Income inequality, blue states versus red states. WTF - I'm talking Gini Coefficients here!!!

[Tiny]

As I've explained before, I believe Democratic Politicians promote certain policies that inadvertently create more inequality. Here's some evidence that maybe I'm right.

See this link, about income inequality in the United States,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ome_inequality

These are the five states with the highest inequality in income,

1. New York (blue state)
2. Connecticut (blue state)
3. Louisiana (southern red state)
4. Mississippi (southern red state)
5. California (blue state)

Puerto Rico would be number 1 and the District of Columbia would be number 3 if they were included. It's difficult for a Republican to pick up 7% of the vote in D.C.

From the wikipedia link, the red states with higher inequality are in the south, and so suffer from the legacy of Democratic Party leadership in the 1960's and earlier.

Here are the five states with the lowest income inequality, all red states,

50. Utah
49. Idaho
48. Wyoming
47. South Dakota
46. Alaska

[ICU 812]

I am not knowledgeable or sophisticated in these matters.

Does the level of homelessness play into these stats at all? Do income inequality calculations include folks who have no income, or just those who actually earn money through work?

Does this take into account those who are wealthy, but have no "income"?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I am not knowledgeable or sophisticated in these matters.

Does the level of homelessness play into these stats at all? Do income inequality calculations include folks who have no income, or just those who actually earn money through work?

Does this take into account those who are wealthy, but have no "income"?

Hi ICU, You can calculate a Gini coefficient for income or for wealth. A Gini coefficient of 1 would imply one person in a state has all the income or wealth and everybody else has nothing. A Gini coefficient of 0 implies everyone has equal income or wealth.

The numbers in the Wikipedia link are for income. The Gini coefficient for income inequality is much more reliable. You can pull income statistics from the IRS website. Wealth statistics aren’t so reliable. I actually couldn’t find a list by state for wealth inequality, but I didn’t look very hard.

The homeless and those with no income should be included in the calculation.

I’d rather look at median income, adjusted for purchasing power, instead of Gini coefficients. It’s much simpler and a much better indicator of the level of prosperity of the average person. But yeah, the Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality while median income is not. And it’s ironic places like New York, D.C. and California are the most unequal in America.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Hi ICU, You can calculate a Gini coefficient for income or for wealth. A Gini coefficient of 1 would imply one person in a state has all the income or wealth and everybody else has nothing. A Gini coefficient of 0 implies everyone has equal income or wealth.

The numbers in the Wikipedia link are for income. The Gini coefficient for income inequality is much more reliable. You can pull income statistics from the IRS website. Wealth statistics aren’t so reliable. I actually couldn’t find a list by state for wealth inequality, but I didn’t look very hard.

The homeless and those with no income should be included in the calculation.

I’d rather look at median income, adjusted for purchasing power, instead of Gini coefficients. It’s much simpler and a much better indicator of the level of prosperity of the average person. But yeah, the Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality while median income is not. And it’s ironic places like New York, D.C. and California are the most unequal in America.

I hope you aren't wishing for "Equality" because that's a bogus concept.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I hope you aren't wishing for "Equality" because that's a bogus concept.

I agree

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I hope you aren't wishing for "Equality" because that's a bogus concept.

Originally Posted by Tiny

I agree

where's ecky9.5k to lecture us on "equality"? oh wait .. never mind!! lol


beyond basic existence as a "right" of humanity .. no one is equal. by trying to make everyone equal, as i've lectured our friend ecky9.5k many times, the great socialist utopia of "equality" only brings everyone down the the lowest common denominator.


interesting data, tiny. can't wait for WTF to explain why "it's wrong". lol.



even if you had carved up the 50 states in exactly equal sizes they still would not be equal in either population or this interesting thing known as geography which is a huge factor in resources per state.

[WTF]

Here are the top 5 states (all red) who received way more Federal dollars than they paid in taxes...maybe we can take their inequality in payments and give it to those blue states you're crying about Tiny!


https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...overnment/2700

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Here are the top 5 states (all red) who received way more Federal dollars than they paid in taxes...maybe we can take their inequality in payments and give it to those blue states you're crying about Tiny!


https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...overnment/2700

how predictable. you seem to omit the fact that the 4 states that contribute the most to the federal government in tax income are evenly divided red and blue.


FEDERAL TAXES PAID BY STATE RANK STATE FEDERAL TAXES PAID BY STATE (in thousands)

1 California $234,499,671

2 New York $140,510,002

3 Texas $133,417,081

4 Florida $116,970,551


https://www.moneyrates.com/research-...s-by-state.htm


these 4 states contribute by far the most revenue. 5th is Illinois at $67 million.


we've hashed this before many times and the simple answer is it's complex and trying to red/blue it is nonsense.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Here are the top 5 states (all red) who received way more Federal dollars than they paid in taxes...maybe we can take their inequality in payments and give it to those blue states you're crying about Tiny!


https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...overnment/2700

And so what does this have to do with inequality? Of the five states with the least income inequality, all red, only one of them, Alaska, is among the top 20 most federally dependent states on your list.

I like my list better,

https://www.moneygeek.com/living/sta...al-government/

New Mexico's number 1. And West Virginia's number 2, because Joe Manchin's bringing home the bacon (i.e. pork).

Anyway I'm perfectly fine leaving all that money in blue states (and red states) and not sending it on to the Feds, so they can waste a good part of it in Washington D.C., and then ship some back to the states. That's why my community ended up with big buses nobody rides. We had federal dollars to spend or they'd go away.

Exercise the power of the purse closest to the people! No more handouts for red state farmers, or blue state yuppie electric vehicle owners!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Tiny

A

Here are the five states with the lowest income inequality, all red states,

50. Utah
49. Idaho
48. Wyoming
47. South Dakota
46. Alaska

perhaps those states, among some others, have a high degree of homogeneity as to worldview and certain ethics

while states with higher disparities in income have populations with greater disparity in social cohesion and much less in the way of shared values

try as some might to separate conservative economic ideas from conservative social ideas, and be for one and not the other, it might be difficult to have the one sans aid from the other

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

perhaps those states, among some others, have a high degree of homogeneity as to worldview and certain ethics

while states with higher disparities in income have populations with greater disparity in social cohesion and much less in the way of shared values

try as some might to separate conservative economic ideas from conservative social ideas, and be for one and not the other, it might be difficult to have the one sans aid from the other

Excellent point. I hadn't thought about that. Progressives often point towards Scandinavian countries as models for equality. Purportedly, through redistributive taxation and social welfare they reduce inequality. Yes, homogeneity, social cohesion and shared values in those countries are probably more important.

[Jacuzzme]

Who gives AF? The entire subject is bullshit and borders on promoting communism. There’s always going to be people who make more money than others, for a shitload of reasons. Trying to unnaturally level the playing field usually ends up with millions of people starving and/or executed.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

how predictable. you seem to omit the fact that the 4 states that contribute the most to the federal government in tax income are evenly divided red and blue.


FEDERAL TAXES PAID BY STATE RANK STATE FEDERAL TAXES PAID BY STATE (in thousands)

New York and California pay more in federal taxes THAN THEY RECIEVE.

To Tiny's misguided point...have those blue states keep their money and give it to their poorer citizens to help Tiny out with his problem of income inequality in Blue states.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Excellent point. I hadn't thought about that. Progressives often point towards Scandinavian countries as models for equality. Purportedly, through redistributive taxation and social welfare they reduce inequality. Yes, homogeneity, social cohesion and shared values in those countries are probably more important.

Probably?

Is that your and nevergaveitathought standard in regards to facts?

Nevertheless, you two think it is their shared skin color or lack of strict religiosity that contribute to less income inequality and not the actual economic policies of each country? Damn.

[Jacuzzme]

Plenty has to do with their economic policy, it’s called ‘tax the poor and middle class’. Try running for office on that platform in the US.