Debt/GDP of the 50 states within the USA and insights

Thats state debt PER CAPITA, which isnt what you asked about.

Only if you calculate it PER CAPITA.

There is no 'fairly' with tax.

Thats utterly mangled.

Doesnt make it gospel.

There is no subsidy between states.

The main consequence of a state choosing to have more debt than increased tax revenue is that more of the tax revenue gets wasted on interest on that debt, but thats not necessarily a massive problem when interest rates are so low.

One very fundamental problem with tax revenue for the states is that it does tend to vary significantly with the state of the economy while their costs dont or work in the opposite way with welfare etc.

That utterly mangles the story in spades.

Soorree, fresh out of magic wands to wave to achieve that.

That last is even more comprehensively mangled.

Yes, there's a lot of mindless hyperventilating about california.

Only using that PER CAPITA measure.

respectfully... the situation is thus, the entire mess is going down, some states faster than others. Your investigation into your state is wise, it may or may not be in as bad a shape as most others,

the current debt to GDP ratio is of course a good indicator, but beyond that are many other factors. and those change fast...these days those changes will all be to the worse.

If you want to read a good analysis of the drivers read Dr Ravi Batra's 'coming collapse 1990' or some such title... and dig deep for percentage of the states net tax base goes to pay its civil service retirements (in calif it may be over 100%..in many cities it was 40% three years ago, before the tax base nose dived 60%...since those costs are fixed,, they would be close to 100% of the tax base now and rising fast as we are into the baby boomer retirement years.

Id plan to be as low profile a tax target as possible...working on your own a few hous a week in some lucrative occupation into your advanced old age...and not depending on the financial system retirements, those are on top of 600 trillion or so in bogus paper... all of that will collapse.

Imo.

to get past the random and historic sky is falling rhetoric such as I am going on with, study history, read that book. you willf ind its all mostly hot air, and 10 or 20 year depressions...until the nation is about 260 years old, then the decaying social demographics catch up with it.... the nation then collapses its economic and poltical base, looses its wars, and empire.

and yes...thats cyclical too... only 50 to 100 years of half starvation and it begins to reboot... with a tough new half starved generation driving the progress.

Phil scott

Pigs arse it is anything like that.

Nope.

Easier said than done.

Nope, you watch on that last.

Yeah, but you are silly enough to believe that we will see hordes of rampaging gun toting looters too.

How odd that we didnt see that during the great depression.

You're also silly enough to believe that ALL societys go thru

No thanks. That fool not only didnt get the date right, he didnt manage to predict what would produce the current recession either.

You've slithered off from your original claim about FULL starvation now.

the progress.

No, just rampaging unarmed looters. If they carry guns, they'll end up shooting each other.

People were too depressed, so they stayed home.

Every 10 cycles it skips 500 years, then resumes the

--

David P. wrote

No loss.

Tell that to okies.

Damn, why didnt someone tell me ?

"Rod Speed" wrote

Remember that state bonds, ie: the debt, are investments that are desirable by many investors. So while you and others may wish to classify state bond interest payments as "wasted", those that hold the bonds consider it as income and the bond itself as an investment.

paulthomascpa wrote

many investors.

Thats primarily because of the tax treatment of those and their alleged better security.

"wasted", those that hold the bonds

Irrelevant to whether its wasted from the state's point of view.

"Rod Speed" wrote

But it's not. Your proclamation can't make it so.

Debt - responsibly used - can provide the funds necessary to improve the community and provide both short and long term employment. Construction bonds for schools, roads, prisons, hospitals, airports, etc create jobs in the construction process as well as in those agencies once the project is complete.

Debt is but just one source of obtaining funds, often times through a process that brings in the funds now without taxing the local populace, to be repaid at times through the revenues generated by that agency. Airport bonds are often paid in full by the revenues generated by that authority from gate rental receipts. Same for toll roads. The bond (debt) provides the funds and drivers pay the debt off with every trip on that road.

Bonds and the resulting interest are just a tool to be used in the operation of the state, county or city. Much like you and I may use debt to finance some transactions.

paulthomascpa wrote

income and the bond itself as an investment.

Corse it is from the state's point of view.

Yours in spades.

That can be done using taxation instead.

The main advantage with using debt is when the tax revenue stream swings wildly with the state of the economy like California's does.

create jobs in the construction process as

So does doing that using taxation instead.

And has that obvious downside of the interest that needs to be paid on it.

And if its done using taxation instead, the interest isnt lost.

The bond (debt) provides the funds and

Just one way of funding those.

of the state, county or city. Much like

What I said in the bit you carefully deleted from the quoting.

"Rod Speed" wrote

Of course, you speak for all 50 states, right.

But why, when taxpayers have voted to go the bond route time and again.

paulthomascpa wrote

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Like I said in the quoting you keep carefully deleting, no reason when interest rates are so low.

Ron, stick to your script.

No answer for that question in your script, eh?

Some terminal f****it desperately cowering behing paulthomascpa desperately attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

So you can't - or won't - provide an answer.

Why are you scared of an honest conversation? What in my question has you running away.

Why do taxpayers go to the polls and select a bond issue over immediate taxation to fund certain projects?

Why do voters see that as a better alternative to being directly taxed for that project?

You proclaim that the bond interest is "wasted", yet the taxpayers who vote must believe otherwise.

The people who so vote are being rational. They receive the benefits of that which is purchased over the life of that which was purchased. It is a "pay as you go" approach. Like I said: rational.