• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cause or effect?

techs

techs

Lifer
When you except such states as Alaska or Texas which have huge natural resource industries most of the "donor" states which have high income and pour money into the "recipient' states have high taxes and high services.
Is there a correlation between high taxes/high services and higher income? Clearly there is.
But are the high taxes/services the reason those states have high income and are donor states? And is it the reason low tax/low services have low incomes and are recipient states?
 
Why is it that all your threads lately seem to be asking very self-validating questions? Believe what you want, but trying to show conservatives how wrong they are about everything (and how "correct" you are) is getting tiresome.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Why is it that all your threads lately seem to be asking very self-validating questions? Believe what you want, but trying to show conservatives how wrong they are about everything (and how "correct" you are) is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...

And conservatives failure to even attempt to justify their failed ideology is startling.
 
Originally posted by: techs
When you except such states as Alaska or Texas which have huge natural resource industries most of the "donor" states which have high income and pour money into the "recipient' states have high taxes and high services.
Is there a correlation between high taxes/high services and higher income? Clearly there is.
But are the high taxes/services the reason those states have high income and are donor states? And is it the reason low tax/low services have low incomes and are recipient states?
Click to expand...

By your logic, we should raise the Federal tax rate to 90%+ and then everyone would be rich.

Unfortunately, your simplistic question misses by a mile a multitude of other factors including transportation, energy, resource, population and on and on that all affect the economic activity of any particular area.

If I had a choice between a job in NYC and Texas where the pay, benefits etc were all the same, I would choose texas because it is lower tax, lower cost of living.
 
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: glenn1
Why is it that all your threads lately seem to be asking very self-validating questions? Believe what you want, but trying to show conservatives how wrong they are about everything (and how "correct" you are) is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...

And conservatives failure to even attempt to justify their failed ideology is startling.
Click to expand...

Because your generalization is bullshit. For every liberal "success story," there's a counter-example of somewhere with liberal governance that's a dump like Detroit. There's also lots of examples that disprove your point - Austin, TX is a thriving "liberal" city inside a very conservative state; most of upstate New York cities are dying despite being inside a liberal state, etc. Apart from a few cherry-picked examples, there seems to be very little correlation between governance style and success.

 
Sigh. techs, your threads are getting tired and repetitive. We get it, you think socialism, higher taxes and bigger government is a wonderful thing and will lead us all into prosperity. Wonderful. You don't need a new thread every 5 minutes to convince us all.

It shouldn't be that hard to realize that unless you can create an environment to control for all other variables, you can't make meaningful conclusions about one specific variable. Hey look, states that start with the letter "T" are doing very well and don't have budget deficits! We should go rename all the states to start with the letter "T"! :roll:
 
One can cherry pick all you want.

Which state is better off.
MI - High income/services/taxes
MS - Low income/services/taxes

With high income becomes expectation of high services which require high taxes.
Low income generates the need for self sufficience.
 
Originally posted by: techs
Is there a correlation between high taxes/high services and higher income? Clearly there is.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. Those taxes are passed directly onto the consumer, and so they NEED those higher incomes to keep their head above water. I imagine we'd call that inflation.
 
Cause or effect. Is techs stupid because he bumped his head too much, or did he bump his head because he's stupid?
 
Originally posted by: techs
When you except such states as Alaska or Texas which have huge natural resource industries most of the "donor" states which have high income and pour money into the "recipient' states have high taxes and high services.
Is there a correlation between high taxes/high services and higher income? Clearly there is.
But are the high taxes/services the reason those states have high income and are donor states? And is it the reason low tax/low services have low incomes and are recipient states?
Click to expand...

When California balances its budget then I'll listen to your argument.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: techs
Is there a correlation between high taxes/high services and higher income? Clearly there is.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. Those taxes are passed directly onto the consumer, and so they NEED those higher incomes to keep their head above water. I imagine we'd call that inflation.
Click to expand...

Bada Bing!
 
Ok, you guys are going to think I am nerdy as hell but this is a tech forum...so I don't care.

Using the tax rate from each state see tax foundation numbers...
Complete a regression analysis and the fit of this correlation is poor. R square value of 0.18 which is a very poor fit, meaning it's not proportional or related.

However, I did the same analysis with average income and IQ and it produced an R square value of 0.39 which makes much more sense.
It's more likely that income is driven by education and/or intelligence, not by the level of taxation.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: techs
Is there a correlation between high taxes/high services and higher income? Clearly there is.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. Those taxes are passed directly onto the consumer, and so they NEED those higher incomes to keep their head above water. I imagine we'd call that inflation.
Click to expand...

That's not a very good argument, by that logic everyone most definitely SHOULD have high taxes/high services. Making a lot of money and living in an expensive area is way better than making a little and living in a cheap one because lots of goods have a fixed price.
 
So the poor people in these high income states should be paid a higher minimum wage. However, rich people tend to be even stingier.
 
I think Stunts idea of Education being a key is correct. As I've said many times, to many peoples shock/horror, Social Complexity brings about the Need for increased Governance. The more Educated Centers allows more Complex Industry to develope and that type of Industry requires Economies of Scale, not just for a Customer base, but for the actual Manufacturing Base. Along with all that, Population and unique Needs, new and unique Infrastructure needs to be developed to support that Industry. Which leads to Higher Taxes in many(most?) situations.

Other places can avoid higher Taxes and have High Incomes if that place has many High Value Natural Resources. Government gains Income directly from the sale of the Natural Resource and does not need to raise Taxes near as much as those who rely on Manufacturing/High Tech for their Economies.
 
Since a .39 value is still weak and it's based on data sets such as IQ and average income, nothing can or should be concluded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top