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.
We are helping liberal states understand they need to lower their taxes. Tough love. Tech jobs will find new homes in better tax climates within the country.
So do you expect the federal government to pay for improvements to our states. Or should the states pay for their own improvements. And where do states get the money....taxes. Our taxes go towards schools, improving and repairing infrastructure, helping to keep our waters clean, etc. Who do you think is going to pay for these things. This is why many red states are so poor with terrible schools....because you would rather pocket a couple of dollars instead of improving your state. Blue states don't need any tough love because we are willing to pay higher taxes to make our state great. If people don't want to pay they are free to leave.
It's too bad that so far in this thread the tax issue can't be discussed in a mature and adult way.
Here's the objective truth: it is bad for the economy and it is bad for America for federal policy to pick winner states and loser states. If Trump wants a strong economy he can't do it without California's tech sector and New York's financial prowess. The blue states need the the industry, energy, and agriculture from the red states. We are the United States and we should be working together.
That sounds all fine and dandy, but our federal system was never suppose to support the states coffers, especially for those who tax and spend their citizens for local governance. Why should other lower tax states that run surpluses fund the failed policies of those who do not?
Don't get me wrong, as major public works projects, federal highway funding, disaster assistance and the like should be provided. Thus if CA has a natural disaster, we all should pitch in to help our American brothers in need.
However if your elected local and state politicians want to bankrupt you with their fiscally irresponsibility liberal governance, don't expect the rest of us to have to pay for it.
Odd how the Democrats say the Republicans are bought and sold by the rich when the Republicans severely limited rich people's deduction's with the new tax bill.
Now, the Democrats are wanting the sue the federal government because the rich can only deduct a small amount of the taxes on their estates and mansions.
Funny stuff - the Governors are ignoring the Leftist Party Talking Points that say the Trump Tax Cuts are only for the Evil Rich.
It's too bad that so far in this thread the tax issue can't be discussed in a mature and adult way.
Here's the objective truth: it is bad for the economy and it is bad for America for federal policy to pick winner states and loser states. If Trump wants a strong economy he can't do it without California's tech sector and New York's financial prowess. The blue states need the the industry, energy, and agriculture from the red states. We are the United States and we should be working together.
All that is happening is the tax increases passed in blue states will actually be paid by people living in those blue states instead of everyone else.
If that is bad for the economy I suggest you talk to your state legislature and have them lower taxes. Its not up to a middle class person in Iowa to pay for a tax loophole that benefits a multi millionaire in Silicon Valley or Wall Street.
Is it not the left who keeps wanting to raise taxes on the rich and give the savings to the middle class? Now that this is actually happening its bad for America. Wow.
Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former White House ethics czar, said on Twitter that the “disparate treatment of pro GOP and anti-GOP States” in the tax plan “is so grotesque that there may well be a due process claim.”
Other legal experts have argued that the challenges would likely depend on state’s being able to show that the tax bill violates the protection of states’ rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Conservatives gave once again showed their complete and total inability to think of future consequences. The tax bill for the first time penalizes states that do not vote for them. The bill not only hurts the rich in those states but the middle class as well.
The Pub hold on congress will disappear and the Democrats will resume control. When that time comes and the Pubs are wiped out in the blue states, there may be pay back against the red states. However, I don't expect the Democrats to be so petty.
To pit one state against the other just shows the despicable lengths the CONS, and that is what conservative are these days, will go to divide the nation to keep power and to benefit their donors.
So do you expect the federal government to pay for improvements to our states. Or should the states pay for their own improvements. And where do states get the money....taxes. Our taxes go towards schools, improving and repairing infrastructure, helping to keep our waters clean, etc. Who do you think is going to pay for these things.
The states will still get the same amount of tax money. But it will be paid by residents of those states not from people in more fiscally responsible states because of a loophole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
This is why many red states are so poor with terrible schools....because you would rather pocket a couple of dollars instead of improving your state. Blue states don't need any tough love because we are willing to pay higher taxes to make our state great. If people don't want to pay they are free to leave.
Well the wealthier people in blue states don't have to pay the high taxes they just write them off. People who pay taxes but don't make enough to get the write off pay those taxes. Many in red states. At least that changed.
If you look at the table above the poverty rate among white people in California and Mississippi.
The difference is the much larger African American population in Mississippi. African Americans who are mostly decedents of slaves and still suffer racial bias and are economically disadvantages because of this. Other southern states have a similar comparison.
So your point about poverty in red states is?
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 01-02-2018 at 05:49 AM..
So do you expect the federal government to pay for improvements to our states. Or should the states pay for their own improvements. And where do states get the money....taxes. Our taxes go towards schools, improving and repairing infrastructure, helping to keep our waters clean, etc. Who do you think is going to pay for these things. This is why many red states are so poor with terrible schools....because you would rather pocket a couple of dollars instead of improving your state. Blue states don't need any tough love because we are willing to pay higher taxes to make our state great. If people don't want to pay they are free to leave.
You do understand that these new rules apply to all states, red and blue right?
All this means is the rich in high tax states can't pass off their "fair share" to others in low tax states.
So, you want all those extra government services? Ok but now you have to pay for them yourselves instead of passing the buck.
And when people leave, that means your share of the high tax burden goes up even higher.
Why is it so hard to demand a little fiscal responsibility in some of these states? Is it really that much easier to sue than to tighten up the belt a little and stop some of the unnecessary spending? I'm expected to be responsible with my money, why can't I expect the same of government? Look around today on your drive into work, or just going about town, and see if you can spot where your local government spent money on pet projects or luxury items, where that money could have been spent on the needed stuff. I see it every day, and I bet you would see it too if you looked around for it.
Public art is an obvious one. Don't get me wrong, it is nice to have but it shouldn't be put ahead of fixing bridges, roads, schools, etc.
Redundant staff in local government is another place some trimming could be done. Why have two departments with overlapping job descriptions and staff?
You can go on and on with this stuff. It's like going out and buying a big-screen TV when you can hardly pay the rent.
You do understand that these new rules apply to all states, red and blue right?
All this means is the rich in high tax states can't pass off their "fair share" to others in low tax states.
So, you want all those extra government services? Ok but now you have to pay for them yourselves instead of passing the buck.
And when people leave, that means your share of the high tax burden goes up even higher.
All those government services are something that could stand to be made more efficient, or even eliminated in some cases. It's almost like half of teh country wants the government to do everything. And that is something they seem to fail at, or just be plain inefficient at, half the time. Do we really need government getting involved in every aspect of our lives in the name of providing a service?
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.
