Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Haha, I second what StillwaterTownie said. Please, who's going to move there?
Sure, a person who lands a job in one of those states will probably follow it, after a heavy sigh and maybe a few tears. Trust me, I used to live in OK.
Besides, the revenue will have to be made up somehow. Washington has no income tax, but have you seen gas and grocery prices there? Oregon has no sales tax, but other taxes make up for it.
There's a downside to the elimination of the income tax in Oklahoma, naturally.
The GOP controlled Legislature has passed it, and GOP Gov. Mary Fallin, has signed it and the process is in motion to gradually eliminate the state income tax over a period of years. BUT...it's to be paid for by cuts in social services.
Over time, the tax will be eliminated, but so will aid to those in need.
How typically Republican is that?
I haven't read whatever legislation you're talking about, and I really don't care to, but it appears that you're making an assumption that there will be at least as many people in need of assistance when they start to cut their funding.
Perhaps the idea is to reduce the number of people in need, therefore reducing the cost of providing those services, thus facilitating the cuts.
Helping people to become more self-reliant and independent of the government? Why yes, that DOES sound very Republican.
There's a downside to the elimination of the income tax in Oklahoma, naturally.
The GOP controlled Legislature has passed it, and GOP Gov. Mary Fallin, has signed it and the process is in motion to gradually eliminate the state income tax over a period of years. BUT...it's to be paid for by cuts in social services.
Over time, the tax will be eliminated, but so will aid to those in need.
How typically Republican is that?
So, putting money back in the pockets of people....that's a bad thing?
Sounds about perfect. Lower taxes for everyone and cuts that will force social service providers to overhaul, eliminate waste and optimize.
A lot of people may not want to move to Texas when they find out how sky high property taxes are to make up for not having an income tax. You might as will be paying rent to the state. And you can't escape the tax by renting a house, because the landlord will only pass his property tax on to you.
But the income tax elimination plan was certainly not passed. Some Republicans didn't like it because the plan would mean an income tax HIKE for some people. Besides that, if the Oklahoma legislature wants to raise state taxes on anyone, it has to be passed with a 70% majority. Since it's so hard to raise state taxes in Oklahoma, the income tax has only been cut a tiny bit at a time some years. But not this year. Government, even when run by Republicans, is reluctant to cut taxes, if raising them back in the future would be difficult.
Since Republicans insist that tax cuts will force tax revenues to go UP, not down, I don't see much need in cutting social services that have already been cut, due to the recession.
You are correct and I was misinformed. It has passed the Senate, but not the House.
So, putting money back in the pockets of people....that's a bad thing?
If you don't believe in privatizing government, then you got to pay something in to maintain roads, bridges, schools, foster parenting, prisons, the justice system and so on.
In addition, North Dakota may be eliminating all property taxes due to the huge increase in revenue from oil production. Very impressive.
Great, and now people will borrow more money from banks to buy the property and pay more interest to the FIRE sector, eventually eliminating any real benefit to the tax cut. Tragic in lieu of keeping taxes where they are and sending residents an oil dividend.
If you don't believe in privatizing government, then you got to pay something in to maintain roads, bridges, schools, foster parenting, prisons, the justice system and so on.
Even if you privatize it, you'll still pay. Instead of your tax dollars going directly to the building of bridges, etc, it makes a detour through some corporate buddy's bank account, leaving a portion there for him.
If you don't believe in privatizing government, then you got to pay something in to maintain roads, bridges, schools, foster parenting, prisons, the justice system and so on.
Money in public hands is never private. Its usually even worse when private contractors are involved. While public unions and fat salaries exist in public operations, it does not compare to the level of bribery and kick backs existent in public money going to private hands. Its the worst of everything. Private buyers is where all the efficiency is to be had, not private sellers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
