Socialists believe, when you claim the above, it's all about putting more money in your own pocket. Because that's the way they think. What's in it for me? And they assume everybody else does. After all it's always lefties trying to live off somebody else.But more wealth benefits everybody and reduces poverty. And more wealth requires less government. A new Goldwater Institute report out of the US proves it. The great thing about the states is that each one does its own thing and the results can be compared.
The report, which can be downloaded from the NCPA link begins;
In modern politics, many believe that the government plays the role of Robin Hood. Through progressive taxation and spending, proponents believe that government reduces poverty while making everyone pay their fair share. The pages that follow will empirically evaluate the effectiveness of state government as Robin Hood.
NCPA summarises;
# The 10 states with the highest state spending per capita (Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming) saw an average increase of 7.3 percent of overall poverty rates and a 4.5 percent increase in childhood poverty.
# The 10 states with the lowest spending (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas) saw overall poverty decline by 11.2 percent and childhood poverty fall 12.2 percent.
The dramatic declines in poverty in the "small government" states strongly confirms the hypothesis that reduced taxes and state spending encourages the emigration of people and businesses to areas where private-sector job growth is able to flourish and become a powerful and effective antipoverty program, says Ladner. And while taxes and business climate alone are not the only factors in reducing poverty rates, they certainly go a long way in helping fight the war on poverty.
And from the report a couple of highlights; Colorado, the only state operating under a Taxpayer Bill of Rights reduced poverty more than any other state during the 90s. (It'll be interesting to see what impact suspending it will have.)
Wisconsin, which led the way in welfare reform, experienced strong drops in poverty rates.
Bear in mind this report pertains only to the 90s.
2 comments:
It is now coincedence that those states which have cut state taxes have gotten rich; and cut their rates of poverty.
They elected Republicans as Congressmen and Senators, and recieved vast amounts of Federal money to assist their otherwise moribund economies. Vast sums of money propping up the deeply inefficient agricultural sector and a vastly growing military sector have shifted money from those Liberal, rich states which make money to those which don't. Furthermore, the late Republican congress was famous for giving pork projects entirely within their own areas, cutting out areas that stuck with Liberal democrats.
Also the advent of globalisation has shifted the private industrial work from the Northern states to overseas, increasing poverty as those good jobs shift, while poverty in the southern states is alleviated by the Federal subsidies.
Even more than this, we have seen a migration of skilled people from the North into the South, so this biases the figures even more.
Its no coincidence that under a dishonest and bungling Republican Congress and President that Liberal states have been punished, and furthermore there are factors at work destroying middle class America where it doesn't have massive Federal subsidies to sustain it.
not prepared to rebut it huh? I can't say I'm surprised.
Post a Comment