You mean southern Massachusetts isn't Canada...

Always loved the accepted translation of the lake's name was "You fish on your side, I'll fish on my side, no body fishes in the middle"

↓↑report

Wilcraft's website lists its address as.

Multifarious Inc./Wilcraft
2582 1/2 White Bear Ave
Maplewood, MN 55109

↓↑report

I must visit this lake just because that name is so full of awesome.

↓↑report

If you hate the taxes there, move to a state which doesn't collect enough, and see how you like the lack of good schools, roads, bridges, and public transport.

↓↑report

I live in South Dakota. We don't HAVE any state taxes, and we do just fine. Our infrastructure gets fixed easily, cause we don't support all the crooked contractors in our state, to do it.

I lived in the People's Republic of Massachusetts for 15 years, but I escaped. Good advice for you, bud; start digging.

↓↑report

Mmmmmm, Glass House?... Meet Rock...

State taxes may not exist there but, frankly, I'd rather have a state & it's residents pay it's/their own way.

As of 2007 (the latest year such data is available &, coincidentally, the last full non-campaign year of President Bush's administration), the Federal Government spent $8,400 per capita on each resident in the United States, but fully $2,000 more per capita ($10,400) on each resident of North Dakota, roughly $1,000 more than on each resident of Massachusetts. Another state with less state tax burden, Nevada, is less of a drain, per capita, on Federal funds. http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/

Looked at another way, how many dollars of Federal support does a state receive for every dollar of Federal taxes paid?(From The Tax Foundation)--- South Dakota receives $1.53 for every $1.00 paid by it's citizens vs. $0.82 for Massachusetts residents (paying more than they receive). http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
(The mission of the Tax Foundation is to educate taxpayers about sound tax policy and the size of the tax burden borne by Americans at all levels of government. From its founding in 1937, the Tax Foundation has been grounded in the belief that the dissemination of basic information about government finance is the foundation of sound policy in a free society.)

It is highly likely that infrastructure for a relatively lightly populated state is somewhat less stressed than it might be for a more urban/suburban environment; I would guess that, not only are there likely to be, for example, more emergency facilities in Massachusetts, but a strong demand for even more, given both the absolute numbers and relative density of people (density resulting, in many cases, actually creating more need, not less, for services). Also, having an ocean border and an international one, at that, makes for a significantly higher demand on services; Given that, it's not surprising that Massachusetts might be closer to the stretching/breaking point but it IS surprising that North Dakota residents get more, per capita, support from the rest of us. More Federal Government, anyone?

Finally, this blew my mind because, frankly, I never thought this would be the case... The states that tend to more often be "red" states, in fact, are more likely to reap more in federal spending than they pay in taxes while "blue" states are more likely to pay more in federal taxes than they receive in spending.
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF

↓↑report

:eyes become glazed:

And you somehow believe that this sort of information is interesting, pertinent and creatively snappy, for this blog?

I bet you're a scream, around the water cooler at the 'ol thinktank, praised for your finely tuned recall of errata in the face of possible free expression...you're always there to stomp on facts with more facts.

People who defend Massachusetts worry me, given there's no realistic justification for it, aside from the horrendous tsunami of useless fodder delivered above.

May you receive the Congressional Record Lifetime Achievement Award, for your efforts, sir.

↓↑report

Not defending Massachusetts; I'm actually probably more interested in responsible taxation than many of those that scream about taxes.

As for injecting something into this blog that is irrelevant, I think you started it. It's just that I believe in illuminating hypocrisy for what it is.

And, as a matter of fact, I work for a car company, not a think tank, though I have to admit that your assumption that I would actually be a "thinker" is more flattery than not; In fact, I think you've exposed a rather unflattering bias against those that actually think for a living... too bad. You should try it sometime.

↓↑report

Err, not if it means accepting the philosophy that paying more taxes is a good thing. The reason South Dakota gets such a high return for it's tax pay-in is that we have a large amount of military activity here, with the accompanying infrastructure, and it requires upkeep in excess of Massachusetts. Had you really been a thinker, and not simply a poseur, you could have easily found that out, and avoided embarrassing yourself.

Also, since you work for a car company, does the bailout loan money count toward you as a return on taxation, or do you get that for free?

↓↑report

I stand by what I posted in response to your original politically-charged post. And, I do not work for a company that has received any bail-out monies. Nor do I, as I mentioned, believe in taxation for the sake of more taxation but, rather, responsible taxation (money that goes to paying down the debt, rather than add to it, and provide services needed to maintain a society, such as Military). More examples of assumptions made that are, as the facts show, wrong.

If you'd like, I can post more facts on the non-defense related Federal expenses relative to taxes paid.

Again, I posted in response to politically-charged, unsupported-by-fact irrelevancies. I provided facts produced by non-partisan sources and am, actually, a lot less likely to be who you think I am than is obvious. What does this AB story have to do with your original post, anyway?

↓↑report

Since when did Massachusetts have an international maritime border? :shrug:

↓↑report