A similarly self-serving wackiness arose around the same time, that, presumably due to their larger populations (as unaethstetically if not bizarrely illustrated above), the 19 Blue States pay Washington more money than they get back, so they'd be better off seceding from Bush Country.
True, as far as it goes.
But let's take a closer look.
Kerry made the election close only by carrying by nearly 20 percentage points the 23% of the electorate that makes less than $30,000 a year. They pay little or no income tax, and many of them receive federal subsidies like WIC or the Earned Income Credit.
Now, Bush and Kerry split the votes of the $30-50,000 income voters, but Bush carried every other income group above $50,000 (who represent 55% of all voters) by 10 percentage points or more.
And as we all know by now, or should, the top 50% of wage-earners pay over 96% of all federal income taxes.
So let's bury once and for all this canard that the highly evolved Blue States subsidize bucolic and backward Jesusland. More accurately, it's the productive, taxpaying Red Staters both inside and outside the Blue States who largely foot the bill for all.
10 comments:
I find it pretty darn enlightening. Tom is slicing the salami in a pretty relevant way. If you look at federal income taxes, which are the dominant way of funding everything but payroll entitlements, then the rich (those making over $50,000 -- you know, rich) are getting screwed by constantly being the target of more and appropriation of resources by the Democrats. The $50,000 plus club is paying 96% of the primary resource pool for about 50% of the say in how it gets spent.
Yes, but Kerry also got 90 percent of the genius professors who were smart enough to figure out that the world just happened by itself; mustn't forget about them.
That only stands to reason that the majority of the wage earners would vote for Bush who is promising further tax cuts over someone who wants to raise taxes. People who don't pay taxes don't care how high they are.
On the other hand, Kerry was promising all the hand outs to the lower wage earners and not the "rich" so it would make sense that they would vote for him.
Depends on which way the campaign promises are directed.
Kerry carried the lazy dumbasses.
After I cleaned the coffee off of my keyboard, I came to this:
I would bet you there are quite a few hard working people making under $50,000 a year who would be really offended that you called them "lazy dumbasses".
While I cannot speak for buzz, I would guess that not all lazy dumbasses voted for Kerry, just most of them.
The irony in all of this is that Red-Staters have been criticized for voting against their self-interest (‘What’s the Matter with Kansas?’) - yet they still receive more than their ‘fair’ share. How cool is that?
I suppose we could remedy the situation by reducing the involvement of the federal government and let the states manage the redistribution themselves – because that would be (more) fair. Anybody want to sign up for that program?
"The irony in all of this is that Red-Staters have been criticized for voting against their self-interest (‘What’s the Matter with Kansas?’) - yet they still receive more than their ‘fair’ share. How cool is that?"
Really? show me, and even if you can, the wealth obviously isn't spread evenly. Another point the book makes quite clearly.
Lets compare your exit poll based analysis to the past, when labor unions were more far more affluent, and voted Democratic. The thesis of Democrats: Tax Parasites would easily fall apart. You wouldn't have to look too far back in history.
I hate to make this case but, It's the democratic spending which is far far far more egalitarian than the republican spending. Whom do you think the massive energy bill going to help more? The democratic programs only provide a social safety net for everyone, unless you're rich already, when not everyone can be. I'm kidding, lets have a regressive tax system where the poor can subsidise the rich.
I wasn't going to comment on this post but the generalizations are just out of control--so let me have some fun.. I'm sure there were plenty of lazy dumbasses in trailer parks down south who voted for Bush. Gee they must put in such long hours down there in Kentucky and Tennessee stewing up Meth and selling it to little kiddies!
By george, I'm sure there are some very hard working, super-successful, ultra-rich liberals too..I mean at some point you have to realize that playing the game just isn't that much fun when you have so much damn money. It kind of loses its luster after a while, ya know. While most of the truly super rich go liberal, you've the next tier down, the rich but "I want to be super rich but the government won't let me (but really i'm not smart enough/don't work hard enough)" clan that goes Republican. You know, the average wealthy American suburbanite. I mean, hey, if you can't do it on your own just blame the government to save your ego.
I think the basic problem lies in the notion that it is the government's JOB to somehow Solomonically decide how wealth will be distributed.
The result is a system where lots of businesses and industry groups go around paying extortion via lobbyists to avoid being put out of production by government regulators.
Really? show me, and even if you can, the wealth obviously isn't spread evenly. Another point the book makes quite clearly.
I think you missed the point here, Devang. On a previous post, James responded to a poster who said that Red-Staters shouldn't have to pay for liberal pet projects by saying that the Red Staters can't complain because they get back more money than they give. I'm pretty sure this is true. So here you have a state voting for a party that is (purportedly) in favor of limiting government spending receiving more than they contribute. I just think that's funny.
I just received a post from Tom and thought that I would outline my view of "What's wrong with Kansas". It definitely ties in with Tom's original blog post.
I will start out by saying that I did not waste my time or money on the book "What's wrong with Kansas" but I have read summaries and kinda gotten the basics of the book.
Mr. Frank apparently grew up in suburban Kansas City (where I currently reside) apparently on the Kansas side. This area is quite affluent amazingly because government offered tax cuts to allow businesses to flourish. Now, those same businesses apparently are evil (at least in the eyes of Mr. Frank and the Democrats).
Basically Mr. Frank's opinion is that "What's wrong with Kansas" is that we are fairly conservative and continue to vote Republican in elections. Amazingly, Johnson County Kansas (which is suburban KC) is one of the richest counties per capita in the U.S. Oops, I just explained it ... We must have gotten most of the tax cut!
Post a Comment