First, a sincere thanks for pointing out my reference was from 11 years ago - if I'd seen that, I certainly wouldn't have used that reference. I was flat wrong on that one, for its information was certainly outdated. And I've got to give you credit for providing a good reference showing the current difference in tax burdens between the states.
Your reference was not per capita, but showed the tax burden as a percentage of
state income.
Here's a 2012 reference showing the top ten highest and lowest per capita. The top states are blue (though two or three of them have Republican governors), and the only blue state in the bottom ten was New Hampshire...but the article also points out that NH has the highest property taxes in the nation.
That said, I didn't back off from the discussion of Europe - far from it! I'm more than happy to continue discussing Europe, including how their economies are recovering even though they screwed up by adopting austerity measures (which
the head of the IMF now frankly admits), albeit their recovery is much slower than America's since we went the stimulus route and thus got out of the recession (if not its longer-lasting effects) much more quickly.
I shifted to California in my discussion with you because that's where you seemed most determined in your belief that progressive (AKA Keynesian) economics are a sure path to economic doom-and-gloom. And just as repeating 2+2=4 doesn't mean that it's not true, the fact that I keep bringing up the obvious disparities between red and blue states does not at all detract from the fact that the numbers indicate that blue states are generally more economically successful than red states.
You really should get out some, go Down South and see how the people there live, especially the ones in the small towns that make up most of the conservative base that is the Deep South. Yes, there is certainly much poverty in California - no argument there. But as I've pointed out before, CA's economy is by most metrics improving. We'll see in a few years, won't we?
And one more thing - here's some more red/blue state comparisons for you. Yes, there are some blue states that are as bad as the red states...but the overall trend is unmistakable:
-
violent crime and property crime are generally significantly more common in red states than in blue states.
- the
percentage of students that are low-income in red states is generally significantly higher than in blue states.
- Residents of red states were
significantly more likely to lack money for food than residents of blue states.
- Residents of red states are
significantly more likely to be receiving government benefits than are residents of blue states.
-
This county-by-county map shows red state residents are significantly more likely to be in poverty than residents of blue states.
- Adults in red states are
significantly less likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher than are residents of blue states.
I can go on and on and on showing how red states are worse off than blue states, including in divorce rates, teenage pregnancy rates, homicide rates...you name it.
But here's the kicker: these states are not poor because they are red - they are poor because they are generally rural, and the more rural a state, the more likely that state is to elect conservative politicians.
On a side note, I remember when I first started pointing out these kinds of differences between red states and blue states, and the only - repeat, the only - metric where blue states were generally worse than red states was in drug use. Of course, that does not mean that more drugs equals better prosperity. It just means that those in blue states have more money and more disposable income.