Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    19,405
    Quote Originally Posted by DutchBird View Post
    Or Texas ranked in the 30's... considering they are floating on oil...
    That's because Texas doesn't have state taxes and a higher overall state spending budget. It's not measuring merely what's paid in and what's returned back.

    For some reason, this study includes at high weight a metric that divides federal taxes returned by the overall state budget, rather than merely taxes returned divided by taxes paid in. This is how it measures something it calls "dependence". So, a hypothetical state paying in $10 and getting back $9 and having a state spending budget of $15 is more 'dependent' on the federal funds than would be a state paying in $10 and getting back $11 and having a state spending budget of $30. State B will appear to be the least dependent even though it gets the $1 forfeited by State A.

    States with high state tax levels will appear better than those with lower state tax rates, sometimes even if the high state-tax states get back more than they put in.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington
    Posts
    27,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustus View Post
    That's because Texas doesn't have state taxes and a higher overall state spending budget. It's not measuring merely what's paid in and what's returned back.

    For some reason, this study includes at high weight a metric that divides federal taxes returned by the overall state budget, rather than merely taxes returned divided by taxes paid in. This is how it measures something it calls "dependence". So, a hypothetical state paying in $10 and getting back $9 and having a state spending budget of $15 is more 'dependent' on the federal funds than would be a state paying in $10 and getting back $11 and having a state spending budget of $30. State B will appear to be the least dependent even though it gets the $1 forfeited by State A.

    States with high state tax levels will appear better than those with lower state tax rates, sometimes even if the high state-tax states get back more than they put in.
    It's almost like there was an agenda or pre-determined outcome here...

    Naw, that can't be it.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Stephens City, VA
    Posts
    25,304
    Quote Originally Posted by seahawksfan837 View Post

    And like I said, states with higher populations and job opportunities are going to have.. You guessed it... More taxable income. It's not exactly breaking news that states like Mississippi and Alabama don't exactly have cities with booming economies, thus less tax money going out.

    .
    But correct me if I'm wrong... Less people should require less funding from the federal government as well, shouldn't it? That goes both ways. Its a "Per capita" thang...
    "Yeah, everything that guy just said is Bullsh!t..... Thank you.." -Vincent LaGuardia Gambini-

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington
    Posts
    27,996
    Quote Originally Posted by ForWhoForWhat? View Post
    I really think you'd be surprised at the large percentage (dare i say majority of ?) poor white voters that favor the GOP. I read an article on ti a few years ago. I dont have the link or feel like looking it up so you can disregard if you wish.
    Understood. They exist, not denying that.

    In general, voters vote overwhelming Democrat under $30K and in the last election, the percentage for voters voting for Romney didn't become the majority until $75K. So overall, the lower the income level, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. Which is all I was saying.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington
    Posts
    27,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Payton34 View Post
    But correct me if I'm wrong... Less people should require less funding from the federal government as well, shouldn't it? That goes both ways. Its a "Per capita" thang...
    Only if you're looking at it in terms of entitlements. Resources and natural disasters play a huge part.

    When we had this yearly thread a couple years back, Alaska was the "worst". They were also coming off a year with a lot of federal aid for resources and disasters. Now they're middle of the pack.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    29,349
    Quote Originally Posted by seahawksfan837 View Post
    If someone is voting Republican and is in favor of smaller government, they probably aren't receiving entitlements. That would be opposite of their best interests. It's been proven time and time again that most people vote with their wallet. If they are in need of assistance, they're generally voting in that direction.

    Now, in terms of resources and such, I agree. Those are needed and many reasonable Republicans/conservatives acknowledge that government is necessary for some services. That's the difference between advocating for smaller government and no government.
    That's not what voting with your wallet means, but if it were, it's not accurate.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington
    Posts
    27,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulu Bak View Post
    That's not what voting with your wallet means, but if it were, it's not accurate.
    People vote in ways that benefit them financially. Better?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington
    Posts
    27,996
    Quote Originally Posted by seahawksfan837 View Post
    Understood. They exist, not denying that.

    In general, voters vote overwhelming Democrat under $30K and in the last election, the percentage for voters voting for Romney didn't become the majority until $75K. So overall, the lower the income level, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. Which is all I was saying.
    Oops. Forgot the link.

    http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...0vs%20Vote.png

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    29,349
    Quote Originally Posted by seahawksfan837 View Post
    People vote in ways that benefit them financially. Better?
    It would be better if you started that sentence with "sometimes."

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington
    Posts
    27,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulu Bak View Post
    It would be better if you started that sentence with "sometimes."
    I already said I'm speaking in general.
    When we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, there's never going to be an absolute, across the board example of anything. But the voting trends reflect what I was saying.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    29,349
    Quote Originally Posted by seahawksfan837 View Post
    I already said I'm speaking in general.
    When we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, there's never going to be an absolute, across the board example of anything. But the voting trends reflect what I was saying.
    Of course there isn't going to be an absolute, but I don't think income level is as indicative of voting behavior as you seem to think. You posted the chart of voters of Obama vs Romney by income, which shows a clear correlation (in a single election, mind you), however, that doesn't control for any other variables. I suspect if you look at how poor people vote in say, Mississippi (almost always the poorest state in the country), it would look a lot different than how poor people vote in New York.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington
    Posts
    27,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulu Bak View Post
    Of course there isn't going to be an absolute, but I don't think income level is as indicative of voting behavior as you seem to think. You posted the chart of voters of Obama vs Romney by income, which shows a clear correlation (in a single election, mind you), however, that doesn't control for any other variables. I suspect if you look at how poor people vote in say, Mississippi (almost always the poorest state in the country), it would look a lot different than how poor people vote in New York.
    I'm sure it does look different. I'm also fairly sure that people making < $30K are still voting Democrat more often than Republican, even if it's not as dramatic as the overall data point.

    And that election was an example, but all recent elections have followed the same trend.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.