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.
By your logic New Orleans owes the Federal Government money. They need to give back their Federal Funding for the Katrina Disaster then right?
I guess individuals need to start paying a HIgher Federal Tax Rate in Lousisiana, since they are a Red State and needed Federal assistance???
Your logic doesn't fly.
All Americans drive down major interstates that cross "red or blue states" and they all receive Federal funding to maintain this infrastructure that is actually used by all Americans.
Every individual in a "Blue State" or "Red State" pays the exact same Federal Tax rate according to their income level.
The only difference is the blue states have higher federal tax revenues because they have more people living in their states.
OK, I think we all agree that New Orleans recieving money for a huge disaster is a little more justified than the year after year transfer of revenue that happens between red/blue states. I personally don't really have a problem with the actual transfer... it's the hypocracy of the folks screaming the loudest "leave my money alone" are actually the biggest beneficiaries of "Robin Hood" government.
And I still don't think you really get it on the payment of taxes... 1st of all, more people means more need for money... so the higher revenue of more populous states is irrelevant (besides, low population states like Alaska and New Hampshire are on the "wealthiest" list and they are red). Also, an income of $20,000 pays (I think) 10% income tax, while $80,000 is closer to the 25% tax bracket... therefore those higher income states (which are mostly blue) pay a higher percentage, and this is true throughout all population ranges.
By your logic New Orleans owes the Federal Government money. They need to give back their Federal Funding for the Katrina Disaster then right?
I guess individuals need to start paying a HIgher Federal Tax Rate in Lousisiana, since they are a Red State and needed Federal assistance???
Your logic doesn't fly.
All Americans drive down major interstates that cross "red or blue states" and they all receive Federal funding to maintain this infrastructure that is actually used by all Americans.
Every individual in a "Blue State" or "Red State" pays the exact same Federal Tax rate according to their income level.
The only difference is the blue states have higher federal tax revenues because they have more people living in their states.
Finally, finally, finally....you got it. Yes. States with more ppl need more infrastructure, so they should get their fair share back. If red states like LA have enough money to give to charity, I am sure they can use it to cover their state's overuse of federal spending vs what they pay out, instead of having blue states cover their ass. And who said anything about paying higher rates, just use whatever paid out, and take the rest from the charity you keep touting about.
Blue states would be in a charity mood if they weren't already in the federal induced subsidized charity to red states, and red states probably are in such a great charity mood cause they are enjoying other blue states subsidized charity.
Finally, finally, finally....you got it. Yes. States with more ppl need more infrastructure, so they should get their fair share back. If red states like LA have enough money to give to charity, I am sure they can use it to cover their state's overuse of federal spending vs what they pay out, instead of having blue states cover their ass. And who said anything about paying higher rates, just use whatever paid out, and take the rest from the charity you keep touting about.
Blue states would be in a charity mood if they weren't already in the federal induced subsidized charity to red states, and red states probably are in such a great charity mood cause they are enjoying other blue states subsidized charity.
NO you aren't getting it. The blue states do get their fair share back and blue states use roads and infrastructure in red states, also.
It's very simple all American living in a red or blue state pay the same Federal Tax Rate based on their incomes.
If someone in a blue state earns $100,000 a year and the individual living in a red state that makes $100,000 a year pays the same Federal Tax Rate.
The Generosity Index shows that after paying their fair share of taxes the individuals living in red states pay a higher percentage of their income to charity compared to the individuals living in blue states.
Indiviuduals living in Blue States or Red States have no freaking clue where their Federal Income Tax is going.
Where the Government spends Federal Tax Revenue is irrelevant.
Individuals, living in blue states, choose to give a smaller percentage of their income to charity than individuals living in red states..... if you like it or not.
NO you aren't getting it. The blue states do get their fair share back and blue states use roads and infrastructure in red states, also.
Quote:
It's very simple all American living in a red or blue state pay the same Federal Tax Rate based on their incomes.
If someone in a blue state earns $100,000 a year and the individual living in a red state that makes $100,000 a year pays the same Federal Tax Rate.
The Generosity Index shows that after paying their fair share of taxes the individuals living in red states pay a higher percentage of their income to charity compared to the individuals living in blue states.
Indiviuduals living in Blue States or Red States have no freaking clue where their Federal Income Tax is going.
Where the Government spends Federal Tax Revenue is irrelevant.
Individuals, living in blue states, choose to give a smaller percentage of their income to charity than individuals living in red states..... if you like it or not.
It is relevant, The folks in blue states are not getting their fair share back in federal benefits, infrastructure is just one of them, they have to either make do with less infrastructure and less benefits when they should have more, and that is a loss from what they pay out, a loss that ends up as a gain in extra federal benefits to red states.
Using your $100,000 example, people in blue state and red pays the same rate, lets' say 40%. So they pay both pay $40,000. But blue states like say CA end up with federal benefits worth $32,000 while AR ends up with $61,200 in federal benefits. How advantageous for AR that they get an extra $21000 worth of federal benefits. Benefits that those in that red state would enjoy more than the blue states. I am sure some blue states drive through red states, but at with kind of charity, ppl would think that that all blue state drivers drive through red states everyday.
With so much extra benefits, the states themselves can afford to use federal funds instead of state funds for certain projects and therefore not charge higher property taxes or other taxes or whatever means they get money from their citizens, no wonder their folks can afford to give to charity. How about the states pull their own weight and use federal spending to only what they pay out, then we will see how they they get the money for their projects when they can't get it subsidize from blue states. We will then see the states try to get money from their own folks through taxes and other means, we will see then how charitable the individuals are then. In the mean time, trying to pull the moral high ground is a joke.
...The blue states do get their fair share back and blue states use roads and infrastructure in red states, also.
Your point might make sense if all of the money paid in taxes was used for roads and infrastructure. However, too much if it is siphoned off for corporate welfare, subsidies to huge farm conglomerates, and payments to companies like Haliburton, plus interest on the national debt that is paid to the wealthy individuals, insurance companies and foreign nations who have financed the outrageous borrowing. That interest alone is like a welfare payment for the rich, and is more than has ever been paid in welfare to the poor. I have come to the conclusion that the reason why Republican administrations go so heavily in debt is to boost the interest payments to the rich.
It's a great scheme -- cut taxes so the rich can keep more of their money, which causes the government to borrow more, which they borrow from the rich because they have extra due to the tax cuts, and then pay interest to the rich, doubling their windfall instead of having the rich pay a more reasonable share.
And, should the rich pay a greater percentage? Of course -- it's in the Bible. The rich have an obligation in the Lord's name to support the downtrodden.
Your point might make sense if all of the money paid in taxes was used for roads and infrastructure. However, too much if it is siphoned off for corporate welfare, subsidies to huge farm conglomerates, and payments to companies like Haliburton, plus interest on the national debt that is paid to the wealthy individuals, insurance companies and foreign nations who have financed the outrageous borrowing. That interest alone is like a welfare payment for the rich, and is more than has ever been paid in welfare to the poor. I have come to the conclusion that the reason why Republican administrations go so heavily in debt is to boost the interest payments to the rich.
It's a great scheme -- cut taxes so the rich can keep more of their money, which causes the government to borrow more, which they borrow from the rich because they have extra due to the tax cuts, and then pay interest to the rich, doubling their windfall instead of having the rich pay a more reasonable share.
And, should the rich pay a greater percentage? Of course -- it's in the Bible. The rich have an obligation in the Lord's name to support the downtrodden.
Amen. The rich should be paying more -- and especially the rich in those leaching Southern states. I don't know why they have gotten off so easy for so long.
man,I browsed this thread,saw alot of graphs and people defending their blue or red state.
I 'll just GET to the title.Yep that's right liberal Democrats spout how they are for the common man and the poor man....lies lies lies,they manipulate the poor to consolidate their power in government.
All the feel good Democrats posting here touting how Republicans are always giving breaks to the wealthy,how come social programs never ended the war on poverty?How come the so called party for minorities has the American African population still living in many ghetto areas?And there have been enough Dem presidents and congress through the years,but it never changes,why?because robbing Peter to give Paul never changes anything except promises to the poor to vote them into office.
I swear,diehard liberals start your own business,watch it succeed then will you think of yourself as a greedy rich person,will you be happy to send half of what you worked for to somebody who didn't?
So when your Democrat leader is dining at a exclusive eatery,driven there in a limo,how come they are not considered greedy......oh because they say they care uh huh.
Of course -- it's in the Bible. The rich have an obligation in the Lord's name to support the downtrodden.
by act of free will,not by robbery from government.
And speaking of that,when Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor,he was stealing from government,because they are theives who squander money,then ask for more more more instead of learning how to budget,and I say that about all the parties in D.C.
by act of free will,not by robbery from government.
Asking your question, then why do we still have poor? Why aren't the rich voluntarily fulfilling their God-given duty, so the government wouldn't have to do it?
Last edited by pslOldTimer; 09-03-2007 at 10:25 AM..
...Yep that's right liberal Democrats spout how they are for the common man and the poor man....lies lies lies,they manipulate the poor to consolidate their power in government.
All the feel good Democrats posting here touting how Republicans are always giving breaks to the wealthy,how come social programs never ended the war on poverty?How come the so called party for minorities has the American African population still living in many ghetto areas?And there have been enough Dem presidents and congress through the years,but it never changes,why?because robbing Peter to give Paul never changes anything except promises to the poor to vote them into office.
I swear,diehard liberals start your own business,watch it succeed then will you think of yourself as a greedy rich person,will you be happy to send half of what you worked for to somebody who didn't?
So when your Democrat leader is dining at a exclusive eatery,driven there in a limo,how come they are not considered greedy......oh because they say they care uh huh.
There are actually some good questions buried in that snotty attitude.
A real simple answer is, why do rich Democrats vote to raise their own taxes? That's the answer to your question about sending it off to help others.
Then, we get to the oxymoron -- if no Democrats ever started their own business and watched it succeed, how are they eating exclusively or being driven there in their limo? Not all Republicans earned their way to "rich", and not all Democrats inherited their wealth. You're guilty of over generalizing.
Finally, how about the fact that no matter what the Democrats try to do to help those less fortunate, many Republicans will do everything they can to beat the system and keep their gains for themselves. Possibly the ony good thing about our system is that neither side will ultimately succeed -- that's called checks and balances.
But, while I can appreciate balance, I'm dismayed by right-wingers who can see nothing but their own close-mindedness. The left, with all its faults, is better simply because it is more tolerant.
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.
