This. One sees the same relationship on a national level looking at party control of the government and every economic indicator you can think of.
And #1 on that list illustrates my point: The District of Columbia.
Is the wealth in that city the result of the majority poor and black voters electing liberals to the city council and passing progressive policies? Or is the result of already wealthy people moving to Georgetown to gain more wealth?
Rich people go to urban centers to make more money or enjoy the luxuries that urban centers offer. Those urban centers also have high concentrations of reliable Democratic voters.
There is simply no cause/effect of left wing policies in those areas and the larger concentrations of wealth.
Greatly aided by their being net takers of US federal dollars. How would they be doing if they weren’t being subsidized by the states with progressive policies?
Just how do #s 2 through 5 support your model? People are moving to the big urban population centers in … Delaware, Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming and Connecticut?
Or did you cherry pick item #1 and conveniently ignore the rest?
Alternatively, perhaps that metric is not helpful because it is influenced by low population?
Here’s an interesting breakdown of red vs blue voting patterns by county instead of state. What it tends to show is that blue tends to congregate around urban areas and red in more rural. Higher levels of wealth, education, employment and economic opportunity and greater cultural diversity also tend to congregate in urban areas as well. Probably because that’s where all the people are.
No, that’s not true.
The Pro-Life Movement tends to dominated by the Middle Class and Middle Class whites attend Church at much higher rates than do poor whites.
I know that a lot of people like to believe that poor whites are all stupid idiots who vote Republican because that helps them feel morally superior but it’s complete bullshit.
Most poor whites either vote Democratic or they don’t vote.
Again, that’s simply claptrap.
Middle Class and lower middle class is not the same as poor.
Poor white people generally vote democratic or they don’t vote.
If you think I’m wrong then provide evidence.
Incidentally, anyone interested in this ought to read Andrew Gelman’s Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State.
He’s a political scientist and statistician who rips apart most of our myths regarding this subject.
The short answer as to why richer states tend to be “blue” while poorer states tend to be “red” is that while poor people everywhere vote Democratic, that’s not the same for rich people and that rich and upper middle class people in Connecticut are more likely to vote Democratic than rich and upper middle class people in Mississippi.
I think this issue is murky. High tax States recieve subsidies in the form of deductible taxes from the Federal Government. This mainly benefits richer individuals in richer States. Without this deductible tax then its difficult to say what effect progressive policies would have on highly taxed individuals. Would highly taxed individuals continue to live in high tax States? Would they continue to vote for such policies?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/state-local/fiscal/deduction.cfm
Although taxpayers in all states claim the deduction, the benefits are concentrated in relatively few states: those with a disproportionate share of high-income households and relatively high state and local taxes. In 2005, taxpayers in California and New York together made up 20 percent of those claiming the deduction and accounted for 30 percent of its value. Itemizers in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California (listed in descending order of the average deduction) claimed on average over $12,000 per household (see figure), well above the national average deduction of $8,764 per household.
This doesn’t make any sense. Taxpayers in every state take this deduction. This makes the issue murky only in an illusory manner.
According to this Guardian article:
" In 2008 McCain won a slim majority (51%) of white Americans who earn less than $50,000 (this is just below the national median income which is not poor but the only figure available from exit polls that breaks down votes down by race and income), while Obama won a whopping majority of non-whites in the same category (86%). Asked in May which candidate would do more to advance their family’s economic interests middle-class white voters who say they are struggling to maintain their financial positions gave Romney a 26 point lead over Obama."
The article does concede that “73% of those who earned less than $15,000, 60% of those who earned between $15,000 and $30,000, and 55% of those who earned between $30,000 and $50,000 voted for Obama”, across all races.
I also found this government entitlement map interesting. Particularly some of the biggest recipients of government entitlements are Red states and counties.
Further on fuzzy_wuzzy’s point: If being able to deduct federal taxes, which residents of CA, NY, and CT benefit from, this would have the effect of REDUCING federal receipts from these states. That would reduce their position as net givers of federal dollars. Your murky point acts to the detriment of blue states in this argument.
The fact that taxpayers in every state can make this deduction is not the point. The point is as the article states: “benefits are concentrated in relatively few states: those with a disproportionate share of high-income households and relatively high state and local taxes”.
These high income individuals/states therfore recieve Federal money transfers. If some States benefit then some other States consequently suffer. With this particular tax it is not New York and California doing the subsidizing; it is the Federal Government.
I would say the main consequence(or at least one of them) are the subsidies given to high tax States. Individuals are therefore cushioned from the direct cost of high tax and spend State policies. This artificially warps the political and economic climate of each State. If individuals had to pay the consequences of high taxes they may not in fact vote for them. Or, they may move to a State with lower taxes. Without this subsidy Californians struggling to pay high taxes in California may decide to stop struggling and move State. It is therefore benefiting California, Californians and Progressive policies unfairly imo. It is to the detriment of competing States.
Given all of the above, do my fellow Dopers see any hope for America?
In realistic, practical terms?
This is nearly a word salad.
From the standpoint of net giver/net taker states, if a state is raising more in state taxes, they will be taking less from the federal government. The federal government will be taking less in revenue, as taxpayers will be deducting their fed taxes.
It is in no way a subsidy to the state.
Im not sure why a State raising more in taxes means it will require less Federal money. Plenty of low/mid level tax States are doing well enough. Not all States require high revenues to deliver adequate public services. Why not put it to the test? Stop this tax rebate. We shall see soon enough what the economic, political and demographic consequences would be. It wouldnt be a net loss to Govt revenue as a whole, it will simply result in less State revenue; more Federal revenue. Yet, I suspect this policy wont change soon. The policy benefits certain groups too much.
If this is not a subsidy why on earth is this tax deduction policy in place? It must be in place for some sort of economic or political reason. I assume it was not invented out of thin air.
I’m not sure your, “Rich people go to…,” causality is well thought out. Making money is usually a prerequisite to spending money, but accumulating wealth is not the same as producing it.
I would say that regions with living wage laws or strong unions tend to have higher levels of both spending and saving, because the masses have more income to spend. So, both richer, and more contribution to GDP. It’s practically tautological.
Other issues like “social justice” may be beside the point.
This theory requires one to believe that the war’s devastation was so powerful that it reached backwards through time to depress prewar slave-state economies.