Tom @ Bizzyblog has a good post on state and local tax burdens.
Above is a graph of each state's tax burden.
Questions
Look at the top ten states v. the bottom ten states and tell me
Which group of states are growing and which are declining?
Which group is run primarily by "progressives" and which are run by conservatives?
See a correlation? Is it possible that the tax burdens are why these state are declining in the first place?
I'm still waiting on the "progressive" out there who can explain to me how "progressive" governance is sooooo much better than conservative governance.
Give me a city, state, school district, SPCA, or anything else run by democrats, and I'll show you a falling down dump.
5 comments:
Unfortunately, there's a heavy RINO content in the top 10 (OH, CT, NY - Taft, Rell, Pataki). Then there's Arnold's California at 13.
Also, the chart didn't attempt to deal with how states are dealing with rainy day funds (building them or raiding them).
But your point stands, esp when you see that the two big heroes are Jeb Bush's FL and Rick Perry's TX.
My point isn't necessarily party since it's not safe to assume republicans govern as conservatives and democrats as liberals.
But the increase in budgets is a liberal phenomenon that states cannot continue to engage in unless they want to be deserted in the future.
There is one single point regarding governance that I wish Americans could learn, just one: Increased tax RATES do not guarantee increased tax REVENUE.
When a government runs short of cash, it's almost like clockwork for them to vote rate rate hikes to cover the shortfall, particularly if the government run by the donkeys. The private sector is viewed like a massive ATM machine by politicians.
Never does it cross anyone's mind that there are negative variables in the private sector set in motion by higher taxes...such as reduced investment, reduced work product, and (as illustrated by the chart) movement of taxable income away from the burden.
And for all those "progressives" who think anti-tax people are that way because they are greedy selfish capitalists, think again. The capitalists, the entreprenuers of society if you will, end up being just fine. They are society's self-starters and find a way to feed their children under any circumstance.
It's those at just above the poverty line and those in the working class that need the support of a strong economy to avoid "falling through the cracks". Those are the ones who really get nailed by taxes.
Yes, the negative toll that taxes take on the poor do so indirectly. And that seems to make the concept too complicated for all those super genious ivy league liberals that become the great social engineers of our day.
And unfortunately, our media simply does not have the intellectual capacity (or will) to calculate the true cost of a tax increase. Even just a 1% tax increase does cost jobs, and it does cost prosperity.
If journalists once again started reporting something called The Truth, you would start seeing headlines like "Tax Increase Responsible for Layoffs" and "Politicians Put Family of Four on Street".
If the public could be taught this basic truth instead of the daily dose of intellectual twinkies, based on class war, that the media shovels at us, you might start to see the right kind of public "activism" resulting in appropriate public oversight of government funds. This is the only way to get true social justice for those (who liberals claim) need it most.
Amen to that!!!
Great comment thanks
I believe I could prove that the rich never pay taxes, they just pass on their additional costs to the people who ultimately can't pass it on.
All you need to do is watch the flight of wealth out of the northern states to illustrate the point.
Post a Comment