Per capita Income by State

[Andy]

red states also cry about how much they give the the feds,,,,and then they take back more then they give...but that never bothers them

Irrelevant. Having the federal government tax from the people, and give back to political supporters, is not a good trade off. Oh gee... they taxed away 1/3 of my paycheck, and gave back a few million for Ethanol, so I can pay higher prices for gas.... I LOVE YOU GOVERNMENT!

That's not freedom. That's not what our country was built on.

 

[Andy]

Then Conservatives prefer to be poorer and live in a state with low taxes than to be be more affluent and live in a state with high taxes? And they prefer policies that make this state of affairs take place? You're kidding me, right?

Again, you confuse cause and effect. Living in a state that has high taxes, or is more affluent, does not cause one to be more wealthy. In fact, the reverse is often true.

Look at the LA ghettos for example. They live in a largely wealthy and high tax state, yet they are all broke. Routinely, California's unemployment rate is far about the US average, often by 2 points. Even now, the CA rate is 11.2% while the US average is 9%.

Moreover, people who leave high tax states, often find themselves making tons more money than before. I had a manager who came from California to Ohio, and found that even though his pay was the same, he paid less for fuel, less for electricity, less for property, less for food, and much less taxes. He told me it was like getting a 25% raise, just for leaving the state.

Here's the real answer. Government loves to tax stuff. The more a state rises in prosperity, the more liberal taxation policies will be attracted to it.

 

[GenSeneca]

smarter population ( thus better workers) and not a back water hick state like so many red states.

What's that smell? Oh, its elitism.... and you're full of it.

red states also cry about how much they give the the feds,,,,and then they take back more then they give...but that never bothers them

For an elitist, your spelling, punctuation and grammar all suck.

----------------------------------------

But there is a fatal flaw (well two) in the whole thought process at the beginning of this.

Another fatal flaw these wizards of smart overlooked was the cost of living in the heavily populated blue states vs. the more rural red states.

Texas Cost Of Living Statistics

Apartments-$715 per month - Utilities- $105 per month
Electricity - 9.21 cents KWH - Gas Prices - $2.60 per gallon
State Sales Tax: 6.25% - 8.25% (depending on local taxes)
Gasoline Tax- .20 cents per gallon
Diesel Fuel Tax - .20 cents per gallon
Cigarette Tax - $1.41 per pack of 20
Income Taxes - None

Texas Cost Of Living Ranked Number 1 overall

---------------------------------------------

California Cost of Living Statistics

Utilities - $29.38 for garbage $23.50 for water and $25.10 for sewer.
Energy - 22.1 cents kilo-watts per hour.
Gasoline - $4.20 per gallon.
Housing Wage - $22.86 per hour
This is the hourly wage a person must earn working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year to be able to afford mortgage and utilities in the private housing market
Sales Tax - At 8.25%, California has the highest state sales tax, which can total up to 10.25% with local sales tax included.

California Cost of Living Ranked 49th

California taxes were not listed, so here it is:

The tax table below will show in detail the California state income tax rates by income tax bracket(s). There are 6 income tax brackets for California.
If your income range is between $0 and $6,146, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 1%.
If your income range is between $6,147 and $14,570, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 2%.
If your income range is between $14,571 and $22,996, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4%.
If your income range is between $22,997 and $31,924, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6%.
If your income range is between $31,925 and $40,345, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 8%.
If your income range is $40,346 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 9.3%.

According to the housing wage, a Californian has to make nearly $23 an hour, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, just to pay for housing. That's $47,548.80 at a minimum. Any Californian who makes enough to live in California, is also taxed at the highest rate of nearly 10% of their income per year.... yet the state itself is deeply in debt and getting deeper every year.

And the PWNAGE continues....

Top 10 States With The Lowest Cost of Living
1. Oklahoma
2.Texas
3.Tennessee
4.Texas
5.Nebraska
6.South Dakota
7.Missouri
8.Kansas
9.Georgia
10.Mississippi

Top 10 States With The Highest Cost of Living
1.Hawaii
2.California
3.Washington D.C
4.New Jersey
5.Alaska
6.Maryland
7.New York
8.Rhode Island
9.Connecticut
10.Vermont

Notice any trends in those two lists? Its almost like its a list of red states vs. a list of blue states....

Thus it stands to reason that Blue states would have higher paid workers, the cost of living in their state demands it... It has nothing to do with better workers, smarter people or any of that elitist bilge... It's taxation stupid.

Sorry Pocket...

 

[samsara15]

What's that smell? Oh, its elitism.... and you're full of it.

For an elitist, your spelling, punctuation and grammar all suck.

----------------------------------------


Another fatal flaw these wizards of smart overlooked was the cost of living in the heavily populated blue states vs. the more rural red states.



California taxes were not listed, so here it is:



According to the housing wage, a Californian has to make nearly $23 an hour, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, just to pay for housing. That's $47,548.80 at a minimum. Any Californian who makes enough to live in California, is also taxed at the highest rate of nearly 10% of their income per year.... yet the state itself is deeply in debt and getting deeper every year.

And the PWNAGE continues....

Top 10 States With The Lowest Cost of Living
1. Oklahoma
2.Texas
3.Tennessee
4.Texas
5.Nebraska
6.South Dakota
7.Missouri
8.Kansas
9.Georgia
10.Mississippi

Top 10 States With The Highest Cost of Living
1.Hawaii
2.California
3.Washington D.C
4.New Jersey
5.Alaska
6.Maryland
7.New York
8.Rhode Island
9.Connecticut
10.Vermont

Notice any trends in those two lists? Its almost like its a list of red states vs. a list of blue states....

Thus it stands to reason that Blue states would have higher paid workers, the cost of living in their state demands it... It has nothing to do with better workers, smarter people or any of that elitist bilge... It's taxation stupid.

Sorry Pocket...

The snip at pocket's spelling is a mere taunt, not worthy of evaluation.

The elitism claim doesn't pass muster, when coming from people who support unfettered capitalism, and who resist any and all attempts to reduce inequities in income and overall wealth.

The cost of living statistics that you cite, however, do make a reasonable counter-argument. As does the argument that the higher cost of living compels higher pay scales in liberal areas. It is also undeniably true that comparable housing is more expensive in urban areas. Nonetheless, I think it is safe to say that the overall standard of living tends to be higher in liberal areas.

I do not have any statistics readily available, but I would also guess that similar charts could be found for rural versus urban areas, rural areas being notably more Conservative than urban areas. However, we are increasingly becoming a more urban nation.

 

[GenSeneca]

The snip at pocket's spelling is a mere taunt, not worthy of evaluation.

I merely replied to Pocket's taunt... He was trying to claim intellectual superiority over us red state hicks and hayseeds.

The elitism claim doesn't pass muster, when coming from people who support unfettered capitalism,

I'm a person, not people. Everything you "know" about Capitalism you "learned" from people who hate Capitalism and were offering an alternative. Its no surprise you distrust what you don't understand.

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite—a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

Elitism isn't about the things you own, its about how you treat others.

and who resist any and all attempts to reduce inequities in income and overall wealth.

Income inequality is a good thing. I'm glad doctors are paid more than the janitors who mop the floors at hospitals.

He that attempts to reduce overall wealth is a theif, or he fancies himself a slave master, or he is both and running for political office.

Nonetheless, I think it is safe to say that the overall standard of living tends to be higher in liberal areas.

Wrong again.
As pointed out, rural areas tend to be more red while urban more blue. Rural areas offer greater living space per dollar, lower costs of living, lower death rates and crime rates, public education is far superior in rural areas, and the list goes on...

 

[Dr.Who]

The elitism claim doesn't pass muster, when coming from people who support unfettered capitalism, and who resist any and all attempts to reduce inequities in income and overall wealth.

No one is proposing unfettered capitalism. Everyone agrees that the role of government is to make laws to stop people from harming each other; a fetter.

And of course we will resist attempts to reduce inequities of income and wealth when it is done by the government. (we have no objection at all to all those rich people in either blue or red states voluntarily giving of their largess) Maybe if any of you can offer any good reason that government should attempt to address inequities of income and wealth we would follow you. But until you have shown that those with greater income or wealth have done anything unjust then it is right that they are treated exactly the same by law as everyone else. If you can show that they have done something wrong then throw their sorry asses in jail. Don't just tax them more while handing them sweetheart deals behind closed doors to make up for it.

The cost of living statistics that you cite, however, do make a reasonable counter-argument. As does the argument that the higher cost of living compels higher pay scales in liberal areas. It is also undeniably true that comparable housing is more expensive in urban areas. Nonetheless, I think it is safe to say that the overall standard of living tends to be higher in liberal areas.

Unless you are poor. Then the burden of a higher cost of living hits one harder and the benefits of a higher standard of living helps one least.

 

[samsara15]

median income by state, which removes the bias that an average has:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income07/statemhi2.xls

Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii, Alaska near the top, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisana near the bottom. Utah higher, NY lower. Overall, not that much different from the average.

 

[BigRob]

median income by state, which removes the bias that an average has:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income07/statemhi2.xls

Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii, Alaska near the top, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisana near the bottom. Utah higher, NY lower. Overall, not that much different from the average.

I grew up in Louisiana, and I will just point this out. People will claim it is a "red" state, however for a long time we had a D governor, we still have a D state legislature, many places have D mayor's etc.

I wonder how much of this "poorness" really comes from the massive amounts of folks who won't work and are living on the welfare rolls. These people are typically democrats by the way. Just look at the New Orleans for example. A democratic hotbed that is a disaster of a city.

 

[samsara15]

Is your assertion then, that blue states and red states are merely single election myths, created by the media, and that in reality, most states are mixed? In that case, what, if anything, do these statistics demonstrate, and why does what they appear to indicate bear such an eerie resemblance to what are usually termed blue and red states?

 

[BigRob]

Is your assertion then, that blue states and red states are merely single election myths, created by the media, and that in reality, most states are mixed? In that case, what, if anything, do these statistics demonstrate, and why does what they appear to indicate bear such an eerie resemblance to what are usually termed blue and red states?

I would say that classifying a state as a "red state" does not do it justice since often the local politics in that state are doing to the opposite party of much more mixed.

I also think that Gen's point about the cost of living is important too. If I live was living in Louisiana making say 30,000 a year I would be doing OK. If I was living in California or New York making 30,000 a year I would be dirt poor. I think simply looking at the base number with no other qualifying factors accounted for give us really no insight into anything.

So the numbers you posted, if they do not account for this discrepancy, I think are mostly useless when trying to come up with conclusions.

 

[samsara15]

I would say that classifying a state as a "red state" does not do it justice since often the local politics in that state are doing to the opposite party of much more mixed.

I also think that Gen's point about the cost of living is important too. If I live was living in Louisiana making say 30,000 a year I would be doing OK. If I was living in California or New York making 30,000 a year I would be dirt poor. I think simply looking at the base number with no other qualifying factors accounted for give us really no insight into anything.

So the numbers you posted, if they do not account for this discrepancy, I think are mostly useless when trying to come up with conclusions.

By the same token, New York and many other states have Republicans in office, although they may not be the flavor of Republicans that satisffy many of the people who post here, since the Republicans that can get elected in most blue states are moderate, or they would not be electable. However, to me it is quite clear that liberal poliicies work best in those areas, which is why elected officials of both parties in thses states are more liberal than they are in other areas. Urban areas have different needs from Conservative areas.

Transportation is a very urgent problem in large cities, where traffic is heavy and driving is no fun, to say the least. Like it or not, we are becoming an urban nation.

 

[Andy]

By the same token, New York and many other states have Republicans in office, although they may not be the flavor of Republicans that satisffy many of the people who post here, since the Republicans that can get elected in most blue states are moderate, or they would not be electable. However, to me it is quite clear that liberal poliicies work best in those areas, which is why elected officials of both parties in thses states are more liberal than they are in other areas. Urban areas have different needs from Conservative areas.

Transportation is a very urgent problem in large cities, where traffic is heavy and driving is no fun, to say the least. Like it or not, we are becoming an urban nation.

Which liberal policies work best? Name one?

I think you mistake being elected, as having successful policies. A person can get elected on completely BS. That doesn't mean their policies work. At least not in the sense that they had a positive effect. They might work to get the person elected, but that doesn't mean they worked.

A perfect example would be Nixon. In 1973, Nixon instituted price controls throughout the economy in order to "protect the consumers from profiteering". The public overwhelmingly loved it, and he won a land slide victory for his second term. However, the policy of price controls caused product shortages throughout, and the economy suffered greatly because of it. The policy was an economic failure, and a political success.

Another example would be rent control. In such places as San Francisco, the rent control laws routinely get politicians elected to office because they are "saving renters from landlords". Yet the effects of those policies is shortages in rentals, driving up the cost of other locations, and a higher level of homelessness, while a lower level of available housing. It's constantly a political success, and an economic failure.

 

[samsara15]

Nixon? A liberal? Gimme a break, before I die in shock. Nixon was acting like the authoritarian he was when he instituted price controls.

That's as much BS as the ludicrous claim that sainted RWReagan 'won' the Cold War.

The places with higher incomes are the places with jobs, which people flock to get to. When income rises, the cost of living rises. Historical example: Greece, after the Persian Wars. Gold and Silver flowed into Greece, and the cost of living rose rapidly.

Building roads, and effective and timely public transportation, are two things urgently needed in urban areas. Any politician of any stripe, R or D, who supports those helps urban America function better.

 

[samsara15]

Economic conditions for working Americans have been deteriorating ever since Johnson, with the exception of the Clinton era, whom you Cons rejected because of his 'morals'. You even rejected your own guy, Bush II, because his economic policies failed so badly. Will your policies only work in conditions in which you have 102% control of everything? If so, then your policies are just pie in the sky theory, and are unworkable, because no one ever has nor every will have, total and complete control. Even the Emperors in the days of Rome could not totally control their economy. A policy has be viaable, even if you allow a lot of slack, otherwise it is unworkable theory made for an ideal world that does not and never will exist.

 

[BigRob]

By the same token, New York and many other states have Republicans in office, although they may not be the flavor of Republicans that satisffy many of the people who post here, since the Republicans that can get elected in most blue states are moderate, or they would not be electable. However, to me it is quite clear that liberal poliicies work best in those areas, which is why elected officials of both parties in thses states are more liberal than they are in other areas. Urban areas have different needs from Conservative areas.

Transportation is a very urgent problem in large cities, where traffic is heavy and driving is no fun, to say the least. Like it or not, we are becoming an urban nation.

I would say the best measure is PPP and not per capita income. Same thing goes when comparing the economies of foreign nations as well. I would be interested to see those measurements.