has a smaller population than Finland yet it nearly went bankrupt a while ago. Same goes for Iceland with a population of 300,000.
Quote:
Mississippi is the poorest state in the US but has a per capita in come of $20,000
Finland is $36,000 but consider how much higher taxes are and cost of living you about even.
Good job Finland your Europe's Mississippi
Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think Finland's wealth is comparable to the poorest state in the US? Finland is the 13th wealthiest country in Europe according to the IMF (out of 50+ countries), nowhere near the poorest.
Quote:
Indexes Difference
Consumer Prices in Finland are 25.76% higher than in United States
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Finland are 18.79% higher than in United States
Rent Prices in Finland are 2.51% higher than in United States
Restaurant Prices in Finland are 40.25% higher than in United States
Groceries Prices in Finland are 19.05% higher than in United States
Local Purchasing Power in Finland is 30.86% lower than in United States
I think Finland should send a delegation to the South and see how its done.
Who taught you economics? There is a much more reliable way to compare incomes in different countries and that is the GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). Finland's GDP per capita (PPP) is $35,981 which is nowhere near the $20,000 you suggested. To put it into context: if Finland's GDP per capita (PPP) was $20,000 it would be below countries like Estonia, Poland and Trinidad & Tobago
Besides, the reason people pay higher taxes is that they get a lot in return. Education in Finland is completely free to students, no tuition fees. Finland has universal - publicly funded - health care. These two things alone save Finnish people thousands of dollars every month compared to Americans. Not only that, Finland has the best education system in the world:
Seems like the US, and especially the southern states, have a thing or two to learn from Finland.
People in Finland choose their system of high taxes and high benefits because they feel that is what works best for them. They don't want to cut taxes dramatically if that means they'll start having to pay tuition fees and spend a fortune on private health care. That's what people like you don't seem to understand. Not all countries have the same philosophy as the US, that doesn't make them inferior.
Quote:
U.S. States
Every U.S. State, other than Vermont, has some form of balanced budget provision. The precise form of this provision varies from State to State. Indiana has a state debt prohibition with an exception for "temporary and casual deficits," but no balanced budget requirement. It has around $18 billion in outstanding state debt. The governor is not legally required to submit a balanced budget, the legislature is not required to approve appropriations that are within available revenue, and the state is not required to end the year in balance.[9] An unusual variant is the Oregon kicker, which bans surpluses of more than 2% of revenue by refunding the money to the taxpayers.
So your wrong the federal government funds most programs for the States.
Of course states have balanced budget provisions, it's the same in the EU (very strict ones at that) but see how that turned out. I posted a link to the US state budget balances above, nearly all US states suffer deficits regardless of their size.
It's not about who funds the state programs (btw states pay into those funds), it's about who manages those funds. The EU funds a lot of programs for its Member States as well.
You think people in US states like Mississippi are poor, but actually the people are better of then Europeans because of low cost of living.
If you really believe this, I can't help you. Several European countries (Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland) have a GDP per capita (PPP) higher or on par with the US as a whole, let alone one of its poorest states.
We were talking about whether or not it is easier for smaller countries/states to balance a budget. Take a look at this list: State budget deficits, it appears that the smaller US states suffer budget deficits just like bigger US states do. The fact that they're smaller doesn't automatically make it easier to balance the budget, there are a lot more factors involved. Ireland has a smaller population than Finland yet it nearly went bankrupt a while ago. Same goes for Iceland with a population of 300,000.
Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think Finland's wealth is comparable to the poorest state in the US? Finland is the 13th wealthiest country in Europe according to the IMF (out of 50+ countries), nowhere near the poorest.
Who taught you economics? There is a much more reliable way to compare incomes in different countries and that is the GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). Finland's GDP per capita (PPP) is $35,981 which is nowhere near the $20,000 you suggested. To put it into context: if Finland's GDP per capita (PPP) was $20,000 it would be below countries like Estonia, Poland and Trinidad & Tobago
Besides, the reason people pay higher taxes is that they get a lot in return. Education in Finland is completely free to students, no tuition fees. Finland has universal - publicly funded - health care. These two things alone save Finnish people thousands of dollars every month compared to Americans. Not only that, Finland has the best education system in the world:
Seems like the US, and especially the southern states, have a thing or two to learn from Finland.
People in Finland choose their system of high taxes and high benefits because they feel that is what works best for them. They don't want to cut taxes dramatically if that means they'll start having to pay tuition fees and spend a fortune on private health care. That's what people like you don't seem to understand. Not all countries have the same philosophy as the US, that doesn't make them inferior.
Of course states have balanced budget provisions, it's the same in the EU (very strict ones at that) but see how that turned out. I posted a link to the US state budget balances above, nearly all US states suffer deficits regardless of their size.
It's not about who funds the state programs (btw states pay into those funds), it's about who manages those funds. The EU funds a lot of programs for its Member States as well.
Who taught you economics? The best indicator is per capita income not GDP per capita.
Let me make it easy for you to understand.
The average income in Mississippi is $20000 per person includes babies and childeren. The GDP per capita is $36,000, higher then Spain and on par with Italy.
Secondly if you are spending 10,000 more dollars in Finland for the same things in Mississippi, then that is a factor in economics. Cost of living.
Per person income is the best indicator, because it shows you how much the average person is receiving. You can have country in which you have a high GDP in which most of the money goes to the most wealthy. No income equality. Mexico for example.
If you really believe this, I can't help you. Several European countries (Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland) have a GDP per capita (PPP) higher or on par with the US as a whole, let alone one of its poorest states.
The average income in Mississippi is $20000 per person includes babies and childeren. The GDP per capita is $36,000, higher then Spain and on par with Italy.
Secondly if you are spending 10,000 more dollars in Finland for the same things in Mississippi, then that is a factor in economics. Cost of living.
Per person income is the best indicator, because it shows you how much the average person is receiving. You can have country in which you have a high GDP in which most of the money goes to the most wealthy. No income equality. Mexico for example.
The best way to measure per capita income across countries is GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity. Do you know what that means? The GDP per capita (PPP) takes into account the cost of living. It's not a perfect method but better than the one you propose. What makes you think people spend $10,000 more in Finland than in Mississippi? True, things like groceries and gasoline are cheaper in Mississippi but what about education and health care, which are much bigger personal costs?
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.
Do you honestly think Finland's wealth is comparable to the poorest state in the US? Finland is the 13th wealthiest country in Europe according to the IMF (out of 50+ countries), nowhere near the poorest.
