Indiana about to be the lowest tax state in the midwest! (Indianapolis: sales, daycare)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hell no.
Democrats continue to make stuff up about him.
common sense is all you need to see this is false.
and committee votes dont pass laws. house votes do.
You should really fact check some of the things you continue to spout off. Mike Pence has sponsored 82 legislative pieces in his tenure in Congress. When you eliminate resolutions (which aren't bills and cover things like awarding a posthumous rank to an army officer or naming room h-137 of the Capitol after Henry Hyde), you are left with 58 bills he has sponsored.
Taking it a step further, 34 bills were boiler plate bills where he was asking Congress to temporarily suspend tarriffs on a particular chemical compound. Just replace the name of one compound with another with another bill after bill after bill after bill. None of them passed anyway, but we'll call them 1 bill rather than 34.
That leaves him with 25 actual legislative proposals he sponsored in his decade+in Congress. Number passed: 0. Number that even went to vote in House: 0. Those are facts.
Indiana has the 15th highest population.
and Indiana recieves federal money like any other state. However we did get the Obama Stimulus money which was used on one time projects instead of propping up the budget. Plus we have had a balanced budget since Mitch Daniels took office.
Yeah, Indiana spends money it receives like any other state. The big question is: how much does it spend vs. home much it provides to the Federal govt in the form of payroll taxes, federal income tax, etc. Indiana gets $1.13 for every $1 it gives. It is easier to be fiscally repsonsible when you're getting more from the fed than you're giving.
Interestingly, red states tend to be net recipients of federal money. Looking at Indy and Chicago as an example across different federal cash inflows, Cook Co gets less money than Marion Co from the Fed when you look at fed receipts as a percentage of income. This includes social security, income support, medicare, veteran's benefits, and unemployment. Medicaid is the only component listed where Cook Co. receives more (relative to the county's income) than Marion Co.
It never ceases to amaze me how the most FIT revenue dependent states always seem to contain the most vehement, anti-tax residents. Half of the red states in the union would go belly-up tomorrow if we cut off the $30 billion they get each year in direct subsidy.
Yeah, Indiana spends money it receives like any other state. The big question is: how much does it spend vs. home much it provides to the Federal govt in the form of payroll taxes, federal income tax, etc. Indiana gets $1.13 for every $1 it gives. It is easier to be fiscally repsonsible when you're getting more from the fed than you're giving.
Interestingly, red states tend to be net recipients of federal money. Looking at Indy and Chicago as an example across different federal cash inflows, Cook Co gets less money than Marion Co from the Fed when you look at fed receipts as a percentage of income. This includes social security, income support, medicare, veteran's benefits, and unemployment. Medicaid is the only component listed where Cook Co. receives more (relative to the county's income) than Marion Co.
The link provide said the figures include Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Income Assistance, SNAP, Unemployment Ins., Vetrens Benefits, Education Assistance, Payments to Native Populations, etc..
First off, what is "etc.?" I want to know if this includes money for interstates (even a small %), because everyone benefits from those. When you have interstates through some states that contain a large majority of pass-thru traffic, why shouldn't other states pay into keeping that road up? Maybe we should make it so beef going to certain places takes an extra few days to arrive? This is another example of using figures to spin a certain agenda. The facts given by that chart are totally worthless. They are using current taxes paid and counting IOUs that were paid for decades ago (in some of the cases). Laughable. This means any state where the boomers retire to will become the "welfare state" over the next decade. Only because the amount of working people paying into the system will be much lower than the amount of SS and Medicare being paid out to new retirees from other states. So people will complain about those few states, even though SS and Medicare were paid for by those getting the benefits over the last thirty to four years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector
We don't need no stinking facts!!!
It never ceases to amaze me how the most FIT revenue dependent states always seem to contain the most vehement, anti-tax residents. Half of the red states in the union would go belly-up tomorrow if we cut off the $30 billion they get each year in direct subsidy.
The "conservative states get bailed out" logic is flawed. They take current dollars paid, and compare it with dollars taken decades ago that are now being paid out. How is that a fair calculation? So 68 year old Mary paid SS taxes for decades, now gets a check, but because some state has a bulk of 68 year old Mary types getting checks, they get called a "welfare state" because the current working population isn't paying in as much as those getting US Treasury checks? Talk about junk stats.
The link provide said the figures include Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Income Assistance, SNAP, Unemployment Ins., Vetrens Benefits, Education Assistance, Payments to Native Populations, etc..
First off, what is "etc.?" I want to know if this includes money for interstates (even a small %), because everyone benefits from those. When you have interstates through some states that contain a large majority of pass-thru traffic, why shouldn't other states pay into keeping that road up? Maybe we should make it so beef going to certain places takes an extra few days to arrive? This is another example of using figures to spin a certain agenda. The facts given by that chart are totally worthless. They are using current taxes paid and counting IOUs that were paid for decades ago (in some of the cases). Laughable.
It includes everything, but to point out the political convenience of your argument: a couple of days ago, you were trying to tell me government doesn't do anything, but private industry does. Now you're saying the opposite. So which is it? For the record, I am one who believes that government expenditures do provide something for everyone, but that means that expenditures in blue states benefit those in red as well. Ports (which facilitate importation and exportation of goods), international air hubs, government spending on research, which is disproportionately given to the largest and best universities in the country (primarily in blue states). Regardless, the discretionary expenditures are a small part of the budget. 66%=mandatory programs (pension, fed payroll, Soc Security, Medicare+Medicaid). 22% = military. 11% = everything else, including transportation, which is 0.3% of the federal budget. Yipee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_317
This means any state where the boomers retire to will become the "welfare state" over the next decade. Only because the amount of working people paying into the system will be much lower than the amount of SS and Medicare being paid out to new retirees from other states. So people will complain about those few states, even though SS and Medicare were paid for by those getting the benefits over the last thirty to four years.
Local expenditures aren't being driven by differences of population age for the most part either. Two biggest groups collecting those programs are 65+ and under 18s. US population of those two groups is 37% of total pop. The only state that deviates from the nationwide average more than 3 points is Utah (+3.5%). 45 of 50 states are within +/-2%. 35 of 50 are within +/-1.5%. 21 of 50 are within +/-0.5%. In other words, the age difference is not substantial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_317
The "conservative states get bailed out" logic is flawed. They take current dollars paid, and compare it with dollars taken decades ago that are now being paid out. How is that a fair calculation? So 68 year old Mary paid SS taxes for decades, now gets a check, but because some state has a bulk of 68 year old Mary types getting checks, they get called a "welfare state" because the current working population isn't paying in as much as those getting US Treasury checks? Talk about junk stats.
See my age breakdown above. It really has next to nothing to do with one state having a ton of 68 year old Mary types living in one state. I will now tell you what is driving the difference: our tax system, as you know, is progressive. That means higher earners are paying a much greater % of their income to the fed than lower income earners. A greater proportion of high income earners live in large metros and the states of the highest income metros are ovewhelmingly blue. 10 of the 11 1 million+metros with the highest median household income are in blue states. These states fund a disproportionate share of the budget for everyone, because they pay much more in taxes. Much more than they could ever hope to recoup because the discretionary part of the budget just isn't big enough to feed them the extra cash. You would need pork on an incredible scale to cover the transfer difference.
Case in point, looking at metros (so no rural highways to fund, etc) from the same part of the country (so no huge age difference in the pop either): Chicago and Indy MSAs.
Chicago: $420.1 billion of personal income in the metro, $70.8 billion of federal funds received, or 16.9% of income finds its way back via federal spending.
Indy: $68.3 billion of personal metro income, $16.8 billion of fed money received, or 24.5% of income back to Indy metro.
If Chicago received the same proportion of their personal income back from the feds as metro Indy, the government would need to write the metro a $32 billion check every year. $32 billion per year can buy (take your pick):
-The full infrastructure and operating budget of London's Olympics...every 6 months.
-The annual replacement of all 31 NFL stadiums with a new state of the art stadium...with a billion left over.
-HSR lines from Indy to Chicago, Louisville, Columbus, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Detroit w/ 2 years of those checks.
-Free undergrad tuition and room and board (at in-state rates) at 50 schools the size of IU or Purdue.
-Nearly all of the federal transportation budget (highway portion).
That only covers the receipt side. Earnings are higher in Chicago, so tax going to DC is higher as well. Don't have the precise #s here though because the IRS makes you pay for them by county. I'm not saying the Indy is mooching off Chicago. Indy is a net payor of the federal budget too. Just trying to show you how much of the budget the big metros are responsible for.
See my age breakdown above. It really has next to nothing to do with one state having a ton of 68 year old Mary types living in one state. I will now tell you what is driving the difference: our tax system, as you know, is progressive. That means higher earners are paying a much greater % of their income to the fed than lower income earners.
Case in point, looking at metros (so no rural highways to fund, etc) from the same part of the country (so no huge age difference in the pop either): Chicago and Indy MSAs.
Chicago: $420.1 billion of personal income in the metro, $70.8 billion of federal funds received, or 16.9% of income finds its way back via federal spending.
Indy: $68.3 billion of personal metro income, $16.8 billion of fed money received, or 24.5% of income back to Indy metro.
While the age difference seems small from state to state, there are other factors at play as well. A more urbanized state with Medicare consuming 65 year olds may mean a lot more health issues are treated at the start, resulting in less cost for worse conditions down the road. Now you take a more rural state, with a similar number of 65 year olds. Are they more willing to drive hours to a better hospital, or do they get treatment at a small hospital that might not be giving the best of care? So a minor issue goes unresolved and now a bigger issue develops resulting in a higher payout. Then you have the simple issue of healthy states vs unhealthy states. How big of a difference this is I don't know, maybe nothing at all. Clearly a state with 50% or more of their aged population at weight is likely to see fewer health issues in that age group than a state with 75% of their aged population obese.
Also, I don't think our system is progressive at all. Everyone pays the same rate on the same dollar amount they make. I know for some people, AMT kicks in, but I didn't think it was that widespread. If one makes $50K and pays $10K in taxes, a person who makes $150K pays the same $10K on their first $50K earned. They only pay more based upon the $100K additional they made. I've always been told a progressive tax rate would be something like a flat % based upon how much you make. In the example above, the $50K/year person would pay say 20% in taxes. The $150K/year person pays 40%.
One question about the metro incomes. Are those based on people who live in the metro, or get their income from the metro? For example, if my W-2 says Hamilton County (home addr. of employer), but I work in downtown Indy, but live in Shelby, where would that data place my personal income? Just use two counties: I work in downtown Indy, Marion Co., but live in Hamilton, where would that data you used put my metro income? If your data is only for people who work and live in Chicago city limits, I'm shocked that the other major urban areas aren't the ones calling for less US gov taxes. Odd how more conservative states are calling to form their own country when your stats show them getting more than they pay in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
thats what matters.
