csmonitor.com — A recent study shows that the states with the highest tax rates are failing in the fight against poverty. The states with the lowest tax rates are reducing poverty. Take Colorado. It reduced its childhood poverty rate by almost 27 percent. Meanwhile, Rhode Island's childhood poverty rate increased by almost the same amount.
Dec 16, 2006 View in Crawl 4
drbhoneydewDec 17, 2006
Colorado had a decrease of 27% in poverty while Rhode Island increased by almost the same amountBut RI only has 1/4 of the population of CO.4000 - 1080 >> 1000 + 270It's not similar at all - to have had a similar increase it would have had to more than double. Remember kids: statistics might be fun, but they can also be dangerous.
warsqlDec 17, 2006
There is a difference between tax rates and tax receipts. Lowering taxes usually means more tax money because it increases the economy.
hyperbolepoliceDec 17, 2006
Describing the article or yourself?
mynameissimpsonDec 17, 2006
Some of you will likely be quick to digg my comments down but give what I have to say some thought before you do.This article was lacking in details but the author is correct in saying that economic growth raises living standards. We can observe this by looking at history. Living standards were rising at a good pace in America and other western democracies even before the impsoition of taxes and the socialization of these countries. Why, because of improvements to technology that allowed Americans to produce more goods. More goods equals more wealth. This increase in productivity benefits the public in two ways. First in order to get the public to purchase these goods the price has to come down. If a company improves its ability to produce more units of their product it matters not to me that they can do this, what matters is the price. Lowering the price entices people to consume more. Competition among rivals ensures that the company does not try to keep the price the same as before the new technology was implimented thus raking in huge profits. This does happen in the short run sometimes as some companies are ahead of their competitors in implimenting new technologies, however in the long run their rivals seeing that there is huge profits to be made do the same and the competition between them for customers forces them to lower their prices until profits are very low. This is why the price is usually high for new products that come on to the market. Initially cars were play things for the rich but over time competition drove the price down to where it was affordablre to the average American. The same processes have happened for a litany of goods including food and clothing. And today we see it happening for items like plasma TV's etc. Cheaper goods makes us all better off.Second, higher productivity creates more wealth which in turn gives the workers more bargaining power for increases in wages. Companies also compete for labor. A profitable efficient business can afford to pay more to their employees than their less efficient rivals thus workers are enticed by better wages and working conditions to work for these companies. Cheaper goods and higher wages benefit all people including the poor. High taxes make it more difficult for companies to improve the technologies which leads to higher productivity, aor more wealth or economic growth. How do taxes hurt everyone including the poor?When government creates new programs these must be administered by people which are enticed out of the free market. The public loses the benefits of their productivity in the market in favor of government programs. Governments do not compete like companies, in the market do, they have an monopoly so there are not the same incentives to improve and find efficiencies which I have noted above improve living standards. Large portions of the money we pay in taxes goes toward the administration rather than the recipients of said programs. So while the adminstrators may be considered productive in a sense ( although public service workers are usualy less productive than those in the private sector ), the costs of supporting these workers is added on to the costs of supporting the recipients. In otherwords, government run social programs are not a very efficient way to helping the poor. We would be better off if we gave our money directly to those in need and so would those who are most in need. This is hard to do when our taxes are so high. what is required is cutting program spending and cutting taxes simultaneously. Tax cuts also means the more efficient private sector could create more jobs thus opening up opportunities for those who formerly worked in the public service and the poor as well, and as I said above, cheaper goods, more opportunites for increases in salaries as well as making more money available for charity. Also high taxes go to fund things like the war in Iraq which requires billions of dollars. This money is wasted, unless you think the war was necessary; I don't. Thousands are employed in businesses that make military equipment and in the military itself, when they could be doing something that actually benefits us, instead of a few.
mrdiggleDec 17, 2006
DUH!
capnjoshDec 18, 2006
Has anyone read about New Zealand's overhaul in the mid 80s? One aspect of it was that when they lowered taxes (which were arguably too high) they received more tax revenue at least partly because more people were willing to properly report their earnings. More reported earnings = more tax receipts.
paul82346Jun 3, 2009
Thank You!! We Americans tend to be very perochial. We don't know very much about the rest of the world. We have been convinced that everything is best here so what could we learn from the rest of the world? Second place? For a country that comes in 32nd of the industrialized contries in things like education and infant mortality as well as just about every other important statitic, one would think this is a little self defeating? What do you think?