cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: I'm perplexed???

  I believe that it includes total federal dollars spent, and that would skew the ranking because a dollar spent is a dollar spent, whereas 1 million people paying in versus 5 million people paying in affects the ratio.

  But, whether or not the state is financially stable has absolutely nothing to do with the revenue that they get from the federal government.

  If you notice, the states that have little or no state taxes get a huge influx of money directly, or indirectly through SS payments which the lack of state taxation is why they moved there.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: I'm perplexed???

cotman....If you continue to modify and add qualifications to the premise of your original post at the same speed and trajectory of these last couple of entries you are going to find yourself sitting to the left of don and tom by early afternoon.

 

But **bleep** Cheney is more or less form Texas...and Bush was too...both transplanted....but seeped (washed in the blood?) in the oil and extraction business and V.P. Cheney said publicly and early on in the Bush adminitration the "deficits don't matter"......so maybe it's just a "Texas thing".

 

We've got a state constituional thing going on here. Every biennium the state budget must be balanced

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: I'm perplexed???

Right, I guess that was my point.  If you have one military person employed per 10 people in Montana while having one per 50 in New York, obviously the cost per person is significantly higher in Montana.  This is what skews the numbers.  The states in the biggest fiscal pickle are ranked towards the bottom rather than being ranked towards the top.  According to Forbes, the five states in the worst financial shape are:  Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California, and New Jersey.  According to the payouts by state, their ranks repsectively are:  #45, #42, #48, #43, and #50.  According to Forbes, the three states in the best financial shape are:  Utah, Nebraska, and Texas.  According to payouts by state, their ranks respectively are:  #29, #25, and #35.  

Forbes' metrics for each state included unfunded pension liabilities, changes in tax revenue, credit ratings, debt as a percentage of Gross State Product, debt per capita, growth expectations for employment and the state economy, net migrations and a "moocher ratio" that compares government employees, pension burdens and Medicaid enrollees to private-sector employment.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: I'm perplexed???

  I can only speak about Illinois' budget, where something was mandated and not funded, or that the funding was switched to another item. We had the "rainy day fund" which to me meant a savings account or slush fund. Government taxation does not, or should not anyway, work that way, because budgets are drawn up and increases are accounted for and matched to the applicable tax revenue, not keeping money aside for whatever things arise. But, the budgets are very complicated and if you read the CAFR you will often times find excessive funding in what I call the stop sign(a couple of hundred thousand or millions to replace stop signs whose lifespan is very long) items. Politicians will park or stash money into various areas in the budget to be easily accessed when they need it, and sometimes they will choose a tax increase to protect and preserve that stash to be used at some point in the future, usually around election time.  

  But, there are many states that can afford to lessen the tax burden for their residents in many forms, just because someone(the federal government) else foots the bill for most if not all of their big spending items, or can give away money and various breaks to political supporters.