September State Tax Revenues Reflect Recovery
1. Kansas reported Thursday that it collected $3 million more in taxes than anticipated in September. It was the third consecutive month the state met or surpassed its projections. Tax collections since the fiscal year began July 1 were almost $38 million more than anticipated.
2. Massachusetts tax revenues surged in September, increasing more than 14 percent compared to the same month last year. Revenue Commissioner Navjeet Bal says the state collected more than $2 billion last month, or about $250 million more than September of last year. She said it was a sign of a growing economy.
3. West Virginia's economy continues to perform above expectations, based on state tax collections in September, according to the state deputy secretary of revenue. Overall, the state collected a total of $380.5 million in taxes for the month, $28.35 million above estimates, and up 5.9 percent from September 2009.
4. Net general revenue collections in Missouri for September 2010 increased by 9.1 percent compared to those for September 2009, from $648.7 million to $707.7 million.
5. Arkansas tax collections for September were 1.8 percent below the monthly forecast but 6.9 percent above collections a year ago, the state’s top fiscal officer said today. “We’re still well ahead of last year, and each month we’re progressing well ahead of last year,” said Richard Weiss, director of the state Department of Finance and Administration.
14 Comments:
While I admire your search for reasons to be optimistic I think that you have this problem with looking at the big picture. The USD is looking quite weak and has only been propped up by relative strength due to the weakness in other nations. Deficit spending is out of control and unfunded liabilities are an order of magnitude greater than GDP. Real estate prices are still low in comparison to where they were a few years ago but much higher where they need to be to clear the market. The banking system is insolvent and is only being propped up by favourable accounting rules and Fed intervention in the markets. Government is growing and a far bigger portion of the economy than it should be.
Expect the UST market to take a huge hit as the Fed's latest bubble finally bursts and wipes out savers and pension plan assets. Expect the dollar to keep losing purchasing power just as the other national fiat currencies do. Expect inflation to take hold.
these statistics are mostly meaningless by themselves.
we need a great deal more information.
"exceeds expectations" is meaningless in terms of knowing a trend. it could be expectations that are dropping.
up x% from last year can sound great, but up 6 after down 15 is still not so hot.
we also need to know about increased rates, new taxes, increased enforcement, loss carryforwards, tax holidays, and a vast number of other issues.
there is also some very selective reprting going on here:
kansas:
"But in September, sales and individual income taxes actually fell short of expectations by a combined $5 million, or 1.2 percent. The state had expected to take in $429 million from those sources and collected $424 million."
mass:
up 10%, but compared to down 16% in fy 2010, so still off nearly 8% from fy 2009, which was not a good year.
missouri-
the numbers remain historically weak. Missouri general revenue in fiscal 2010 dropped by 9.1 percent and by 6.9 percent in fiscal 2009. The growth in the current year has a long way to go before it makes up for the significant decline of these last two years.”
Worth noting is that with the exception of Mass., these are all states in the "Red State Socialist Empire."
That is, they are states that receive back $1.50 or so for every dollar they send to DC, even in the Bush years.
Checkout Tax Foundation data.
I imagine in stimulus years, they are getting back $2 for every dollar they send to DC.
The R-Party says fiscal stimulus does not work, but boy the Red Ink States fight for federal money, and usually more successfully than blue states.
Benji,
"Worth noting is that with the exception of Mass., these are all states in the "Red State Socialist Empire."
West Va- Home of the late king of pork, Robert Byrd. Benji, any guesses what party he hailed from? How about the other W Va Senator, Jay Rockefeller?
2of the 3 House members are DEMOCRATS.
Missouri- Sen Claire McCaskill DEMOCRAT
4 of the 8 House members are DEMOCRATS.
Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor are both DEMOCRATS.
3 of 4 House members are DEMOCRATS.
How's that again with the Red State Socialist bullshit, Benji?
"Checkout Tax Foundation data."
This would be the same organization that says the main reason for the uneven distribution is the progressive income tax.
Worth noting is that with the exception of Mass., these are all states in the "Red State Socialist Empire."
No matter how hard Americans try to spin the story both the Democratic Party and Republican Party stand for the same thing. They are corrupt, immoral, and statist. This is probably why the US economy is ultimately doomed; the productive class is too tired of being robbed and unwilling to support the parasitic elite and its constituents.
"No matter how hard Americans try to spin the story both the Democratic Party and Republican Party stand for the same thing. "
Vangel,
That's the sweeping generalization we hear from Ron Paul nutcases and third party losers. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Chris Christie is not the same as John Corzine.
That's the sweeping generalization we hear from Ron Paul nutcases and third party losers. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Chris Christie is not the same as John Corzine.
No, that is reality. Nixon grew the size of government and engaged in wage and price controls. He severed the link between gold and the USD and claimed that Friedman was right when he said, "We are all Keynesians now." Under Reagan we saw spending explode even as he promised to cut various departments whose activities were not authorized by the Constitution. And as that idiot from the left has pointed out, "no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people." Bush I was no better and increased income taxes yet again. Bush II was the worst of the lot as he increased regulations, spending, and grew the size of government as no peacetime president before him.
The idea that presidents that come from the Evil Party are more fiscally responsible than those that come from the Stupid Party is nonsense and not supported by the facts. Both parties need to be rejected by voters or they will get exactly what they voted for.
Please note that I am not exactly complaining because the destruction of the USD is actually very good for realists who have bet against it by putting their wealth in gold, silver, energy, agricultural commodities, and other assets that should benefit from the decline that you are cheering.
You'll get no argument from me regarding Nixon.
Under Reagan, domestic spending on failed liberal programs were pared back to the politically possible extent while Tip O'Neill ruled the Congress.
Bush I and Bush II spent too much, but both were far better than the alternatives. It's absurd to say Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have followed the same policies. The hostility to the private sector would have been as apparent as it is under Obama. And speaking of, there's no way McCain would have pushed for that idiotic stimulus or Obama-esque health care reform.
The only hope we have is for enough conservatives to win seats within the GOP. Rejecting "both parties" is not going to happen, pure fantasy.
A purely anecdotal view of why Missouri's tax revenues are going up, its due the rise in prices on goods, commodities, and services is what I'm seeing...
It seems to me that when one goes to the store, the gas station, and even Walmart many if not the prices of most items has also gone up 9.1 percent over the last year...
I'm assuming but have nothing to back this up that if the consumer is paying more for a good or a service so are industries and companies to about the same degree...
Am I wrong?
Bush I and Bush II spent too much, but both were far better than the alternatives. It's absurd to say Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have followed the same policies.
Sorry but I do not see how they could have spent as much. Clinton did not spend nearly as much as Bush.
The hostility to the private sector would have been as apparent as it is under Obama.
Possibly, but I did not see the public sector worry too much about hostility from Clinton.
And speaking of, there's no way McCain would have pushed for that idiotic stimulus or Obama-esque health care reform.
McCain is an old fool who is not all that different than your typical Democrat. He is a big government guy and is not to be trusted with any power.
The only hope we have is for enough conservatives to win seats within the GOP. Rejecting "both parties" is not going to happen, pure fantasy.
The 'Conservatives' pushed a war with Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and have been pushing a growing security apparatus that is consuming more and more cash while it reduces individual liberty for Americans. They were very quiet when Bush was pushing the expansion of Medicare Part D, increased education spending, pushed for affordable housing loans, etc., etc., etc.
The bottom line is that the Evil Party is not very different than the Stupid Party.
"Sorry but I do not see how they could have spent as much. Clinton did not spend nearly as much as Bush."
Yeah, because the GOP took the Congress in '94. Clinton tried to nationalize our health care system and signed a massive tax increase in his first 2 years with a Democrat Congress. The budget showdown of '95 is proof enough. It pitted the "extremist" Gingrich Republicans against the Clinton administration.
"McCain is an old fool who is not all that different than your typical Democrat. He is a big government guy and is not to be trusted with any power."
Oh, please. McCain is an asshole, but his voting analysis from Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayer's Union show him to be very different, and better, than a Democrat. Obama, by contrast, received the equivalent of an "F" from both groups. So did his idiot sidekick Joe Biden.
"The 'Conservatives' pushed a war with Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11"
Yeah, good. We had to make up for all those tanks and automatic weapons you say we sold them.
" and have been pushing a growing security apparatus that is consuming more and more cash while it reduces individual liberty for Americans."
More with the conspiracy crap. You really go off the rails when you push this stuff, Vangel.
"They were very quiet when Bush was pushing the expansion of Medicare Part D, increased education spending, pushed for affordable housing loans, etc., etc., etc. "
I don't know who you mean by "they." I didn't agree with any of that garbage and neither did any of the conservatives I know. I admit I didn't follow his "ownership society" homeowner stuff very close, but I doubt you did either.
I think the main problem, which both of have not mentioned, are the voters. Medicare Part D, for example, was popular with the public, and at the time we were running a surplus so people figured we could afford it. Besides, the Democrats had their own version which was twice as expensive. Twice as expensive is a significant difference.
Thank you Paul for your reply to VangeIV's comments!!
"The 'Conservatives' pushed a war with Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and have been pushing a growing security apparatus that is consuming more and more cash while it reduces individual liberty for Americans"...
Funny but how come people keep wanting to forget these Clinton administration problems with Iraq?
Can we say that 'Bush inherited Clinton's war'?...
Well no of course not, but Bush did inherit the intelligence that had be gathered during the Clinton administration...
Can you say Salman Pak?
Yeah, because the GOP took the Congress in '94. Clinton tried to nationalize our health care system and signed a massive tax increase in his first 2 years with a Democrat Congress. The budget showdown of '95 is proof enough. It pitted the "extremist" Gingrich Republicans against the Clinton administration.
What is proof are the Bush years when Republicans went along with one of the largest expansions of government in your history. Sorry but you have failed to demonstrate that the Evil Party is any more disciplined than the Stupid Party.
Oh, please. McCain is an asshole, but his voting analysis from Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayer's Union show him to be very different, and better, than a Democrat. Obama, by contrast, received the equivalent of an "F" from both groups. So did his idiot sidekick Joe Biden.
McCain is a statist. He was the guy who told a 2000 audience that, "There is nothing more noble than to sacrifice and serve our country's cause, causes greater than our self-interests" and used a campaign strategy that elevated the state over individual rights. He used exactly the same approach in 2008 and showed his statism to anyone who wanted to pay attention.
http://tinyurl.com/25som9n
http://tinyurl.com/2zmp22
http://tinyurl.com/2enqjgd
Yeah, good. We had to make up for all those tanks and automatic weapons you say we sold them.
The Iraq occupation was based on a lie. Let us not keep avoiding that simple fact by trying to spin narratives that further exposes the moral bankruptcy of US foreign policy.
More with the conspiracy crap. You really go off the rails when you push this stuff, Vangel.
What 'crap?' You are now watched by the state, which can imprison you if it wishes to, hold you without charges, confiscate your property, break into your home, etc. The land of the free is no more. What was left of it was killed off by the Patriot Act that was pushed by conservatives and liberals alike.
I don't know who you mean by "they." I didn't agree with any of that garbage and neither did any of the conservatives I know. I admit I didn't follow his "ownership society" homeowner stuff very close, but I doubt you did either.
They were the Republicans in Congress. They sold their souls to buy votes while ignoring sound economics. Voices like Ron Paul's were ignored and when he pointed out that Fannie and Freddie were a danger to the economy both parties laughed at him. Well, few are laughing now and most are trying to distance themselves from the positions they held when it was politically advantageous to ignore sound economic logic.
I think the main problem, which both of have not mentioned, are the voters. Medicare Part D, for example, was popular with the public, and at the time we were running a surplus so people figured we could afford it. Besides, the Democrats had their own version which was twice as expensive. Twice as expensive is a significant difference.
The voters will vote for the politicians that try to bribe them the most. But that does not excuse conservatives abandoning principles for political reasons. It is better to lose a few elections and oppose the Democrats as they fly the airplane into the side of the mountain than to share the pilot/copilot jobs while the airplane flies into the side of the mountain. By abandoning principle the Party of Evil shows that it deserves to be thrown out of power just as much as the Party of Stupid. What the US needs are sane voices that put liberty above politics.
Funny but how come people keep wanting to forget these Clinton administration problems with Iraq?
That would not be me. I have already pointed out that Clinton and Albright should have been tried for crimes against humanity just as the Nazis were. The sanctions killed more than half a million Arab children and they should have been held responsible along with a few other leaders in the UN and EU.
Can we say that 'Bush inherited Clinton's war'?...
Well no of course not, but Bush did inherit the intelligence that had be gathered during the Clinton administration...
Nonsense. Bush ignored the evidence that a lot of the intelligence was false because he and Cheney wanted the Iraqi oil fields.
Can you say Salman Pak?
Ideologues and idiots can say whatever they want to protect their indefensible positions. But that would not change the fact that there was no 9/11 involvement by Saddam, no weapons of mass destruction, and no credible threat to the US from Iraq.
Post a Comment
<< Home