What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Does it cost more to be a Democrat?

handy

handy

Member
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> I was looking at the 2010 Q4 Cost of Living rankings and I saw a certain pattern emerging. So, I added a little color to the list, according to the Red State/Blue State map of the 08’ election results.

Cost of Living Rankings by State
From Lowest to Highest

KY
TN
OK
AR
TX
NE
KS
MO
GA
MS
AL
ID
OH
IA
IN
WV
UT
MI
ND
IL
LA
NC
WI
VA
FL
SD
WY
SC
NM
MT
PA
NV
CO
MN
DE
AZ
WA
OR
ME
NH
MA
VT
RI
MD
NY
NJ
CT
CA
AK
HI

I think it would be obvious that Hawaii and Alaska are going to have higher c-o-l indexes than states in the lower 48 no matter what the politics of the state are.

So, if we take them out of the equation we have the top 10 states (states with the lowest cost of living index) Republican and the bottom 10 (states with the highest cost of living index) Democrat. The top 20 states are 75% "Republican" and the bottom 20 are 90% "Democrat".

Dividing the lower 48 in half, the top half is 66.6% Republican and the bottom half is 79% Democrat.


Not making any analytical claims here…just thought it was interesting.



 
I was amazed that Idaho was 12th. I find it very expensive to live here...and I came from California. But, we live way out here, it isn't as high if one lives down around Boise.
 
I think maybe its urbanization? Something about urbanization=higher cost of living and also=more liberals (and apparently more male homosexuality, according to what I've read..but that's a different topic entirely...).
 
Could it be that in liberal states, there are the costs associated the big government and many more social programs? That's what I thought when I saw this list. IMO, a conservative state is more likely to be of the mindset that people should do their share and be more self-sufficient. There are lower taxes and government spending. There's more money in the system, and that drives prices for goods and services down.

So, in short, my theory is that liberalism perpetuates a higher cost of living in general. Of course this isn't a rule, so there will be exceptions on either side. I guess it does cost more to be a liberal, but liberals made the bed. Liberals should lay down in it! :yes
 
Mike said:
Could it be that in liberal states, there are the costs associated the big government and many more social programs? That's what I thought when I saw this list. IMO, a conservative state is more likely to be of the mindset that people should do their share and be more self-sufficient. There are lower taxes and government spending. There's more money in the system, and that drives prices for goods and services down.

So, in short, my theory is that liberalism perpetuates a higher cost of living in general. Of course this isn't a rule, so there will be exceptions on either side. I guess it does cost more to be a liberal, but liberals made the bed. Liberals should lay down in it! :yes
Click to expand...

I think it's more likely urban centers driving the cost of living, not some social programs that libs are supporting. Unless you count the social programs that libs are providing for conservatives? It turns out that the "red" states which tout self-sufficiency tend to actually get more federal dollars than they give, while the urban centers, "blue" states, tend to give more federal dollars than they get.

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
edited to add: more recent data http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

So, maybe it's the cost of keeping the red states afloat that makes being in a blue state so expensive.
 
Upon reading further at that blog I cited, It may be that the culprit is that many wealthy people are concentrated in urban areas - thus buying and wanting more expensive stuff. Housing prices go up because they want that and will pay for it.
 
Christ_empowered said:
I think maybe its urbanization? Something about urbanization=higher cost of living and also=more liberals (and apparently more male homosexuality, according to what I've read..but that's a different topic entirely...).
Click to expand...
Possibly true. But it depends what kind of liberals you're talking about. If you're talking about the typical blue collar worker who perhaps would vote for a union party, then I'm not sure that fits your point.

However, there are the yuppie liberals, which I think is what you're getting at. You know the kind, in their 20's-30's , well educated with high disposable incomes. In this case, I agree that they would have higher costs of living. I think there is an increasing number of 'yuppie liberals'. This is a result and a push for gentrification.
 
handy said:
...but I thought all wealthy people were Republicans...:wink3
Click to expand...

I realize you were being funny, but after I appreciated your joke, I thought...
...and the wealthiest of them live in cities. Along with the semi-wealthy, who do include many more liberals - and they also live in cities. Along with the very poor, who tend to vote blue, they say, who also live in cities.

Then I made my own joke, trying to guess how many liberal "fortunes" it takes to equal one republican "fortune" and I quickly concluded that the liberals can still be concentrated enough to make the state vote "blue" while holding a few ultra-rich republicans who easily completely change the cost of living calculation. ;)
 
handy said:
<OBJECT id=ieooui classid=clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D></OBJECT><STYLE> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </STYLE>I was looking at the 2010 Q4 Cost of Living rankings and I saw a certain pattern emerging. So, I added a little color to the list, according to the Red State/Blue State map of the 08’ election results.

Cost of Living Rankings by State
From Lowest to Highest

KY
TN
OK
AR
TX
NE
KS
MO
GA
MS
AL
ID
OH
IA
IN
WV
UT
MI
ND
IL
LA
NC
WI
VA
FL
SD
WY
SC
NM
MT
PA
NV
CO
MN
DE
AZ
WA
OR
ME
NH
MA
VT
RI
MD
NY
NJ
CT
CA
AK
HI

I think it would be obvious that Hawaii and Alaska are going to have higher c-o-l indexes than states in the lower 48 no matter what the politics of the state are.

So, if we take them out of the equation we have the top 10 states (states with the lowest cost of living index) Republican and the bottom 10 (states with the highest cost of living index) Democrat. The top 20 states are 75% "Republican" and the bottom 20 are 90% "Democrat".

Dividing the lower 48 in half, the top half is 66.6% Republican and the bottom half is 79% Democrat.


Not making any analytical claims here…just thought it was interesting.
Click to expand...
Last time I looked Indiana was a red state. Our 2 senators and Governor are Republicans. Oh,I forgot they barely went for Mr. Obama. Since then the state has elected a lot more Republicans. I guess they wised up.
 
Ah, I can see it coming... the 'ol tax the rich and the repubs support their rich cronies idea.

"Tax the rich". Sounds great to me since I don't consider myself rich and I don't think many here do either.

Who are the rich? Just off the top, a knee-jerk reaction, I'd say they smoke cigars and drink martinis all day served by butlers and maids doing their every beck and call living on their wealth without a care in the world about the poor souls they shistered their money from.
Well, that's the format. Shallow thinking sold with catchy phrases and an imaginary enemy. A we/them mentality.

So who are the rich? More often than not their wealth is tied up in businesses or investments in businesses. Businesses aren't there to give people jobs or funnel money into a particular community. They're there to make a profit. When "the rich" are taxed it's taxes on the profits made by those businesses who are then compelled to raise the cost of their goods and services to remain in business. That extra cost is always passed to the consumer, you know, the "unrich", me and you. We foot the bill.
Do you have a 401K retirement plan? It'll be worth less as the companies/businesses you're retirement is tied into generates less profit due to "taxing the rich". They don't make money neither do you. You know, the guy/gal working 40 years looking forward to living off that 401K that is tied to those evil profits businesses make.
Businesses will do what they can to survive. If their products/services aren't in demand due to higher costs they'll layoff employees, downsize or move somewhere else where the cost of doing business isn't so high. A 401K retirement plan doesn't grow much when you're unemployed. And it might be good as diet plan but it's no good as a financial plan.

A tale of two cities

I worked in the steel industry some years ago but that all but collapsed in the mid 80's when many steel companies were forced to close their doors. One town decided to raise taxes to cover the loss of revenue while another opted to grant incentives, tax breaks and such to new businesses if they'd set up shop in their town. The one that raised taxes didn't last long, boarded-up store fronts and dogs roaming the streets. The other grew biting the bullet of less services and community programs until the new businesses became more established, the tax breaks expired and more people were drawn to their town working for those new businesses. That town is flourishing today due to the fact that the newer businesses aren't tied to the steel industry and the city government refused instant gratification in killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Businesses. Businesses that turned a profit. Businesses that made their investors/owners rich. Businesses that provided employment instead of handouts, businesses that gave their employees the opportunity to buy homes, buy cars, buy the luxuries afforded through a paycheck and put their children through college.

This is being played out on a much grander scale today when we compare California and Texas. California is successfully purging it's borders of those evil profit makers sponging off the backs of the poor folk through higher taxes to fund the needs of those who find themselves being weened from greed and the unfairness of it all.
Texas on the other hand is granting tax breaks and other means to lure businesses to their state and from what I see they're doing a good job of harboring those shisters who enslave the populace to a 40 hour work week.

One of them is doing the right thing.
 
Potluck said:
So who are the rich? More often than not their wealth is tied up in businesses or investments in businesses. Businesses aren't there to give people jobs or funnel money into a particular community. They're there to make a profit. When "the rich" are taxed it's taxes on the profits made by those businesses who are then compelled to raise the cost of their goods and services to remain in business. That extra cost is always passed to the consumer, you know, the "unrich", me and you. We foot the bill.
Do you have a 401K retirement plan? It'll be worth less as the companies/businesses you're retirement is tied into generates less profit due to "taxing the rich". They don't make money neither do you. You know, the guy/gal working 40 years looking forward to living off that 401K that is tied to those evil profits businesses make.
Businesses will do what they can to survive. If their products/services aren't in demand due to higher costs they'll layoff employees, downsize or move somewhere else where the cost of doing business isn't so high. A 401K retirement plan doesn't grow much when you're unemployed. And it might be good as diet plan but it's no good as a financial plan.
Click to expand...

Trickle down economics dosen't work anywhere. I mean It's obviously a bad idea to increase tax burdens on individuals struggling to make ends meet but the extremely wealthy aren't.

If that position is allowed to pervade, then it won't matter what the interest on pension investment is, because nobody will be entitled to one.

They aren't even taxed for the most part your news corporation actually got a TAX RETURN of 5 billion dollars. by claiming an onshore loss of 48billion dollars while also making record profits on the operation by their cayman islands branch.

The ultra-rich will dodge recession - MoneyWeek

You can see the distinction on the tax returns.

Ultra rich aren't suffering at all. They are the ones that caused this mess and they REFUSE to pay for it through any way shape or form.

US bankers set for record pay and bonuses for second year | Business | The Guardian

This is class warfare, The ultra rich vs everyone at the moment the middle class by targeting all the means that people use for becoming qualified and work themselves to transcend their class.

They don't want to call it that and would name me a Marxist for it. But I'm not because a Marxist would want to exacerbate this conflict to revolution. I'm not so naive if this position is continued to exist at the expense of the rest of society It can only end in riots with guillotines.
What do you owe them.
 
Pebbles said:
Ultra rich aren't suffering at all. They are the ones that caused this mess and they REFUSE to pay for it through any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

Sub-prime mortgages, toxic loans and the like caused this mess because banks were forced through discrimination laws by the government to accept loans from those with questionable ability to pay the loan. Obama was one such organizer working for Acorn that beat down the doors of banks to force them to make those loans. A couple years ago when this all began some execs at Moody's rating company were fired to quiet them about the deception Moody's was perpetrating to continue publishing good ratings for those mortgage holders and promoting the execs that played along.
Obama has been beating the drum lately about taxes on people with private jets when it was his stimulus package that gave them the tax break for those jets in the first place for more support of the bill.
Taxing the rich for more revenue is nothing more than political posturing anyway. That ploy will do little to nothing in curtailing the federal deficit. If he wants more revenue, revenue that will really make a difference then government must get out of the way of free enterprise with permanent tax cuts, less restrictions and regulations to stimulate competition for the cost of doing business.
Obama doesn't need more taxes. He needs more taxpayers. And you do that by allowing businesses to turn a profit without all the burdens placed on them by an overactive government.
Taxing the rich will get votes, not jobs. Period.
Yeah, a lot of people made a lot of money building up to the recession, payoffs and corruption in general lined their pockets but taxing even those particular people now is closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
The ultra-rich invest to pay less taxes anyway. It's good business sense to hire a tax lawyer for $100K to save a couple million in taxes. Raising the taxes on the rich does nothing except shifting the blame from Obama to someone else and in the process gain votes for 2012. Obama is serious about the economy only if he can use the crisis to his benefit to remain in office. And if it takes instilling a we/them agenda using class warfare he won't hesitate to do it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't mind indulging in this direction (sorry, Handy :wave) but first to echo my earlier post, I'll repeat my belief that in liberal states, they'll be more likely to pass liberal tax and spend bills, and create more and more life-long sustaining money pits that the tax payers will be responsible for. Less money in the hands of these highly taxed people will result in a higher cost of living.

As for who to tax and who not to, what is the problem with an even percentage of taxes according to their income? That seems the most fair policy to me. But over and over the left-wingers trot out their "tax the rich" campaign which increases wealth and status envy. I'm concerned with the division this will cause our country to slump to. A national feud between the haves and the have-nots.

Strip the wealth from the people who are in position to create jobs, and see what you get. You won't like it. :sad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top