Failing Economic Liberalism In America

[Shady]

Blue States have been bleeding tax-payers at the benefit of Red States.

NET DOMESTIC MIGRATION, 1998-2007

Connecticut -113,892

Pennsylvania -148,979

Massachusetts -335,391

Louisiana -390,998

Ohio -397,899

Michigan -419,961

New Jersey -468,024

Illinois -735,768

California -1,438,480

New York -1,936,127

Florida +1,579,704

Arizona +817,169

Texas +736,903

Georgia +679,420

North Carolina +646,284

Nevada +481,534

South Carolina +295,074

Tennessee +278,698

Colorado +248,322

Washington +206,168

Link

Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts

Link

In closing, all one needs to do is consider the following. Over the last several years, as taxes in California have continued to rise, over 15,000 millionaires have moved out of the state, shrinking California's tax base greatly. And in New York, 40,000 people currently pay 50% of they city's operating budget. Which means, they're precariously close to disaster, if they happen to drive out their tax base, the way California has devastated theirs.

So go ahead "progressives", soak the rich. But when they dry off, don't be suprised when they're gone.

[WIP]

Blue States have been bleeding tax-payers at the benefit of Red States.

And a large reason for the bleeding is because somehow those Red States freeload off of the Federal Government, spending less in taxes than what they receive in Federal dollars and services. Maybe they could raise their taxes so that they wouldn't take so much from the Federal Treasury, and act like such a drain on the Blue States which PAY MORE in taxes than they receive from the Federal Government:

True Blue Americans

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: Tuesday, May 7, 2002

Remember how hard New York's elected representatives had to fight to get $20 billion in aid for the stricken city -- aid that had already been promised? Well, recently Congress agreed to give farmers $180 billion in subsidies over the next decade. By the way, the population of New York City is about twice as large as America's total farm population............

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/opinion/...-americans.html

September 27, 2004

Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

Monday, September 27, 2004

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill. The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough:

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)

2. North Dakota ($2.03)

3. New Mexico ($1.89)

4. Mississippi ($1.84)

5. Alaska ($1.82)

6. West Virginia ($1.74)

7. Montana ($1.64)

8. Alabama ($1.61)

9. South Dakota ($1.59)

10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough:

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)

2. Connecticut ($0.64)

3. New Hampshire ($0.68)

4. Nevada ($0.73)

5. Illinois ($0.77)

6. Minnesota ($0.77)

7. Colorado ($0.79)

8. Massachusetts ($0.79)

9. California ($0.81)

10. New York ($0.81)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/20...tates_feed.html

So go ahead "progressives", soak the rich. But when they dry off, don't be suprised when they're gone.

Sounds like a good idea since the top 1% have benefited the most during the so called economic growth of the Bush Years:

August 26, 2004

Weak 2003 labor market leads to lower incomes and higher poverty

The inflation-adjusted income of the nation's median household fell slightly in 2003, from $43,381 to $43,318 (though the decline was statistically insignificant), according to today's report from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Since 2000, the median household income has declined consistently in real terms, down $971, $502, and $63 in 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively, for a cumulative loss of $1,535—a 3.4% drop—over these years.

Because the largest income declines occurred among the lowest income families, the share of the nation living in poverty increased, from 12.1% in 2002 to 12.5% last year, adding 1.3 million persons to the poverty rolls. Since 2000, poverty is up 1.2 percentage points, an addition of 4.3 million poor persons.

The share of the population with health insurance also declined last year, with 45 million persons—15.6% of the population—going without coverage in 2003, compared to 15.2% in 2002. This increase in the uninsured was largely due to less employer-provided coverage, another indication of deteriorating job quality in 2003.

Today's release of the 2003 household income and poverty data provides the first look at the recent impact of the unbalanced recovery on the living standards of various family types and income groups. In general, the report confirms that the weak labor market that prevailed throughout last year continued to take its toll on family incomes, as it did in both the recessionary year of 2001 and the jobless recovery year in 2002. For example, while the decline in median household income was not statistically significant for all households, income fell significantly—by 0.9%, or $473—for those households headed by someone younger than 65, suggesting that working families were more likely to lose ground than retirees.

Reflecting the unbalanced growth in incomes shown above, the income gap between high (the 95th percentile) and low (20th percentile) household incomes grew in 2003, as it has in every year since the end of the 1990s recovery in 2000. The ratio of high to low incomes, for instance, rose from 8.37 in 2002 to 8.57 in 2003. In contrast, in 2000, high- income households at the 95th percentile received 8.1 times the incomes of low-income households.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webf...income20040826/

The whole fantasy of Supply Side Economics perpetrated by monied interests is that if we cut capital gains taxes and personal income taxes on the wealthiest, then they will run out and spend their money and invest in expanding their businesses and creating more jobs......but the reality is that money doesn't trickle down to lower income groups.

[Shady]

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

Your numbers are skewed, because they don't reflect that fact that many Red States house military bases, so of course they receive extra federal dollars.

Sounds like a good idea since the top 1% have benefited the most during the so called economic growth of the Bush Years:

The top 1% pay a higher percentage of all taxes to the Federal Government now, then before Bush took office. But more importantly, you don't seem to learn the lesson. When the rich are gone, who will you then soak to attain your socialist utopia?