The 10 Most Socialist States In America

This should be the correct forum. If not mods please move. This has be the greatest and most surprising articles I have read. The host site is for business. So, it's safe to say this is not a Left or Right political manner site.
www.businessinsider.com...
I don't want to spoil the list but California is no where on here.
You'll be surprised who is number one!

I work hard for my money. I leave my two gorgeous kids every morning to make money because I have to. So, I hate taxes. I hate politicians who waste my tax dollars. I hate politicians who can’t say no to wasteful spending, and then throw salt on the wound and increase taxes to escalate the rape of hardworking, law abiding taxpayers. So let’s take a look at the states that are doing this the most, the most socialist ones. How do we know whether a state is socialist? Very easy. By definition, socialist states (or countries) tax and spend a higher percentage of their GDP. Instead of returning state revenue back to taxpayers, these states think they know how to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars better. So we only need two pieces of data to determine which states are the most socialist: total state revenue and the state’s GDP.

yep...figures as much

most socialist states are, as suspected...mostly red states.

I guess its easy to not want others to have what you have.


I knew alaska was all but a social empire state...but figured they would rank up towards the top with the resource wealth redistribution.

Anyhow, a state should feel free to be socialist...like full blown socialism if they wished it...that is the choice of that state overall...I think the argument being made is the federal government should remain a republic...if nebraska wants to try out communism on its citizens, without violating federal law...then that would be their right...

still, I do find it funny...where is california on that list?

Some of those results are skewed by the low populations of the states, but I'm not surprised to see North Dakota on there. We are the only state in the nation to have a state owned bank (Bank of North Dakota) and a state owned mill & elevator (North Dakota Mill & Elevator)

Both date from the Prairie Populist era in the early 1900s, and operate in competition (sort of) with non-state owned institutions in the state. State and local government agencies are required to use the BND, though most people in the state have no interaction with the bank, barring student loans, which they give a lot of. They've only one "branch", in the capital, and I've never seen a BND ATM anywhere :-)

Paradoxical for a generally conservative state to have these institutions? Yeah, I suppose so, but the state has a long tradition of "leave us alone," which is why we tend to be conservative, and why we would create institutions like these to allow the state to help the citizens of the state in two areas that were critical to farming in the early 1900s.

Originally posted by adjensen
Some of those results are skewed by the low populations of the states

Socialism=Revenue/GDP
Low population isn't a factor.
Lets look at state A
1 Person lives there, he makes 1000$ a [Timeperiod] and gov taxes are 100$
Socialism of that state is 0.1
Now 5999 people move to state A, and get the same job as the single inhabitant.
The population makes now 6 Millon dollars a [Timeperiod] and gov taxes on that income are 600.000 $
Socialism of that state is still 0.1

reply to post by debunky


Except that there is a baseline of spending that every state gets from the Fed, and low population states have that spread over fewer people. For example, there are a lot of roads in North Dakota, Montana, Alaska and Wyoming to be taken care of, likely (I'd say certainly, but I'm too lazy to go verify) significantly more miles of it than smaller states like Rhode Island or Virginia.

North Dakota also gets a fairly significant amount of revenue from the oil fields in the western part of the state, though that's mostly tucked away for a rainy day (we voted down one of those propositions to spend the oil tax money a couple of years ago,) so once again, you have a good size chunk of money spread over a small number of people.

There are enough low population states on that list to make it fairly evident that the number of people has some impact on the maths.

Very surprised to see Vermont on the list...You could pretty much launch your own space shuttle in VT without govt intervention...They need to collect taxes from the 15 people that live there just to stamp out the all green license plates

They are twisting the definition of socialism.
Socialism isn’t directly proportional to the tax rate.
Socialism is making sure everyone has an even cut of the pie, so you take from the ones that earn more, to give it to the “needy” so everyone is equal.

There is more than one way to do that.

Method one. Use a progressive taxation system that taxes the high earners heavily, and taxes the low earners very little or none at all. Spend the money in a way that it benefits everyone equally.


Method two. Tax everyone equally, but spend the money in a way that it only/mainly benefits the low earners.

Most states have a mixture of the two.

Method two would conform to their model better. But a state that use method one would be classified as a non socialist state. The tax per GDP would be very little because most of the people would be paying nothing, but the few who did make a lot would be paying for everything.

The states that taxed everyone equally, and spent the money so that it benefited everyone equally, would show up as a socialist state because a fixed percent of all GDP that is made by everyone would be taxed, and the spending of that money would benefit everyone including the high earners and the low ones.

So it is just another attempt at twisting people’s comprehension of reality before an election.

Lesion number one, don’t accept the premise! They try to lead you to a pre disposed answer by setting a false premise.

More run of the mill brainwashing crap.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


ok you know that list is bs for the simple fact california and new york wasnt in it for the fact most of anything newengland geographically is nothing but socialists.

yeah you people look at governors but no who controls the state houses- the left.

then look at the massive entitlement per state and clearly clearly number 1 and 2 ARE california and new york.


that is some seriously piece of biased propaganda piece.

reply to post by BingeBob


Let's not go into retarded stereotypes.

I'd expect a site that denies ignorance to stamp out such garbage.

reply to post by neo96


Blah blah blah. If you did your research, you'd find out that a state like Vermont has a REPUBLICAN governor in office and instead of working with the state senate and legislature, he BLAMES them for everything. Guess what? They're mostly Democrats. No wonder.

Where's the jobs, Jim? Where's the jobs, Brian?

Haha, so $arah Palin the unofficial leader of the Tea Party movement and spokeswomen and representative of the American people who is an anti-marxist and against liberalism was in charge of the largest socialist state in America!??? Ohh the hypocrisy.

Just shows you that non of these people clamming to represent the Tea Party truly do.

reply to post by The Sword


except that the fact that half of these states had democrats for goverors......

nice way to skew it tho, a very sloppily done poll

reply to post by The Sword


and friend if you had done your research youd know the only reason that every single one of those states gdp as as massive as they are

the only reason is those states are spending massive amounts of money than they are taking in and the only reason is the massive entitlement programs.

and last time i checked social programs are the product and brainchild of socialists the betterment of people and the means to enslave.

and those people live in poverty thats what it is POVERTY and the socialist will never yeild to taking aways from others to give to those less fornuate while creating more people to take care of.

take or leave and just deal with it thats what socialists do thats what they will always do.

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
Haha, so $arah Palin the unofficial leader of the Tea Party movement and spokeswomen and representative of the American people who is an anti-marxist and against liberalism was in charge of the largest socialist state in America!??? Ohh the hypocrisy.

Just shows you that non of these people clamming to represent the Tea Party truly do.

I would say that the low population of Alaska (for the reasons I detailed above) and the massive amount of income from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields (and subsequent revenue sharing for residents) accounts for their topping the list.

I would also say that Sarah Palin is a nitwit, and any positives that the state has experienced have, no doubt, been despite her, not because of her, lol.