Sunday, February 12, 2006

You don't wanna pay taxes farmboy? OK

so I stumbled into this post about how GW did well in states with lower tax burdens.
I replied that its more interesting that the states that pay the least taxes seem more interested in lower and lower taxes. however, the states that end up financing, say, farm subsidies and paying the most for, say, any kind of federal aid those 'I know how to best spend my money' states tend to vote liberal.
I wonder.
If we got rid of taxes, lowered them to miniscule levels, who would hurt more?
California and/or massachusetts?
Can you say 'farm state'?
it'll be interesting to see if the conservative blog (actually, it might not be right-wing...but it has that feel to it) above actually posts my commment (they are moderated)


Antoine Clarke said...

Thanks for the comment on my blog moleboy.

Sorry about the delay in responding. You can see my comment here.

In brief, the chart shows local taxes, not federal taxes. So the high levels in Massachusetts are nothing to do with farm subsidies or federal pork barrel schemes, but the local willingness of people to support politicians who spend more of their money than those of say, neighbouring New Hampshire. For the record both states have Democratic Party Governors.

On the subject of "Conservative", I guess if a political party is as incompetent as the Democrats have been since 1972 (winning two presidential elections with a majority of the popular vote and only one, back in 1976, with a majority of both the vote and the electoral college, compared with five proper Republican wins and one technical win (2000)), then a blog that looks at elections from a non partisan view is bound to seem biased towards the winners.

I can only assure you that if the Democrats win the next four presidential elections, that I will dissect the Republican Party's failings and praise the Democrats skill. Right now, I think the Democrats are talking up their chances beyond reality. I could be wrong, we'll see.

moleboy said...

thanks for taking the time to respond.
My apologies for
1) misreading the chart (ugh)
2) jumping the gun on assessing your site.
That sort of thing happens when my caffine levels get too low.

I think the Dems are definately talking up their chances IF the continue to refuse to put up strong candidates. I don't think Kerry would have made a bad president, but he really refused to fight, didn't appear strong, had more of a "don't hit me" attitude.
Really, with his long government service, and his time in Viet Nam, he should have crushed Bush on 'masculinity', but he refused to be tough.
ah well.
If they put up someone who isn't afraid, I think they've got a very good chance.