Birth of a blog (let's visit taxes)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxingspendingupdate.html
I present this link as an initial talking point. It was inspired by Atrios who pointed out that there are real problems with redistributing federal tax dollars in the manner discussed below.
I posted the below information over at DailyKos but it was buried in comments which is not The Idea.
---
Think about it. Do you like the term "welfare queen?" I don't think anyone does. How do you think that the people of the US will react when it sees that the biggest welfare queen states are as of 2002, the last year for which the Tax Foundation seems to have had data to do such a report:
1. North Dakota ($2.03 returned on every dollar put in)
2. New Mexico ($1.89)
3. Mississippi ($1.84)
4. Alaska ($1.82)
5. West Virginia ($1.74)
6. Montana ($1.64)
7. Alabama ($1.61)
8. South Dakota ($1.59)
9. Arkansas ($1.53)
10. Hawaii ($1.52)
11. Virginia ($1.47)
...
41. California ($0.81)
...
45. Illinois ($0.77)
I included Virginia because a friend of mine moved there from California and likes to yammer about how California is a demonstration of how socialism fails and how great it is to be in Virginia. I have no grudge against Virginia, but maybe my friend would like to stop the socialist practice of taking money from California.
I included Illinois because it is where I grew up, and it appears that Illinois is getting the shaft.
DC, which is not a state, gets $6.17 back on every dollar it puts in. It is peculiar in a lot of ways. You could argue that it is a blue state, but it would be an extremely tiny blue state. I wonder how the numbers will change if the Expos move there.
You have to get to #10 before you find a real blue state. It's not even a large blue state. And this is according to the Tax Foundation, hardly a bastion of liberalism. In fact, if you look at their chart on this, you will find that, with the exception of Nevada (which has a pretty good revenue stream from gambling) and Colorado at #43, the states at the bottom of the list are all blue.
We have entered a battle of frames, as they are called by George Lakoff or contexts as they are called by Frank Luntz. The notion of State Welfare Queen is a way of framing what may or may not be a problem in a manner that I would think could attract a lot of attention.
I offer it up to the Democrats who, I hope, will start using it.
I present this link as an initial talking point. It was inspired by Atrios who pointed out that there are real problems with redistributing federal tax dollars in the manner discussed below.
I posted the below information over at DailyKos but it was buried in comments which is not The Idea.
---
Think about it. Do you like the term "welfare queen?" I don't think anyone does. How do you think that the people of the US will react when it sees that the biggest welfare queen states are as of 2002, the last year for which the Tax Foundation seems to have had data to do such a report:
1. North Dakota ($2.03 returned on every dollar put in)
2. New Mexico ($1.89)
3. Mississippi ($1.84)
4. Alaska ($1.82)
5. West Virginia ($1.74)
6. Montana ($1.64)
7. Alabama ($1.61)
8. South Dakota ($1.59)
9. Arkansas ($1.53)
10. Hawaii ($1.52)
11. Virginia ($1.47)
...
41. California ($0.81)
...
45. Illinois ($0.77)
I included Virginia because a friend of mine moved there from California and likes to yammer about how California is a demonstration of how socialism fails and how great it is to be in Virginia. I have no grudge against Virginia, but maybe my friend would like to stop the socialist practice of taking money from California.
I included Illinois because it is where I grew up, and it appears that Illinois is getting the shaft.
DC, which is not a state, gets $6.17 back on every dollar it puts in. It is peculiar in a lot of ways. You could argue that it is a blue state, but it would be an extremely tiny blue state. I wonder how the numbers will change if the Expos move there.
You have to get to #10 before you find a real blue state. It's not even a large blue state. And this is according to the Tax Foundation, hardly a bastion of liberalism. In fact, if you look at their chart on this, you will find that, with the exception of Nevada (which has a pretty good revenue stream from gambling) and Colorado at #43, the states at the bottom of the list are all blue.
We have entered a battle of frames, as they are called by George Lakoff or contexts as they are called by Frank Luntz. The notion of State Welfare Queen is a way of framing what may or may not be a problem in a manner that I would think could attract a lot of attention.
I offer it up to the Democrats who, I hope, will start using it.
posted by Josh Paley at 1:41 AM
1 Comments:
Of course, there are reasons for redistribution of money. Looking at California through a more reasonable lens, it is hard to imagine the agricultural base here without redirection of tax money.
What I *do* think is fair is to ask what programs the money is going towards and why. This is something that bores the press as it is rarely sensational enough to incur their interest.
My general point is that California is an incredibly productive state, capable of supporting far more than its own people at this point in time. Yet is is viewed through many a stereotypical lens, including, by some hypocrites, socialist. For a socialist state, it sure is productive.
(As a side note, when is the last time we have had a real debate about merits of socialism in selected settings?)
Post a Comment
<< Home