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.
My county is at 17%, which I consider MUCH too high, but there are herds of counties exceeding 40% .
Now that seems like a very unsustainable business plan for the US goverment, and these counties that have come to depend on it's benvolent spending programs.
Maybe in my search for home, I ought to consider the probablility of my chosen county / state to afford to keep me and the few businesses that still have a payroll.
Our neighboring county has shown the fallicy of expecting your elected leaders to 'adjust' their budget and services in a responsible manner. Politicians are not very good business strategists. We're in for a fall. (or a significant stumble).
Interesting data, Stealth, especially one of the articles' comments that counties most benefitting by the redistribution tend to decry government spending. You are wise in evaluating a potential relocation decision with those kinds of parameters in mind.
That is not even close to total beneifits. For retirement purposes benefits that go to local agency such as cities such as funding to maintain public services need to be added. Especailly as those programs will be reduced adding to need to locally fund.Then of course medicaid will become a increased state burden in 2017 as federal money to state cover increased state protion will stop.That is why Nelson of nebraska got exemption for his vote as he said it would bankrupt nebreska.
Interesting data, Stealth, especially one of the articles' comments that counties most benefitting by the redistribution tend to decry government spending. You are wise in evaluating a potential relocation decision with those kinds of parameters in mind.
On the other hand, if you have decent retirement funds you're not adding to the government "take," you're adding to the local economy and at the same time maximizing your retirement dollars in a fiscally depressed area.
On the other hand, if you have decent retirement funds you're not adding to the government "take," you're adding to the local economy and at the same time maximizing your retirement dollars in a fiscally depressed area.
True, and that is what first came to my mind when assessing the data. However, what happens to programs for seniors in those region as federal dollars are withdrawn (even tho many of those $$$ are state-not federal-$$).
Federal money in my area also affects mass transportation development, wh/ is also a concern for many seniors.
Property taxes will necessarily have to rise when federal $$$ to school systems are reduced, another consideration for retirees.
On the other hand, if you have decent retirement funds you're not adding to the government "take," you're adding to the local economy and at the same time maximizing your retirement dollars in a fiscally depressed area.
Quite true, but I suggest that living in a fiscally depressed area could be ..... depressing. I actually did some serious investigation along those lines in looking at rural West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland pre-retirement.
No question, it would be much less expensive - BUT - I wouldn't want to live there. Quality of life factors eliminated the idea of relocating to an area where the majority of folks are under significant financial distress. JMHO
PS - I grew up in one of those areas and have no desire to return there.
Interesting. Just taking a quick look around Florida - it seems the numbers tend to correlate with the overall affluence of a place (not necessarily rich people - but middle class people). Although - paradoxically - not necessarily the COL for middle class people. For example - my county in NE Florida - St. Johns County (which doesn't have a lot of really rich or really poor people and has a pretty reasonable COL) - is at 12.89%. Miami/Dade County (which has many more poor and rich people and has a much higher COL) is 20.91%. Robyn
It looks Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Kentucky are the states that siphon off the most in welfare dollars, with Mississippi being the biggest offender, although they are all pretty bad compared to the rest of the country.
Geographically, the lowest 1/3 area of the U.S. appears to be the most common area to receive income support. Dixieland Delight!
Maybe we Yanks should start voting Republican so that we can keep more of our tax dollars at home rather than sending them to welfare mooches in the sun belt.
It looks Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Kentucky are the states that siphon off the most in welfare dollars, with Mississippi being the biggest offender, although they are all pretty bad compared to the rest of the country.
Geographically, the lowest 1/3 area of the U.S. appears to be the most common area to receive income support. Dixieland Delight!
Maybe we Yanks should start voting Republican so that we can keep more of our tax dollars at home rather than sending them to welfare mooches in the sun belt.
I always thought you guys up in the NE wanted to spend a lot of tax dollars supporting people in the US who are poor/minority? Or perhaps you only want to do it on a theoretical basis - talk the talk without walking the walk? Brookline MA is basically white - 3% black - and wealthy. Mississippi is kind of black - 37% - and poor.
So what's the story Sylvia?
And I never met people in my whole life who were more racist than the Southies in the greater Boston area (when I lived there). Robyn
My county is at 17%, which I consider MUCH too high, but there are herds of counties exceeding 40% .
Now that seems like a very unsustainable business plan for the US goverment, and these counties that have come to depend on it's benvolent spending programs.
Maybe in my search for home, I ought to consider the probablility of my chosen county / state to afford to keep me and the few businesses that still have a payroll.
Our neighboring county has shown the fallicy of expecting your elected leaders to 'adjust' their budget and services in a responsible manner. Politicians are not very good business strategists. We're in for a fall. (or a significant stumble).
My county is at 18 percent. But, looking at the interactive map, it appears this is only for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, social security, etc. Yet, the county I am in depends very heavily on government money as we have a large Air Force base ( I don't know their budget), and a national lab with an annual budget of about $2.4 billion. I can only guess at the total tab.
The article linked to the map is interesting. It makes me wonder how many people are receiving government benefits and don't even recognize them as such.
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.
.
