Hacker News Reader

Comment by koenigdavidmj | Hacker News Reader

And the end result isn't even the advertised low-tax state, at least for normal citizens. Topeka's sales tax rate (including the city portion) is over 9%, which is right up there with me in Seattle (about 10%). Plus an income tax (Washington has none). Plus property taxes that are higher than mine. Plus personal property tax on vehicles, so car registration in Kansas costs basically the same as in the transportation benefit district I live in.

Corrupt as hell, and actively lying about the reason the state has no money.

View on HN

> And the end result isn't even the advertised low-tax state, at least for normal citizens.

That's the point. It's playing out again on the national stage. When they say "tax cuts" they don't mean tax cuts for you, silly. Tax cuts are for people who meet the minimum threshold for being able to take advantage of pass-through rates. Not for the mother of 5 working two jobs just to get her kids through a school that's only open 4 days a week.

A mother of 5 because her state has restrictive, non-factual or non-existent sex education, and won't support free access to birth control.

Working two jobs to get her kids through school because of a lack of childcare social services and a high burden of education cost on teachers and families.

Schools only open 4 days a week because of Republican refusal to invest in education, which has been demonstrated to be the best long-term investment a country can make.

I personally have abandoned all faith in anybody with an (R) next to their name, and anybody that bubbles in an (R) on a ballot.

I live in a (D) State. My tax rate is comparable to what it would be in the UK or Germany. We’re among the highest spenders nationwide in education (and by extension the world). But the roads are still terrible, the trains don’t run on time, the schools are just okay, and our largest city has a murder rate about 20x that of big Western European cities. There’s few public services—no child care, no health care, no labor protections, etc.

Sounds like poor planning and oversight then. Tax revenue levels certainly aren't an indicator of competence of the local and state government.

You could replicate what I wrote for pretty much all the big (D) states: New York, California, New Jersey, etc. California has the highest tax burden in the country but its average NEAP math scores are lower than in 36 other states.

It amazing that the US spends almost as much taxes on health care as Canada but don't get any free health care for it!

It spends more than Canada IIRC.

If you add private spending in it's more than twice that of total Canadian healthcare spending.

Medicaid is a massive program. And it's "free" to the legitimately poor. It's a myth that the poor don't have health care in the US.

That doesn't really change the point -- The US pays more to give the poor health care than most countries pay to give everyone care.

It makes up for it by providing many insurance related jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Jobs for jobs sake is not exactly where I want my country to be heading.

how disconnected are you? i personally know poor families with tens of thousands in debt because someone in their family got cancer.

The thing is, Medicaid would be cheaper if instead of verifying income eligibility and having a long application process, we just enrolled everyone. It sucks enough to make sure middle class people will still get their own insurance, just because so many doctors won't take it, so letting anyone use Medicaid would lower the cost of administering the program.

I live in MA. We are ranked 25th nationwide for tax burden.

Yes, you read that right.

Schools are good. The trains are showing their age, but we got new rolling stock in production and coming on line. The roads are okay, but the big deal with our roads is that we save shit tons of money by keeping them narrow.

High taxes on the rural poor won't net as much revenue as low taxes on wealthy, dense populations. Even with very high taxes it would be hard for Kansas to match MA infrastructure.

Absence of rain does not mean it's sunny ;)

Most Democrats in the US aren't remotely close to social-democrats in Canada or Europe. Politicians such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are considered centrists in Canada.

Democrats in the US spend more money than social democrats in Canada.

What does "Democrats" in this sentence mean? Democrats have had much less say in DC over the last 30 years than Republicans. If you're talking about the state level which state? When comparing a state to a country how do you account for military?

Democrats in Democratic states like California and New York. You can account for military simply by removing military expenditures from both sides of the equation (us and Canada).

I did the calculation using quick Google search numbers. for California's state budget $183 billion/ 39.5 million people = $4,600 per capita

Canada ($330 billion - $14 billion in defense) / 35 million people = $9,028 per capita

So Canada spends more. But a lot of US government health care spending is at the federal level. And the differences how, for example, education is funded with a complicated mix of state and federal dollars makes it just too hard to make an apple to apple comparison.

You have to include both state and local spending for California: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spendi.... $580 billion / 39.5 million people = $14,680. Also got to add California's share of federal spending. The U.S. Federal Government spends $3.8 trillion - $600 billion defense = $3.2 trillion / 324 million = $9,900 per person.

For Canada you need to look at federal + provincial. Ontario spends a further $12,600 per person: http://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/Relative%20Fiscal....

Ontario federal + provincial = ~$21,600 per person.

California local + state + federal share = ~$24,500 per person.

I'm glad you did the math to demonstrate this - now that we have this information, what was the purpose of your original comparative statement between democrats in the States and Social Democrats in Canada?

I complained that my (D) state has crappy government services. Someone said that is because our Democrats are like centrists elsewhere. But Democratic states are certainly left enough to spend more money than Canada. That doesn’t explain why they get so little in return.

I'm not sure what money has to do with this? They can spend as much as they want, but it doesn't mean it's going to the right places. Universal healthcare, for example, is much most efficient and cost-effective.

> My tax rate is comparable to what it would be in the UK or Germany

citation needed

That seems like a strawman and openly hostile to debate with people who do not vote like you.

Mother of 5 because the lack of sex education? You'd think after the first 3 she might make a connection.

Regarding school days -- you don't know what you're talking about.

The required number of schools days has decreased, but the required number of instructional hours has remained the same.

So education isn't "suffering" under Republicans in Kansas. In fact, making the day longer and going fewer days is far more cost effective because you don't have to run the buses as much, you save on food preparation costs, etc. And you get the same number of school hours as you would on a longer schedule. That's just smart management.

By way of comparison, France has 4-day-a-week school and kids go to school only 144 days per year, which is about 40 fewer than the OECD average. Are the Republicans conspiring to ruin France as well?

Blaming a short week on Republicans is just silly. Kansas public schools rank around 15th nationwide -- ahead of liberal bastions such as Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon, California and others. [1] It seems like other states might ought to see what Kansas is doing right. What's California's excuse?[2] There aren't many Republicans in California -- they're an endangered species. If "Republicans are bad for education" then it would follow that in a state with few Republicans, education ought to be better right? But the data just doesn't support that conclusion. It doesn't support the opposite conclusion either. There really isn't a correlation between dominant political party and education quality.

Case in point: NJ and Mass. are very blue states with great public education while Rhode Island is also a very blue state but with middle of the pack education. Iowa is a deep red state and it's ranked number 9 in the country. Wisconsin is a red state that voted for Trump as well as many years of a being under a Republican Governor -- and their education system is ranked 4th. There's no correlation -- and to make such a claim is irresponsible because the data doesn't support it.

As far as abandoning faith in Republicans -- since the growth of the sheer absurdity of this whole social justice warrior movement (seriously, they literally riot when they disagree with someone's viewpoints,) along with the near religious anti-capitalism class warfare rhetoric from Democrats -- I've abandoned all faith in anyone voting Democrat. There was a time when Republicans and Democrats could find common ground. That time has passed since pretty much every modern Democrat idea starts from the premise that white males are viruses that must be controlled or that people are all victims unable to go to the toilet without a government program to help them wipe their ass. [3]. When a political party makes a point of lecturing me on my "privilege" and how I'm personally responsible for all of society's ills -- then they've lost me forever. Might as well be blaming me for slavery. I don't even care if Democrats are right on some issues. I'm never voting for a party that accuses me of being:

1. ..a tax evader (I live in France and the Democrats are responsible for the hell caused by FATCA.) 2. .. a racist 3. .. a hater of women 4. .. greedy 5. .. a destroyer of the environment

I am none of those things and I'm a libertarian who tends to vote Republican. Correction -- I am a bit greedy -- I think I should be entitled to keep more of the money I earn and pass it on to my children rather than giving it to people who didn't earn it nor have any right to it. So ok, I'll admit to being greedy.

[1] https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/ [2] http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/05/california-schools-ear... [3] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/10/30/...

> The required number of schools days has decreased, but the required number of instructional hours has remained the same.

That doesn't really help someone who is expected to work 5 days a week.

> Blaming a short week on Republicans is just silly.

Why? Gov. Brownback, a Republican, instituted the tax cuts which created the budget shortfall that prevented the state government from properly funding schools.

"Kansas enacted sweeping cuts to income taxes in 2012 and 2013 championed by Gov. Sam Brownback that have reduced the amount of available resources to comply with a court order. Lawmakers could be forced to reconsider the tax measures, which Kansas and other Republican-run states have pushed as a means to stimulate their economies." [1]

They didn't reconsider those tax measures, and instead doubled down on them, making things worse.

"Wichita, which serves more than 51,000 students, is facing cost increases of about $23 million next year with no increase in state funding." [2]

And then 4-day schools became a thing. You're right that Kansas is highly ranked, but we'll see how long that lasts as teachers continue to flee the state [3]. California and other blue states have education problems, but let's be clear: Kansas' problems seem to directly stem from Republican governance in the state.

Also, you rip on California a bunch in your post, but let's remember, California has twice as many students (lower ed.) as the entire population of Kansas (6M vs 3M). California has its own problems, but I think those problems are very different than those faced in Kansas (maybe not in kind, but definitely in degree).

[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kansas-supreme-court-public-sch... [2]: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/education/article72631157.h... [3]: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/07/kansas...

You're rather judging a lot of people by the views expressed by a few.

If we went about Republicans the same way, well, we had several party representatives in Alabama say that they would vote for a child molester ("even if true ..."), just so their party would have an extra vote in Senate.

> A mother of 5 because her state has restrictive, non-factual or non-existent sex education

Although I understand your overall point, you nearly lost me here. To assume someone wouldn’t choose to have five kids (or wouldn’t have done so if properly educated) is rather narrow-minded, in my opinion. Many wouldn’t, but (a) many people chose to have several kids and have no regrets, and (b) many people chose not to have several kids and do have regrets. Against common assumptions to the contrary in many sectors, kids and family really can be a joy.

Silly rabbit, tax cuts are for the rich

Reply on news.ycombinator.com