New York and California Suck For Taxpayers, and For Freedom

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/18/new-york-and-california-suck-for-taxpaye

New York and California are the worst and second worst states in terms of tax burden, in what is less than shocking news from the financial website, WalletHub. The ranking tallies annual state and local taxes, and puts the Golden State and the Empire State at the bottom of the heap, with Wyoming and Alaska at the top as the two least burdensome states for taxpapers in a listing that also includes the District of Columbia (number 37, if you're curious).

In and of itself, the ranking is helpful—but it's also helpful to cross-reference the tax ranking with separate rankings of economic liberty and overall freedom to see how they correlate. The result is a handy guide to places to live—or avoid like the plague.

For its tax rankings, WalletHub compared: real estate tax, state income tax, local income tax, vehicle property tax, vehicle sales tax, sales and use tax, fuel tax, alcohol tax, food tax, and telecom tax.

The five top-ranked states (least burdensome) are:

1. Wyoming: $2,365
2. Alaska: $2,791
3. Nevada: $3,370
4. Florida: $3,648
5. South Dakota: $3,766

The five at the bottom are:

47. Illinois: $9,006
48. Connecticut: $9,099
49. Nebraska: $9,450
50. California: $9,509
51. New York: $9,718

Adjusting for cost of living has some effect—Illinois rises to 38, and Nebraska to 37—but those are the biggest adjustments at the top and bottom, while D.C. and Hawaii plummet in the rankings. But those are the biggest shifts.

(interactive chart at website)

What's interesting, though, is how the WalletHub rankings compare to the Mercatus Center's state-by-state ratings of personal and economic freedom. Mercatus scores each state on over 200 issues encompassing fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and personal freedom. These include tax burden, property rights, marijuana laws, gun restrictions, government spending, occupational licensing, marriage freedom, and many more concerns.

Obviously, the final results of such rankings depend to some extent on how you weight each issue, and there's a lot of subjectivity inherent in such comparisons. But using Mercatus's overall score, the top five states for freedom are:

1. North Dakota
2. South Dakota
3. Tenessee
4. New Hampshire
5. Oklahoma

And the bottom of the barrel are:

46. Rhode Island
47. Hawaii
48. New Jersey
49. California
50. New York

As with the WalletHub rankings, you can hover your pointer over each state for scores.

My takeaway, for what it's worth: Stay the hell out of New York and California.

 

It's easy to be for freedom while mooching off other states. Keep your own taxes low while others pay for your expenses, works out pretty well for republicans.

 

This has been stated by parrots like yourself many times here, and been refuted by the Gelman Paradox each time. Go read it and foam at the mouth at it's findings...

 

Please explain how the Gelman Paradox explains this.

Three Kentucky counties — Owsley, McCreary and Wolfe — are the only places that rely on government programs such as Social Security, food stamps and Medicaid for more than half of income.

The results of the 2012 presidential elections by county, per AP:

Owsley: Mitt Romney 83%; Barack Obama 17.9%
McCreary: Mitt Romney 80.0%; Barack Obama 18.7%
Wolfe: Mitt Romney 60.3%; Barack Obama 38.1%

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/three-counties-in-kentucky-151076.html




"Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...cked-by-republicans-with-voters-on-rolls.html

 

The Gelman Paradox doesn't disprove every possible situation where there are counties of republican voters that get more benefits than they pay in taxes. Of course there are. It just addresses (and disproves) the overall ASSumption that so-called "red states" get more in benefits than "blue states".

 

So no rebuttal then, thought so.

Your made up theory addresses nothing other than dismissing the evidence, it's another version of 'skewed polls that you guys indulge in.

Any data you don't like is simply skewed and the Romney landslide is about to happen.

 

Gee did it ever occur to you that the people in these places wanted a job, as opposed to living on food stamps?

If you take a look at these counties id imagine most of them were in the coal mining industry, jobs that odogshit, eliminated.

 

The rebuttal was there, even if you don't accept it as such. I didn't make up the Gelman Paradox. You should so some reading. Remember, though. If you put your hands over your ears and scream " la la la la la" really loudly, the truth doesn't vanish.

 

Nothing occurs to him that isn't in his emailed "talking points" from whatever democrat strategy group he belongs to. Let's not forget, his job is in public relations. Spamming a one track mind is what he does.

 

You didn't provide any rebuttal for my specific points or to my general points, you IGNORED my points altogether.