I'm disappointed, Sam. Surely even you can understand that when talking about job growth, the starting point (baseline unemployment) is at least somewhat relevant. All else being equal, would you rather have 10% unemployment with a job growth rate that, if sustained, will help cut that in half in two years, or 5% unemployment with job growth that only keeps up with growth in the working population? The fact that Kansas, despite its terrible job growth, still ranks ahead of NY and CA in unemployment is a direct contradiction to your implication that Space Ghost's comparison of the three states was entirely one-sided against Kansas. Your insult in the above post was also less than inspired.
That would be important as well. Unfortunately, I couldn't look that up as quickly and easily as I was able to find the UE numbers from the BLS. I was just trying to show that Space Ghost's comparison of Kansas to NY and CA might not be as crazy as Mr. Scarface made it seem.
AND now we have this to look forward to in texas..... http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new.../article/Patrick-pledges-tax-cuts-5995633.php
You're comparing two states that have around 50 million people to Kansas _ which actually makes Kansas look worst IMO... I think there will always be employment issues when you have so many people flocking to one spot. I like to look at federal spending on a state compared to federal taxes received from that state (meaning do they get more from the government than what they put in)... And guess were Cali and NY are ranked in that department...??? Kansas seems to be well on it's way to being a 'Welfare Queen' state like several of the other red states in this country who are begging for money.
16 of the 20 worst states in this country are republican dominated or conservative... That's what you call low information voters and or people of the majority who'd rather starve than see minorities get anything.
The only area of Kansas that people go to is Johnson County, which is the affluent suburban county for Kansas City and is the shining star for the State of Kansas. They put all of their eggs into that basket. They use tax dollars to poach companies from the Missouri side to move to Johnson County, Kansas while cutting funding to education (though Johnson County school districts will be the last one touched). Not only has the state hurt themselves, they are also hurting the entire Kansas City area by poaching companies from the Missouri side and acting like a giant leach to Kansas City. It's KCMO vs the State of Kansas basically. The Kansas City area is a pretty interesting economics study.
Many folks who support supply side wish to believe they can magically get something for nothing. The very rich count on this type of silly thinking to reduce their taxes much much more than the small taxes for the fooled. This whole scam is one of the principle causes of inequality and decreased social mobility. An example is little guys making $60 grand or less who drink the kool aid get a couple of hundred buck tax cut at best and then have to borrow tens of thousands for college due to the massive tax breaks to the very rich.. Meanwhile the folks who pay Laffer to spread this nonsense have tax breaks in the millions to hundreds of million dollar range.
Most of the conservative voter have no idea what supply side economic is. They support the GOP based on social issues. GOP is great at getting the poor white folks to vote against their self interests, this play book will not change until about 2050.
Agreed. Many a poor boy and girl has voted against their economic interest on guns god gays mar1juana and of course the biggies race and ethnicity. You do have the social liberal conservatives i.e the simple market fundies who have bought the simplistic econ theories the Koch bros and and the Laffer clones spread.
Income tax is more distortionary than consumption taxes such as the value-added tax and sales tax. This is not "simplistic econ theory", but sound, fundamental econ theory. Making income tax less progress and relying more on value-added tax as a source of government revenue should be a good policy. But of course doing so increases the tax burden on the poor. The solution to this problem should be to increase subsidy to the poor in other ways, such as free public education and healthcare. These measures are less distortionary than progressive income tax
You have to differentiate between "treatment effects" and "self-selection". Are poor states poor because of republican economic policy or because they are poor, they are more likely to vote republican (based on social values)? Certainly within-America, the more prosperous states have better welfare and larger governments, but across countries, the U.S. is the conservative one in comparison with European and other OECD countries, with lower taxes and poor welfare. But the U.S. is the one with the most vibrant economy.
This is sad, even for the low standards of economic analysis on this forum. Funny watching the liberal echo chamber. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=27773 Here is data I found for state government spending as a share of gross state product in fiscal 2015, for the Great Plains states (north to south): North Dakota: 16.6% South Dakota: 13.9% Nebraska: 17.7% Kansas: 18.3% Oklahoma: 16.9% Texas: 15.2% Notice that Kansas is the big spender, even after Brownback. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/07/why_no_kansas_m.html The past two years Kansas reduced its state income tax rates. As a result, the top rate of income tax faced by Kansas residents (combined state and federal) rose from 41.45% in 2012 to 48.3% in 2013 and then fell a tad to 48.2% in 2014 (if they don't itemize.) That's a pretty tiny drop in the top marginal tax rate in 2014, and a much bigger rise in 2013. So Kansas has high government spending and an income tax higher than in 2012. Sounds more like a liberal utopia to me. Btw, why not compare Texas to France?
so in spite of obama right now and its conservative state america still has a vibrant economy and he and his counterparts are still doing a crappy job. i got it... i think i understand everything now.
Hmmm... Read this again. Do you see any flaws in this apparently much-better analysis than the low standards of this forum?
Wait, I am not sure if what you are saying here has anything to do with what i said. If you think I am some right-wing supply-sider, you are completely wrong. I am a liberal and vote democratic. But it doesn't mean I necessarily support (very) progressive income tax as an efficient way of taxation or I want the U.S. to become France.
