Southerners more charitable?

[J. J.]

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

It is kind of funny actually.  All for redistribution of wealth until it is redistributed AWAY from them, and then they hate it.

I have often made the same point as jfern about the fact that a high income in one section of the country is not worth the same amount as a high income in another section.  I am well aware of the fact that people who live in high income states are effectively penalized with a higher level of taxes for their standard of living than people in lower income states with a lower cost of living.  A person making $75,000 per year, as an example, would be struggling to get by in New York if he/she had to raise a family, and very well off in Mississippi, yet they'd both be taxed the same, other than the deduction for state and local taxes, which would be higher in New York.

But since it's the Democrats who often argue that anybody making more than $50,000 per year is fabulously rich, I think jfern is barking up the wrong tree.  Also, the people in the higher income areas (i.e., New York, California) have voted for high taxes repeatedly, so it's not too easy to sympathize with their plight.

This is all ignoring the larger problem of where the money is spent. In 2000, the average Republican congressional district got $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Very little of the money is helping the poor, much of it is sh**tty pork projects.

Also, maybe people would earn more in the south if they weren't so anti-education.

Ah, who actually ends up getting the money?  The locals that are provided jobs.

[J. J.]

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

It is kind of funny actually.  All for redistribution of wealth until it is redistributed AWAY from them, and then they hate it.

I have often made the same point as jfern about the fact that a high income in one section of the country is not worth the same amount as a high income in another section.  I am well aware of the fact that people who live in high income states are effectively penalized with a higher level of taxes for their standard of living than people in lower income states with a lower cost of living.  A person making $75,000 per year, as an example, would be struggling to get by in New York if he/she had to raise a family, and very well off in Mississippi, yet they'd both be taxed the same, other than the deduction for state and local taxes, which would be higher in New York.

But since it's the Democrats who often argue that anybody making more than $50,000 per year is fabulously rich, I think jfern is barking up the wrong tree.  Also, the people in the higher income areas (i.e., New York, California) have voted for high taxes repeatedly, so it's not too easy to sympathize with their plight.

This is all ignoring the larger problem of where the money is spent. In 2000, the average Republican congressional district got $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Very little of the money is helping the poor, much of it is sh**tty pork projects.

Also, maybe people would earn more in the south if they weren't so anti-education.

Ah, who actually ends up getting the money?  The locals that are provided jobs.

3 serious flaws

1: Most of the money doesn't go to the poor
2: What about the poor who live in Democratic areas?
3: The cost of living is much higher in some Democratic aras

I can assure you Democrats benefit, cough **Robert Byrd**,  and the money does not go directly to the poor, but indirectly. 

The cost of living is higher because the market for labor pays more.