Midwestern and Southern states dominate the list:

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/the-8...all&ref=OB

8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

(06-13-2014 06:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

Or more accurately, red states.

I'm shocked WV isn't on this list. There's great land out there for cheap.

Mostly the populist states of the depression era. Most handcuffed the power of the state and local government to impose taxes decades before California had their great taxpayer revolt. Most have questionable infrastructure because they are mostly lower population, lower income states and their governments take a smaller percentage of those lower earnings making it difficult to pay for much of anything since most if not all have strong limits against government borrowing.

(06-13-2014 07:58 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 06:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

Or more accurately, red states.

Iowa isn't a red state and MO has a dem governor and two huge blue cities.

(06-13-2014 07:58 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 06:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

Or more accurately, red states.

I don't think it's political. I think it's more a matter of nobody wanting to live in states like South Dakota, or really any other state on that list. IMHO, this is a supply and demand issue.

(06-13-2014 09:17 AM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 07:58 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 06:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

Or more accurately, red states.

Iowa isn't a red state and MO has a dem governor and two huge blue cities.

I always love it when people find the exception and harp on it like it completely disregards the majority. Congrats on finding the ONE blue state out of eight. That doesn't disregard the trend. On average, red states are far cheaper to live in than blue states. That's not a coincidence. And if you drive that list down further I believe you'll find states 9 and 10 are red as well.

I dont' know how New Jersey fits in (probably one of the 10 most expensive states) but this is interesting:

NJ on $72K/year

I'm going to make a completely unfounded statement that I believe is true:

In the lesser populated areas/states, there is simply less demand/need for near about everything. The exception to that is, of course, major metro cities in sparsely populated areas. (These types of cities will likely be considerably more than their more rural neighbors on just about everything while still being cheaper than the east/west coasts.)

Whenever you have less demand, both the quantity and price of a given basket of goods will drop.

Lesser populated areas need less municipal services, have lesser infrastructure cost, and, because they are in an area where wages are cheaper (again, due to less demand) then everything that is similar to a major city is also cheaper by comparison.

(06-13-2014 10:10 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 09:17 AM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 07:58 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 06:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

Or more accurately, red states.

Iowa isn't a red state and MO has a dem governor and two huge blue cities.

I always love it when people find the exception and harp on it like it completely disregards the majority. Congrats on finding the ONE blue state out of eight. That doesn't disregard the trend. On average, red states are far cheaper to live in than blue states. That's not a coincidence. And if you drive that list down further I believe you'll find states 9 and 10 are red as well.

You probably don't know this, but my home state (Kentucky) has FAR MORE registered Democrats vs. registered Republicans. It has tended to vote Red of late in National elections, but Kentucky's really a purple state.

If Hillary Clinton winds up getting the 2016 Dem Nomination --- I'll say it here, I guarantee she wins Kentucky.

Just as Kentucky doesn't really fit in any easy geographical bucket (is it South? Midwest? Appalachia? Mid-South? Mid-Atlantic?), it doesn't fit into any easy political bucket either.

Democrats were the traditional party of the south and you see a lot of residual support/registration, but outside of areas with lots of northern migration they are not apt to vote for Democrats for president. The effects of rapid demographic changes are changing a lot though (worryingly imo, for good in a lot of people's opinion). The inland west was very individualist and generally quite Republican supporting, but the waves of immigration and then the influx of Midwestern/northeasters to places like Phoenix/Las Vegas/Denver have made the states purple. Similarly we see the DC suburbs expanding making Virginia purple and large influx of Midwesterners who can't find good jobs heading to North Carolina. Florida of course has a large retirement base.

One Oregon governor once said something like, "California's please come and visit, but for goodness sake don't stay." They stayed and the complexion of the state did too.

Those reasons are a big part of the reason you see some traditional beltwater states like Ohio remain just that while ones that could have a decade ago been counted on for Republican support are now harder fought.

(06-13-2014 06:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

Least expensive states for anyone who is retired or independently wealthy.

If you need a job to pay for your house, your food, your kids' education, etc., etc. then what would be "least expensive", or more accurately "most affordable", is a place that has both abundant well-paying jobs and relatively inexpensive cost of living.

Obviously more than just taxes go into cost of living. Nebraska is actually the third worst state in terms of state and local taxes.

http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-stat...e-rankings

(06-13-2014 10:49 AM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  I'm going to make a completely unfounded statement that I believe is true:

In the lesser populated areas/states, there is simply less demand/need for near about everything. The exception to that is, of course, major metro cities in sparsely populated areas. (These types of cities will likely be considerably more than their more rural neighbors on just about everything while still being cheaper than the east/west coasts.)

Whenever you have less demand, both the quantity and price of a given basket of goods will drop.

Lesser populated areas need less municipal services, have lesser infrastructure cost, and, because they are in an area where wages are cheaper (again, due to less demand) then everything that is similar to a major city is also cheaper by comparison.

Actually consumer goods tend to run higher because they get shipped in, in smaller lots, stores turn over inventory slower so need a profit margin per sale.

In many rural areas just have to accept the fact that if your house catches on fire, the fire department will cool off the embers and keep it from spreading to other places. You accept the fact that if you have a heart attack or get seriously injured you will likely wait a half hour or more for an ambulance so if you have a friend or relative who can drive you 30 or more miles to an ER you are about as well off not waiting for someone who can administer aid during the drive. You accept that your paved road (if it is paved) won't have a shoulder to protect you if you lose focus for a moment and understand that if the weather turns bad, you can be on your own for a couple days. You accept that there may be one on duty police officer covering 600 sq miles.

Rural states can't afford those services at a level suburban and urban areas can. On that list, only North Dakota has a median household income above the US median. West Virginia is the only one of the bottom four states in median income that isn't on the list.

Four of the eight also appear on lists of states that receive back the most Federal tax dollars vs the dollars sent in.

(06-13-2014 11:23 AM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 10:10 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 09:17 AM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 07:58 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 06:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

Or more accurately, red states.

Iowa isn't a red state and MO has a dem governor and two huge blue cities.

I always love it when people find the exception and harp on it like it completely disregards the majority. Congrats on finding the ONE blue state out of eight. That doesn't disregard the trend. On average, red states are far cheaper to live in than blue states. That's not a coincidence. And if you drive that list down further I believe you'll find states 9 and 10 are red as well.

You probably don't know this, but my home state (Kentucky) has FAR MORE registered Democrats vs. registered Republicans. It has tended to vote Red of late in National elections, but Kentucky's really a purple state.

If Hillary Clinton winds up getting the 2016 Dem Nomination --- I'll say it here, I guarantee she wins Kentucky.

Just as Kentucky doesn't really fit in any easy geographical bucket (is it South? Midwest? Appalachia? Mid-South? Mid-Atlantic?), it doesn't fit into any easy political bucket either.

I say it now KY will vote Republican in the 2016 Presidential Election!

(06-13-2014 09:41 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 07:58 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 06:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

Or more accurately, red states.

I don't think it's political. I think it's more a matter of nobody wanting to live in states like South Dakota, or really any other state on that list. IMHO, this is a supply and demand issue.

Northern arkansas and southern missouri " the Ozarks" is beautiful. If I we to move from gods greatest creation "Alabama" it would be to Jasper Arkansas.

(06-13-2014 11:23 AM)NittanyLion Wrote:  You probably don't know this, but my home state (Kentucky) has FAR MORE registered Democrats vs. registered Republicans. It has tended to vote Red of late in National elections, but Kentucky's really a purple state.

If Hillary Clinton winds up getting the 2016 Dem Nomination --- I'll say it here, I guarantee she wins Kentucky.

Just as Kentucky doesn't really fit in any easy geographical bucket (is it South? Midwest? Appalachia? Mid-South? Mid-Atlantic?), it doesn't fit into any easy political bucket either.

Could you imagine how different this country would be if voting were required?

(06-13-2014 11:23 AM)NittanyLion Wrote:  Just as Kentucky doesn't really fit in any easy geographical bucket (is it South? Midwest? Appalachia? Mid-South? Mid-Atlantic?), it doesn't fit into any easy political bucket either.

This is why I was always surprised the big ten never more strongly considered Louisville for expansion. A fantastic geographic fit that gets some inroads into the south, sort of. A great basketball tradition too. So Louisville was not an academic superstar. Neither was Nebraska.

(06-13-2014 06:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  8. NEBRASKA
7. KENTUCKY
6. IOWA
5. ARKANSAS
4. MISSOURI
3. MISSISSIPPI
2. NORTH DAKOTA
1. SOUTH DAKOTA

Or more accurately, central time zone states along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Too bad Illinois is not on the list. I could use some lower property taxes.

What's interesting is that the per capita income in North Dakota used to be like Mississippi's and now is like Connecticut's, and still projected to grow 10% annually for several years. The Bakken is going to keep on giving (growing to at least twice current production) with plenty of echo economic booms around the state, and it will make North Dakota like a little Norway with their legacy and investment funds. In the 2020's, its conceivable we will have more educational/athletic/financial clout than a state like Nebraska.