NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you (like Pantless) who believe that more taxes always means better government and more services, I submit the following.

Pantless wanted me to prove that Virginia has a better ranking for what you get for your tax dollar than Massachusetts. So here we go:

How are well are taxes used in Virginia and Massachusetts, and how much do each tax you?

How much taxes?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/64.html for Virginia

and

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/35.html for Massachusetts

Hmm. So how is the money spent? Does, for example, each state use technology to better deliver social services and save money?

http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/center/04sustained.php

Wow. Virginia government outranks Massachusetts government here.

And here: http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/center/02sustained.php

Virginia outranks Massachusetts in implementing E-government. Aren't blue states supposed to be more modern than red states?

http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/04_digital_05.html

Any substantial difference in crime? After all, more taxes means more police, and more police means less crime, right?

In the year 2000 Massachusetts had an estimated population of 6,349,097 which ranked the state as having the 13th in population. For that year the State of Massachusetts had a total Crime Index of 3,026.1 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 42nd highest total Crime Index.

In the year 2000 Virginia had an estimated population of 7,078,515 which ranked the state 12th in population. For that year the State of Virginia had a total Crime Index of 3,028.1 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 41st highest total Crime Index.

Wow, so Virginia gets a comparable crime index, for less taxes. Wonder how they did that.

And from http://results.gpponline.org/StateOverview.aspx?name=virginia

(Grade A-) There is little that Virginia does not do well in government management. That’s been true for a while. But it keeps looking for improvements, and very often finds them. Outsiders might wonder how the only state that bars its governor from seeking reelection could provide its administrations with sufficient clout to make difficult decisions. But it consistently does. Virginia has an ethos of good management that has genuinely been institutionalized. Even if a governor betrays that culture — as did Jim Gilmore when he opened a $1 billion budget shortfall in the late 1990s with a cut in car taxes that was politically popular but fiscally unsound — the state seems able to find its way back to the path of good managerial sense.

http://results.gpponline.org/StateOverview.aspx?id=113

(Grade C+) A quick look at the capital planning process in Massachusetts might easily lead to the notion that the state is setting priorities in textbook fashion. The governor and legislature are jointly responsible for approving annual bond bills that authorize about $10 billion in projects.

Formally, it has all the characteristics of a properly collaborative process. Informally, it turns out to be nothing of the sort. The truth is that the governor has control over what gets spent, selecting some $1.25 billion in projects lucky enough to get his personal stamp of approval. As a vehicle for good decision making, this is an Edsel. “There’s no public prioritization and even the administration’s prioritization is a mystery,” says Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “The process lends itself to secrecy.”

Being as I live in London, I shouldn't really be posting. So sorry.

However, I have a gut feeling that whoever you're arguing against can just pull tax comparisons out of their ass in favour of their argument, as can you, until the cows come home.

Without wanting to be a party-pooper, nothing will be conclusively proved about how well a state/canton/constituency/council uses their taxes when compared to another.

You know? I don't give a fuck about going to links and digging around to find the specific information you are alluding to.
Especially when I can't get them to even work.

Oh, and crime rates? Maybe try something that, you know, relates to taxes.
Like education: http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

You know? I don't give a fuck about going to links and digging around to find the specific information you are alluding to.
Especially when I can't get them to even work.

Oh, and crime rates? Maybe try something that, you know, relates to taxes.
Like education: http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
Already saw that one.

So, tell me, how did Virginia still end up in the top ten? Isn't all that tax money supposed to make a huge difference? Given the difference in spending, why isn't Virginia #50?

Already saw that one.

So, tell me, how did Virginia still end up in the top ten? Isn't all that tax money supposed to make a huge difference? Given the difference in spending, why isn't Virginia #50?
Better proportionment of taxes I assume. They are still below Masschusetts, and more exactly, have only more than half the numerical rating - not even double digit.

Also, judging by the change in methedology, Massachusetts spends alot on public education. Which is made possible by.. dum dum dum.. taxes!

Better proportionment of taxes I assume. They are still below Masschusetts, and more exactly, have only more than half the numerical rating - not even double digit.

So what's up with the police in Massachusetts? Falling down on the job?

Oh, and we could talk about guns! There are SO many guns in Virginia, and we are allowed to carry them in public! It's forbidden in Massachusetts.

Which makes it even harder to describe the crime stats. I guess that spending all that money and banning guns in Massachusetts doesn't really prevent crime like they thought...

So what's up with the police in Massachusetts? Falling down on the job?

Oh, and we could talk about guns! There are SO many guns in Virginia, and we are allowed to carry them in public! It's forbidden in Massachusetts.
Then why are the crime indices equivocal? If gun ownership is such a good crime deterrent and Massachusetts police are soo bad?

Everything around you is due to the support of your government, even that built by private investment is only here because the government is able to convince people that the country is a stable economic environment.

In countries with cohesive Welfare Systems people are more likely to live in harmony with their government as they can see that their tax is going towards things that are worth more than you would be able to pay for yourself. The NHS for example, despite its troubles, is essentially full and free protection against injury and disease. And people realise that if they had to pay for the same thing out of their own pockets it would eat up huge chunks of their incomes, or worse still, they would simply not be able to afford it.

In the USA however, people are traditionally reluctant to give their government money. So in return the amount that the government gives seems smaller in comparison, this leads to people becoming more reluctant to give money, and thus a vicious cycle evolves whereby people become increasingly reluctant to be taxed, where public services fail, and the government and people are in disharmony.

Service???
Shit i ain't pullin nothing.

Then why are the crime indices equivocal? If gun ownership is such a good crime deterrent and Massachusetts police are soo bad?
Yes, because Massachusetts is wasting its money on the police.

Everything around you is due to the support of your government, even that built by private investment is only here because the government is able to convince people that the country is a stable economic environment.

In countries with cohesive Welfare Systems people are more likely to live in harmony with their government as they can see that their tax is going towards things that are worth more than you would be able to pay for yourself. The NHS for example, despite its troubles, is essentially full and free protection against injury and disease. And people realise that if they had to pay for the same thing out of their own pockets it would eat up huge chunks of their incomes, or worse still, they would simply not be able to afford it.

In the USA however, people are traditionally reluctant to give their government money. So in return the amount that the government gives seems smaller in comparison, this leads to people becoming more reluctant to give money, and thus a vicious cycle evolves whereby people become increasingly reluctant to be taxed, where public services fail, and the government and people are in disharmony.

I think you're missing the point - Virginia pays far less tax than Massachusetts. And in most cases, Virginia government performs better or as well than Massachusetts.

Makes you wonder if spending money AUTOMATICALLY means better government service. It DOESN'T.

I live in a coastal community in NJ.
For several years running, we have been in the top 5 safest places in Amercia to live in.
We have more than ample,well trained police and they have all new equipment.
The schools are progressive and my kids are flourishing in them.
We have garbage pickup included,once weekly-all trucks are brand new.Recycling is also once weekly. Street sweeper comes by twice a month.
The roads are all in great condition.
There are tons of programs and activities for children, on the ocean beaches as well as the riverfront promenade. Every Thursday night during the summer, they have live bands and fireworks. Free-just bring a lawn chair.
The town has its own resevoir and sells its water to the surrounding communities.
The library is huge and under expansion now-they also have programs for children every day-all year long. for free.

Our taxes are low in comparison to the rest of the towns in this county/region. I feel I get more than my money's worth.

Yes, because Massachusetts is wasting its money on the police.
Because employing obviously a much larger number of the population than in Virginia and having them you know, protect you, is a terrible, terrible thing.

I bet the Virginia police are undermanned, underequipped, and underpaid.

The logical conclusion is if all Masschusetts citizens had guns, that the crime index compared to Virginia would have a vast gap in difference.

So what's up with the police in Massachusetts? Falling down on the job?

Actually, Massachusetts' crime rate is probably due to their population density.

Mass
816 Persons/Sq Mile

Virginia
191 Persons/Sq Mile

From http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-tm_name=PEP_2005_EST_M00090&-ds_name=PEP_2005_EST&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-_dBy=040&-_lang=en&-_sse=on#?467,267


edit: I spell real good!

Virginia's estimated poverty rate, 2003: 9.9%
Massachusetts estimated poverty rate, 2003: 9.5%
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi

The state with an A- rating in managing it's government has more poverty than the state with the C+ rating in government management.

So what you've really shown here, is despite being essentially the pinnacle of government managerial excellence, Virginia's citizens are less educated, slightly more likely to be the victims of crime, and more likely to be in poverty than the government that "As a vehicle for good decision making ... is an Edsel"

So imagine what Virginia could be like if they kept their managerial acumen, and taxed at the rate of Massachusetts? Is top 3 in all categories possible? I certainly believe it is.

However, I will agree that taxation levels alone does not indicate good government. That's just taking money. Anybody with more firepower than you have can do that.

How you spend the money is key, and that's almost completely unrelated to how much you take in.

Because employing obviously a much larger number of the population than in Virginia and having them you know, protect you, is a terrible, terrible thing.

I bet the Virginia police are undermanned, underequipped, and underpaid.

Nope. The police in Fairfax County, for instance, are among the highest paid in the country.

They have so much money, in fact, that they send their SWAT team and earthquake survivor rescue team (we don't have earthquakes) to help other people around the world.

You could have those people working in the private sector in Massachusetts instead of sitting around getting paid to eat donuts.

Nope. The police in Fairfax County, for instance, are among the highest paid in the country.

They have so much money, in fact, that they send their SWAT team and earthquake survivor rescue team (we don't have earthquakes) to help other people around the world.

You could have those people working in the private sector in Massachusetts instead of sitting around getting paid to eat donuts.
Never mind the fact that you ironically are ignoring the effect of gun ownership vs no gun ownership on crime in this thread in order to insult the Massachusetts police force for being lazy.


Private industry is not a job guarantee. Private industry does not top government by the sole fact that it is private. That is idiocy and sadly the idea that most of the US runs with.

Already saw that one.

So, tell me, how did Virginia still end up in the top ten? Isn't all that tax money supposed to make a huge difference? Given the difference in spending, why isn't Virginia #50?
Didn't you read the Pantsman's post, he doesn't care about facts. They get in the way of an irrational argument.

Never mind the fact that you ironically are ignoring the effect of gun ownership vs no gun ownership on crime in this thread in order to insult the Massachusetts police force for being lazy.
We have comparable crime rates, and yet we have lots of guns.

BTW, fyi, the Department of Justice says that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without a weapon.

I might add that we had a thread last summer where it was proven that two demographically identical counties had a 65 percent difference in violent crime, murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Guess which one had the lower rates? The one where people were allowed to walk around armed.

And the other? You're barely allowed to own anything.

We have comparable crime rates, and yet we have lots of guns.

BTW, fyi, the Department of Justice says that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without a weapon.
You are completely ignoring the fucking point, not that I should ever assume you can get it.

Virginia has more guns, but I assume less police. Their crime index is equivocal to Massachusetts with no guns and I assume lots of police. Now, let's imagine Masschusetts had lots of guns and lots of police? The gap between Virginia's crime index and Massachuetts' becomes vast.

Your implications that (a)Mass. police are lazy and (b) the number of police paid for by higher taxes isn't helping them are proven to be fucking bullshit by your own statements about gun ownership and crime.

You are completely ignoring the fucking point, not that I should ever assume you can get it.

Virginia has more guns, but I assume less police. Their crime index is equivocal to Massachusetts with no guns and I assume lots of police. Now, let's imagine Masschusetts had lots of guns and lots of police? The gap between Virginia's crime index and Massachuetts' becomes vast.

Your implications that (a)Mass. police are lazy and (b) the number of police paid for by higher taxes isn't helping them are proven to be fucking bullshit by your own statements about gun ownership and crime.

No, you could let people in Massachusetts own guns, and fire 3/4 of your police, and you would still have the same crime rate.

That's what I mean by "it isn't helping". Are you in the habit of paying extra money for something that is given away for free?

Didn't you read the Pantsman's post, he doesn't care about facts. They get in the way of an irrational argument.

*L* :D

No, you could let people in Massachusetts own guns, and fire 3/4 of your police, and you would still have the same crime rate.
You're a bit dense huh?
You could give them guns and police and have a.. *drumroll*.. lower crime "index" than Virginia, thus turning all your assertions to.. bullshit!

The sad part is, you are too pig-headed to follow me when I am using your own fucking arguments and facts.

Why would they want an equivocal crime index when they can have a lower one?

The sad part is, you are too pig-headed to follow me when I am using your own fucking arguments and facts.

Why would they want an equivocal crime index when they can have a lower one?

Why isn't all that extra money spent on cops making it lower than the Virginia crime rate?

Why isn't all that extra money spent on cops making it lower than the Virginia crime rate?
I'm right, you're pretty damn dense.

If you havn't gotten it yet, I can't make it fucking simple enough for you to get it at all.

Well, let's see.

Ugg ugg, guns lower crimes, ugg ugg, no guns no lower crimes, ugg ugg, Mass have no guns, crime go no lower, ugg ugg, if Mass get guns, crime go lower, ugg ugg.

He's agreeing with you.
He's saying that Virginia's gun ownership is what makes it so that Virginia has a low crime rate despite a lower level of policing -- and that if Massachusetts were to take on the same policies of gun ownership, their crime levels would descend to the point where it would be obvious that taxation made a difference.

I'm right, you're pretty damn dense.
We're talking about money, not how you think it might be if Massachusetts changed their laws on guns.

Virginia spends less than Massachusetts, but somehow the crime is equally controlled.

So why is Massachusetts spending all that money? After all, they can't have guns either, so what's up?

He's agreeing with you.
He's saying that Virginia's gun ownership is what makes it so that Virginia has a low crime rate despite a lower level of policing -- and that if Massachusetts were to take on the same policies of gun ownership, their crime levels would descend to the point where it would be obvious that taxation made a difference.
He's too stubborn to even consider admitting I am right or that taxes can be good. Even when using his own arguments.

not how you think it might be if Massachusetts changed their laws on guns.
So all your topics proving guns lower crime rates are all bunk?
That is what you just said, that is what you are now arguing.

He's too stubborn to even consider admitting I am right or that taxes can be good. Even when using his own arguments.


So all your topics proving guns lower crime rates are all bunk?
That is what you just said, that is what you are now arguing.

No, that's not what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing taxes. With states and their laws exactly the way they are now.

So, why is Virginia equivocal in crime rate to Massachusetts? Just look at the taxes alone and tell me why.

And I only pointed out the gun thing because liberals will also say that less guns = less crime. Which is obviously false here.

No, that's not what I'm arguing.
Yes, it is. I am repeatedly saying if Mass was allowed guns, crime would go down farther. As it stands, crime is being reduce solely by police, not by a mix of police and a fully armed citizenship like Virginia.

I'm arguing taxes. With states and their laws exactly the way they are now.
Not any more you arn't. Your current line of argument l eads directly to disproving all your arguments that guns reduce crimes.

So, why is Virginia equivocal in crime rate to Massachusetts? Just look at the taxes alone and tell me why.
Because taxes relate directly to crime :rolleyes:

And I only pointed out the gun thing because liberals will also say that less guns = less crime. Which is obviously false here.
I'm just going to come right out and say it - you're a fucking moron.

Because taxes relate directly to crime :rolleyes:

Not in Virginia they don't. We spend less than Massachusetts per person on police, and we have an equivalent crime rate. So spending money on the police obviously isn't a factor in controlling crime.

I'm just going to come right out and say it - you're a fucking moron.
You must be running out of illogic.

Just pay your taxes and get on with life, it's so much easier that way...

Not in Virginia they don't. We spend less than Massachusetts per person on police, and we have an equivalent crime rate.
Which directly proves your "guns lower crimes" theory.

And I only pointed out the gun thing because liberals will also say that less guns = less crime. Which is obviously false here.
Then you turn right back around and say it doesn't.

It's sad when you would directly contradict yourself so blatantly just to prove a "liberal" wrong.
Sad.

You must be running out of illogic.
No, I'm running out of patience with trying to teach a stupid fish how to breathe underwater.

Which directly proves your "guns lower crimes" theory.

Then you turn right back around and say it doesn't.

It's sad when you would directly contradict yourself so blatantly just to prove a "liberal" wrong.
Sad.

I'm not contradicting myself. You're just saying that it's OK to spend money to lower crime, rather than give people some personal freedom and not charge them for the lower crime.

There isn't anything to prove that a combination of more taxes for more police and more guns would lower crime more - you're speaking hypothetically with zero proof again.

you're making him hysterical

I'm not contradicting myself.
Yes, you are.
You are saying that guns lower crime then you out-and-out said "not in the case." Why not? Because it proves you wrong. You already stated Massachusetts has no guns, yet Virginia has the laxerst gun laws on the books. Massachusetts has more police than Virginia, which has more armed citizens.
Their crime indices are equivocal.
In any other thread you would agree with me,well not me but any other person, that by giving Mass. citizen guns would further lower the crime index.


You know what? I get you now. You irrationally oppose taxes. You have taxophobia. You are so irrationally against and afraid of taxes that you would settle with a higher crime rate in a lower taxed state than one provided by a state that taxes more but provides more, better equipped, and better trained cops.


There isn't anything to prove that a combination of more taxes for more police and more guns would lower crime more - you're speaking hypothetically with zero proof again.
I'm going to find a way to archive this thread for the next time you start talking about how great guns are and their magical effects on the crime rate.

I think what Teh_pantless_hero is basically saying is that you can't compare the crime rates standing on their own when other factors come into. Deep Kimchi, you yourself argue that guns are a factor in crime rates. The difference in laws on gun control in these two states means you cannot make a simple comparison between the two.

I am less than satisfied with the service I get and the taxes I pay for it.

For example, the military invasion of Iraq. That benefited me very little.

I think what Teh_pantless_hero is basically saying is that you can't compare the crime rates standing on their own when other factors come into. Deep Kimchi, you yourself argue that guns are a factor in crime rates. The difference in laws on gun control in these two states means you cannot make a simple comparison between the two.

Not only that, Massachusetts has almost 4 times the population density of Virginia.

The reasons that Virginia can spend less on police are the armed populace, lower population density, and the fact that the Virginia government is remarkably well run.

For those of you (like Pantless) who believe that more taxes always means better government and more services, I submit the following.

Pantless wanted me to prove that Virginia has a better ranking for what you get for your tax dollar than Massachusetts. So here we go:

How are well are taxes used in Virginia and Massachusetts, and how much do each tax you?

How much taxes?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/64.html for Virginia

and

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/35.html for Massachusetts

Hmm. So how is the money spent? Does, for example, each state use technology to better deliver social services and save money?

http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/center/04sustained.php

Wow. Virginia government outranks Massachusetts government here.

And here: http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/center/02sustained.php

Virginia outranks Massachusetts in implementing E-government. Aren't blue states supposed to be more modern than red states?

http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/04_digital_05.html

Any substantial difference in crime? After all, more taxes means more police, and more police means less crime, right?


Wow, so Virginia gets a comparable crime index, for less taxes. Wonder how they did that.

And from http://results.gpponline.org/StateOverview.aspx?name=virginia



http://results.gpponline.org/StateOverview.aspx?id=113


You're going to find that there are states with lenient gun laws that show both high rates of crime and low rates of crime, and the reason you're going to see that is because guns in and of themselves have no impact on the decision-making of criminals whether to commit crime, only who to commit crime on. Put simply, if a criminal were anticipating the worst-case scenario of being gunned down by his target, he wouldn't be committing the crime in the first place; that people still nevertheless commit crimes indicates they think they either won't get shot or they don't consider it.

The biggest indicator of whether or not someone will or will not commit crime isn't whether he thinks his target is armed, but the degree to which he's acculturated into his society. In other words, the more he sees a potential mark as a fellow citizen and a fellow human worthy of respect, the less likely he is to attempt to commit a crime against him. That's why you see states like Massachussetts, with low gun-ownership rates, and states like Virginia and Idaho, with high gun-ownership rates at the bottom of the list, and other high gun-ownership states like Nevada at the top of the list; because Massachussetts, Virginia, and Idaho are all fairly homogenized societies with low rates of transience and high rates of civil commitment. By contrast, given that every year 120,000 people move into Las Vegas and 60,000 people move out, it's not surprising that there is significant crime, because there is no common community to acculturate citizens into mutual respect and trust.

The crucial fact, however, is that while gun ownership rates in and of themselves have little or no impact on crime rates, they do have a significant impact on the lethality of any violence. Put simply, every year thousands of people die in situations that, absent a gun, would probably have resulted in a broken coffee pot, a black eye, or a night in the cell for disorderly conduct. You then have to ask what worth it is to have virtually unrestricted access to guns given such questionable benefits and obvious costs.

In Ireland we had some violence for a period of thirty years or so. 3,000 dead is the rough figure so that's about 100 per year. Many yanks used to be scared of going to Ireland because it was a "war zone".

The population of America (that is the US) is approx 80 times that of Ireland. So if the 'war' were to be scaled up it'd be about 8,000 dead per year for 30 years.

In 2003 30,000 were killed by firearms in the states in one year.

That was just a regular year. So guns must stop a shitload of crime to be worth that kind of death toll. Crime must be nonexistant in the US.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Just pay your taxes and get on with life, it's so much easier that way...

If we did that, there wouldn't be a United States....

Why does it matter how much I get in return for what I give if I don't expressly consent to giving it in the first place?

I get quite a good bit or government service for taxes, though not as much as would be possible.

I might add that we had a thread last summer where it was proven that two demographically identical counties had a 65 percent difference in violent crime, murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Guess which one had the lower rates? The one where people were allowed to walk around armed.

And the other? You're barely allowed to own anything.
Come-on there is no two identical countries there are WAY to manny agravating factors, I would like to see the correlation statistics for that “proof”

If we did that, there wouldn't be a United States....

No Taxation Without Representation. Agreed.
But you've got the representation now, right? So what's wrong with the taxation?

edit: woah, just randomly posted in an ANCIENT thread. But Vetalia's online, so... what be the problem?

edit: woah, just randomly posted in an ANCIENT thread. But Vetalia's online, so... what be the problem?

I don't get how some people post in such old threads. Were you searching for something, and then forgot you were searching? :confused:

Also, I was knocked for a bit of a loop there. I thought DK was back from the dead! :eek:

http://gotymedia.gamespy.com/2005/images/screens/ps2/re4.jpg

ZOMBIES COMIN' UP THE HELL RIGHT NOW!

SHOOT 'EM IN THE HEAD!

GRAB THE SHOTGUN!

YOU DON'T NEED TO LOAD IT!

WE DID THAT FOR YOU!

ZOMBIES IN THE ROOM!

HIS AXE IS ON FIRE!

HE DONE KILLED YOUR PARENTS!

SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD!

SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD!