economic health of states
 

So recently, a group of CPA's got together and calculated each state's debt-per-citizen ratio. The total outstanding debt for each state, divided by the number of people living in that state.

New 2010 State of the States Report Comeback America Initiative

Six states currently have surpluses...Alaska, WY, ND, UT, NB, SD. Those are some conservative states.

The 10 states with the highest debt per citizen? RI, WV, MI, CA, MA, KY, IL, HI, NJ, CT. That bottom 10 is prety blue.

Of coursem, CT was the worst, with debt of $49,000 per person, $196,000 for a family of 4. And it's even more insane when you look at 2 things...CT has among the highest state tax rates in the nation, applied to the highest incomes in the nation (plus hundreds of millions from the casinos), so NO ONE can argue that the state has a shortage of tax dollars. Second, note that CT's debt is 35% higher than the second-worst state. That is not an exaggeration. If we eliminated 30% of our debt, we'd still have the highest debt in the nation. Unbelievable.

And what do we have to show for it? Are our cities thriving? Have we eliminated poverty and crime? Are people flocking to CT to raise families? Are the roads all paved with gold? Is our cost of living low?

And in November, the Democrats will get 98% of the vote.

Unless you are in a public labor union, why do people feel liberal econnomics is superior to conservative economics?

Can one of the liberals here tell me what I'm missing?

Jim: I don't have the time to research this right now, so this is going off gut instinct... what is the revenue of these states from either tax subsidies (i.e. farming in NE), or energy/mineral rights and perks (i.e. Alaska)

FYI, those numbers make RI look pretty 'good' by comparision!

According to fed. stats. doc. that I'm looking at, it seems like the maj. of the states listed above that have budget surplus' get more back in federal aid than they send to Washington. It also seems that states that consistantly vote liberal all give more to Washington then they get back. Is this the transfer of wealth we have all heard about? I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the amount of aid to their citizens in need? If so, it comes down to how the citizens of the state think they should be treating their citizens who are less fortunate than themselves.

I prev. found a doc. and attached it in another thread but it is from 2004 and couldn't find anything newer. It is called per capita tax burden and return of federal dollar. Maybe someone has the most recent ones. For some reason I can attach it b/c it said I attached it previously.

I'll still take living in Conn. over Ky. any day.

You're right, we need to take into account federal subsidies by state. I couldn't find that per capita. However, I'd thiink that liberals woulod support the notion that rich folks in CT help out the less fortunate in other places. So if those subsidies are a large contributor to CT's problem (and that's a very big 'if'), does that not still suggest that liberal economic policies (liek wealth re-distribution) place an anfair burden on those that foot the bill?

But you really need to consider the debt compared to state taxes. CT, for example, is always listed in the top 3 states for total tax levels, and that's before the massive tax hikes that went into effect last year. How you can collect that much revenue, and still have the highest debt, is beyond me.

The politicians that run our state (and in CT, the VAST majority have been liberal Democrats) have been no less reckless with our money than a 30 year-old NBA superstar who is bankrupt despite making $15c million a year. They have been every bit as irresponsible as that. And they keep getting re-elected.

I have never, not once, heard a CT politician claim that our debt is caused by the feds taking so much money from CT and giving it to other states. What is irrefutable fact is that the single biggest line-item in our budget i sthe unfunded liabilities for retirement and healthcare benefits to the public unionized workers. That is the biggest money pit. And that makes total sense, if you are honest enough to admit that those folks receive fantastic, ridiculously expensive benefits.

"I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the amount of aid to their citizens in need?"

That's pure, wild speculation, until you have data to suggest that CT's 'trade deficit' with the feds is a large contributor.

I, however, have data that specifically supports my argument that it's public employee benefits that are driving this, not the fact that CT federal tax dollars go elsewhere...read this link...

Report: Connecticut lags in tackling retirement benefit costs | The Connecticut Mirror

As of 2011, CT's unfunded liabilites for retirement and healthcare benefits to public employees was $42 billion.

Now read this...

List of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CT's population is 3.6 million.

So, if the 3.6 million CT residents each owe a debt to public unionized employees of $42 billion, that works out to $11,667 of union benefit debt per citizen. Since CT's total debt per citizen is $49,000, that means that 24% of the total debt is directly attributable to benefits for public unionized employees.

In other words, union perks have created debt of $11.667 for every CT citizen.

Are you suggesting that the average CT citizen loses that much in federal income tax to other states? Even if that's true, it doesn't matter, because CT's state taxes more than make up for that.

Look at this chart, which looks at CT's tax rates over time...

Connecticut's State and Local Tax Burden, 1977-2009 | Tax Foundation

In 2009, the latest year of the study, the average CT citizen paid $5,151 in state/local taxes. The countrywide average was $2,106 in other states. So, even though each CT citizen paid two and a half times more to the state than residents of other states, we have by far the largest debt per citizen. And again, that ignores the hundreds of millions the state got ffrom the casinos...

Is the debt solely because of public unions? Of course not. It's also because of stupid liberal projects like spending $550 million on a 9-mile busway from New Britain (a city that's a failed experiment in liberalism) to Hartford (another city that's a failed experiment in liberalism).

Dude, you got a lot of anger.

I think you're confusing the words 'anger' and 'facts'.

No, anger - you want a discussion and then throw things in your posts ("stupid liberal policies", etc.) that frankly are insulting. Why don't you think about that b/f you come back w/another snide response.

If a state that is bankrupt, thinks it's a wise decision to spend $550 million to build a 9 mile road connecting 2 towns that no one wants anything to do with, I'm pretty comfortable calling that "stupid". I'll be more careful in my wording, though, sorry..

So if you have any data suggesting that the state-level debt crisis is not driven by liberal economic theory (like giving unions a blank check), but rather the trade deficit some states have with other states, I would like to see it.

Here in CT, last I saw, we get back about 70 cents of every federal tax dollar we pay to the IRS. That does hurt my state. However, most of that deficit is made up by the fact that CT taxes its citizens more than most other states, plus we get huge $$ from the casinos.

In other words, CT does not suffer from a shortage of tax dollars flowing into Hartford - that's not the problem. No more than you can say Mike Tyson went bankrupt because he didn't make enough money to support himself. These liberal states, like Mike Tyson, are not suffering from a lack of revenue. They are suffering from the effects of reckless spending.

The problem is that even though CT had a fortune to work with, liberal programs require more than that. The same thing can be seen, by those who care to look, at what's happening in Europe. The Europeans are finding out, too late for their own good, that policies which punish worh ethic and reward sloth, are short-sighted and counterproductive. Those liberal programs do not work unless you have the proper ratio of people paying in and people collecting out...they especially do not work when you have massive numbers of Baby Boomers who are turning 65 (10,000 a day for the next 15+ years, that's a fact, 10,000 Boomers a day turn 65), yet will survive for another 25 years. That will be the straw that breaks the liberal camel's back.