Eight of the ten most heavily taxed states are Blue States. Nine of the ten least taxed states are Red States.

I wonder if there is a relationship between the "Most heavily taxed states" and "the least taxed states" and infant mortality in these two areas...

In or ex utero?

Homer:
Cleaver way of avoiding the issue...why?

Touche! You elaborate on your post, and I'll do so on mine.

Guido-- there probably is a relationship-- but that's not to say that low infant mortality causes higher taxes (or were you trying to imply that higher taxes might cause lower infant mortality rates? Either way, I think it's a weak case directly between these two)...

My guess-- richness and urbanness probably contribute causally to higher taxes and lower (ex utero) infant mortality.

Peace.

Big shocker, indeed.

Perhaps if Dan would give us the eight blue and nine red states, we could Google those for infant mortality statistics...

I already did that Guido.

Here is the chart I found:
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank17.html

All you have to do is look at the link Flynn gave on taxation and compare them. The avg rank of the high tax states in comparison to all states on infant mortality is 35.6 while the avg ranking of the low tax states is 24.3. Six out of the ten lowest IM states are also in the top ten taxed states (one of them is a red state); while four out of the ten highest IM states are also in the ten least taxed states.

Your claim that these are linked though is likely one of false causation. The high IM states have other more obviously relevant factors than level of taxation to explain the difference. Lack of urbanization and more rural poverty for example. I suspect that Homer's point about the frequency of abortion in the blue higher taxed states is relevant as well for decreasing the rate of infant mortality by killing off babies of the poor, which are probably also those infants most at risk for communicable diseases.

Also note that this chart only covered infant mortality up to age one. I suspect that if one looks at childhood mortality rates and teen mortality rates than a completely different picture would be painted when comparing high tax and low tax states. I didn't find any easy to use statistics on that subject though.

Thank you Brian,
Can you give me the name of the actual eight blue states and the nine red states Dan was talking about? (Then I can look up their infant mortality rates myself.)

I'm still unclear as to what conclusion is to be drawn by such data. Can anyone clarify this for me? I admit, I'm dense...I must have missed it.

I am not at home now so I don't have the sheet I jotted down the states on. Just follow Dan's link to the census data on taxation and look at the top ten and bottom ten in tax per capita.

I am actually not certain what that tax chart shows Homer. It doesn't specify if this is total taxes (federal/state/local/other) or not. The chart also says total taxes paid and total taxes per capita. But it doesn't indicate whether or not a state with a higher per capita rate could simply have more extremely rich people who are driving the total taxes up, which when then divided amongst total persons (taxpayers? citizens? residents?) results in the high per capita rate. It would be nice to know the median income in these states and the numbers of persons in various levels of income.

Homer:
See Scully's last sentence.
The citizens of some states are more willing than others to tax themselves to support health initiatives that are reflected in infant mortality rates. A collective self-reliant enterprise. Dan says that the blue states have higher taxes. Brian says that high tax states have a lower infant mortality "in comparison to all states." Brian also suggests that perhaps abortions in blue states may cut down on infant mortality figures. Is that a viable position?

Dan- Welcome to Oregon- the 10th least taxed, BLUE state in the union.

Nice chatting with you last night. Thanks for coming to OSU. Too bad you didn't propose any solutions to the country's problems.

Rebecca: Do you think that there are "solutions" to "our countries problems"? You make it sound as if there were a magic potion out there just waiting to be found and that that is what discussion about politics are supposed to provide.

Dan, I don't think that's a surprise to many people. But it did prompt me to do some additional research. I created a new table and added the per-capita income for each state. Then I calculated per-capita income after taxes (income minus taxes) for each state. I posted the table at http://web.pdx.edu/~brr/taxes.xhtml.

If you meant to imply any sort of causation between blue/red state policy and the amount of tax in that state, you should consider a link between blue/red policy and prosperity. Many so-called "leftist" economic policies do intend to boost the economy, and hopefully, return more to the taxpayers than they originally paid in tax as a result of that boost. On my list, eight of the top ten states for income after taxes are blue states. Not only that, of the ten states that leave the average person with the least money, all are red.

If you could become the average resident of any state, the best choice would be the blue state of Connecticut. Even though you'd pay the fourth highest amount of total taxes, it's only the sixteenth highest tax by percent of income, and at 11.47%, it's pretty close to the average tax of 10.85%.

Guido (sorry it took me so long to respond),

I have to say, I think it's funny that I can make NO point whatsoever, yet Brian and others comment on it. In any case, Brian hit pretty close the mark, but not quite. Abortion is a plague in all states, and I imagine that "number of abortions per 100 people" or whatever would be consistent across the country, independent of this tax data (this is just a guess, though). Population probably dictates which state has the highest number of abortions.

I have no problem with the people taxing themselves for the public good, and certainly lowering infant mortality rates (though killing babies to lower the rate strikes me ever so slightly as cheating...) is a laudable goal.

If a state wants to do these things, go for it. In fact, I believe the states should be able to decide if abortion, pot, prostitution, or whatever is going to be legal in their state. I support the right of the states to infuse religion into their schools and government. What I do not support is the right of Congress to assume these powers (with the approval for such abuses coming from the SC). This is a much larger debate, and I'll let the more intelligent Federalists argue the finer points.

But if the main point you're making is that it is good for a State to be self-reliant, to collectively agree to control its own destiny without interference: then "Amen!" brother.

Brian: There is certainly a *correlation* between prosperity in a state and it's red/blue status. (Ironically, this undermines the blue rhetoric that republicans are rich, but, in any case...) Aren't you being a bit quick to assume that the *cause* of higher prosperity in blue states is the higher taxes? I far more readily believe the opposite: that urbanness and prosperity cause increased support for taxes.

You also (incredibly naively) assume that one would, all other things being equal, want to be in Connecticut because they have high after-tax income averages. What you are not considering is that money is not simply equivalent to standard of living. Also, to be in the middle class with a family in a place like New England is a heck of a lot harder monetarily (think housing prices!) than being middle class in, say, Kansas or Texas.

Maine is the highest taxed state in the land, and it also among the lowest per capita; also not a surprise that a state cannot tax it's way into prosperity. But while it's a blue state with the presidential elections, it is the only New England state where the state legislative body is and has been trending Republican in both state legislative branches (and they do have 2 Republican US Senators at least, if not only in name) so it makes it a somewhat purplish state. New Hampshire, the only New England state with Republicans in control of the legislature, has been slowly trending toward the Democrats in recent years. NH is the 2nd largest parliamentary body in the English-speaking world, so it may take awhile for it to become a blue legislature, but those fleeing Taxachusetts have had an impact over it's liberalization time. See the state legislative balance here: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/statevote/legpartycontrol_pre2004.htm

Maine is among the lowest in per capita income I intended to say.

It is funny how the liberals don’t get it and are the first to flee the results of what they’ve sown. You’re right that the Massholes have changed the political and social complexion of New Hampshire. And it’s funny that these are the same people who have left Mass. to go to ‘Live Free or Die’ New Hampshire for a better and less intrusive existence, just to demand and expect the same services. And, of course, to pay for those services the cost of government goes up.

Will never forget this woman in my town who lobbied for an override for the schools. When it passed, and she got her tax bill, she was shocked at the increase and incensed that she would have to pay more taxes. As said, liberals don't get it.

Just for clarity, I'd like to make sure everyone knows that I'm a different "Brian" than the one that is just going by his first name.

Skeptic: I agree that we shouldn't draw a conclusion of causation from just this data; I was merely pointing out that it also fits the expectations of an economically liberal viewpoint. Just as Dan Flynn said that it's "no surprise" that blue states have higher taxes, I am not surprised that they are more prosperous and the people ultimately have more money.

I don't have much time right now, so I'll have to get back to you later.