U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [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)
 
Old 03-14-2013, 07:32 AM
 
26,589 posts, read 52,957,081 times
Reputation: 12963

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
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?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2013, 08:32 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
2,942 posts, read 4,219,454 times
Reputation: 3401
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk View Post
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.

Last edited by LindavG; 03-14-2013 at 08:42 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 08:44 AM
 
44 posts, read 54,874 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 08:46 AM
 
44 posts, read 54,874 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 09:43 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
2,942 posts, read 4,219,454 times
Reputation: 3401
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagendass View Post
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:

Finland's Education System Best In World - Business Insider
Why Are Finland's Schools Successful? | People & Places | Smithsonian Magazine
What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success - Anu Partanen - The Atlantic

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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 09:46 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
2,942 posts, read 4,219,454 times
Reputation: 3401
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagendass View Post
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 11:00 AM
 
44 posts, read 54,874 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
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:

Finland's Education System Best In World - Business Insider
Why Are Finland's Schools Successful? | People & Places | Smithsonian Magazine
What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success - Anu Partanen - The Atlantic

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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 11:03 AM
 
44 posts, read 54,874 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
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.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look at per capita income GNI and cost of living to get true living standards.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 11:13 AM
 
44 posts, read 54,874 times
Reputation: 39
hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...usehold_income

Go to this link and I will accept your apology.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 11:14 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
2,942 posts, read 4,219,454 times
Reputation: 3401
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagendass View Post
Who taught you economics?
My University did.

Quote:
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.
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?

As for income inequality, that is measured by the Gini coefficient. The US has a higher Gini coefficient (i.e. more income inequality) than any country in Europe. See: List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


 
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 > World Forums > World
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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