What is the difference between them? Not much, apparently.

As mentioned on another thread, I saw this article about the correlation of States that voted Republican in 2008 and States that receive more than $1 of Federal spending for every $1 of Federal taxes raised there: http://www.good.is/post/the-anti-tax-st ... -on-taxes/

A fuller picture on the study on the States is available here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

The maps show a very noticeable correlation between net tax contribution and political position. Only one of the states that is a net contributor of taxes supported McCain in the 2008 election (Texas, which has in the past also been a net recipient too). Several states that were net beneficiaries voted Obama (Hawaii, New Mexico, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Vermont, Maine, RI*, Penn, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina), although some of those were states that swing and may well be in the Red column come 2012. But the vast majority of states that voted for the Dem candidate are net contributors. It seems likely that this pattern will be repeated next year, with a similar number of exceptions, albeit not the same ones.

So, why is it that states that pay more tax than they receive are more likely to vote for the ‘tax and spend’ party, and those that receive more than they pay are more likely to vote for the ‘cut spending, cut taxes’ party? Would it not appear that they are voting against their own economic interests (despite the usual assumption that people vote for their interests and as such corrupt the political system through things like dependency)?

It may be that both sets of voters are totally aware of the situation and are selflessly and generously voting in the interests of the others instead of their own.

But perhaps it’s actually that people don’t really know what the true picture is, assume that it is the opposite and believe themselves to be voting in their interests when they are not. Kind of a false-consciousness thing. As Mencken wrote, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”.

What do you guys think?

*Rhode Island actually just about breaks even, so perhaps should not be listed

That's pretty interesting. Scanning through the data, it appears even more highly correlated so that battleground states like Indiana and Ohio are right around 1.00, on the boundary.

As far as insight, as to why this is, I have no idea, but it's still pretty cool.

Greetings from the Jersey shore.

My best guess is that coastal states (Atlantic and Pacific) tend to be wealthier, and also tend to be more socially liberal than the heartland. Wealthier states tend to pay more in taxes because of our graduated income tax system.

Ray Jay,

So why does it appear that their social liberalism trumps their financial interests? And the reverse in the other states?

danivon wrote:Ray Jay,

So why does it appear that their social liberalism trumps their financial interests? And the reverse in the other states?

I can only speculate because it is complicated and I haven't seen or done a statistical analysis.

There is certainly a subset of the population that is more concerned about who I am (we are) as opposed to how much i have. I spent the weekend with 3 of them. ;)

There is also a lot of confirmation bias at work. If you were liberal in college, or your parents were liberal, it takes a long time to lose that.

ray

There's a lot of confirmation bias at work

On both sides?

ray

If you were liberal in college, or your parents were liberal, it takes a long time to lose that.

If you have trained your mind to work rationally, it should continue to work rationally weighing evidence one gains from living a life of discourse and experience. And as discourse and evidence expose you to a different set of circumstrances, one's views are shaped and may change.
On the other hand, if one is rarely exposed to critical thinking, and the concept that opinions matter equally no matter the weight of the evidence provided... then there's little hope for change...
A liberal education (I use the term in its origninal sense) opens the mind, doesn't close it.

And I say that at a time when most of the serious candidates for the republican nomination deny the science of evolution.
(While I'm reasonably certain, never having really studied the matter.)

Ricky: ray

There's a lot of confirmation bias at work


On both sides?

Yes; on all sides, actually.

Ricky: On the other hand, if one is rarely exposed to critical thinking, and the concept that opinions matter equally no matter the weight of the evidence provided... then there's little hope for change...
A liberal education (I use the term in its origninal sense) opens the mind, doesn't close it.

And I say that at a time when most of the serious candidates for the republican nomination deny the science of evolution.
(While I'm reasonably certain, never having really studied the matter.)

Irony alert!

Just a thought,
Those states that you speak of while richer also have a lot more poor people. For every richer person they have many more poor people as well. The rich tend to be Conservative/ Republican while the poor tend to be Liberal/Democrat. So in places like New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit you have greater income disparity than in say Montana and Colorado and such. Yes, these States are wealthy and may generate more income than they collect but the numbers of poor vs rich is greater than in other states???

Irony alert!

In what sense? Are you suggesting that evolution is realistically open to debate Ray?
If there's any scientific theory that is essential settled science its evolution. Without what we've learned from the field of biology about species adapting and evolving, much of our modern medicine wouldn't exist... Evolutuion and the adaptation of speices are basic building blocks upoon which much of science is built.

Or in the sense that maybe I haven't given Governor Perry the benefit of the doubt and that he has indeed spent a great deal of time in biology classes retaining the concepts important to the evolution of the species? (If he has, whats been written about his academic career sure missed it...)

Tom, Most places will have more poor people than rich people. So in most states as far as I can see, it's likely that the votes of the poor will outweigh the votes of the rich. Of course where you draw the line between the two (and how much you consider the 'middle' class) may differ and that may lead to different conclusions.

I don't know much about income distribution per US state. I can see that the 10 poorest US states (based on 'GDP' per capita) are, in order of the poorest:

Mississippi, Idaho, West Virginia, South Carolina, New Mexico, Alabama, Arkansas, Montana, Kentucky and Michigan. Of those, only New Mexico and Michigan went blue in 2008.

The states with the highest poverty rates are:
Mississippi (20.1%) Louisiana (18.3%) New Mexico (17.9%) Alabama (16.7%) Texas (16.2%) Arkansas (15.9%) Oklahoma (15.6%) West Virginia (15.4%) Arizona (15.2%) and Tennessee (15.0%).

Again, all bar New Mexico went red in 2008. I should note that DC had a higher poverty rate than any state, but I'm not sure if DC is not a pretty unique case.

You are right that New York and California have higher than average poverty rates, but soms of the states where other cities you list are based have lower poverty than the US average: Pennsylvania, Massechussets, Illinois and even Michigan.

Also on wikipedia, theres a list of states by the number (and rate) of billionaires. The top ten by proportion are:

Montana, New York, Connecticut, Nevada, California, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Texas and Illinois

Three of those (Mo, Ok, Tx) went red, the rest blue. Mind you, with only 399 billionaires, I'm not sure that there is really a decent enough statistical sample to use. Maybe millionaires would be better.

The correlation between poverty rates and voting, and between GDP/capita and voting is not quite as great as it seems to be for net tax/spend.

So now we come to income distribution. This is measured (in some quarters) by the Gini Coefficient. The lower the coefficient, the more equal a place is. The most equal states are:
Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Montana and Wisconsin. 5 Republican, 5 Democrat

The least equal states are:
Massachusetts, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Connecticut and New York. Again, 5 Republican and 5 Democrat.

I think that Income Distribution can be clearly eliminated.

(edits to tidy up links and fix some punctuation)

rickyp wrote:

Irony alert!

In what sense?

I'd have thought it was blindingly obvious, ricky. You talk about other people not having open minds, but you also declare to have made up your mind on something while telling us you haven't read up on it.

You may be right, but not because you have rationally considered the evidence. More likely you have decided to agree with the consensus of people who have, but that is one step removed.

Danivon, thanks on both posts... on the first you saved me some time ... on the 2nd I appreciate the reality check.

danivon

You may be right, but not because you have rationally considered the evidence. More likely you have decided to agree with the consensus of people who have, but that is one step removed.

Considered the evidence?
Without the opportunity to personnally interview Governor Perry, I'm restricted to whats available in the public domain about his academic record and his studies. Whats there is somewhat damning. However I have stated that I'm open to the possibility that the public record isn't complete, but absent a quite extraordinary revelation about the Governers past ?... are you aware of anything that contradicts my "reasonable certainty" that he, or others professing non-belief in evolution, have a proficient background education in the matter, or are you parsing the most infintesimal of hairs ?

What else is in evidence Danivon? The profile of the average "creationist" is consistent. The are almost all fundamental in their religious followings...
Fact is, by saying "reasonably certain" I allowed a smidgen of doubt...
And really, sometimes the consensus is right isn't it?
If we wandered into a jungle village and discovered a tribe that was firm in their belief that the world was flat, we wouldn't treat that belief as a valid scientific position. Just because they hold a belief, doesn't mean it deserves respect. Its the same with evolution.

Ricky, please.

Ricky:

And I say that at a time when most of the serious candidates for the republican nomination deny the science of evolution.

How are you defining serious candidate, and which ones of those have denied the science of evolution? Maybe you are right that the majority have denied evolution. But instead of assuming, why don't you prove it?