PDA

View Full Version : Googles state debt chart


JonIrenicus
03-28-2011, 08:03 PM
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=i6b2dd9bq9ljq_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=revenue&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:CA:NY:TX:MI&tstart=883612800000&tunit=Y&tlen=11&hl=en&dl=en&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=debt&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:CA:NY:MI&hl=en&dl=en



Pretty interesting, you can select different states and toggle between revenues/expenditure/debt etc


I love how California has a massive revenue drop, massive increase in debt, and still spending increases more than some marginal amount.

Many states are far flatter than that, housing is a large part of it I guess, but still, they seem to operate better and have a better tie in with revenue/spending. What a horrible thing to want to shoot for...

bjkeefe
03-28-2011, 10:46 PM
I love how California has a massive revenue drop, ...

How much do you love this (http://wonkette.com/441542/california-gov-jerry-browns-first-dog-euthanized-due-to-budget-cuts)?

Seriously, that is why California is “broke,” because the gazillion-dollar corporations that call California home simply do not pay any state income tax. From CALPIRG: (http://www.calpirg.org/edfund/reports/reports-archive/sunshine-for-california-shining-light-on-corporate-tax-secrecy-for-healthier-state-budgets-investments-and-markets)

Corporate tax avoidance is a rampant problem

• In California 78 percent of corporations paid no more than the $800 minimum franchise tax in 2001. Worse, over half of profitable corporations paid no more than $800 minimum, including 46 corporations with over $1 billion in 2001 receipts.

• A study by the Multistate Tax Commission, a joint agency of state governments, estimates that by 2001 the growth of corporate tax sheltering accounted for $12.4 billion in lost annual revenue beyond what occurred during the 1980s. According to mid-range estimates, California corporate tax revenue was 19 percent lower than it should have been.

• The federal Government Accountability Office estimates that underreported corporate income taxes and employment taxes cost the federal government $84 billion in 2001. The GAO also reports that 33 percent of large U.S. corporations reported no tax liability in 1995, a percentage that rose to 45 percent by 2000.

• A study of 252 Fortune 500 companies between 2001 and 2003 found that they paid state taxes at only a third of the statutory rates and 71 of them paid no state taxes at all during at least one of these years.

But don’t worry, the Wall Street Journal had a story today about how California’s real tax problem is that rich people get taxed too much. And no, we aren’t linking to it.

eeeeeeeli
03-28-2011, 10:48 PM
Wow. So California experienced a 2/3 drop in revenue since '07? That seems really weird.

chiwhisoxx
03-29-2011, 01:36 AM
How much do you love this (http://wonkette.com/441542/california-gov-jerry-browns-first-dog-euthanized-due-to-budget-cuts)?

I think Wonkette's brave stand against the evils of places like the WSJ is really going to put a dent in their traffic

stephanie
03-29-2011, 01:53 PM
Wow. So California experienced a 2/3 drop in revenue since '07? That seems really weird.

It does. That's the category that I'd like to see broken up more usefully.

uncle ebeneezer
03-29-2011, 03:47 PM
Oh this is great. I'll have to send that to my millionaire buddy who claims that the rich get over-taxed and teachers unions are the culprit for all of CA's fiscal woes.

PS no, my friend is not named Mickey Kaus.

bjkeefe
03-29-2011, 04:19 PM
I think Wonkette's brave stand against the evils of places like the WSJ is really going to put a dent in their traffic

Links from Wonkette are valuable enough that Politico got all bent out of shape when Ken Layne put the Politico link ban on.

And even if you don't think the WSJ is going to worry, it's a statement. Sometimes we make statements just to stand up and be counted, because it's the proper thing to do.

I realize this is a concept with which you are unfamiliar, but maybe you'll grasp it someday.

uncle ebeneezer
03-29-2011, 05:15 PM
In related news. It's the tax-cuts, stupid!! (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/28/v-print/2138192/states-broke-maybe-they-cut-taxes.html#ixzz1HvC0GTOe)

JonIrenicus
03-29-2011, 09:19 PM
It does. That's the category that I'd like to see broken up more usefully.

the chart allows some selection of specific revenue streams, it looks like the largest dip in revenue was from "insurance trust revenue" whatever that is.

Around +100 billion in 2007 to -77 billion in 2009...


so a 180 billion dollar negative swing in that area basically gutted the revenue of the state. The other revenue seemed more stable.


Now I need to go find out exactly what this insurance trust is, it must be related to real estate..

stephanie
03-30-2011, 12:40 PM
the chart allows some selection of specific revenue streams, it looks like the largest dip in revenue was from "insurance trust revenue" whatever that is.

Around +100 billion in 2007 to -77 billion in 2009...


so a 180 billion dollar negative swing in that area basically gutted the revenue of the state. The other revenue seemed more stable.


Now I need to go find out exactly what this insurance trust is, it must be related to real estate..

Oh, that makes more sense. I found a definition here (http://www.census.gov/govs/state/definitions.html#insur_trust_rev) and here (http://www.census.gov/govs/state/0905cast.html):

Revenue from contributions required of employers and employees for financing social insurance programs operated by the government (see Insurance trust system, below) and earnings on assets held for such systems. Excludes any contributions by a government–either as employer contributions or for general financial support–to a social insurance system it administers. Note that tax proceeds, donations, and any forms of revenue other than those enumerated above are classified as general revenue, even though such amounts may be received specifically for insurance trust purposes.

and

Within insurance trust revenue, net earnings of state retirement systems is a calculated statistic (the item code in the data file is X08), and thus can be positive or negative. Net earnings is the sum of earnings on investments plus gains on investments minus losses on investments.

stephanie
03-30-2011, 12:50 PM
And here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/us/06states.html?_r=1) an article (from January):

When total state government revenues across the nation plummeted by a record-breaking 30.8 percent in 2009, the steep investment losses of pension funds proved to be an even bigger drain on state coffers than recession-battered tax collections, according to census data released Wednesday....

Tax collections fell by $66 billion, blowing a hole in the operating budgets of many states. But the biggest losses will be felt only in the future: states reported a $477 billion decline in what the census calls “insurance trust revenue,” mostly from pension funds but also from funds for unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation.

It is hardly a secret that the bursting of the housing bubble and the Great Recession pummeled state finances. But the new census data, for the fiscal year that ended for most states at the end of June 2009, provides the most comprehensive view yet of the decisions states made in the year they saw their revenues fall by record amounts.

The data told a tale of states struggling to adapt to the new fiscal reality. Thanks to an infusion of federal aid, largely from the stimulus, states saw their general revenues decrease by only 1.4 percent — but general expenditures by state governments rose by 3 percent.

Public welfare spending rose 6.1 percent in 2009, as needs rose during the prolonged recession and the federal stimulus bill provided more money to states for programs like Medicaid and the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. But at the same time, Mr. Boyd pointed out, “spending on some of the bread-and-butter operations of government came to a virtual standstill” as corrections spending grew by only 1 percent, spending on government administration grew by less than half a percent, and spending on parks and recreation fell by 4.6 percent....

operative
03-30-2011, 05:00 PM
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=i6b2dd9bq9ljq_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=revenue&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:CA:NY:TX:MI&tstart=883612800000&tunit=Y&tlen=11&hl=en&dl=en&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=debt&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:CA:NY:MI&hl=en&dl=en



Pretty interesting, you can select different states and toggle between revenues/expenditure/debt etc


I love how California has a massive revenue drop, massive increase in debt, and still spending increases more than some marginal amount.

Many states are far flatter than that, housing is a large part of it I guess, but still, they seem to operate better and have a better tie in with revenue/spending. What a horrible thing to want to shoot for...
Nice way of seeing who has been naughty (California) and nice (North Dakota). I'd love to get the full data for some R fun (unlike Larry Bartels, I'm not dumb enough to make a purely partisan claim--some Republicans are as irresponsible as most Democrats).

handle
03-30-2011, 05:15 PM
Nice way of seeing who has been naughty (California) and nice (North Dakota). I'd love to get the full data for some R fun (unlike Larry Bartels, I'm not dumb enough to make a purely partisan claim--some Republicans are as irresponsible as most Democrats).

The curves are closely related with the most populated states showing much larger deviations and initial budgets. For extreme blue / red state comparison check Oregon vs. Arizona. Good thing you didn't go with a partisan bent. But while were on the subject of partisan battles, don't forget to look at Wisconsin!

operative
03-30-2011, 05:25 PM
The curves are closely related with the most populated states showing much larger deviations and initial budgets. For extreme blue / red state comparison check Oregon vs. Arizona. Good thing you didn't go with a partisan bent. But while were on the subject of partisan battles, don't forget to look at Wisconsin!

That is true; it's also worth taking into account this chart here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_debt_rank

I may measure that against this (wondering if states whose populations are clustered in large population centers naturally cause larger debt than states without such high urbanization):
http://www.demographia.com/db-urban2000state.htm

Though it does seem, just upon a cursory glance, that the differences may be more regional in nature.

handle
03-30-2011, 05:33 PM
That is true; it's also worth taking into account this chart here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_debt_rank

I may measure that against this (wondering if states whose populations are clustered in large population centers naturally cause larger debt than states without such high urbanization):
http://www.demographia.com/db-urban2000state.htm

Though it does seem, just upon a cursory glance, that the differences may be more regional in nature.

Yeah, from your second chart, I put Illinois up on the google chart and it more closely resembles CA and NY. Cities cost money... who knew?;)

Added: New Jersey is right in there too, but the real funny one has to be Nevada... And I thought the wages of sin were down in this economy.

stephanie
03-30-2011, 06:30 PM
Yeah, from your second chart, I put Illinois up on the google chart and it more closely resembles CA and NY. Cities cost money... who knew?;)



It's really hard to get into a comparison, though, because one has to understand more about the circumstances than anyone ever is re all 50 states. For example, I suppose you could claim IL, NY, and CA as liberal states, but IL's taxes have followed a generally conservative model. I mean, we have a state income tax, unlike some states,* but until the increase this year it was among the lowest and is basically flat and starts at a low level of income. Tons of tax breaks for corporations to attract them. And a pretty high sales tax (6.25% state, and even more in Cook and Chicago -- highest in the nation, I believe). But raising money through non-progressive low income tax and sales tax tends to be more like the kind of tax burdens desired by the right than the left. (A friend of mine from WI always credited the awful IL state gov't vs. the supposedly better WI state gov't to the fact that you get what you pay for, and WI had higher taxes. Haven't asked him his thoughts on recent events yet.)

Now, obviously, this ignores the fact that corruption (in both parties) and unions and so on all play their role in the awfulness that is IL government, but the idea that we'd be run more responsibly if not for the Dems is completely inconsistent with my actual observations of what goes on here.

*Though even that can be misleading. For example, AK's super conservative lack of income or sales tax is workable because they soak the oil companies. Arguably, that sounds pretty liberal (though don't tell that to the Alaskans. They all have guns).

handle
03-30-2011, 08:16 PM
It's really hard to get into a comparison, though, because one has to understand more about the circumstances than anyone ever is re all 50 states. For example, I suppose you could claim IL, NY, and CA as liberal states, but IL's taxes have followed a generally conservative model. I mean, we have a state income tax, unlike some states,* but until the increase this year it was among the lowest and is basically flat and starts at a low level of income. Tons of tax breaks for corporations to attract them. And a pretty high sales tax (6.25% state, and even more in Cook and Chicago -- highest in the nation, I believe). But raising money through non-progressive low income tax and sales tax tends to be more like the kind of tax burdens desired by the right than the left. (A friend of mine from WI always credited the awful IL state gov't vs. the supposedly better WI state gov't to the fact that you get what you pay for, and WI had higher taxes. Haven't asked him his thoughts on recent events yet.)

Now, obviously, this ignores the fact that corruption (in both parties) and unions and so on all play their role in the awfulness that is IL government, but the idea that we'd be run more responsibly if not for the Dems is completely inconsistent with my actual observations of what goes on here.

*Though even that can be misleading. For example, AK's super conservative lack of income or sales tax is workable because they soak the oil companies. Arguably, that sounds pretty liberal (though don't tell that to the Alaskans. They all have guns).

LOL That was the point I was trying to make about the Oregon - Arizona comparison, re: Right vs. Left doesn't seem to have an overall effect in two fairly comparable economies. But you make very good points regarding contributing factors. The CA and NY cases also share international corporate based chunks that are somewhat unique to the coastal metropolitan centers.
I have to wonder, since these state budgets are so much higher than others, if corporate taxation (and fiscal burden*), or the sudden decline of it, isn't a big part of this picture.

*added

uncle ebeneezer
03-31-2011, 01:21 PM
In an interesting aside, here's a good post on taxation strategies by region (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-the-south-taxes/2011/03/28/AFrGqz9B_blog.html).

operative
03-31-2011, 07:44 PM
In an interesting aside, here's a good post on taxation strategies by region (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-the-south-taxes/2011/03/28/AFrGqz9B_blog.html).

Not too bad (one of the few Ezra Klein posts that isn't vomit-inducing), but he makes some ill-advised statements. Cigarette taxes aren't taxes on the poor, they're taxes on the stupid (sorry, smokers). Yes, a higher percentage of poor people smoke than rich people. But people don't smoke because of their income level, they smoke because of peer pressure/behavioral wiring/whatever other reason you want to ascribe it to. Ezra has a problem with taxing consumption, which is applied evenly, and instead favors taxing success, which is not.

The income tax isn't merely progressive, it's downright ludicrous: a very high percentage of the population pays no income tax at all. I'd rather see everyone pay a little and no one pay a lot.

operative
03-31-2011, 07:48 PM
It's really hard to get into a comparison, though, because one has to understand more about the circumstances than anyone ever is re all 50 states. For example, I suppose you could claim IL, NY, and CA as liberal states, but IL's taxes have followed a generally conservative model. I mean, we have a state income tax, unlike some states,* but until the increase this year it was among the lowest and is basically flat and starts at a low level of income. Tons of tax breaks for corporations to attract them. And a pretty high sales tax (6.25% state, and even more in Cook and Chicago -- highest in the nation, I believe). But raising money through non-progressive low income tax and sales tax tends to be more like the kind of tax burdens desired by the right than the left. (A friend of mine from WI always credited the awful IL state gov't vs. the supposedly better WI state gov't to the fact that you get what you pay for, and WI had higher taxes. Haven't asked him his thoughts on recent events yet.)

Now, obviously, this ignores the fact that corruption (in both parties) and unions and so on all play their role in the awfulness that is IL government, but the idea that we'd be run more responsibly if not for the Dems is completely inconsistent with my actual observations of what goes on here.

*Though even that can be misleading. For example, AK's super conservative lack of income or sales tax is workable because they soak the oil companies. Arguably, that sounds pretty liberal (though don't tell that to the Alaskans. They all have guns).

I think that the performance of the GOP in South Carolina (hopefully Nikki Haley will change this) and other states back you up (I'm no partisan--I just happen to dislike many Democrats more than some Republicans). The problem is more that politicians have every incentive to behave irresponsibly: it will help them win elections in the short run to run deficits and kick the can down the road, and by the time it becomes too big of a mess, they'll be out of office and it'll be some other schmuck's problem. There are a few responsible governors out there, and Joe Manchin was one of them. They're just a rare breed.